or right click in "experienced eyes only" window (keep right button held down), left click on OK, then let go of right button...voila. ok, just do ctrl+c.

Edit --> Copy

That was exhausting.

Then, you just gotta be crafty. Crtl-C copies stuff as well. We've had this same discussion on the board three or four times.

Okay, seriously, what the hell is with this "Experienced Eyes Only" bullshit. I see a joke on the webpage I'd like to mail to a friend but noooooooo it won't let me copy the text. "Experienced Eyes Only" it says. Well seeing as I just read the text aren't my eyes "experienced" enough to copy the damn thing? Apparently you webmasters have some serious trust issues regarding the content of the joke page or you're just a couple of wankers.

Hey, I'm from NC originally... I should inquire as to whether my friend at NC State knows those girls.

The deficit doubled, but it was largely the result of a Congress with a big spending appetite who declared Reagan's proposed budgets "dead on arrival".

But none of this really matters when you consider the fact that there are 2 hot girls at NC State who are majoring in "Pornology".

Now for some real gibberish.

Strict monetary (as opposed to fiscal) policy was responsible for unwinding inflation, as well as precipitating sharp recession. Recession, in turn, delayed the beneficial effects of the tax cuts on investment and drove up the budget deficit. A lot. Ironically, it was the enactment of tax cuts without by spending cuts that forced the Fed into a tighter monetary policy. The subsequent recession caused serious budgetary imbalance.

Yes, yes, there are plenty of good stats about 81-88. Unemployment rate down, CPI growth down, GDP growth up... yada, yada...

The defcicit doubled, suckas.

I don't think supply side works. I think the prosperity of the mid 80s had much more to do with the business cycle and monetary policy than it did with tax cuts. But don't take it personally, I don't think Clinton's fiscal policy had much to do with the 90s boom either.


MMMMMM, NC State....

I'd like to trickle something down on those NC State boobs.

bouncy bouncy

It lokks as if I've been called out.

Well, if you look at the yada yada yada... NC State boobies

Two funny things in government:

(1) The inflation rate cut in half after the election of Reagan. Why? Cause Carter sucks just that much.

(2) Gore's attempts at dancing.


By the way, I know deficits aren't great for the country or anything. But we had one from LBJ all the way to Clinton, and the economic upswing started to take effect two years before Clinton even took office, even before the budget was balanced. Is a deficit a nice thing to have? No. Is it the end of the world? No. Would you rather have growing unemployment, rotten consumer confidence, increased saving over spending, rising inflation, than a deficit? No.

Mighty Kumquat...respond to these economic claims...but without bashing the GOP

From 1983 (the Reagan tax cut) to 1989, personal income tax revenue increased by 28% when adjusted for the inflation that occurred during those 6 years.

The 33% increase in income tax revenue after the LBJ tax cut was is adjusted for inflation.

I know that many people claim that supply side economics doesn't work, but the statistics beg to differ. Both times the top marginal rate was cut, income tax revenue went up.

i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, but how much did inflation increase during the 80s? wouldn't increased inflation also lead to increased tax revenue because people would be making more? if anyone knows or cares enough to research it, i would be interested in knowing how the ratio of tax revenue to total budget per year changed during the 80s. i wish i cared enough to research it myself. wait...no i don't.

the very last essay question on my 2nd, and last, Macro test was about comparing supply siders to Keynsian policy, or something to that affect.

Yea, but that would mean I'd have to do more work coding... don't like the sound of that. Then I can also see people going back and changing their message all up and then nothing would make sense on the board; next thing you know it's total chaos! Well maybe not, but still don't want to bother.

As far as the tax cuts are concerned, this joke pretty much sums it all up.

That should say "Tax CUTS did not explode the deficit..."

Y'all need an edit function on the message board =)

It's called "voodoo economics" because that's what Democrats do when they want to disparage an idea they disagree with...they give it an ominous, scary name. Do "Reaganomics" and "Medi-scare" ring a bell, too? Just because Democrats give something a stupid name doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Tax revenue went up almost 100% in the 1980s. The Federal Reserve had nothing to do with tax revenues. Tax revenues also did not "explode the deficit" (do you get all your rhetoric from the Democrats...?) Seven of the eight budgets that Reagan submitted proposed far less spending than was eventually approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress. In fact, if the Congress had accepted Reagan's budget proposals, spending would have been 25% less. The out of control spending by Congressional Democrats was what gave us a huge deficit.

It's time to get my nerd on!

Tax cuts do not increase tax revenues. This is called supply side economics, and it isn't taught seriously in any university in the country because it is a load of crap. There was a poll in the American Economic Review about this theory last year, and only 12 out of 18,000 members agreed with the statement that tax cuts increase tax revenues. It's called voodoo economics for a reason.

Tax revenue went up in the 80s because of the business cycle and the actions of the Federal Reserve, not because of any tax cuts. The only thing tax cuts were responsible for was an exploding deficit. Tax cuts are good for the economy, but they're not good for tax revenue.

I'm with Fat Tire on this one.

i feel like i'm reading a macro-eco message board

I don't think it was genetics that made those chicks' boobs so nice.

As for the tax cuts...in the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes and government revenue actually went UP. I know, it sounds like a paradox, but it works.

When taxes are cut, the economy usually grows and more jobs are created because 1) the "rich" (who do all the investing in this country) have more money to invest in existing businesses, and 2) the everyday consumer has more disposable income to spend on "stuff", which creates a higher demand for products that companies must produce. In turn, the growth in the business sector (which includes new businesses who have the incentive to start-up in a better economy) means more people become employed, which means that more people are paying federal income taxes instead of collecting unemployment. Furthermore, higher corporate revenue generates more taxes for the government.

There is not a finite set of wealth in this country. Wealth can be created, and the best way to get existing businesses to create wealth, and get new businesses to start up, is to provide tax and economic incentives.

In 1963, John F. Kennedy (yes...a Democrat) proposed cutting the top marginal tax rate from 91% down to 70%. After he was killed, LBJ implemented that tax cut and tax revenues increased by 33%. Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate again in 1983, from 70% down to 28%, and the same thing happened -- total tax revenues increased by 99.4% during the 1980s. Both were admittedly "tax cuts for the rich," but in the end, government revenue went up due to increased overall wealth and prosperity. Everyone ended up winning. However, the key to avoiding deficits is to spend that tax revenue wisely, and I think Bush needs to reevaluate his spending initiatives in light of the fact that we're about to go to war.

I just looked at the NC State picture--while I, too, don't swing lesbian, I have to say this--after the CS Girls Gone Wild pictures were posted, I felt pretty damn good about my chest. After seeing that... wow, between genetics and gymnastics, I got hosed.

The problems with the tax cut have nothing to do with the fact that the more you pay, the more you get back. It has to do with the fact that the US simply can't afford the tax cut for ANYONE, but especially for the wealthy because of the fact that they'd get a bigger refund--has anyone seen the deficit?

Those NC State chicks are SMOKIN'

Good lord.