Tuesday, February 17, 2015

AynRandy's Disturbing World, Taxes Edition

Repugs lie about everything because they have to: reality, facts and science contradict every political and cultural position they hold, so only blatant lies allow them to function.

The Tribble-Toupeed One is a master at it, to the point that he makes every the most cynical observers wonder if he really believes the utter bullshit he spouts.

Steve Benen at Maddowblog:

But while all of that was alarming nonsense from a likely presidential candidate, it was Rand Paul’s take on the 1990s that was kind of hilarious.
Rand Paul, speaking yesterday to a conservative group (his remarks were generously provided by Dave Weigel), explained his view on the proper formula for economic prosperity: tax cuts, and plenty of ‘em.
“When we dramatically lowered tax rates in the ’80s, we got an enormous boom in our country, probably for two decades,” explained the 2016 presidential candidate. “Many of us believe that the ’80s and the ’90s, once the boom began, had a lot to do with lowering the tax rates.”
The problem for Paul is that there are elements of reality that discredit his theory. For example, when Reagan cut taxes, economic conditions deteriorated thanks to high interest rates. When Reagan realized he’d cut taxes too much and reversed course, raising taxes seven of the eight years he was in office, the economy improved.
Similarly, when Clinton raised income tax rates in the early ’90s, the right said a recession was sure to follow. Instead, the economy boomed. Under Rand Paul’s vision, this was literally impossible – if “lowering the tax rates” creates massive growth, how did higher tax rates produce robust prosperity?
For that matter, how would Paul explain the recessions in 1982 and 1991? And how would he rationalize the dreadful economy under Bush/Cheney – after they imposed tax cuts the country couldn’t afford?
Look, I realize the junior senator from Kentucky isn’t an economic expert. But I’m not asking him to remember the economic policies of the Fillmore administration – there was a brutal recession in 1853, by the way – so much as I’m suggesting Rand Paul should at least be able to remember what happened recently.
If he’s going to talk about the economic policies of the last 30 years, shouldn’t the senator have some basic familiarity with the subject matter?

No comments: