LYCOS RETRIEVER 
Cuts: President Reagan
built 618 days ago
Debate over President Bush's tax cuts often focused on the effects of President Reagan's across-the-board rate reductions of 1981-83. Tax-cut supporters bolstered their arguments by pointing to the economic growth spurred by Reagan's cuts, while opponents recycled a number of myths regarding the cuts, including that they didn't help the poor. An honest examination of the 1980s will better inform all future debates on tax cuts.
Source:
The job cuts at the Goldman Sachs Group include nearly 12% of its investment banking employees, the firm said yesterday [including] managing directors, vice presidents and associates.... The reductions are part of Goldman's previously announced decision to reduce its workforce by about 5%.... Many of the 150 bankers have already left....
Source:
The assumption that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves is a central tenet of the Democratic party, and ... leads to the party’s objection to the president’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Since this belief is so important to Democrats (they rail against any type of tax cuts), it is crucial to take a closer look at the role tax cuts play in “paying for themselves.”
Source:
Members of the Administration routinely tout statistics regarding recent economic growth, then credit the President’s tax cuts with what they portray as a stellar economic performance (see Figure 2). But as a general rule, it is difficult or impossible to infer the effect of a given tax cut from looking at a few years of economic data, simply because so many factors other than tax policy influence the economy. What the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy’s recent performance has been far from stellar.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
President Reagan