You do realize Real GDP is the black line right?  I mean black line going up means improving.

There is a huge GDP jump higher then any other jump on there.

There was a huge jump, then it leveled off from 1990 to 1991.  Coincidentally when the tax rates went up.  There was a stifle, Bush raised taxes in response, and things got worse.

The lowest taxes in the last 60 years also coincided with the longest economic growth since Kennedy-Johnson which had the benefit of the Vietnam war.  During which... taxes fell.

Your whole argument stems on lowering taxes didn't stop a catastrophic country wide housing bubble from crashing the economy...  Even though instances of tax increseases tend to show upswings in unemployment and slower GDP growth... while downsings in taxation tend to show greater GDP growth and less unemployment.

So lowering taxes didn't stop the bubble bursting... but you think raising taxes would of stopped it?

Raising taxes when times are bad is just suicidal.

People EVENTUALLY get used to higher taxes... and EVENTUALLY get used to lower taxes.

However it takes a while for people to get used to it years... hence why raising taxes is only a good idea during times of great growth caused by other factors... so that you can lower the taxes during times when you need to boost sales.

It's all relative... and common sense really.

Even then you can't raise taxes too high or you end up with the government being way to high a percentage of the workforce and controlling way to much of the countries money.

See Greece... or even France... where the government is forced to run deficits because way too many voters work for the government.   Have you seen the protests in france lately?

Plus, in the modern era.... raise your taxes too high... and in an era of globalization all that money is going to go overseas.

Which is why if we are going to raise taxes much higher (when times are good) we need to COMPLETELY revamp how we collect taxes.

lol, so you are messing with me.  No, I can't read a graph, I thought that the lines were suppose to change colors and I don't know why there are numbers on the bottom and left side of the box.

But really, GDP growth decreased during 1988-1990, when you said that the Reagan taxes improved it, and then you show us a graph that shows that GDP growth is declining during those years.

Your economic ideals are flawed, your logic is flawed, and you can't even read a graph you googled (or didn't bother to look at, to give you the benefit of the doubt).

With reference to the below graph,

Area A indicates GDP between 1988 and 1990, doesn't this show a reletive reduction in GDP increase for the period? perhaps indicating a slowdown in the economy? Hense the gradual reduction in year over year growth from 1989 to 1990, resulting in stagnation in 1991.

Area B appears to show the greatest gradient, indicating the highest increase year over year in GDP and therefore a strengthening of the economy. More jobs, better wages, more money to take home.

Area C appears to show something has gone really quite wrong. A reduction in GDP mirroring the drastic reduction in elec and overall energy consuption, which could indicate a massive slowdown in industry (the largest user of power). There's strong growth following this though (although not as strong as the 1996 to 2000 period), correlating with the global financial growth that occured up until the 2008 financial collapse.

Being from the UK, I don't really know why this has happened in the US, but from my basic political understanding, Area B represents Bill Clintons Democratic presidency, Area C the early years of George W Bush?

oops, DP