Job Killing Taxes

[eflatminor]

. I have asked MANY times, and not gotten, a time when federal income taxes were reduced and the economy improved.

illiterate liberal strikes again. Ireland dropped taxes and the whole world flooded there to build businesses.

Canada drops taxes on motion picture production and tons of new movies get made there.

Liberals put luxury tax on Yachts and the industry dries up, until tax is repealed .


USA has lowest taxes and is wealthiest country in human history

That 30 year period after Reagan's tax cuts...no growth there

After JFK's tax cuts...economic decline???

My goodness this one is ignorant!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you decrease taxes, you must decrease spending. Decreased spending means federal job cuts.

decrease taxes means increased private sector spending. Since the private sector is responsible for economic growth you want the smallest public sector possible beucae that money is largely wasted

 

[Rshermr]

. I have asked MANY times, and not gotten, a time when federal income taxes were reduced and the economy improved.

illiterate liberal strikes again. Ireland dropped taxes and the whole world flooded there to build businesses.

Canada drops taxes on motion picture production and tons of new movies get made there.

Liberals put luxury tax on Yachts and the industry dries up, until tax is repealed .


USA has lowest taxes and is wealthiest country in human history

Ireland? Motion Picture industry in Canada? Boat industry?

Lets see if I can make it simple enough for you, ed. When has the US ECONOMY been help ed by a federal tax decrease????? If we are talking about spot taxes, we can go on forever and it really proves nothing.

So, ed, here is the question: Since you and other tea baggers believe that lowering taxes will spur the economy because, after all, it will help the job producers, then WHEN HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED?

Can't do it, can you, ed.

 

[Rshermr]

. I have asked MANY times, and not gotten, a time when federal income taxes were reduced and the economy improved.

illiterate liberal strikes again. Ireland dropped taxes and the whole world flooded there to build businesses.

Canada drops taxes on motion picture production and tons of new movies get made there.

Liberals put luxury tax on Yachts and the industry dries up, until tax is repealed .


USA has lowest taxes and is wealthiest country in human history

That 30 year period after Reagan's tax cuts...no growth there

After JFK's tax cuts...economic decline???

My goodness this one is ignorant!

Well, eflat, another stupid tea bagger to be educated. You could at least post something that had some real meaning. but this is embarrassing, eflat..

Reagan: Speaking of ignorant, were you aware that within 12 months after the great reagan tax decrease, unemployment had gone upward from 7% to over 10.5%? Bet your educators forgot to fill you in on this one.
And did they also fail to tell you, that in response to unemployment and the spiraling national debt that resulted from his great tax decrease, Reagan increased taxes 11 times?
And, did they also fail to mention that the great tax decrease caused Reagan to borrow more money than all of the presidents up till his time COMBINED? He tripled the national debt.

So, eflat, it appears to me that calling someone other than yourself ignorant is really a stupid thing to do.

JFK? JFK decreased taxes in GOOD economic times. That has been done before. It was not to provide an economic stimulus. By the way, eflat, I am NOT against tax decreases. I just happen to not be among those ignorant souls who are ignorant enough to believe that a tax decrease to the wealthy is a stimulus of any kind.

 

[Star]

There were many reasons why the US economy thrived in the 50s, but that high tax rate wasn't one of them. It was a different time, different culture, different circumstances. To compare that time to this is apples and oranges IMHO. Why stop there, if you go back to the 1920s, you will see that the US economy took off when the tax rates were sharply reduced. What's your answer to that?

Then there are the examples of numerous countries who managed to achieve fiscal respinsibility mainly by cutting spending over the past 20 years or so. Some taxes did go up in most cases, but the ratio was heavily to the spending side. Start with Canada in the mid 90s, they got out of the hole they were in by curtailing their spending, not by raising taxes.

Solyndra?
I'm glad you brought that up -- the pathological liar running for POTUS on the Republican ticket is going to get his ass kicked for comparing Solyndra to his own vulture capitalism -- the ads are already in the can.




On balance, the White House seems to be playing Wall Street games—if that’s what you want to call massive investment in underfunded public infrastructure—pretty decently, and in a manner that produces more value for the public than private equity firms. Bain and Solyndra are really nothing alike. And by insisting that they are, Romney boosters have given Obama’s campaign an opening to brag about what American Crossroads is calling Obama’s public equity presidency—and all its successes.



Is asking voters to compare Romney’s vulture capitalism to Solyndra a good idea? The Romney campaign and its cohorts seem to think so. Within the past few days, American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s super PAC, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tjfQA4lkbo"]released an ad[/ame] that counters Obama’s attacks on Bain by highlighting Solyndra, a bankrupt solar panel company that had been given a government-backed loan guarantee, as well as the auto industry bailout. George Will made the Bain-Solyndra comparison on This Week; Paul Ryan did the same on Fox News Sunday; Michael Barone piled on in National Review Online.

The underlying argument is that the White House has been making the same risky bets as a private equity firm, bets that produced their own failures. (The grim-voiced narrator of the Crossroads ad, which is captioned, “President Obama is playing Wall Street games with our money,” asks, “Obama’s attacking private equity. But what’s his record on public equity investing?”)

It’s not the smartest response in the world. First off, Romney allies typically explain away Bain’s failures as just the way capitalism works—sometimes, bad companies are swallowed by the market. Solyndra, whose solar technology was priced out of the market by cheaper Chinese solar panels, is a pretty classic example of this, and by citing its Adam Smithian demise in response to attacks on Bain, Romney allies have diminished their ability to dismiss Bain’s loser companies as just the natural cycle of capitalism.

But the larger risk of this approach is that comparing any of Bain’s failures to Solyndra asks voters to examine private equity alongside public stimulus. The former is a game in which a tiny group of stakeholders set out to create as much value as possible for themselves: buying companies, often loading them up with debt they can’t bear, and extracting exorbitant fees for themselves before they reintroduce the company to the public and it either fails or succeeds. It’s essentially a no-risk racket, one Timothy Noah describes in fuller detail here.

Then there’s government stimulus, which is aimed at benefitting the public, and which the Obama administration has distributed with considerable success. Take the Department of Energy loan guarantee program through which the administration backed Solyndra. That program has been hugely effective for shoring up projects that the private market underinvested in. A recent, independent audit (pdf) by the former national finance chairman for John McCain found that it was due to come in about $2 billion under budget, and had subsidized mainly low-risk, critical electricity projects. The American Crossroads ad goes a step further and offers, as a comparison with Bain Capital’s failures, the government’s auto bailout, which an independent group found saved 1.45 million jobs, when no private equity dollars could be found to do the same.

On balance, the White House seems to be playing Wall Street games—if that’s what you want to call massive investment in underfunded public infrastructure—pretty decently, and in a manner that produces more value for the public than private equity firms. Bain and Solyndra are really nothing alike. And by insisting that they are, Romney boosters have given Obama’s campaign an opening to brag about what American Crossroads is calling Obama’s public equity presidency—and all its successes.




But back to the subject of this thread--- how'd that 1920's lower taxes, credit bubble work out? Yep you're right, it worked out just about the same way the Bush tax cuts, buying stocks on margin, to easy real estate/consumer credit... -pewsh!-

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it​

I. The Great Inequality of the 1920s mirrored our own time




I just happen to not be among those ignorant souls who are ignorant enough to believe that a tax decrease to the wealthy is a stimulus of any kind. ~ Rshermr

 

[Wiseacre]

There were many reasons why the US economy thrived in the 50s, but that high tax rate wasn't one of them. It was a different time, different culture, different circumstances. To compare that time to this is apples and oranges IMHO. Why stop there, if you go back to the 1920s, you will see that the US economy took off when the tax rates were sharply reduced. What's your answer to that?

Then there are the examples of numerous countries who managed to achieve fiscal respinsibility mainly by cutting spending over the past 20 years or so. Some taxes did go up in most cases, but the ratio was heavily to the spending side. Start with Canada in the mid 90s, they got out of the hole they were in by curtailing their spending, not by raising taxes.

Solyndra?
I'm glad you brought that up -- the pathological liar running for POTUS on the Republican ticket is going to get his ass kicked for comparing Solyndra to his own vulture capitalism -- the ads are already in the can.




On balance, the White House seems to be playing Wall Street games—if that’s what you want to call massive investment in underfunded public infrastructure—pretty decently, and in a manner that produces more value for the public than private equity firms. Bain and Solyndra are really nothing alike. And by insisting that they are, Romney boosters have given Obama’s campaign an opening to brag about what American Crossroads is calling Obama’s public equity presidency—and all its successes.



Is asking voters to compare Romney’s vulture capitalism to Solyndra a good idea? The Romney campaign and its cohorts seem to think so. Within the past few days, American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s super PAC, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tjfQA4lkbo"]released an ad[/ame] that counters Obama’s attacks on Bain by highlighting Solyndra, a bankrupt solar panel company that had been given a government-backed loan guarantee, as well as the auto industry bailout. George Will made the Bain-Solyndra comparison on This Week; Paul Ryan did the same on Fox News Sunday; Michael Barone piled on in National Review Online.

The underlying argument is that the White House has been making the same risky bets as a private equity firm, bets that produced their own failures. (The grim-voiced narrator of the Crossroads ad, which is captioned, “President Obama is playing Wall Street games with our money,” asks, “Obama’s attacking private equity. But what’s his record on public equity investing?”)

It’s not the smartest response in the world. First off, Romney allies typically explain away Bain’s failures as just the way capitalism works—sometimes, bad companies are swallowed by the market. Solyndra, whose solar technology was priced out of the market by cheaper Chinese solar panels, is a pretty classic example of this, and by citing its Adam Smithian demise in response to attacks on Bain, Romney allies have diminished their ability to dismiss Bain’s loser companies as just the natural cycle of capitalism.

But the larger risk of this approach is that comparing any of Bain’s failures to Solyndra asks voters to examine private equity alongside public stimulus. The former is a game in which a tiny group of stakeholders set out to create as much value as possible for themselves: buying companies, often loading them up with debt they can’t bear, and extracting exorbitant fees for themselves before they reintroduce the company to the public and it either fails or succeeds. It’s essentially a no-risk racket, one Timothy Noah describes in fuller detail here.

Then there’s government stimulus, which is aimed at benefitting the public, and which the Obama administration has distributed with considerable success. Take the Department of Energy loan guarantee program through which the administration backed Solyndra. That program has been hugely effective for shoring up projects that the private market underinvested in. A recent, independent audit (pdf) by the former national finance chairman for John McCain found that it was due to come in about $2 billion under budget, and had subsidized mainly low-risk, critical electricity projects. The American Crossroads ad goes a step further and offers, as a comparison with Bain Capital’s failures, the government’s auto bailout, which an independent group found saved 1.45 million jobs, when no private equity dollars could be found to do the same.

On balance, the White House seems to be playing Wall Street games—if that’s what you want to call massive investment in underfunded public infrastructure—pretty decently, and in a manner that produces more value for the public than private equity firms. Bain and Solyndra are really nothing alike. And by insisting that they are, Romney boosters have given Obama’s campaign an opening to brag about what American Crossroads is calling Obama’s public equity presidency—and all its successes.




But back to the subject of this thread--- how'd that 1920's lower taxes, credit bubble work out? Yep you're right, it worked out just about the same way the Bush tax cuts, buying stocks on margin, to easy real estate/consumer credit... -pewsh!-

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it​

I. The Great Inequality of the 1920s mirrored our own time




I just happen to not be among those ignorant souls who are ignorant enough to believe that a tax decrease to the wealthy is a stimulus of any kind. ~ Rshermr

Nice rant. Totally irrelevant, but if it lowered your BP, fine.

So you're saying the tax cuts in the 1920s and the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the great depression and the great recession respectively? You are conceding then that those tax cuts did lead to good economic growth? The problem was that in both cases we had too much credit on margin and too much leverage and of course the real estate bubble that kicked it all off. None of that has squat to do with the tax cuts.

 

[Intense]

That doesn't really capture it either. Because GDP grew while top inc. rates were extreme in the 1950s, rather than declined. That is because correlation does not imply causation. There are other variables that need to be considered to make this determination properly.

Common sense says that the lower taxes spur GDP growth. But in this case, GDP grew steadily throughout and began to sag at the end of the graph curve while taxes were lower.

Hey, I want to get payed by the Federal Government to do a Study on how much beer and wine, people doing a study on seagulls following fishing boats around San Francisco Bay drink, and how much they text and post on message boards, while they are supposed to be studying the birds.

 

[Star]

There were many reasons why the US economy thrived in the 50s, but that high tax rate wasn't one of them. It was a different time, different culture, different circumstances. To compare that time to this is apples and oranges IMHO. Why stop there, if you go back to the 1920s, you will see that the US economy took off when the tax rates were sharply reduced. What's your answer to that?

Then there are the examples of numerous countries who managed to achieve fiscal respinsibility mainly by cutting spending over the past 20 years or so. Some taxes did go up in most cases, but the ratio was heavily to the spending side. Start with Canada in the mid 90s, they got out of the hole they were in by curtailing their spending, not by raising taxes.

Solyndra?
I'm glad you brought that up -- the pathological liar running for POTUS on the Republican ticket is going to get his ass kicked for comparing Solyndra to his own vulture capitalism -- the ads are already in the can.




On balance, the White House seems to be playing Wall Street games—if that’s what you want to call massive investment in underfunded public infrastructure—pretty decently, and in a manner that produces more value for the public than private equity firms. Bain and Solyndra are really nothing alike. And by insisting that they are, Romney boosters have given Obama’s campaign an opening to brag about what American Crossroads is calling Obama’s public equity presidency—and all its successes.



Is asking voters to compare Romney’s vulture capitalism to Solyndra a good idea? The Romney campaign and its cohorts seem to think so. Within the past few days, American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s super PAC, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tjfQA4lkbo"]released an ad[/ame] that counters Obama’s attacks on Bain by highlighting Solyndra, a bankrupt solar panel company that had been given a government-backed loan guarantee, as well as the auto industry bailout. George Will made the Bain-Solyndra comparison on This Week; Paul Ryan did the same on Fox News Sunday; Michael Barone piled on in National Review Online.

The underlying argument is that the White House has been making the same risky bets as a private equity firm, bets that produced their own failures. (The grim-voiced narrator of the Crossroads ad, which is captioned, “President Obama is playing Wall Street games with our money,” asks, “Obama’s attacking private equity. But what’s his record on public equity investing?”)

It’s not the smartest response in the world. First off, Romney allies typically explain away Bain’s failures as just the way capitalism works—sometimes, bad companies are swallowed by the market. Solyndra, whose solar technology was priced out of the market by cheaper Chinese solar panels, is a pretty classic example of this, and by citing its Adam Smithian demise in response to attacks on Bain, Romney allies have diminished their ability to dismiss Bain’s loser companies as just the natural cycle of capitalism.

But the larger risk of this approach is that comparing any of Bain’s failures to Solyndra asks voters to examine private equity alongside public stimulus. The former is a game in which a tiny group of stakeholders set out to create as much value as possible for themselves: buying companies, often loading them up with debt they can’t bear, and extracting exorbitant fees for themselves before they reintroduce the company to the public and it either fails or succeeds. It’s essentially a no-risk racket, one Timothy Noah describes in fuller detail here.

Then there’s government stimulus, which is aimed at benefitting the public, and which the Obama administration has distributed with considerable success. Take the Department of Energy loan guarantee program through which the administration backed Solyndra. That program has been hugely effective for shoring up projects that the private market underinvested in. A recent, independent audit (pdf) by the former national finance chairman for John McCain found that it was due to come in about $2 billion under budget, and had subsidized mainly low-risk, critical electricity projects. The American Crossroads ad goes a step further and offers, as a comparison with Bain Capital’s failures, the government’s auto bailout, which an independent group found saved 1.45 million jobs, when no private equity dollars could be found to do the same.

On balance, the White House seems to be playing Wall Street games—if that’s what you want to call massive investment in underfunded public infrastructure—pretty decently, and in a manner that produces more value for the public than private equity firms. Bain and Solyndra are really nothing alike. And by insisting that they are, Romney boosters have given Obama’s campaign an opening to brag about what American Crossroads is calling Obama’s public equity presidency—and all its successes.




But back to the subject of this thread--- how'd that 1920's lower taxes, credit bubble work out? Yep you're right, it worked out just about the same way the Bush tax cuts, buying stocks on margin, to easy real estate/consumer credit... -pewsh!-

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it​

I. The Great Inequality of the 1920s mirrored our own time




I just happen to not be among those ignorant souls who are ignorant enough to believe that a tax decrease to the wealthy is a stimulus of any kind. ~ Rshermr

Nice rant. Totally irrelevant, but if it lowered your BP, fine.

So you're saying the tax cuts in the 1920s and the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the great depression and the great recession respectively? You are conceding then that those tax cuts did lead to good economic growth? The problem was that in both cases we had too much credit on margin and too much leverage and of course the real estate bubble that kicked it all off. None of that has squat to do with the tax cuts.

Even the Republican messiah, Ronald Reagan, recognized raising taxes would lead to recovery from the economic downturn that his earlier tax cuts had caused. But if you want to throw the Republican messiah under the bus -- knock yerself out.



✄snip>

We're also sure to hear that Mr. Reagan presided over an unmatched economic boom. Again, not true: the economy grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

 

[Wiseacre]

If you really think that raising taxes leads to economic recovery then you are significantly out of touch with reality. As I remember it, Reagan believed the country would be better off if gov't spending was rediced, so he made a deal with the devil, in this case the democratic Congress to raise taxes if they would cut spending. So he raised taxes, but went to his grave waiting for the democrats to cut spending.

As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to be president at a time of great economic expansion due primarily to the dot.com boom. As I recall, he raised taxes in 93 but the GOP Congress made him cut taxes in 95. IMHO it didn't really make a difference either time, the economy was booming irregardless of the tax rates. Personally, I think it makes sense to raise taxes in the boom periods to achieve a budget surplus that will be needed during the next bust period. But obviously, we are not in a boom period, and won't be as long as a democrat is in the WH or they control the Senate.

 

[RightPire]

what i see is rhetoric and theory. "lower taxes, the savings will be passed on creating demand then expansion and jobs!"

we've had trickle-down for 30yrs and unemployment is sky-high. job creators? ya there?

banks have essentially FREE money to lend, and theyre not lending, why not? job creators, hello?

republicans are right when they say lower taxes help facilitate the velocity of money, in which case EVERYONE should have low tax rates. but the lower classes pay more, why? shits gotta be paid for. exactly. SOMEBODY has to pay up to run a country. give the rich the breaks, theyll sit on it. give the middle class the breaks, we'll burn through it

republicans have theory, and it doesnt pan out, theyre just getting in the way

im a DEMAND CREATOR. WE are demand creators. cut OUR taxes, THEN youll see growth.

boom. done.

 

[Wiseacre]

what i see is rhetoric and theory. "lower taxes, the savings will be passed on creating demand then expansion and jobs!"

we've had trickle-down for 30yrs and unemployment is sky-high. job creators? ya there?

banks have essentially FREE money to lend, and theyre not lending, why not? job creators, hello?

republicans are right when they say lower taxes help facilitate the velocity of money, in which case EVERYONE should have low tax rates. but the lower classes pay more, why? shits gotta be paid for. exactly. SOMEBODY has to pay up to run a country. give the rich the breaks, theyll sit on it. give the middle class the breaks, we'll burn through it

republicans have theory, and it doesnt pan out, theyre just getting in the way

im a DEMAND CREATOR. WE are demand creators. cut OUR taxes, THEN youll see growth.

boom. done.

Almost half the country pays no federal income tax now, so where's the demand?

 

[Star]

If you really think that raising taxes leads to economic recovery then you are significantly out of touch with reality. As I remember it, Reagan believed the country would be better off if gov't spending was rediced, so he made a deal with the devil, in this case the democratic Congress to raise taxes if they would cut spending. So he raised taxes, but went to his grave waiting for the democrats to cut spending.

As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to be president at a time of great economic expansion due primarily to the dot.com boom. As I recall, he raised taxes in 93 but the GOP Congress made him cut taxes in 95. IMHO it didn't really make a difference either time, the economy was booming irregardless of the tax rates. Personally, I think it makes sense to raise taxes in the boom periods to achieve a budget surplus that will be needed during the next bust period. But obviously, we are not in a boom period, and won't be as long as a democrat is in the WH or they control the Senate.

And yet-----and yet, for all your smoke blowin', and to Republicans chagrin, you are unable to refute the empirical facts;
-Reagan cut taxes and unemployment exploded to over 11%
-Reagan raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and more jobs were created during his time in office than any other President in history.

Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million
Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.
Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.​

If you want to go at it by percent of increase, the president with the best job creation rate in the last 40 years is the last guy you'd ever expect: Jimmy Carter, at 3.1 percent. He beat everyone on the list. He's in second place on the overall list--since they started keeping records in the Hoover administration, only FDR in his first term and FDR in his third term (FDR's second term is right up there with Kennedy and Clinton--not bad, but not over five percent like FDR did in his first and third terms) beat Carter.​

 

[Rshermr]

If you really think that raising taxes leads to economic recovery then you are significantly out of touch with reality. As I remember it, Reagan believed the country would be better off if gov't spending was rediced, so he made a deal with the devil, in this case the democratic Congress to raise taxes if they would cut spending. So he raised taxes, but went to his grave waiting for the democrats to cut spending.

As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to be president at a time of great economic expansion due primarily to the dot.com boom. As I recall, he raised taxes in 93 but the GOP Congress made him cut taxes in 95. IMHO it didn't really make a difference either time, the economy was booming irregardless of the tax rates. Personally, I think it makes sense to raise taxes in the boom periods to achieve a budget surplus that will be needed during the next bust period. But obviously, we are not in a boom period, and won't be as long as a democrat is in the WH or they control the Senate.

And yet-----and yet, for all your smoke blowin', and to Republicans chagrin, you are unable to refute the empirical facts;
-Reagan cut taxes and unemployment exploded to over 11%
-Reagan raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and more jobs were created during his time in office than any other President in history.

Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million
Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.
Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.​

If you want to go at it by percent of increase, the president with the best job creation rate in the last 40 years is the last guy you'd ever expect: Jimmy Carter, at 3.1 percent. He beat everyone on the list. He's in second place on the overall list--since they started keeping records in the Hoover administration, only FDR in his first term and FDR in his third term (FDR's second term is right up there with Kennedy and Clinton--not bad, but not over five percent like FDR did in his first and third terms) beat Carter.​

Star,

Don't believe for a minute that the cons can respond to this kind of data. They are of a really mistaken belief and want to stay that way.

So, they believe, for instance, that Reagan increased employment and reduced the deficit, based on his tax decrease. They are totally unwilling to admit that a year after that tax decrease, unemployment had increased to 10.5%. And that the deficit had started to move through the roof. As his VP had said, trickle down was voodoo economics. They can not admit that at that point, as they realized the economic trouble they were in, they borrowed more than all of the presidents prior to reagan combined. And that he spent that money to stimulate the economy. Nor can they admit that he signed into being 11 tax increases.

In the end, his economy was good, but not great. He thought it good enough to decrease taxes again, as I recall. Which, in the end, doomed his VP who became president under the slogan of no new taxes, and then raised taxes.

But the cons won't learn, and any effort to converse with them is a waste of time. They believe what they want, evidence be damned.

 

[Star]

If you really think that raising taxes leads to economic recovery then you are significantly out of touch with reality. As I remember it, Reagan believed the country would be better off if gov't spending was rediced, so he made a deal with the devil, in this case the democratic Congress to raise taxes if they would cut spending. So he raised taxes, but went to his grave waiting for the democrats to cut spending.

As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to be president at a time of great economic expansion due primarily to the dot.com boom. As I recall, he raised taxes in 93 but the GOP Congress made him cut taxes in 95. IMHO it didn't really make a difference either time, the economy was booming irregardless of the tax rates. Personally, I think it makes sense to raise taxes in the boom periods to achieve a budget surplus that will be needed during the next bust period. But obviously, we are not in a boom period, and won't be as long as a democrat is in the WH or they control the Senate.

And yet-----and yet, for all your smoke blowin', and to Republicans chagrin, you are unable to refute the empirical facts;
-Reagan cut taxes and unemployment exploded to over 11%
-Reagan raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and more jobs were created during his time in office than any other President in history.

Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million
Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.
Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.​

If you want to go at it by percent of increase, the president with the best job creation rate in the last 40 years is the last guy you'd ever expect: Jimmy Carter, at 3.1 percent. He beat everyone on the list. He's in second place on the overall list--since they started keeping records in the Hoover administration, only FDR in his first term and FDR in his third term (FDR's second term is right up there with Kennedy and Clinton--not bad, but not over five percent like FDR did in his first and third terms) beat Carter.​

Star,

Don't believe for a minute that the cons can respond to this kind of data. They are of a really mistaken belief and want to stay that way.

So, they believe, for instance, that Reagan increased employment and reduced the deficit, based on his tax decrease. They are totally unwilling to admit that a year after that tax decrease, unemployment had increased to 10.5%. And that the deficit had started to move through the roof. As his VP had said, trickle down was voodoo economics. They can not admit that at that point, as they realized the economic trouble they were in, they borrowed more than all of the presidents prior to reagan combined. And that he spent that money to stimulate the economy. Nor can they admit that he signed into being 11 tax increases.

In the end, his economy was good, but not great. He thought it good enough to decrease taxes again, as I recall. Which, in the end, doomed his VP who became president under the slogan of no new taxes, and then raised taxes.

But the cons won't learn, and any effort to converse with them is a waste of time. They believe what they want, evidence be damned.

Right, Republicans don't get it, it's a brain thing.

Has there ever been a group as enthusiastic about being wrong as today's Republican Party -- it's no wonder why they hate(d) Jimmy Carter, "...the Republicans portray him [President Carter] as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan." -- no other 4 year Republican term even comes close to President Carter's accomplishment, including Reagan's first term.

Job for job, deficit for deficit -- Republicans don't match up, never have, and unless they change their screwball ideology -- they never can.

G'head 'publican's take your best shot at proving me wrong -- so far on this thread ya got nuthin-----less than nuhtin'.

 

[Wiseacre]

And yet-----and yet, for all your smoke blowin', and to Republicans chagrin, you are unable to refute the empirical facts;
-Reagan cut taxes and unemployment exploded to over 11%
-Reagan raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and the economy improved and-----and
-Clinton raised taxes and more jobs were created during his time in office than any other President in history.

Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million
Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.
Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.​

If you want to go at it by percent of increase, the president with the best job creation rate in the last 40 years is the last guy you'd ever expect: Jimmy Carter, at 3.1 percent. He beat everyone on the list. He's in second place on the overall list--since they started keeping records in the Hoover administration, only FDR in his first term and FDR in his third term (FDR's second term is right up there with Kennedy and Clinton--not bad, but not over five percent like FDR did in his first and third terms) beat Carter.​

Star,

Don't believe for a minute that the cons can respond to this kind of data. They are of a really mistaken belief and want to stay that way.

So, they believe, for instance, that Reagan increased employment and reduced the deficit, based on his tax decrease. They are totally unwilling to admit that a year after that tax decrease, unemployment had increased to 10.5%. And that the deficit had started to move through the roof. As his VP had said, trickle down was voodoo economics. They can not admit that at that point, as they realized the economic trouble they were in, they borrowed more than all of the presidents prior to reagan combined. And that he spent that money to stimulate the economy. Nor can they admit that he signed into being 11 tax increases.

In the end, his economy was good, but not great. He thought it good enough to decrease taxes again, as I recall. Which, in the end, doomed his VP who became president under the slogan of no new taxes, and then raised taxes.

But the cons won't learn, and any effort to converse with them is a waste of time. They believe what they want, evidence be damned.

Right, Republicans don't get it, it's a brain thing.

Has there ever been a group as enthusiastic about being wrong as today's Republican Party -- it's no wonder why they hate(d) Jimmy Carter, "...the Republicans portray him [President Carter] as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan." -- no other 4 year Republican term even comes close to President Carter's accomplishment, including Reagan's first term.

Job for job, deficit for deficit -- Republicans don't match up, never have, and unless they change their screwball ideology -- they never can.

G'head 'publican's take your best shot at proving me wrong -- so far on this thread ya got nuthin-----less than nuhtin'.

You both are entitled to your own opinions, and your own interpretations of economic and labor statistics. You are not however entitled to your own facts, nor are you entitled to present those opinions and interpretations as facts either. Since you both feel compelled to resort to demagoguery and personal attacks, you aren't worth talking to; essentially you are both a waste of time.

 

[Rshermr]

Star,

Don't believe for a minute that the cons can respond to this kind of data. They are of a really mistaken belief and want to stay that way.

So, they believe, for instance, that Reagan increased employment and reduced the deficit, based on his tax decrease. They are totally unwilling to admit that a year after that tax decrease, unemployment had increased to 10.5%. And that the deficit had started to move through the roof. As his VP had said, trickle down was voodoo economics. They can not admit that at that point, as they realized the economic trouble they were in, they borrowed more than all of the presidents prior to reagan combined. And that he spent that money to stimulate the economy. Nor can they admit that he signed into being 11 tax increases.

In the end, his economy was good, but not great. He thought it good enough to decrease taxes again, as I recall. Which, in the end, doomed his VP who became president under the slogan of no new taxes, and then raised taxes.

But the cons won't learn, and any effort to converse with them is a waste of time. They believe what they want, evidence be damned.

Right, Republicans don't get it, it's a brain thing.

Has there ever been a group as enthusiastic about being wrong as today's Republican Party -- it's no wonder why they hate(d) Jimmy Carter, "...the Republicans portray him [President Carter] as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan." -- no other 4 year Republican term even comes close to President Carter's accomplishment, including Reagan's first term.

Job for job, deficit for deficit -- Republicans don't match up, never have, and unless they change their screwball ideology -- they never can.

G'head 'publican's take your best shot at proving me wrong -- so far on this thread ya got nuthin-----less than nuhtin'.

You both are entitled to your own opinions, and your own interpretations of economic and labor statistics. You are not however entitled to your own facts, nor are you entitled to present those opinions and interpretations as facts either. Since you both feel compelled to resort to demagoguery and personal attacks, you aren't worth talking to; essentially you are both a waste of time.

Opinions are opinions. They become fact based if you can provide data, as in what ACTUALLY happened. History provides pretty good evidence. If you feel that these facts are not valid, then produce actual evidence of your position.
People who provide opinions with no evidence, in my humble but correct opinion, are almost always presenting DOGMA. And dogma is one of the main things that make people ignorant. And in many cases, those spouting dogma are able to BELIEVE what they want to believe. I do not want to be that person, and will not be lazy and dishonest just so that I can believe what I want to believe.

So again, as has been asked numerous times before, bring your evidence, or just simply admit that you choose to believe what you want to.

 

[Rshermr]

Corporations like low taxes, because they get more of the wealth. Simple.

perfect liberal illiteracy. Lower costs from reduced taxes or reduced raw materials must be passed on to consumers or competitors will. The goof liberal lacks the IQ to know what capitalism is?

Ed,
Assuming a perfectly competitive economy, you would be correct to some degree. But you have failed to notice that our economy is far from competitive.
But, if I am wrong about that, then please tell me why we do not see recession result from increased taxes. But of course you can not. Any time that taxes have been increased on the wealthy, the economy has done very well afterward. And any time taxes have been decreased, the economy has done nothing in response, or (in cases of a bad economy) the economic effect is adverse.
Has to do with the marginal propensity to consume. Which means, ed me boy, that rich people have a low marginal spending rate for the $ that they save from tax decreases. Does not increase demand. And the proof is in the history of tax increases and tax decreases the past century.

Again, ed, you have yet to show me where a decrease in federal tax rates has helped the economy, though I have asked you many times. I, on the other hand, have no problem showing you where tax decreases have hurt the economy, and where tax increases have led to a better economy.

Problem is, ed, you keep saying that increased taxes can not help the economy. Your reasons are faulty, but by blind luck you are sort of correct. Tax increases do not directly help the economy. But the result of the tax increase does. The result of the tax increase is additional jobs in the public sector, which result in increased demand, and increased revenue to affect our deficit.

At any rate, I am sure I am just providing data to a tea bagger. And I know where that will lead. Your statement is straight from the tea baggers, and as usual benefits the wealthy greatly. Odd how that is always the case with the tea party, and you, ed.

 

[Rshermr]

If you really think that raising taxes leads to economic recovery then you are significantly out of touch with reality. As I remember it, Reagan believed the country would be better off if gov't spending was rediced, so he made a deal with the devil, in this case the democratic Congress to raise taxes if they would cut spending. So he raised taxes, but went to his grave waiting for the democrats to cut spending.

As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to be president at a time of great economic expansion due primarily to the dot.com boom. As I recall, he raised taxes in 93 but the GOP Congress made him cut taxes in 95. IMHO it didn't really make a difference either time, the economy was booming irregardless of the tax rates. Personally, I think it makes sense to raise taxes in the boom periods to achieve a budget surplus that will be needed during the next bust period. But obviously, we are not in a boom period, and won't be as long as a democrat is in the WH or they control the Senate.

You should really try to find some rational, and impartial, proof for your claims. I can find none.

 

[Rshermr]

what i see is rhetoric and theory. "lower taxes, the savings will be passed on creating demand then expansion and jobs!"

we've had trickle-down for 30yrs and unemployment is sky-high. job creators? ya there?

banks have essentially FREE money to lend, and theyre not lending, why not? job creators, hello?

republicans are right when they say lower taxes help facilitate the velocity of money, in which case EVERYONE should have low tax rates. but the lower classes pay more, why? shits gotta be paid for. exactly. SOMEBODY has to pay up to run a country. give the rich the breaks, theyll sit on it. give the middle class the breaks, we'll burn through it

republicans have theory, and it doesnt pan out, theyre just getting in the way

im a DEMAND CREATOR. WE are demand creators. cut OUR taxes, THEN youll see growth.

boom. done.

Almost half the country pays no federal income tax now, so where's the demand?

% of Income
The top 10% of income earners now account for 50% of all income in the US.
The top 1% of income earners now account for 23.5% of all income in the efUS.
The top .1% (that’s 1 in 1000) now account for 11% of all income in the US.
Not since the year before the great depression has the top 10% of income earners neared 50%of all income.

% Income Growth 1979 – 2007
The top 1% had growth in income of 281%
The Middle 5 % had growth in income of 25%
The bottom had income growth of 16%


All of the above are from:
The 30-Year Growth of Income Inequality |

Taxes Paid by Income Percentile
Top 1% 20.3%
Top 10% 48%
The lowest 40% of the income earners earn 10.6% of all income, and pay 7.2% of all taxes.
So here is the difference, Wiseacre. The numbers here reflect total taxes: federal, state, and local.

The above is from: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

And by the way, your statement that "Almost half the country pays no federal income tax now, so where's the demand?" is totally bogus. They pay about 9% of all federal income taxes on about 14% of the total income. You should be really pissed at whomever got you to believe that quote.

Some of us see the value of not charging income taxes on those poor enough to not be able to live.
By the way, are you at all concerned that Exon and GE paid essentially no us federal income taxes???

 

[Wiseacre]

If you really think that raising taxes leads to economic recovery then you are significantly out of touch with reality. As I remember it, Reagan believed the country would be better off if gov't spending was rediced, so he made a deal with the devil, in this case the democratic Congress to raise taxes if they would cut spending. So he raised taxes, but went to his grave waiting for the democrats to cut spending.

As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to be president at a time of great economic expansion due primarily to the dot.com boom. As I recall, he raised taxes in 93 but the GOP Congress made him cut taxes in 95. IMHO it didn't really make a difference either time, the economy was booming irregardless of the tax rates. Personally, I think it makes sense to raise taxes in the boom periods to achieve a budget surplus that will be needed during the next bust period. But obviously, we are not in a boom period, and won't be as long as a democrat is in the WH or they control the Senate.

You should really try to find some rational, and impartial, proof for your claims. I can find none.

I am certain that nothing I could say or link to would in any way change your mind. In any event, it is pointless to argue with anyone who thinks the Reagan or Clinton tax hikes were responsible for the economic growth which followed. I'm pretty sure what I said is accurate, and besides, impartial proof of anything related to economics is hard to ifnd.