Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[TooTall]

Aren't you glad that Bush cut tax rates for the middle class?

Sure, the CBO said almost 1/3rd of deficits 2001-2010 can be traced to Dubya's tax cuts. Of course those 'jobs' Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies were supposed to create, never came. He lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years as he doubled the debt

If only that were true,the nation saw the 2nd longest economic expansion during the Bush years,cherry picking doesn't tell the whole story,but hacks love to do that.

REALLY? 2ND LONGEST? lol


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

...Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

Yes,really!

"An economy usually grows rapidly in the years immediately following a recession. As Peter Ferrera points out in Forbes, the U.S. economy has not even reached its long run average rate of growth of 3.3 percent; the highest annual growth rate since Obama took office was 2.8 percent. Total growth in real GDP over the 19 quarters of economic recovery since the second quarter of 2009 has been 10.2 percent. Growth over the same length of time during previous post-World War II recoveries has ranged from 15.1 percent during George W. Bush’s presidency to 30 percent during the recovery that began when John F. Kennedy was elected.

Over the first five years of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than during any five-year period since just after the end of World War II, averaging less than 1.3 percent per year. If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932. No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a steadily poor rate of economic growth during his first five years in office."

The Obama Economic Record The Worst Five Years Since World War II The Daily Caller

Weird, you mean it DOESN'T matter the size of the hole Dubya/GOP/Banksters created? Just that Obama/Dems didn't fix it fast enough? Or strong enough? BET OBAMA WILL HAVE A HIGHER GROWTH GDP OVER 8 YEARS THAN DUBYA'S? HE'S ALREADY ALMOST BEAT HIM, LOL

ONCE MORE. What happened to Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies? Why wasn't the US flush with new PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? Yes, we know Dubya had almost 2 million PUBLIC sector jobs, but he lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years (NOT counting the 4+ million in 2009)?

Obama may well have a higher growth rate over 8 years than Bush. He has had a Republican House several years and will have both a Republican House and Senate for his last two years. Now, how about comparing Obama's Unemployment rate for 8 years to Bush's.

 

[TooTall]

Six mother scratching years of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named...

Lovely grasp of economics this is:

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

• 
  

Bush gave a tax cut to the bottom 90%. Did you forget that again?

 

[TooTall]

Tax cuts bad, tax increases good. I got it!

A wing nutter who doesn't want to pay his bills. Shocking. I thought the REASON the Dubya tax cuts were to 'create jobs' through 'job creator' policies? lol

Dubya/GOP took US from 20%+ of GDP in federal tax revenues to less than 15% (Korean war levels) AS they blew up spending!!!!

And the spending keeps going on and on. Obama's lowest deficit is higher than any of Bush's. Unemplloyment averaged 5.8% during Bush's 8 years. Not a lot of room for creating jobs if everyone that wants one already has one.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote home ownership."

 

[Listening]

A wing nutter who doesn't want to pay his bills. Shocking. I thought the REASON the Dubya tax cuts were to 'create jobs' through 'job creator' policies? lol

Dubya/GOP took US from 20%+ of GDP in federal tax revenues to less than 15% (Korean war levels) AS they blew up spending!!!!

And the spending keeps going on and on. Obama's lowest deficit is higher than any of Bush's. Unemplloyment averaged 5.8% during Bush's 8 years. Not a lot of room for creating jobs if everyone that wants one already has one.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote home ownership."

Pleae provide a link.

Also, I would recommend putting DuddyPeePee on ignore. It really cuts down on the spam you have to wade through in a thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greatest economy in the entire history of America is the RONALD REAGAN REPUBLICAN SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS 80S.
You lose again.

There's no evidence the economy under Reagan did well because of supply side economics. Zero. Bush's tax cuts were huge and job growth under him was pitiful.

WRONG.
The Real Reagan Economic Record Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century

You lose again.

YOU MEAN THE GOP CONGRESS CAME OUT WITH A REPORT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR CLINTON'S BOOM WAS CAUSED BY RONNIE? LOL

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES AND BLEW UP SPENDING?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.


This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES

Reagan gutted revenues? What were they in 1981? In 1989?

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?


EVEN WITH HIS 11 TAX REVENUES INCREASES?

Carter had 19%+ of GDP his final F/Y

Ronnie took US to 17.8%

BUT INCOME TAXES WENT FROM 9.1% OF GDP TO 8% (OF COURSE POPPY BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%, STUCK POPPY BUSH AT 7.4%-7.5%, LOL)


YOU KNOW THEY MEASURE IT GDP TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE PEOPLE ENTERING THE WORKFORCE AND INFLATION RIGHT???? LOL


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?
Liberals didn't want Reagan to save Social Security? LOL!

BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%,

Pulled out as much as they could? What does that even mean?

"No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Why do they have to pay for themselves?

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

You don't lose as much as stupid liberals predict. We knew that already.

"Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Like the hyperbole that Reagan gutted revenues.

"Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

The Federal government gets less money and the people get more.
I'm looking for the downside in this scenario...........nope, don't see it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

"Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs"..
It did?
Prove it..
Then define "job".....

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.


Economists agree Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Did you even read that USA Today article, Dad? The gist of it is that economists DON'T agree! They don't agree that the stimulus created 3 million jobs. Some think it did...some think it had a minor impact on job creation...and some don't think it had any affect at all.

Here's my question for you...

The economy is growing faster NOW than it has in years...correct? Are we doing massive government stimulus to make that happen? Big infrastructure spending? I think we can all agree the answer to that is NO? So why is the economy growing faster now?

Got it, you can't be honest. Shocking....

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."





You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama and getting regulators back on the beat, despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used and are now going into their 2-3 recession), the US is moving forward, despite the GOP effort otherwise? YES

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WORK AGAIN?? LOL

80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

Sure, blow $800 billion plus, you'll create some jobs.
Obozo could recommend $400 billion for digging holes with shovels and $400 billion for filling them in.
You'd create lots of jobs, and at the end you'd have nothing.
The question is, what did we produce for that $800 billion?

You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used

What is austerity and why do you think other nations are using it?

 

[The Rabbi]

There's no evidence the economy under Reagan did well because of supply side economics. Zero. Bush's tax cuts were huge and job growth under him was pitiful.

WRONG.
The Real Reagan Economic Record Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century

You lose again.

YOU MEAN THE GOP CONGRESS CAME OUT WITH A REPORT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR CLINTON'S BOOM WAS CAUSED BY RONNIE? LOL

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES AND BLEW UP SPENDING?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.


This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES

Reagan gutted revenues? What were they in 1981? In 1989?

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?


EVEN WITH HIS 11 TAX REVENUES INCREASES?

Carter had 19%+ of GDP his final F/Y

Ronnie took US to 17.8%

BUT INCOME TAXES WENT FROM 9.1% OF GDP TO 8% (OF COURSE POPPY BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%, STUCK POPPY BUSH AT 7.4%-7.5%, LOL)


YOU KNOW THEY MEASURE IT GDP TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE PEOPLE ENTERING THE WORKFORCE AND INFLATION RIGHT???? LOL


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?
Liberals didn't want Reagan to save Social Security? LOL!

BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%,

Pulled out as much as they could? What does that even mean?

"No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Why do they have to pay for themselves?

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

You don't lose as much as stupid liberals predict. We knew that already.

"Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Like the hyperbole that Reagan gutted revenues.

"Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

The Federal government gets less money and the people get more.
I'm looking for the downside in this scenario...........nope, don't see it.

The problem is you are dealing with an idiot.

Bush inherited Bill Clinton's higher tax rates. And Clinton got Bush sr's rates. Remember when he renegged on his pledge and they raised taxes? Yeah. That. Bush's tax cuts were repealed and Democrats have added significant new taxes at the end of Obama's second year. Revenues are at record heights yet the deficit is where it was before the recession hit. More money to the government is the problem, not the answer.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

"Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs"..
It did?
Prove it..
Then define "job".....

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.


Economists agree Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Did you even read that USA Today article, Dad? The gist of it is that economists DON'T agree! They don't agree that the stimulus created 3 million jobs. Some think it did...some think it had a minor impact on job creation...and some don't think it had any affect at all.

Here's my question for you...

The economy is growing faster NOW than it has in years...correct? Are we doing massive government stimulus to make that happen? Big infrastructure spending? I think we can all agree the answer to that is NO? So why is the economy growing faster now?

Got it, you can't be honest. Shocking....

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."





You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama and getting regulators back on the beat, despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used and are now going into their 2-3 recession), the US is moving forward, despite the GOP effort otherwise? YES

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WORK AGAIN?? LOL

80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

Sure, blow $800 billion plus, you'll create some jobs.
Obozo could recommend $400 billion for digging holes with shovels and $400 billion for filling them in.
You'd create lots of jobs, and at the end you'd have nothing.
The question is, what did we produce for that $800 billion?

You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used

What is austerity and why do you think other nations are using it?

Again a bunch of unfounded claims that are unproven. Obama has demonstrated no fiscal responsibility. Indeed, he has demonstrated no responsibility whatsoever.

 

[Contumacious]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.
s.

The pot calling the kettle black.


The democrats economic solution is to send the IRS to steal , loot, plunder and confiscate.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Six mother scratching years of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named...

Lovely grasp of economics this is:

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

• 
  

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts.

And they were making what % of the payments before the cuts? What % of the payments after the cuts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WRONG.
The Real Reagan Economic Record Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century

You lose again.

YOU MEAN THE GOP CONGRESS CAME OUT WITH A REPORT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR CLINTON'S BOOM WAS CAUSED BY RONNIE? LOL

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES AND BLEW UP SPENDING?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.


This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES

Reagan gutted revenues? What were they in 1981? In 1989?

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?


EVEN WITH HIS 11 TAX REVENUES INCREASES?

Carter had 19%+ of GDP his final F/Y

Ronnie took US to 17.8%

BUT INCOME TAXES WENT FROM 9.1% OF GDP TO 8% (OF COURSE POPPY BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%, STUCK POPPY BUSH AT 7.4%-7.5%, LOL)


YOU KNOW THEY MEASURE IT GDP TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE PEOPLE ENTERING THE WORKFORCE AND INFLATION RIGHT???? LOL


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?
Liberals didn't want Reagan to save Social Security? LOL!

BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%,

Pulled out as much as they could? What does that even mean?

"No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Why do they have to pay for themselves?

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

You don't lose as much as stupid liberals predict. We knew that already.

"Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Like the hyperbole that Reagan gutted revenues.

"Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

The Federal government gets less money and the people get more.
I'm looking for the downside in this scenario...........nope, don't see it.

The problem is you are dealing with an idiot.

Bush inherited Bill Clinton's higher tax rates. And Clinton got Bush sr's rates. Remember when he renegged on his pledge and they raised taxes? Yeah. That. Bush's tax cuts were repealed and Democrats have added significant new taxes at the end of Obama's second year. Revenues are at record heights yet the deficit is where it was before the recession hit. More money to the government is the problem, not the answer.

Bush's tax cuts were repealed and Democrats have added significant new taxes at the end of Obama's second year.

Most of Bush's tax cuts are still in effect. Obama raised the top rate.

 

[Avatar4321]

Republicans have no place in democrat America. Democrats have no place in republican America.

Not a problem. Democrats can get the hell out of here. They hate America anyway.

You mean those LIBERALS WHO CREATED AMERICA? While the conservatives (Torry) stood with King George?

the "liberals" who created America created a nation with a limited government so people would govern themselves. The progressives coopted the term in the 1930s when people saw them foe the totalitarians they were.

conservatives fight to restore the limited government of the nation. We fight to conserve the constitution and the republic our Founders established because we love liberty and understand the need for checks on human nature

 

[Avatar4321]

I marvel that it's so difficult for some to understand that artificially increasing the cost of labor makes things more expensive to make. Or that it likewise makes people able to hirer less people or lay people off.

this isn't rocket science. In fact it's just common sense just ask yourself if the price of something increases and your revenue remains the Sa.e are you more or less likely to buy that thing?

 

[TooTall]

And the spending keeps going on and on. Obama's lowest deficit is higher than any of Bush's. Unemplloyment averaged 5.8% during Bush's 8 years. Not a lot of room for creating jobs if everyone that wants one already has one.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote home ownership."

Pleae provide a link.

Also, I would recommend putting DuddyPeePee on ignore. It really cuts down on the spam you have to wade through in a thread.

Since you asked so nicely, here is the link. I may even take your advice.

Bill Clinton s drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

 

[Listening]

Ronald Reagan saved SS from the "fix" Jimmy Carter said would keep it solvent for 30 years.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote home ownership."

Pleae provide a link.

Also, I would recommend putting DuddyPeePee on ignore. It really cuts down on the spam you have to wade through in a thread.

Since you asked so nicely, here is the link. I may even take your advice.

Bill Clinton s drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

Thanks.

I am not a big fan of Billy. He wasn't that bad (but it helped to have Newt & Co. in the driver seat). He also threw the libs under the bus.

Duddy isn't worth the time. He's like Chrissy..... Same stuff being posted all the time.

 

[FireFly]

Republicans have no place in democrat America. Democrats have no place in republican America.

Not a problem. Democrats can get the hell out of here. They hate America anyway.

You mean those LIBERALS WHO CREATED AMERICA? While the conservatives (Torry) stood with King George?

the "liberals" who created America created a nation with a limited government so people would govern themselves. The progressives coopted the term in the 1930s when people saw them foe the totalitarians they were.

conservatives fight to restore the limited government of the nation. We fight to conserve the constitution and the republic our Founders established because we love liberty and understand the need for checks on human nature

You lie! Conservatives want a police state, military industrial complex for the elite to use against us depriving us of our wealth.

 

[Listening]

Republicans have no place in democrat America. Democrats have no place in republican America.

Not a problem. Democrats can get the hell out of here. They hate America anyway.

You mean those LIBERALS WHO CREATED AMERICA? While the conservatives (Torry) stood with King George?

the "liberals" who created America created a nation with a limited government so people would govern themselves. The progressives coopted the term in the 1930s when people saw them foe the totalitarians they were.

conservatives fight to restore the limited government of the nation. We fight to conserve the constitution and the republic our Founders established because we love liberty and understand the need for checks on human nature

You lie! Conservatives want a police state, military industrial complex for the elite to use against us depriving us of our wealth.

Here we go again....

Conservatives as a monolith.

You have that idiot out in Nevada who stood up to Federal Marshals (at least find a good cause). That's wanting a police state ?

 

[Listening]

1961 to 2012

Republican president job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.

Democratic president job growth - 42 million jobs in 24 years.

Bill Clinton says Democratic presidents top Republican presidents in job creation PolitiFact

Lol this really says it all. I feel like you could shove this in the faces of RWs all day and they still deny it.

Mythology has a powerful effect on people.

Let's hear why this is the case.

I'd love to know.

Carter had a great run on jobs in a false economy which was falling apart when he handed it to Reagan (you know, the guy who beat Carter's ass and then got re-elected with 49 states).

Please explain it to us in terms that are believable.

ChrissyThePussy will never do that.

Just more spam bullshit.

Where is ChrissyThePussy ?

No back up to his little meme bullshit post.

Never is.

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

"Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs"..
It did?
Prove it..
Then define "job".....

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.


Economists agree Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Did you even read that USA Today article, Dad? The gist of it is that economists DON'T agree! They don't agree that the stimulus created 3 million jobs. Some think it did...some think it had a minor impact on job creation...and some don't think it had any affect at all.

Here's my question for you...

The economy is growing faster NOW than it has in years...correct? Are we doing massive government stimulus to make that happen? Big infrastructure spending? I think we can all agree the answer to that is NO? So why is the economy growing faster now?

Got it, you can't be honest. Shocking....

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."





You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama and getting regulators back on the beat, despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used and are now going into their 2-3 recession), the US is moving forward, despite the GOP effort otherwise? YES

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WORK AGAIN?? LOL

God but you're an idiot! 80% of economists agree that spending almost 800 billion dollars created more jobs than NOT spending 800 billion? Well...DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe Elmendorf made that statement! Seriously...if he's THAT stupid why is he in charge of the Congressional Budget Office?

You know why those Republicans were "skeptical"? Because the Obama Administration's "stimulus" had created so few jobs that they had to invent a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to obscure just how few jobs they actually created with the billions and billions that they spent.

 

[reason10]

The greatest economy in the entire history of America is the RONALD REAGAN REPUBLICAN SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS 80S.
You lose again.

There's no evidence the economy under Reagan did well because of supply side economics. Zero. Bush's tax cuts were huge and job growth under him was pitiful.

WRONG.
The Real Reagan Economic Record Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century

You lose again.

YOU MEAN THE GOP CONGRESS CAME OUT WITH A REPORT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR CLINTON'S BOOM WAS CAUSED BY RONNIE? LOL

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES AND BLEW UP SPENDING?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.


This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES

Reagan gutted revenues? What were they in 1981? In 1989?

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?


EVEN WITH HIS 11 TAX REVENUES INCREASES?

Carter had 19%+ of GDP his final F/Y

Ronnie took US to 17.8%

BUT INCOME TAXES WENT FROM 9.1% OF GDP TO 8% (OF COURSE POPPY BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%, STUCK POPPY BUSH AT 7.4%-7.5%, LOL)


YOU KNOW THEY MEASURE IT GDP TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE PEOPLE ENTERING THE WORKFORCE AND INFLATION RIGHT???? LOL


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

And you morons bash Heritage, with all those left wing biased LIES.