To start with bushes tax cuts created 7 million jobs in 5 years, in addition

[Mr. Shaman]

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

lets see how tax cuts from the 80s in addition with this has done

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

You do realize that.....columns....w/o titles/headings....are worth ZERO.....right?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Maybe you should put some column headers in there so we'll know what we're looking at.

LOL!!!

A C-student, no doubt!​

 

[Againsheila]

Find something else to do or move to India. I wish I could still code HTML for $45 an hour. I don't blame anyone for innovation that made me have to figure something else out.

I tried to follow my job to India...I could live a lot better on $4.00 an hour than the 8 something an hour they were paying me here, unfortunately, the Indian government wouldn't let me. Those jobs are for THEIR citizens. Seems ours is the only country in the world that doesn't protect the jobs for their own citizens.

Ah. And you advocate protectionism here? If you support unions you do.

What job is this? It sounds like telephone work and I know some people.

Yeah, I support unions, and I'm for our country protecting our jobs the same way all the other countries protect theirs, turnabout is fair play you know.

Yes, it was telephone work for United Airlines, the pay was crap but I got to go to Japan for $350, first class both directions. The only trip I took and if I'd known they were going to lay me off when I got back, I would have stayed in Japan longer.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And Clinton instituted tax increases, yet we had the greatest economic expansion in this nation from 1993 to 2001.

Show causation.

Paying-down debt is hardly considered risky-behavior.....well, except for 2000 thru 2008.​

AUGUST 9, 1999​

"But even as debt-reduction fever grows, lawmakers keep finding new ways to spend the surplus on everything from better airports to fatter military pensions. The more Congress spends, the less likely the debt will disappear in 15 years. True, there's nothing magical about erasing the IOUs on a specific timetable. But making sure they shrink to a fraction of their current size still makes more sense than blowing the surplus on big tax cuts or new spending."

Reducing Federal Debt Makes Sense​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No tax cuts for wealthy people ever created a single job.

Republicans don't even know the most basic of economics. Jobs are only created through "supply and demand". Without demand, there is no supply, hence, no jobs. PERIOD!

Moving the wealth of the nation to the top 1% ensures there will be no demand. Because no one has any money to spend. Yes Virginia, it's just that "simple".

The 50's was considered the "Golden Age" of the American Economy. The budget was balanced under the last Republican President to balance the budget. His name was Dwight Eisenhower. Too bad we don't go back to those rates. No one can possibly accuse President Eisenhower of being a "socialist" or a "communist". What would he think of today's rabid white wing? One wonders.

Not really.

He was expecting them.....​

1961​

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

President Dwight David Eisenhower​

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Typical Hopey Changey sycophant: Bush 4% Unemployment = BAAAAD!! Hopey Changey 9/10% Unemployment = GOOOOD!!. So don't bother attempting to reason with these people. Big waste of time & energy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.

It can't be done......​

July 28, 2004​

"If one believed everything the Republican National Committee and Fox News put out, it would be easy to think that achieving economic prosperity is simple: start with a big tax cut, blend in some spending reductions, add a dash of deregulation and sit back and watch the economy cook. After all, Republican presidents use this recipe and the economy booms as a result, right?

Interestingly, a recent Forbes article and a separate American Progress Action Fund analysis show that this assumption is a myth."

Economic Prosperity And The Presidents​

 

[asterism]

I tried to follow my job to India...I could live a lot better on $4.00 an hour than the 8 something an hour they were paying me here, unfortunately, the Indian government wouldn't let me. Those jobs are for THEIR citizens. Seems ours is the only country in the world that doesn't protect the jobs for their own citizens.

Ah. And you advocate protectionism here? If you support unions you do.

What job is this? It sounds like telephone work and I know some people.

Yeah, I support unions, and I'm for our country protecting our jobs the same way all the other countries protect theirs, turnabout is fair play you know.

But it's not fair to protect wages. India restricts immigration and those $4 per hour jobs would be available to you here in the US if there wasn't that minimum wage thing. You said you'd be happy on $4 per hour there. Something tells me you'd be happier with $6 an hour here if you didn't have to move. Maybe not, since you support unions. I think you're just bitching about a situation you cannot control and didn't plan.

Yes, it was telephone work for United Airlines, the pay was crap but I got to go to Japan for $350, first class both directions. The only trip I took and if I'd known they were going to lay me off when I got back, I would have stayed in Japan longer.

Do you know that there is a trend of "insourcing" for small businesses? You won't get rich but if you're pissed your $8 per hour job is gone there are plenty of them out there if you actually look.

 

[8537]

The stimulus tax cuts have not materialized. .

That will come to quite a surprise to the HR department around the nation that started holding a lower FICA rate.

The FICA rate reduction is on the employee side only. So please, educate us on the HR departments who are that clueless.

Right, so every American who pays FICA tax saw a tax cut, and that tax cut is processed in...

Get it now.....

The HR department of their employer!

 

[8537]

How?

By lowering interest rates.

Tax increases lowered interest rates?

Hmmm....

July 2, 1992 6.00
March 24, 1994 6.25
April 19, 1994 6.75
May 18, 1994 7.25
August 16, 1994 7.75
November 15, 1994 8.5
February 1, 1995 9.00
July 7, 1995 8.75
December 20, 1995 8.50
January 31, 1996 8.25

Prime Rate History

Oh, you mean the Federal Funds Rate or the Discount Rate.

Nope.

1992 3% on both
1993 No changes
1994 3 - 5.5 and 3-4.75

Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Try again.

Why are you quoting a bunch of fed-monitored and fed-controlled rates?

Do you know the first thing about economics and the impacts of government selling bonds? Hint: it increases interest rates.

Try again.

 

[asterism]

Typical Hopey Changey sycophant: Bush 4% Unemployment = BAAAAD!! Hopey Changey 9/10% Unemployment = GOOOOD!!. So don't bother attempting to reason with these people. Big waste of time & energy.

It's going to be funny watching Obama sell his 8% unemployment rate next year (under the best of lofty predictions) as good and then being slapped with his criticisms of Bush when unemployment was 6%.

Even funnier will be Krugman and other Progressives trying to sell the notion that "increasing improvement rates" are better.

Who knows if the mushy middle will be paying attention. These are the idiots who actually believed Obama was going to fix the economy and were't paying attention before September 2008.

 

[uscitizen]

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.
Increased govt spending created quite a few jobs.
The Iraq war created quite a few jobs as well.

It is totally asinine to say that all jobs created under Bush were attributed to his tax cuts.

 

[8537]

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.
Increased govt spending created quite a few jobs.
The Iraq war created quite a few jobs as well.

It is totally asinine to say that all jobs created under Bush were attributed to his tax cuts.

it's about as asinine as a similar claim being made here -that Reagan's 1981 tax cut was responsible for job growth under Clinton and Bush 2.

 

[uscitizen]

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.
Increased govt spending created quite a few jobs.
The Iraq war created quite a few jobs as well.

It is totally asinine to say that all jobs created under Bush were attributed to his tax cuts.

it's about as asinine as a similar claim being made here -that Reagan's 1981 tax cut was responsible for job growth under Clinton and Bush 2.

Pretty much. This tax cuts creating jobs thing is just a faith based myth thing.

It is just not proveable.

 

[asterism]

By lowering interest rates.

Tax increases lowered interest rates?

Hmmm....

July 2, 1992 6.00
March 24, 1994 6.25
April 19, 1994 6.75
May 18, 1994 7.25
August 16, 1994 7.75
November 15, 1994 8.5
February 1, 1995 9.00
July 7, 1995 8.75
December 20, 1995 8.50
January 31, 1996 8.25

Prime Rate History

Oh, you mean the Federal Funds Rate or the Discount Rate.

Nope.

1992 3% on both
1993 No changes
1994 3 - 5.5 and 3-4.75

Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Try again.

Why are you quoting a bunch of fed-monitored and fed-controlled rates?

Because you're saying the President had some control so I looked at the data on which rates he could actually (even if indirectly) control.

Do you know the first thing about economics and the impacts of government selling bonds? Hint: it increases interest rates.

Which ones?

Try again.

It looks like that ball is still in your court. You said President Clinton lowered interest rates. You have yet to substantiate that and you scoffed at the interest rates I presented. Of course since those interest rates increased and they are actually controlled by a quasi-government entity I assumed you were talking about them.

Are you saying Clinton controlled other interest rates?

 

[sinister59]

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

lets see how tax cuts from the 80s in addition with this has done

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

like McDonold is hiring thousands ,
do you fries with that ?

 

[8537]

Tax increases lowered interest rates?

Hmmm....



Prime Rate History

Oh, you mean the Federal Funds Rate or the Discount Rate.

Nope.

1992 3% on both
1993 No changes
1994 3 - 5.5 and 3-4.75

Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Try again.

Why are you quoting a bunch of fed-monitored and fed-controlled rates?

Because you're saying the President had some control so I looked at the data on which rates he could actually (even if indirectly) control.

The president has no control over the prime, fed funds or discount rate. He has some control over the size of the budget deficit, which in turn impacts interest rates.

Do you know the first thing about economics and the impacts of government selling bonds? Hint: it increases interest rates.

Which ones?

Any bonds sold by the government.

It looks like that ball is still in your court. You said President Clinton lowered interest rates. You have yet to substantiate that and you scoffed at the interest rates I presented. Of course since those interest rates increased and they are actually controlled by a quasi-government entity I assumed you were talking about them.

Are you saying Clinton controlled other interest rates?

I'm saying that decreasing deficits leads to lower interest rates. Of course, in the midst of an expansion the decreasing pressure on rates is going to be offset by concerns about inflation (and obviously not concerns about employment)

The fact that lower deficit spending puts downward pressure on interest rates is just a simple axiom of supply and demand.

 

[asterism]

That will come to quite a surprise to the HR department around the nation that started holding a lower FICA rate.

The FICA rate reduction is on the employee side only. So please, educate us on the HR departments who are that clueless.

Right, so every American who pays FICA tax saw a tax cut, and that tax cut is processed in...

Get it now.....

The HR department of their employer!

Check the wording again.

An extra $17 bucks a week for those who are employed is not going to create jobs an it also was not part of the stimulus.

 

[asterism]

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.
Increased govt spending created quite a few jobs.
The Iraq war created quite a few jobs as well.

It is totally asinine to say that all jobs created under Bush were attributed to his tax cuts.

A valid point.

It seems Obama has create or saved a whole lot of government jobs. What's the net?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What created the 23 million jobs in the Clinton presidency?

Tooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy......​

December 9, 2002​

"In 2002, Rep.-elect Michael Michaud, D-Maine, was a genuine exception among Democratic House candidates: a blue-collar, dues-paying union member who had worked in the paper mill for 28 years, who is pro-life and who, in a district previously represented by moderate Republicans, defeated Snowe's longtime chief of staff.

All this, mind you, after Michaud publicly embraced the Man Republicans Love to Hate, former president Bill Clinton.

Here, according to the estimable columnist E.J. Dionne, is what candidate Michaud had to say to Clinton in October before 2,500 Maine citizens in Augusta:

"The country's economy was in the ditch, and you made the hard decisions and turned things around. But the Republicans in Washington could never give you any credit. Oh no. They said it was not Bill Clinton who brought prosperity, it was the House Republicans and Alan Greenspan. Guess what? We still have the House Republicans. We still have Alan Greenspan. And where's the economy? Back in the ditch."

For the past decade, it has been a conservative crusade to: a) deny Bill Clinton's policies any credit for the historic prosperity the nation enjoyed during his presidency, or b) deny that those good old Clinton days were really that good at all.

First, when Clinton won the White House, the federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work and the nation's economic growth rate under the outgoing Republican administration was the lowest in more than half a century.

Clinton introduced his controversial economic plan that raised the income taxes of the richest 1.4 percent of Americans. We immediately heard from the Gloom and Doom congressional Republicans, every one of whom voted against the Clinton plan. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, announced, "This tax bill is a one-way ticket to a recession." House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich predicted, "This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."

What followed is unarguable: creation of more than 22 million new jobs; the nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the lowest unemployment rate among women in 40 years; and the lowest Hispanic and African-American unemployment rate in history. The nation went from the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history, while the average family's income went up more than $5,000."

Let's Look At The Record​