A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package

[Truthmatters]

even laffer would be laughing at you

 

[Faun]

And sure, in nominal figures, it increased 76%. That's less than Clinton"s 86% and more than Bush41's 20%, Bush43's 25% and Obama’s 10%

Note that in your data that those who had tax cuts tended to have higher revenue growth and the ones who didn't had the lowest. Obama has had the highest tax increases and is at the bottom of revenue growth. And he even started at the bottom of a depression.

Dude, you're obliterating the left's lie that tax cuts reduce revenue and tax increases raise revenue, well done!

What an idiotic observation.

The biggest revenues came under Clinton and he raised taxes. As far as Obama’s tax increase, that went into effect just a year ago. Prior to Obama’s increase, and while still operating under Bush's tax cuts, revenue fell 9%. In just one year alone since the tax increase, revenue is up 10% (in real numbers).

If anything, tax increases appear to bolster revenue increases.

 

[The T]

anyone who thinks tax cuts ALWAYS bring in more revenue if insane

Care to back that up with data?

And what is wrong with letting people keep what they've earned? And to hear people like you, you'd think all property belongs to Gubmint...and by their good graces they let YOU keep some of it...

YOU should have never come back...still stupid as ever.

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes

 

[Faun]

Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.

Articles debating the successes or failures of President Obama’s stimulus package should be of interest to NPQ Newswire readers, given that nonprofits were among the most important intermediaries for and deliverers of stimulus programs. In the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, TIME Magazine’s Michael Grunwald suggests that the stimulus was “certainly a political failure,” but “there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession.” Grunwald’s long article addresses the pros and cons of the stimulus, some of which is presented below.

PROS:





CONS:

The jobless rate is still over eight percent, the longest run of unemployment over eight percent since the Depression.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small!

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.

What success??

The economy still sucks and UE is at 7.9%.

That might look successfull to you, an Obamabot, but to me, a real person, it sucks.

I don't know where you get 7.9% from? Perhaps it was a typo? The unemployment rate is currently 7.0% and new figures are due to be released in 2 days

 

[Faun]

anyone who thinks tax cuts ALWAYS bring in more revenue if insane

Care to back that up with data?

And what is wrong with letting people keep what they've earned? And to hear people like you, you'd think all property belongs to Gubmint...and by their good graces they let YOU keep some of it...

YOU should have never come back...still stupid as ever.

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes

That chart dies not make your point. It's void of cause & effect as It shows revenue increasing whether taxes were lowered, raised, or left alone. It does show a decrease in the year following Reagan's Tax cut as well as during Bush's cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The chart also ignores other taxes beyond income taxes, like the ones Reagan increased; as well as other contributing factors.

Lemme guess ... that chart was put out by the Heritage Foundation?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Um okay what variables? What forces were at work that turned the economy exactly? Explain it.

Let's see....

We can start with the fact that there are several "economies" within an economy.

Next, if I tried to answer that question I'd be guilty of the same thing you are...trying to say what caused the economy to come out of a freefall. I've maintained all along, no one knows and saying the stimulus "did it" is bogus. Nobody really knows.

Why don't you start by looking at the fact that one of the reasons the economy was in freefall was the lack of credit and that our efforts to stop that were relatively unsuccessful.

Government takeover of banks hurt the speed at which things could have recovered (again, we'll never know just how much or how little).

There are about six dozen other key factors that also have an impact.

So stimulus added to our GDP by two percentage points and saved or created 2.5 million jobs but it has nothing to do with the recovery?

This "no one knows" crap you are spewing is ridiculous. This is economics we're talking about, not theoretical physics.

Pointing to government spending upticks in GDP growth as a measure of economic success is, at best, inaccurate, and I can prove it.

Are you willing to learn?

Horseshoe Casino, area ski resorts closed due to cold temperatures | cleveland.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

93% of economists say the stim worked.

conversation over

What do they mean by worked?

 

[The T]

anyone who thinks tax cuts ALWAYS bring in more revenue if insane

Care to back that up with data?

And what is wrong with letting people keep what they've earned? And to hear people like you, you'd think all property belongs to Gubmint...and by their good graces they let YOU keep some of it...

YOU should have never come back...still stupid as ever.

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes

That chart dies not make your point. It's void of cause & effect as It shows revenue increasing whether taxes were lowered, raised, or left alone. It does show a decrease in the year following Reagan's Tax cut as well as during Bush's cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The chart also ignores other taxes beyond income taxes, like the ones Reagan increased; as well as other contributing factors.

Lemme guess ... that chart was put out by the Heritage Foundation?

Translation: "I didn't READ the article..." Typical.

 

[Claudette]

Many of you believe The Recovery Act was a failure simply because it fell short of expectations, but that does not mean it was a failure - not by a long shot. Here is a non partisan article that examines the pros and cons of the stimulus and why, for the most part, it was a success. A success that indisputably saved our economy.



PROS:





CONS:



Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

So essentially what this article is saying that even though the stimulus fell short of expectations, it was still a success. Why? Because it turned our economy free fall (that began with Bush) into JOB GROWTH within months. It is the reason we are even in a recovery. What was the biggest flaw in it? IT WAS TOO SMALL which is actually just more proof that government can and does create jobs. It is also further proof Republicanism is ruining our country. They are reason it was too small!

Is the unemployment rate still high? Of course, how do we fix it? More DEMAND side economic policies like The Recovery Act. Supply side has proven to be a failure. Tax cuts do more harm than good.

What success??

The economy still sucks and UE is at 7.9%.

That might look successfull to you, an Obamabot, but to me, a real person, it sucks.

I don't know where you get 7.9% from? Perhaps it was a typo? The unemployment rate is currently 7.0% and new figures are due to be released in 2 days

Your right. Typo.

7% is nothing to write home about any more that 7.9% is.

Nope. I'd say the economy is still in the tank and that 7% is reality is around 14%.

Not anything I'd be bragging about if I were Barry and the Dems.

 

[kaz]

And sure, in nominal figures, it increased 76%. That's less than Clinton"s 86% and more than Bush41's 20%, Bush43's 25% and Obama’s 10%

Note that in your data that those who had tax cuts tended to have higher revenue growth and the ones who didn't had the lowest. Obama has had the highest tax increases and is at the bottom of revenue growth. And he even started at the bottom of a depression.

Dude, you're obliterating the left's lie that tax cuts reduce revenue and tax increases raise revenue, well done!

What an idiotic observation.

The biggest revenues came under Clinton and he raised taxes. As far as Obama’s tax increase, that went into effect just a year ago. Prior to Obama’s increase, and while still operating under Bush's tax cuts, revenue fell 9%. In just one year alone since the tax increase, revenue is up 10% (in real numbers).

If anything, tax increases appear to bolster revenue increases.

What an idiotic observation.

Obama's tax increases did not take affect a year ago, he ended the tax cuts for job producers early in his administration and has endlessly increased taxes through his administration. A year ago he did it again. He started at the bottom of a recession when tax revenues were at their lowest. Yet another failure.

As for Clinton, he says personally that he raised taxes too much and it harmed the economy. Then he had several tax cuts.

Your conclusion tax increases raised revenue from this data is comical, it shows the complete reverse. The field of economics also contradicts that tax increases raise revenue in the long run as well. But what do facts have to do with the liberal religion?

 

[Toro]

Note that in your data that those who had tax cuts tended to have higher revenue growth and the ones who didn't had the lowest. Obama has had the highest tax increases and is at the bottom of revenue growth. And he even started at the bottom of a depression.

Dude, you're obliterating the left's lie that tax cuts reduce revenue and tax increases raise revenue, well done!

What an idiotic observation.

The biggest revenues came under Clinton and he raised taxes. As far as Obama’s tax increase, that went into effect just a year ago. Prior to Obama’s increase, and while still operating under Bush's tax cuts, revenue fell 9%. In just one year alone since the tax increase, revenue is up 10% (in real numbers).

If anything, tax increases appear to bolster revenue increases.

What an idiotic observation.

Obama's tax increases did not take affect a year ago, he ended the tax cuts for job producers early in his administration and has endlessly increased taxes through his administration. A year ago he did it again. He started at the bottom of a recession when tax revenues were at their lowest. Yet another failure.

As for Clinton, he says personally that he raised taxes too much and it harmed the economy. Then he had several tax cuts.

Your conclusion tax increases raised revenue from this data is comical, it shows the complete reverse. The field of economics also contradicts that tax increases raise revenue in the long run as well. But what do facts have to do with the liberal religion?

Tax increases do raise revenues to a point. It's a relative issue, not an absolute one. And it depends on the tax.

Income tax cuts from levels that are not extremely high, ie 70%, lowers tax revenues than otherwise would have been.
[MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]

 

[kaz]

What an idiotic observation.

The biggest revenues came under Clinton and he raised taxes. As far as Obama’s tax increase, that went into effect just a year ago. Prior to Obama’s increase, and while still operating under Bush's tax cuts, revenue fell 9%. In just one year alone since the tax increase, revenue is up 10% (in real numbers).

If anything, tax increases appear to bolster revenue increases.

What an idiotic observation.

Obama's tax increases did not take affect a year ago, he ended the tax cuts for job producers early in his administration and has endlessly increased taxes through his administration. A year ago he did it again. He started at the bottom of a recession when tax revenues were at their lowest. Yet another failure.

As for Clinton, he says personally that he raised taxes too much and it harmed the economy. Then he had several tax cuts.

Your conclusion tax increases raised revenue from this data is comical, it shows the complete reverse. The field of economics also contradicts that tax increases raise revenue in the long run as well. But what do facts have to do with the liberal religion?

Tax increases do raise revenues to a point. It's a relative issue, not an absolute one. And it depends on the tax.

Income tax cuts from levels that are not extremely high, ie 70%, lowers tax revenues than otherwise would have been.
[MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]

I agree, two comments

1) I said "in the long run" because initially higher taxes tend to raise government revenue, but that narrows as people and companies learn to avoid them and they do economic damage reducing economic activity.

2) You're right that increasing low tax rates does increase revenue, but we are so far from that I didn't state that. But since you bring it up, that's true.

Studies have shown interesting that the Bible had it right with their 10% figure. Overall through history, people consider 10% taxes to be reasonable and at or below that rate do nothing to avoid them. Even at times delight in paying them as they consider government at that level reasonable and necessary. However the further above 10% they go, the more they are considered unfair and people work harder and harder to avoid them. We passed 10% a long, long time ago.

 

[Toro]

Greg Mankiw, who worked for Bush, concluded in his work that every $1 in tax cuts reduced tax revenues by 85 cents. What this means is that marginal levels of economic activity are higher with tax cuts, meaning the economy is bigger with the cut, but absolute levels of revenues are lower.

 

[kaz]

Greg Mankiw, who worked for Bush, concluded in his work that every $1 in tax cuts reduced tax revenues by 85 cents. What this means is that marginal levels of economic activity are higher with tax cuts, meaning the economy is bigger with the cut, but absolute levels of revenues are lower.

That's in year one. It only takes about 3 years for tax cuts to increase revenue. Again per our prior point, that is referring to taxes at our current high rates, not taxes at low rates. The greatest empires and richest governments in history taxed at a rate about 10%. Below that they didn't have the money to build an empire, above that people spent more and more time evading taxes than creating economic activity. A huge factor in this country today.

The best book I've read on taxes is Charles Adams, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization." He retells the history of man from the perspective of taxes including the rise and fall of the major empires. It's fascinating because I know a lot of history and he tells the story of everything I knew about but wasn't aware of how taxes had so directly affected it, such as the British defeat of the Armada.

In terms of retelling history, "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jarod Diamond was also a great book. Though that one had nothing to do with taxes.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And now the game is over. The great American Consumer is Dead. His job is in China, and his country is owned by a very small group of corporations (and their investors) who fund elections, staff government and control Washington.

Not hardly.

News: PS4 sells one million units on first day - CVG US

 

[OODA_Loop]

Ford US Sales up 11 Percent in 2013 - ABC News

Ford's U.S. sales jumped 11 percent in 2013 to nearly 2.5 million — a six-year high — as a stronger economy boosted pickup truck sales.

The Dearborn, MIch., company sold 763,402 F-Series pickups last year, up 18 percent over 2012. One in every three vehicles Ford sold in the U.S. was an F-Series.

 

[Truthmatters]

93% of economists say the stim worked.

conversation over

What do they mean by worked?

increased economic activity.

WORKED In every way


93%


conversation OVER

 

[OODA_Loop]

U.S. new-home sales jump to 5-year high - Economic Report - MarketWatch

 

[Faun]

What success??

The economy still sucks and UE is at 7.9%.

That might look successfull to you, an Obamabot, but to me, a real person, it sucks.

I don't know where you get 7.9% from? Perhaps it was a typo? The unemployment rate is currently 7.0% and new figures are due to be released in 2 days

Your right. Typo.

7% is nothing to write home about any more that 7.9% is.

Nope. I'd say the economy is still in the tank and that 7% is reality is around 14%.

Not anything I'd be bragging about if I were Barry and the Dems.

Umm, you do know that at this very same point in Reagan's term, the unemployment rate was also at 7%, don't you? And the unemployment rate wasn't as high for him when he started as it was for Obama.

Just sayin'

 

[Faun]

Note that in your data that those who had tax cuts tended to have higher revenue growth and the ones who didn't had the lowest. Obama has had the highest tax increases and is at the bottom of revenue growth. And he even started at the bottom of a depression.

Dude, you're obliterating the left's lie that tax cuts reduce revenue and tax increases raise revenue, well done!

What an idiotic observation.

The biggest revenues came under Clinton and he raised taxes. As far as Obama’s tax increase, that went into effect just a year ago. Prior to Obama’s increase, and while still operating under Bush's tax cuts, revenue fell 9%. In just one year alone since the tax increase, revenue is up 10% (in real numbers).

If anything, tax increases appear to bolster revenue increases.

What an idiotic observation.

Obama's tax increases did not take affect a year ago, he ended the tax cuts for job producers early in his administration and has endlessly increased taxes through his administration. A year ago he did it again. He started at the bottom of a recession when tax revenues were at their lowest. Yet another failure.

As for Clinton, he says personally that he raised taxes too much and it harmed the economy. Then he had several tax cuts.

Your conclusion tax increases raised revenue from this data is comical, it shows the complete reverse. The field of economics also contradicts that tax increases raise revenue in the long run as well. But what do facts have to do with the liberal religion?

Umm, what tax cuts did Obama end early in his presidency??

He let the Bush tax cuts expire one year ago. And since that time, revenue is up 10%.

And no one brought in more revenue than Clinton. And he raised taxes right after taking office -- which came on the heels of Bush41 raising taxes. The tax cuts under Clinton you're talking about didn't occur until 1997 and was a cut in capital gains taxes from 28% to 20%. By that time, there was already a 23% gain in revenue; compared to Reagan who saw only 25% in 8 years.