Republican Funded Study Shows Taxing the Wealthy Does Not Hurt Economy

[Rshermr]

A recent Republican Study meant to show that taxing the wealthy, or as Republicans call them, the job makers, would hurt the economy, including unemployment. The results came back. the republicans looked at the results, and then they shelved the report. Because, the report showed just the opposite of what they intended for it to show. It showed that taxing the wealth did not hurt the economy at all. In fact it showed it did the opposite.

Here is the link:
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance

 

[Wiseacre]

A recent Republican Study meant to show that taxing the wealthy, or as Republicans call them, the job makers, would hurt the economy, including unemployment. The results came back. the republicans looked at the results, and then they shelved the report. Because, the report showed just the opposite of what they intended for it to show. It showed that taxing the wealth did not hurt the economy at all. In fact it showed it did the opposite.

Here is the link:
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance

You sir are an ideological fool/tool and a liar as well. The study in question was not a republican one, it was not requested by them, and they didn't shelve anything, although they did ask the CRS to take it off their website, which the CRS did. The link says nothing about any of that stuff, you made all that crap up, or maybe you copied it from the usual far left loon websites you adore.

Turns out the author of the study did it on his own, for political reasons. No one requested it, the guy was a democrat of course, a former Clinton employee, and the study was flawed in a number of ways. In other words, total bullshit, just like the crap you post. He is almost a big an asshole as you are.

 

[kiwiman127]

But,,,,,,,

 

[Wiseacre]

But,,,,,,,

Nice chart --- but it proves nothing. Those job creation numbers for 35% are pretty much fucked up by the last 4 years of Obamanomics. Do you want to posit that the Great Recession and resulting UE was soley due to the Bush Tax Cuts? Somebody like Rshermr would, he's an ideologue. Didn't think you would though.

About those high rates in the 80s and 90s, not a lot of people actually paid those rates, certainly not on most of their income. Any person who thinks we could return to those rates is really foolish. There are many studies that indicate that behavior changes when tax rates change, raise rates and rich folks find ways to avoid paying more, and that means less economic growth. You wanna debate that?

 

[kiwiman127]

But,,,,,,,

Nice chart --- but it proves nothing. Those job creation numbers for 35% are pretty much fucked up by the last 4 years of Obamanomics. Do you want to posit that the Great Recession and resulting UE was soley due to the Bush Tax Cuts? Somebody like Rshermr would, he's an ideologue. Didn't think you would though.

About those high rates in the 80s and 90s, not a lot of people actually paid those rates, certainly not on most of their income. Any person who thinks we could return to those rates is really foolish. There are many studies that indicate that behavior changes when tax rates change, raise rates and rich folks find ways to avoid paying more, and that means less economic growth. You wanna debate that?

I think no matter what the rates are, people (and not just the rich) are always looking for ways to pay less.

 

[Wiseacre]

But,,,,,,,

Nice chart --- but it proves nothing. Those job creation numbers for 35% are pretty much fucked up by the last 4 years of Obamanomics. Do you want to posit that the Great Recession and resulting UE was soley due to the Bush Tax Cuts? Somebody like Rshermr would, he's an ideologue. Didn't think you would though.

About those high rates in the 80s and 90s, not a lot of people actually paid those rates, certainly not on most of their income. Any person who thinks we could return to those rates is really foolish. There are many studies that indicate that behavior changes when tax rates change, raise rates and rich folks find ways to avoid paying more, and that means less economic growth. You wanna debate that?

I think no matter what the rates are, people (and not just the rich) are always looking for ways to pay less.

Absolutely. But the rich guys have more resources to help them reduce their taxes than the average Joe does. The main point is, they are not puting as much money into investments in the economy as they might have if the tax rate was lower. The question is, how much less and what is the impact. The answer is, it depends on a lot of things. When Clinton was president the impact was less cuz the economy was booming; I think the impact today would be more negative. At one time both Clinton and Obama said basically the same thing, but of course that was before it became politically advantageous to demonize the rich.

 

[Rshermr]

You sir are an ideological fool/tool and a liar as we

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

The study in question was not a republican one, it was not requested by them, and they didn't shelve anything, although they did ask the CRS to take it off their website, which the CRS did.

Did not shelve it? Guess that depends on what you call shelve.
" The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/b...al-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html
So, when you say it was taken down by the Congressional Research Center you miss the point that they did so based on a "request from Senate Republicans. Under no circumstances would it have been taken down otherwise. Because, you see, no democrats requested it be taken down, nor did they have anything to do with taking it down. The republican senators pressured the director of the CRS to take it down, and he did. Because the repubs asked for the report. Therefore, you see, the director felt that they had the right to take it down. You see, wiseacre, the CRS does not do studies for the fun of it. Congressmen must request it. And dems new nothing about it until it was posted on the congressional web site. Now, there are only republicans and democratic leadership that could ask for such a study. So, since it was a surprise to the dems, who do you suppose asked for the report?

"The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership"
Now, since the economic team that produced the report did not want to take it down, why do you suppose they did so, wiseacre. Pretty obvious, is it not.

More fuel to the Yep, the repubs got it taken down, is:
"That’s not how these debates are supposed to go. Criticize the report. Dismiss it. Ignore it. Release your own. But don’t get it pulled."
The tax report Senate Republicans don’t want you to see

so, wiseacre says

The link says nothing about any of that stuff, you made all that crap up, or maybe you copied it from the usual far left loon websites you adore.

So, now you also have the NY Times article and the Washington Post piece. Sorry, there are no far left loon sites that I ever use. Don't frequent them and don't quote them. But I see some comments of yours that must have come from your favorite bat shit crazy web sites.

Turns out the author of the study did it on his own, for political reasons. No one requested it, the guy was a democrat of course, a former Clinton employee, and the study was flawed in a number of ways. In other words, total bullshit, just like the crap you post. He is almost a big an asshole as you are.

Sorry, but if you are saying that the author of the report did the report on his own, that would be a bald faced lie. The CRS does not do reports or studies on their own. They must be requested by congress. Nice try, though. The repubs did put pressure on the director of the CRS to take the report down from it's site, which is obvious, to anyone but a con tool like you. By the way, that was the only place that it existed. And that site was not available to anyone but congressional members. So, why pressure anyone to take it down? Obvious enough, they did not want it to get out to the public. And no, senate democrats had no hand in taking it down. As a matter of fact they did not want it taken down.
So, you have decided the director, who took it down, is a democrat and an asshole. That would be your opinion. Hell, I am sure you are an asshole. But it really makes no difference what your opinion is, or what my opinion is.

Your opinion of the validity of the report is typical of con tools, also. You are doing what cons also do when impartial services produce a report that you do not like. Attack, attack, attack. Not on validity, because the economists who did this study stand by it. And they, my poor con tool, are much more believable than republican politicians who do not like the results of the stucy. Or any other politician, for that matter. And, by the way, wiseacre, they sure as hell know more about the study and its findings than you. Because you are an economic wasteland.

 

[Rshermr]

So, wiseacre says:

Absolutely. But the rich guys have more resources to help them reduce their taxes than the average Joe does. The main point is, they are not puting as much money into investments in the economy as they might have if the tax rate was lower.

And your proof of that statement is???? the report refuted that statement. History refutes that statement. So, you must have some impartial study that shows you are correct. Oh, hell, no you don't.

When Clinton was president the impact was less cuz the economy was booming;

Really? I was there. And Clinton's favorite saying during the campaign was "it's the economy, stupid". remember? Do you suppose he was saying that because the bush 1 economy was booming? Unemployment was very close to where it is today. And, after the tax increase, unemploynent went down, month after month, year after year. And the economy went nuts after the tax increase.
http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

I think the impact today would be more negative. At one time both Clinton and Obama said basically the same thing, but of course that was before it became politically advantageous to demonize the rich.

And that is not true. If you have some proof, lets see it. But, it is the dogma that the bat crap crazy con web sites use. the rest of that sentence is pure don dogma. That is to say, dogma. Perhaps you would like to show me a statement by this pres that demonizes the rich. Perhaps that is why you do not use links.

 

[Wiseacre]

You sir are an ideological fool/tool and a liar as we

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

The study in question was not a republican one, it was not requested by them, and they didn't shelve anything, although they did ask the CRS to take it off their website, which the CRS did.

Did not shelve it? Guess that depends on what you call shelve.

You said it was a republican study. It was not. Nothing in your link or anywhere says who requested the study, but I did find this:

Mr. Hungerford tells us the study wasn't requested by a Member of Congress, so perhaps it was his idea. You won't be surprised to learn that Mr. Hungerford has donated to the Obama campaign and Senate Democrats and worked as an economist at the White House budget office under Bill Clinton.

Republicans understandably objected to this partisan exercise, especially because the study has statistical design flaws and ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies that have found a significant relationship between cuts in tax rates and the pace of capital formation, investment and economic growth.

CRS officials then pulled the report from its website. In a Sept. 28 email to a Republican Senate staffer, CRS deputy director Colleen Shogan wrote that "I decided to remove the Hungerford report from the CRS website for now." She added that she had given Mr. Hungerford's manager, Don Marples, "a list of concerns I would want addressed in a future version" and that "in particular, I want a better, more robust defense of the methodology in the paper."

TaxProf Blog: Dems, GOP Trade Barbs After CRS Pulls Report on Tax Rates and Economic Growth

I found nothing else that says one way or the other who requested the study. Which means you lied out your ass.

" The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/b...al-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html
So, when you say it was taken down by the Congressional Research Center you miss the point that they did so based on a "request from Senate Republicans. Under no circumstances would it have been taken down otherwise. Because, you see, no democrats requested it be taken down, nor did they have anything to do with taking it down. The republican senators pressured the director of the CRS to take it down, and he did. Because the repubs asked for the report. A baldfaced lie. Prove it. Therefore, you see, the director felt that they had the right to take it down. You see, wiseacre, the CRS does not do studies for the fun of it. Congressmen must request it. Apparently not. You think the NY Times wouldn't have mentioned that if it was requested by one or more repubs? Please. And dems new nothing about it until it was posted on the congressional web site. Now, there are only republicans and democratic leadership that could ask for such a study. So, since it was a surprise to the dems, who do you suppose asked for the report?

That would be nobody, Hungerford did it on his own for political purposes. You do know he has donated thousands of dollars to the democrats, right?

"The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership"
Now, since the economic team that produced the report did not want to take it down, why do you suppose they did so, wiseacre. Pretty obvious, is it not.

Didn't want to be embaraased by their lack of unbiased professionalism and integrity?

More fuel to the Yep, the repubs got it taken down, is:
"That’s not how these debates are supposed to go. Criticize the report. Dismiss it. Ignore it. Release your own. But don’t get it pulled."
The tax report Senate Republicans don’t want you to see

so, wiseacre says

The link says nothing about any of that stuff, you made all that crap up, or maybe you copied it from the usual far left loon websites you adore.

So, now you also have the NY Times article and the Washington Post piece. Sorry, there are no far left loon sites that I ever use. Don't frequent them and don't quote them. But I see some comments of yours that must have come from your favorite bat shit crazy web sites.

Turns out the author of the study did it on his own, for political reasons. No one requested it, the guy was a democrat of course, a former Clinton employee, and the study was flawed in a number of ways. In other words, total bullshit, just like the crap you post. He is almost a big an asshole as you are.

Sorry, but if you are saying that the author of the report did the report on his own, that would be a bald faced lie. The CRS does not do reports or studies on their own. LIE. They must be requested by congress. LIE. Nice try, though. The repubs did put pressure on the director of the CRS to take the report down from it's site, which is obvious, to anyone but a con tool like you. By the way, that was the only place that it existed. And that site was not available to anyone but congressional members. How did the report get out then? Maybe when the democrats tried to make political hay out of it? So, why pressure anyone to take it down? Obvious enough, they did not want it to get out to the public. And no, senate democrats had no hand in taking it down. As a matter of fact they did not want it taken down.

Not denying the repubs wanted it taken down, but that decision was made by the CRS. Maybe cuz the report was a biased POS that reflected badly on the CRS' reputation for being bipartisan.

So, you have decided the director, who took it down, is a democrat and an asshole. LIE. That would be your opinion. Hell, I am sure you are an asshole. But it really makes no difference what your opinion is, or what my opinion is.

Don't recall saying anything about the director, another one of yourlies. But I'm pretty sure who and what Hungerford is.

Your opinion of the validity of the report is typical of con tools, also. You are doing what cons also do when impartial services produce a report that you do not like. Attack, attack, attack. Not on validity, because the economists who did this study stand by it. And they, my poor con tool, are much more believable than republican politicians who do not like the results of the stucy. Or any other politician, for that matter. And, by the way, wiseacre, they sure as hell know more about the study and its findings than you. Because you are an economic wasteland.

Tell you what, I can live with opinions that differ from my own. But your crap is so off the wall wrong and filled with lies and misinformation that it's hard to ignore. However, I'll give it a shot. I'm done with you, you ain't worth the time and trouble.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't believe in study or data or stuff like that. Too close to "science".

 

[Rshermr]

So. wiseacre says:
You said it was a republican study. It was not. Nothing in your link or anywhere says who requested the study, but I did find this:

Mr. Hungerford tells us the study wasn't requested by a Member of Congress, so perhaps it was his idea.

You won't be surprised to learn that Mr. Hungerford has donated to the Obama campaign and Senate Democrats and worked as an economist at the White House budget office under Bill Clinton.

Because a person donates to one party or another does not indicate that the study he has responsibility for is prejudiced. And only the cons would come up with that piece of information. And only a con tool like you would think it meant anything. Dipshit.

Republicans understandably objected to this partisan exercise, especially because the study has statistical design flaws and ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies that have found a significant relationship between cuts in tax rates and the pace of capital formation, investment and economic growth.

CRS officials then pulled the report from its website. In a Sept. 28 email to a Republican Senate staffer, CRS deputy director Colleen Shogan wrote that "I decided to remove the Hungerford report from the CRS website for now." She added that she had given Mr. Hungerford's manager, Don Marples, "a list of concerns I would want addressed in a future version" and that "in particular, I want a better, more robust defense of the methodology in the paper."

And your source for this quote seems to be missing, con tool.

I think you may want to apologize for the rest of your attempted post. Because you are posting republican opinions. You know, "

Republicans understandably objected to this partisan exercise, especially because the study has statistical design flaws and ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies that have found a significant relationship between cuts in tax rates and the pace of capital formation, investment and economic growth

That is quotations from republican POLITICIANS. Get the difference, dipshit. You are posting republican politicians. There are no economists independent of the republican organization who agree with that bit of drivel. The economists who did the study are impartial, And they stand behind the study. So, go post all the repub politicians you want. I can quote some dem politicians who would refute what you your repubs say. But I would not. Because they are not partial. And that would lack integrity. Look it up, dipshit.

How did the report get out then? Maybe when the democrats tried to make political hay out of it?

Why are you so concerned about how it got out? Not at all concerned about why it was shelved, under pressure from repubs. But apparently you think it is wrong that it was provided to the press.
Read the links that I provided. You will get your answer.

Then, from the mouth of the con tool Wiseacre comes this gem:

Not denying the repubs wanted it taken down, but that decision was made by the CRS. Maybe cuz the report was a biased POS that reflected badly on the CRS' reputation for being bipartisan.

Again, you would say it was biased as a con tool. No impartial source agrees with you. The CRS economists disagree with you. Only repub talking heads and repub politicians agree with you. So, we can decide. Agree with repub politicians, or a con tool, or with economists.
And, no, try as you and other con tools may, the CRS is not, and is not looked at, as anything but bipartisan. However, con tools and republican politicians ARE looked at as not being bipartisan. Dipshit.

Don't recall saying anything about the director, another one of yourlies. But I'm pretty sure who and what Hungerford is.

Well, of course you are sure. You are a con tool. He is just a leading economic consultant with a PHD in Economics. But you, wiseacre. You are a con tool. And fully believe the republican politician version.

So, what we have is a report that repubs hoped would support their fantacy of tax increases hurting the economy, and tax decreases helping a bad economy. Instead, the report showed the opposite. And repubs hate it. And did all they could to pressure the crs to take the report down. And the con tools are lying like rugs to make it look like the fault of the CRS. Tacky, and full of their typical lies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they shelved the report.

dear, all studies don't give correct results for 1000's of reasons. Do you think all of Hitler Stalin and Mao's studies showed they would kill 150 million???

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a report that repubs hoped would support their fantacy of tax increases hurting the economy, and tax decreases helping a bad economy.

of course it cant be a "fantacy" when growing the government sector and shrinking the private sector can only harm the economy by harming the sector that invents new products and helps the economy!!

 

[Rshermr]

Interestingly, Reagan grew the government substantially during his time in office. Economy did quite well when he did this. Raising taxes 11 times, borrowing like crazy, and increasing the national debt by three times, while making the government larger.

 

[The Rabbi]

A recent Republican Study meant to show that taxing the wealthy, or as Republicans call them, the job makers, would hurt the economy, including unemployment. The results came back. the republicans looked at the results, and then they shelved the report. Because, the report showed just the opposite of what they intended for it to show. It showed that taxing the wealth did not hurt the economy at all. In fact it showed it did the opposite.

Here is the link:
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance

You sir are an ideological fool/tool and a liar as well. The study in question was not a republican one, it was not requested by them, and they didn't shelve anything, although they did ask the CRS to take it off their website, which the CRS did. The link says nothing about any of that stuff, you made all that crap up, or maybe you copied it from the usual far left loon websites you adore.

Turns out the author of the study did it on his own, for political reasons. No one requested it, the guy was a democrat of course, a former Clinton employee, and the study was flawed in a number of ways. In other words, total bullshit, just like the crap you post. He is almost a big an asshole as you are.

What else would you expect from the resident Master of Bullshit Assertion (MBA)?

 

[Rshermr]

A recent Republican Study meant to show that taxing the wealthy, or as Republicans call them, the job makers, would hurt the economy, including unemployment. The results came back. the republicans looked at the results, and then they shelved the report. Because, the report showed just the opposite of what they intended for it to show. It showed that taxing the wealth did not hurt the economy at all. In fact it showed it did the opposite.

Here is the link:
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance

You sir are an ideological fool/tool and a liar as well. The study in question was not a republican one, it was not requested by them, and they didn't shelve anything, although they did ask the CRS to take it off their website, which the CRS did. The link says nothing about any of that stuff, you made all that crap up, or maybe you copied it from the usual far left loon websites you adore.

Turns out the author of the study did it on his own, for political reasons. No one requested it, the guy was a democrat of course, a former Clinton employee, and the study was flawed in a number of ways. In other words, total bullshit, just like the crap you post. "

What else would you expect from the resident Master of Bullshit Assertion (MBA)?

Funny. Wiseacre believes that the author of the study did the study on his own. The study was done by a team of economists. The author of the study simply published the findings. And, after repub complaints, and the study being taken down, the economic team all still stand behind their findings. Only repubs complain. So, wiseacre believes in repubs over economists for his decision as to who is correct and who is wrong. Funny how that works. And not knowing Hungerford, has decided that Mr. Hungerford is an asshole. Typical con. Never, ever post something that cons do not like, regardless of the evidence. Or they will attack you personally. As they typically do.

And by the way, why the study was taken down is going to be announced at some point. So far, all we know is that it was taken down.
"A person with knowledge of the deliberations, who requested anonymity, said the Sept. 28 decision to withdraw the report was made against the advice of the research service’s economics division, and that Mr. Hungerford stood by its findings."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/b...al-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Interestingly, Reagan grew the government substantially during his time in office. Economy did quite well when he did this. Raising taxes 11 times, borrowing like crazy, and increasing the national debt by three times, while making the government larger.

Nice try genius liberal but the government was tiny then compared to now, and when the Carter 20% inflation depression was cured there was huge pent up growth potential unleashed!!

Common sense will tell anyone that when you shrink the private sector with taxes you shrink the ability for it to grow the economy with new products.

Since government libturd bureaucrats cant invent new products they can't grow the economy, only shrink it!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, wiseacre believes in repubs over economists

dear, Republicans are economists who believe the data shows that the Chineses are no longer starving to death under liberalism, that Florida is doing better than Cuba, etc etc!! East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.

 

[Rshermr]

the national debt was tiny. but reagan tripled it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the national debt was tiny. but reagan tripled it.

dear, someone can be in debt $1 and triple it to $3 and its still not going to do much damage.

See why we say slow??????