The Tax Cut Myth

[red states rule]

You've done none of the above. No intelligent person on this board with say otherwise.

Other than perhaps Edward, you're the least respected person on this board. Everyone thinks you're an idiot -- how does that feel?

Copy/paste some more RNC talking points, parrot.

That is the usual reaction to the libs and Bush haters who I have stepped over and demolished

Go stick pins in your GWB doll - that should make you feel better

 

[JeffWartman]

That is the usual reaction to the libs and Bush haters who I have stepped over and demolished

Go stick pins in your GWB doll - that should make you feel better

"stepped over and demolished"?

hahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[Toro]

Billy did not have 9-11 (a trillion dollar hit to the economy), high oil prices, a war on two fronts, and several Cat 5 storms hitting the Gulf

The Bush economy has, and will continue to, very well

Much to the dismay of the Bush haters

That may be true.

But the point is that tax increases didn't harm the economy.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

That may be true.

But the point is that tax increases didn't harm the economy.

Eh, he may actually have a point, whether he realizes it or not. There's a problem with using historical evidence to prove that economic policy X was good/bad, namely that you can't really rewind history and replay things with one change, like a scientific experiment. The economy might have done well because of, or despite, policy X.

I would say that tax cuts are good for the economy, all other things being equal, because it leaves money in the hands of the more productive private sector. I wouldn't use the past 6 years as evidence, though. We cut some taxes, but then kept spending up, and papered over it with borrowing and loose money from the fed. It's sort of like when republicans brag about the Reagan tax cuts, but then leave out the part where other taxes went up.

 

[Toro]

Eh, he may actually have a point, whether he realizes it or not. There's a problem with using historical evidence to prove that economic policy X was good/bad, namely that you can't really rewind history and replay things with one change, like a scientific experiment. The economy might have done well because of, or despite, policy X.

Exactly.

That's what I was trying to say.

However, the American economy has grown pretty steady over time, whether taxes went up or down. That is a testament to the American people whereas political people anoint too much praise or blame for whatever policies implemented at the time.

I would say that tax cuts are good for the economy, all other things being equal, because it leaves money in the hands of the more productive private sector. I wouldn't use the past 6 years as evidence, though. We cut some taxes, but then kept spending up, and papered over it with borrowing and loose money from the fed. It's sort of like when republicans brag about the Reagan tax cuts, but then leave out the part where other taxes went up.

I would say that going into the recession, the tax cuts did help, as did the increased spending, which is really Keynesian economics dressed up by the supply-siders. But what should happen is that when the economy recovered, taxes should have increased and/or spending cut, which didn't happen.

 

[red states rule]

That may be true.

But the point is that tax increases didn't harm the economy.

Is that why the economy was heading into recession when Pres Bush took over?

I will never understand why libs think it is great idea to steal more and more of other people money via higher and higher taxes

 

[Toro]

Is that why the economy was heading into recession when Pres Bush took over?

No.

The economy was heading into a recession because the Fed increased the Fed Funds rate to 6.5% to quell an overheated economy and a bubble in the stock market.

 

[red states rule]

No.

The economy was heading into a recession because the Fed increased the Fed Funds rate to 6.5% to quell an overheated economy and a bubble in the stock market.

Oh, it had nothing to do with inflated stock prices and the corporatecooking of the books that happened uder Bill?

 

[Toro]

Oh, it had nothing to do with inflated stock prices and the corporatecooking of the books that happened uder Bill?

Yes, I said it had to do with the Bubble.

As for the accounting scams, perhaps you should cast an eye towards the corporate lobbyists and their Republican lapdogs (and California Democrats) in Congress who kept attacking the underfunded/understaffed SEC.

But the point, as I'll say again, is that taxes went up under Slick Willie and so did the economy.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, I said it had to do with the Bubble.

As for the accounting scams, perhaps you should cast an eye towards the corporate lobbyists and their Republican lapdogs (and California Democrats) in Congress who kept attacking the underfunded/understaffed SEC.

But the point, as I'll say again, is that taxes went up under Slick Willie and so did the economy.

The only reason Clinton had a good economy was it was built of fraud

If tax increases are great for the eocnomy lets go back to the great days of Pres Peanut Carter - the top rate was 70%

Why do libs have this obsession with robbing people of the money they earn?

 

[Toro]

The only reason Clinton had a good economy was it was built of fraud

This is not a serious comment.

If tax increases are great for the eocnomy lets go back to the great days of Pres Peanut Carter - the top rate was 70%

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll do so here RSR

I ran the numbers from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid

US growth rates, annualized

1930-39 0.9%
1940-49 5.6%
1950-59 4.1%
1960-69 4.4%
1970-79 3.2%
1980-89 3.0%
1990-99 3.1%
2000-04 2.6%

Looking at different time periods though, we see a little different picture

1935-44 9.9%
1945-54 1.3%
1955-64 3.8%
1965-74 3.7%
1975-84 3.0%
1985-94 3.0%
1995-04 3.2%

Here's what consumption looked like since the Depression

1929-35 -1.2%
1935-44 3.9%
1945-54 4.3%
1955-64 3.9%
1965-74 4.1%
1975-84 3.2%
1985-94 3.2%
1995-04 3.7%

Or, looking at through the prism of 1980 as being a demarcation

1930-39 1.0%
1940-49 4.0%
1950-59 3.7%
1960-69 4.4%
1970-79 3.5%
1980-89 3.3%
1990-99 3.3%
2000-04 3.3%

As any macro econ 101 student learns, GDP = C + I + G + NX

So let's look at investment and government spending

Investment

1930-39 -1.6%
1940-49 7.6%
1950-59 5.2%
1960-69 5.5%
1970-79 4.7%
1980-89 2.5%
1990-99 5.9%
2000-04 2.0%

or

1935-74 6.0%
1975-04 4.2%

Government spending

1930-39 5.0% (War, New Deal)
1940-49 7.5% (War)
1950-59 5.8% (GOP President)
1960-69 3.8% (Democrat)
1970-79 0.5% (Nixon/Carter, decleration from Vietnam war spending)
1980-89 3.1% (Reagan/Bush)
1990-99 1.3% (Slick Willie, Dem)
2000-04 3.0% (W, GOP)

So much for the GOP being the stewards of the purse strings. Spending has accelerated faster under Republican administrations since WWII than Democrat.

Or

1946-74 3.4%
1975-04 2.3%

 

[Truthmatters]

Thank you Toro ,I dont know how the Myth stays alive?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Government spending

1930-39 5.0% (War, New Deal)
1940-49 7.5% (War)
1950-59 5.8% (GOP President)
1960-69 3.8% (Democrat)
1970-79 0.5% (Nixon/Carter, decleration from Vietnam war spending)
1980-89 3.1% (Reagan/Bush)
1990-99 1.3% (Slick Willie, Dem)
2000-04 3.0% (W, GOP)

So much for the GOP being the stewards of the purse strings. Spending has accelerated faster under Republican administrations since WWII than Democrat.

One thing being ignored is who is controlling Congress. For example:

During the Reagan/Bush era Congress was controlled by the Democrats.
During the Slick Willie era Congress was controlled by the Republicans (after the 1994 elections).

 

[Truthmatters]

And the GAO and the CBO have both acessed the 1993 bra passed without one single R vote to have been the major contributor to the surpluses of the 1990s.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=...e=0&sequence=8

This chart is derived from the accessments of the congress which passed the law.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/ytv4v2


hopefully this one works

 

[Toro]

One thing being ignored is who is controlling Congress. For example:

During the Reagan/Bush era Congress was controlled by the Democrats.
During the Slick Willie era Congress was controlled by the Republicans (after the 1994 elections).

Yes, that is a good point.

As I've been pointing out over and over, political people give far too much credit and blame to politicians, which is to me, odd given that what really matters is the dynamism of the American people.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, that is a good point.

As I've been pointing out over and over, political people give far too much credit and blame to politicians, which is to me, odd given that what really matters is the dynamism of the American people.

In 2004 Dems ran on the "jobles recovery" - yet they have been silent about that since they lost

Dems are not talking about the current shape of the US economy much - except when they talk about raising taxes

Seem Dems wanted to blame Pres Bush for a "bad" economy - but do not want to give him credit for a very good economy

 

[JeffWartman]

In 2004 Dems ran on the "jobles recovery" - yet they have been silent about that since they lost

Dems are not talking about the current shape of the US economy much - except when they talk about raising taxes

Seem Dems wanted to blame Pres Bush for a "bad" economy - but do not want to give him credit for a very good economy

Is everything a partisan thing to you?

You know there's a inverse relationship between partisanship and intelligence?

 

[Toro]

The Republicans said the same thing in the first half of the 90s when jobs weren't growing at the same rate as the economy. Usually, job creation lags economic growth as the economy comes out of a trough.

Its just part of the political theatre.