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

[8537]

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​

Then what created those 36 million jobs if tax cuts did not?

What kind of fascist world do think we live in? Believe it or not (and clearly you do not), tax policy is not the only thing that drives economic growth. in fact, it's a minute little factor; especially when you're talking about small changes to marginal rates.

 

[JRK]

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.

The 50s were a golden age? My parents and grandparents disagreed. How were the 50s better than even now?

asterism:

What are you talking about?
No-ones moved any wealth no where
THERE LETTING THEM KEEP MORE OF THERE OWN WEALTH
IF YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES TO START WITH, IT DOES NOT MATTER
AND BALANCED BUDGETS?


No Virgina that young man has no clue what he is talking about
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011
Bill Clinton's tax rate as shown here in black and white cost me 31% or over the cource of 17 years about 18600 a year avg

thats 18,600*17
316,200.00

GWB tax rate at the same cost me about 15000
thats 255,000

can anyone tell me in 17 years would it matter to them if they had another 61200.00?
you think GM would care?
How about a travel trailer?
you do not think 61,200.00 would not create a few jobs?

Supply and demand?
are you joking?

 

[JRK]

It can't be done......​

Then what created those 36 million jobs if tax cuts did not?

What kind of fascist world do think we live in? Believe it or not (and clearly you do not), tax policy is not the only thing that drives economic growth. in fact, it's a minute little factor; especially when you're talking about small changes to marginal rates.

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011
small rates?
I make (made) 50- 70,000 a year, taxable income
lets use an avg og 63,500
thats 6% A YEAR
THATS 3810 A YEAR
THATS 60,960.00 IN 16 YEARS (2 TERMS)
THATS 2 NEW CARS

ANOTHER THING
Why do you libs keep talking about Marginal rates?
where talking Income tax

 

[KissMy]

Again I say Obama is a third Bush term.

Bullshit, You will be voting for Obama in 2012 & Obama knows it.

Obama is Bush 3 on steroids and any-one who denies it is at a level of denial that cannot be fixed
from tax policy to Gitmo to deficit spending (W had 150 billion in 07, Obama had 1.5 trillion in 09) to stimuluses (Obama 1.2 trillion for the UAW, Teachers, Etc... W for the tax payer about 200 billion) do I need to go on?
oh yea
Obama makes W look like a school child when it comes to droid attacks in Pakistan

I am not denying that Obama is Bush 3 on steroids. I am denying that uscitizen goes around saying Obama is a third Bush term. I just know that brainwashed freeloader uscitizen will vote for Obama again in 2012.

 

[JRK]

Bullshit, You will be voting for Obama in 2012 & Obama knows it.

Obama is Bush 3 on steroids and any-one who denies it is at a level of denial that cannot be fixed
from tax policy to Gitmo to deficit spending (W had 150 billion in 07, Obama had 1.5 trillion in 09) to stimuluses (Obama 1.2 trillion for the UAW, Teachers, Etc... W for the tax payer about 200 billion) do I need to go on?
oh yea
Obama makes W look like a school child when it comes to droid attacks in Pakistan

I am not denying that Obama is Bush 3 on steroids. I am denying that uscitizen goes around saying Obama is a third Bush term. I just know that brainwashed freeloader uscitizen will vote for Obama again in 2012.

Thats really sad

 

[asterism]

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.

The 50s were a golden age? My parents and grandparents disagreed. How were the 50s better than even now?

asterism:

What are you talking about?
No-ones moved any wealth no where
THERE LETTING THEM KEEP MORE OF THERE OWN WEALTH
IF YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES TO START WITH, IT DOES NOT MATTER
AND BALANCED BUDGETS?


No Virgina that young man has no clue what he is talking about
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011
Bill Clinton's tax rate as shown here in black and white cost me 31% or over the cource of 17 years about 18600 a year avg

thats 18,600*17
316,200.00

GWB tax rate at the same cost me about 15000
thats 255,000

can anyone tell me in 17 years would it matter to them if they had another 61200.00?
you think GM would care?
How about a travel trailer?
you do not think 61,200.00 would not create a few jobs?

Supply and demand?
are you joking?

Rdean said the 50s were the "Golden Age." I don't believe it and people I know who were alive at the time don't either. Inflation adjusted compensation was much lower.

As to your tax comparison, I agree. Lower tax rates (to a point obviously) help spur economic growth.

 

[Seawytch]

This isn't ideology, it's MATH:

Job growth through Clinton's two terms was 22.7 million. Through Bush’s two terms, it was 1.1 million

22.7 > 1.1

 

[JRK]

The 50s were a golden age? My parents and grandparents disagreed. How were the 50s better than even now?

asterism:

What are you talking about?
No-ones moved any wealth no where
THERE LETTING THEM KEEP MORE OF THERE OWN WEALTH
IF YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES TO START WITH, IT DOES NOT MATTER
AND BALANCED BUDGETS?


No Virgina that young man has no clue what he is talking about
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011
Bill Clinton's tax rate as shown here in black and white cost me 31% or over the cource of 17 years about 18600 a year avg

thats 18,600*17
316,200.00

GWB tax rate at the same cost me about 15000
thats 255,000

can anyone tell me in 17 years would it matter to them if they had another 61200.00?
you think GM would care?
How about a travel trailer?
you do not think 61,200.00 would not create a few jobs?

Supply and demand?
are you joking?

Rdean said the 50s were the "Golden Age." I don't believe it and people I know who were alive at the time don't either. Inflation adjusted compensation was much lower.

As to your tax comparison, I agree. Lower tax rates (to a point obviously) help spur economic growth.

I could not agree with you more
In 1950 we had party lines and 3 channels on TV
no credit cards
Gas was cheap
Banks would do business with people and did not care to take much of that business to wall street
The Chance to find a career for hose of us who work was allot better
we had millions less illegal aliens and allot less technology

A survey crew would be 3-5 men
today its 1-2
Etc....

This is one of the reasons we need to be getting in the oil crude/oil shale location/extraction/delivery/refinement etc.... business
we need it for opportunity and not for the rich

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "recovery." Are you saying the recovery started in 1991?

Recovery would be when negative GDP turns to positive GDP, when contraction is replaced by expansion.

So that's 1991.

What was all that liberal hype about "It's the economy stupid!" about then? What was your opinion about it?

I voted for Perot because he was opposed to NAFTA, supported fiscal responsibility, and railed against foreign influences in our government.

 

[8537]

Then what created those 36 million jobs if tax cuts did not?

What kind of fascist world do think we live in? Believe it or not (and clearly you do not), tax policy is not the only thing that drives economic growth. in fact, it's a minute little factor; especially when you're talking about small changes to marginal rates.

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011
small rates?
I make (made) 50- 70,000 a year, taxable income
lets use an avg og 63,500
thats 6% A YEAR
THATS 3810 A YEAR
THATS 60,960.00 IN 16 YEARS (2 TERMS)
THATS 2 NEW CARS

ANOTHER THING
Why do you libs keep talking about Marginal rates?
where talking Income tax

Oh, I see - you really Don't understand marginal tax rates. hint: The income tax is based on marginal rates. Someone making 373,651 AGI doesn't pay 35% of that in taxes.

my gawd.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "recovery." Are you saying the recovery started in 1991?

Recovery would be when negative GDP turns to positive GDP, when contraction is replaced by expansion.

So if we have positive GDP of 2% after a run of 10% negative GDP, thats expansion?
thats spin

It's expansion by definition. Read a book.

And while we're at it, where's your proof Bush CREATED 7 million jobs?

 

[JRK]

This isn't ideology, it's MATH:

Job growth through Clinton's two terms was 22.7 million. Through Bush’s two terms, it was 1.1 million

22.7 > 1.1

Sea watch Clinton?
So Reagan's tax policy had nothing to do with Clinton's job creation?
he just showed up and Ba mm?

As far as Ws job creation
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

As you can see from 1999 thru the end of 2003 we created 1 million jobs
2003 is when Ws tax breaks took place


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

It is unclear to me where the left keeps getting this 1.1 million job number at
but from 04 thru the end of 08 looks to me like we had over 6 million created

And your trying to compare job growth from a period of 10% Un employment when Reagan tax rates began this 40 year boom to 4% UE rate in the middle OF GWB presidency as well as Clinton's

Lets us not forget what Clinton had from 94
A GOP congress

 

[NYcarbineer]

This isn't ideology, it's MATH:

Job growth through Clinton's two terms was 22.7 million. Through Bush’s two terms, it was 1.1 million

22.7 > 1.1

It's higher for Bush if you count the Afghanis and Iraqis he hired for his nationbuilding projects.

 

[JRK]

Recovery would be when negative GDP turns to positive GDP, when contraction is replaced by expansion.

So if we have positive GDP of 2% after a run of 10% negative GDP, thats expansion?
thats spin

It's expansion by definition. Read a book.

And while we're at it, where's your proof Bush CREATED 7 million jobs?

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

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

 

[8537]

Reagan caused the job growth during the Clinton administration, but president's don't control the economy?

We're in bizarro world.

Let's be honest here: LBJ was responsible for the job growth during the Reagan years.

 

[8537]

So if we have positive GDP of 2% after a run of 10% negative GDP, thats expansion?
thats spin

It's expansion by definition. Read a book.

And while we're at it, where's your proof Bush CREATED 7 million jobs?

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

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

President Bush took office in January of 2001. Please make a note of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This isn't ideology, it's MATH:

Job growth through Clinton's two terms was 22.7 million. Through Bush’s two terms, it was 1.1 million

22.7 > 1.1

Sea watch Clinton?
So Reagan's tax policy had nothing to do with Clinton's job creation?
he just showed up and Ba mm?

As far as Ws job creation
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

As you can see from 1999 thru the end of 2003 we created 1 million jobs
2003 is when Ws tax breaks took place


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

It is unclear to me where the left keeps getting this 1.1 million job number at
but from 04 thru the end of 08 looks to me like we had over 6 million created

And your trying to compare job growth from a period of 10% Un employment when Reagan tax rates began this 40 year boom to 4% UE rate in the middle OF GWB presidency as well as Clinton's

Lets us not forget what Clinton had from 94
A GOP congress

You're retarded, seriously.

Reagan's tax cuts produced massive deficits. Clinton's rollback of some of Reagan's tax cuts produced lower deficits and was followed by years of job growth and economic expansion.

Why, LOGICALLY, would you reject a fiscal policy that was followed by

1. deficit reduction
2. good economic growth
3. good job growth

What is the logic behind saying we don't want to do anything that resembles the Clinton years, but instead,

we want to do what more resembles the Reagan/Bush, or GW Bush years,

neither of which were better periods than the Clinton years?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if we have positive GDP of 2% after a run of 10% negative GDP, thats expansion?
thats spin

It's expansion by definition. Read a book.

And while we're at it, where's your proof Bush CREATED 7 million jobs?

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

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

NO.

I want you to prove that the Bush tax cuts created the jobs. That was your claim. Nothing in your list of numbers demonstrates cause and effect.

To prove one thing caused another, you actually have to show EVIDENCE of cause and effect,

not merely that one thing followed another.

 

[JRK]

This isn't ideology, it's MATH:

Job growth through Clinton's two terms was 22.7 million. Through Bush’s two terms, it was 1.1 million

22.7 > 1.1

Sea watch Clinton?
So Reagan's tax policy had nothing to do with Clinton's job creation?
he just showed up and Ba mm?

As far as Ws job creation
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

As you can see from 1999 thru the end of 2003 we created 1 million jobs
2003 is when Ws tax breaks took place


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

It is unclear to me where the left keeps getting this 1.1 million job number at
but from 04 thru the end of 08 looks to me like we had over 6 million created

And your trying to compare job growth from a period of 10% Un employment when Reagan tax rates began this 40 year boom to 4% UE rate in the middle OF GWB presidency as well as Clinton's

Lets us not forget what Clinton had from 94
A GOP congress

You're retarded, seriously.

Reagan's tax cuts produced massive deficits. Clinton's rollback of some of Reagan's tax cuts produced lower deficits and was followed by years of job growth and economic expansion.

Why, LOGICALLY, would you reject a fiscal policy that was followed by

1. deficit reduction
2. good economic growth
3. good job growth

What is the logic behind saying we don't want to do anything that resembles the Clinton years, but instead,

we want to do what more resembles the Reagan/Bush, or GW Bush years,

neither of which were better periods than the Clinton years?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Retarded?
Deficit Reduction?
the next time you call some one retarded, to start with you got no class
Defict reduction my ass
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Thats 1.5 trillion in deficit
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Better periods?
Well Clinton did not inherit 20% inflation nor did he inherit 20% interest rates
And 9-11 had nothing to do with Ws years
Clinton just showed up and it went from creating 3 million jobs a year from 3 million jobs a year as it was prior to him taking office
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
Next time you want to call some-one retarded you might want to do your DD first

By the way you can also see the recession that Clinton handed off to W
One more thing Mr. Classless
The GOP run the senate from 94 on

 

[BlindBoo]

Most of the current deficit is a combination of the Bush era tax cuts and the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Horesepoo.
Both, together, pale in comparison to entitlement spending.

I stand corrected.