This Economy sure sucks! - Page 3  

It really depends on how you define a tax increase. Reagan unquestionably slashed the marginal rates. It is true that with other reform acts, laws were passed that were intended to raise revenue by closing loopholes, eliminating dedecutions, etc. Just looking at the revenue side is problematic. For one, it depends on either predictions of revenue, or actual revene receipts. The problem with the former is obvious. The problem with that latter is that other factors (as you yourself have said) can contribute to the equation.

Reagan did not raise rates. To me, a tax increase is when rates are raised or even new types of taxes are passed. I think perhaps Reagan raised the gas tax, and perhaps others. But, as far as personal and corporate income go, Reagan was a not just a tax cutter but a tax slasher. There really isn't much argument against this.

WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS ALREADY! CAN YOU HEAR ME?????

The jobless claim came straight from CNN!

Besides concerning Clinton you still couldn't answer a question about the media from years ago!

During his campaign in 92' Clinton said he would " focus like a laser beam on the economy " and the buzz phrase was " It's the economy stupid! "

The result was the longest running bull market in US history.

He did have to raise taxes which wasn't popular at the time. However people were really sick of left over " Reaganomics ".

It happened. It's history. And it wasn't republican deficit hawks becuase they'd be doing the same now.

When we first talked about this almost 2 years ago you said there was no real boom it was all the dot com thing. Now it's there was boom but it was due to republican deficit hawks. Sheesh!

I know you guys are in say anything mode but this is just dumb and I'm growing tired of your excuses.



It happened! Get over it!

I'm surprised no-one commented on my chart from page one...

anyways.. here's an article that supports my theory in my previous post:
http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=1616

Wow, jimmac. Just...WOW. You have STILL not answered my question. It's unbelievable, even for you.

1. I'm not disptuing the jobless claims. I'm saying the number is healthy. Anything under 400,000 is a good jobless claims number.

2. I understand Clinton raised taxes. My question is: How did this, or anything else Clinton did help the economy?

3. There was a boom. Much of it did, in fact, come about as a result of the internet bubble. This didn't just include dot-coms with their IPOs, it inlcuded a soaring global market for hardware, software, etc. Everything from home PCs to optical networking cable was exploding. Then it crashed, and before Clinton left office.

4. I never said it was due to Republican deficit hawks. You said that. What I AM SAYING about "the boom" is this:

A. The real boom did not begin until after 1996. The early to mid nineties was not as good as you'd like to make it out to be.
B. The boom was caused by 1) The natural business cycle 2) An expoding demand for techology 3) Low energy prices and 4) Low interest rates.

I am then asking you:

Question 1: What did Clinton do to create the boom?

Question 2: If the boom was helped by Clinton raising taxes, then why do you not give Bush 41 credit as well? He also raised taxes.

Question 3: Do you deny that after the 1994, the Republican lead Congress contributed greatly to the balanced budgets? Are you claiming this iniative and iniatives like welfare reform were Clinton's ideas?

Regardless of personal political opinions, everyone on this board can see that you have not answered my first question, much less any others. If you have questions to ask of me, I will be happy to provide the most complete answers possible, whether you happen to agree with them or not. But as usual, I suspect you're not interested in debating on the facts. What you're interested in is rhetorical nonsense like this:

originally posted by jimmac:


Do you have polling data to show us? Do you believe Bush 41's economic policies were the same as "Reaganomics"? Who exactly are "you guys" (i.e. "you guys are in say anything mode")?

Lots of questions. No answers.

To follow up:

I just realized you referenced the old "Clinton Media" question. I'm not sure how liberal media bias has anything to do with this discussion, but for the record, I answered that question about ten times over. Literally...ten times Yet, every time you are cornered, you whip it out. If I had actually dodged the question, I could almost understand (even thought it rarely has anything to do with the topic you're posting in). But I did answer it, and quite completely.

What is your strawman's name, jimmac?

Keep the discussion civil please.

I'm challenging him to back his claims and not dodge questions. Explain to me how that's uncivil or approaching it please.

I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history. The boom only came at the end, and I think most people would agree that it was overheated. Presidents can't do too much to influence the economy, but he did what he could, and I think it did have an effect. He expanded trade, at some political risk to himself. He was a good caretaker of the federal budget - which included not just raising taxes but also keeping spending restrained - and that builds confidence and keeps long-term interest rates low. There were other issues, such as what business tax breaks and what he called investments in education and training, but I'm not as convinced that those did that much compared to the other two policies.


First, again, it's not the boom that's important. Second, it's not just raising taxes, it's what you do with spending too.


Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992 before Gingrich took Congress, so yes, it was Clinton's idea. And I don't think you can credit just Clinton or the Repubs or Dems in Congress with balancing the budget, but not a single Repub voted for the 1993 budget bill that set the stage for the entire rest of the 1990s. Clinton and the Repub Congress stalemated for many years after the 1994 Repub takeover. It was only in 1998 that they came to an agreement, and their agreement increased the deficit, it didn't decrease it. Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit.

Yes, he cut taxes in 1981 more than he raised them in 1982. Yes, he cut marginal income tax rates in 1981 and then raised other types of taxes in 1982. But we could apply the same type of analysis to Clinton's tax increase - there was only a very small increase in the very top rate, but he also passed tax reductions for the lower-incomes. There was also a gas tax. I don't know if you were old enough to be paying taxes at the time, but I'd be willing to bet that if you were, your income taxes wouldn't have gone up. I was in college at the time, but mine wouldn't have gone up even if it was passed today. So was his not a tax increase? But you said it was the largest tax increase in history!

You don't listen to what I say and are delusional.

I'm not looking up anything for you. When people do you don't accept it or you run and hide. So what's the point?

Your made up arguments for the economy past, present, and future have never held any water.

You say the " economy's surging ".

Translation : the economy looks better in some areas ( for the election ) but it's hardly surging and the fact that after all this time and all the jobs lost ( some of them high level ) which you then try to compare them with these new low level jobs ( most of them new young people entering the workforce ) that are being reported is just dumb.

You do know how to spin and ignore what you don't like.

I'll bet the gas prices go down a bit also just before the election.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

By the way you didn't answer this once. You dodged it ten times.


How could the media be controlled by liberals and yet have made a circus about Clinton that cost the election?


I haven't forgot.

All that attention on Clinton really was one of the main factors. If liberals controlled the media they would have played it down. Which was hardly the case.

So basically that one sentence disproves your entire theory.

Your answers like one network delaying a report on this are just hilarious.

-----------------------------------------------------------

" Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Thank you!

If Bush hadn't botched up Iraq, and kept a lid on spending, we would be experiencing this last year.

Which had already begun sometime in 1991. This didn't prevent Clinton from running around telling everybody that Bush's economy was the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, the 1990-91 recession was one of the mildest on record and by the fourth quarter of 1992 the economy was posting growth rates of 5.4% GDP.

This suggests that we didn't know the recession was over until Dec. 22nd, 1992 - after the election. Not that I'd put it past Clinton to lie or anything, but I don't think that is one of them.

But it is funny how it looks like the same thing is going to happen to Bush's son. War in Iraq: highest approval rating in history. Recession ends: but people still blame him. Democrat wins the election and takes credit for the growing economy. Must be that Bush luck.

Ahh yes, like father like son.

1. Being a good steward of the budget, which is false anyway, doesn't necessarily stimulate the economy.

2. Spendig under Clinton exploded.

3. I'd like some backing on the 1992 campaign welfare claim. Clinton certainly tried to run as a moderate democrat. He didn't govern that way. Nationlized Healthcare, anyone?

4. You can't make judgements and gneralizations about deficits like that. You also can't say that "1993 set the stage".

I do agree that our current spending levels are insane...which I assume you believe as well.

A small increase? From 31 to 36%? That's a "small" increase? A 39.6% rate for those earning over $250,000? Lowering the income levels for the upper brackets? Hmmm....

This does not include taxes on energy, telecommunications, etc. These exploded under Clinton.

Well, once again...you have still not answered my question. BRussell did make an attempt.

Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water"? I will be happy to discuss them with you.

As for the economy, it's in very good shape. GDP growth is good. Unemployment is low. Home ownership is at record levels. Even job growth is now on track. The economy is good, jimmac...and pardon me, but there is not a damn thing you can do about it. If you have claims on the quality of jobs, I suggest you back them.

Still waiting for my answer.

================================================== =========

" Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water "

================================================== =========

Take your pick.

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/...6576_ca024.htm


http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/11/news...reut/index.htm

You really can't see what's been going on can you?

Man!

So that's how the budget got balanced! And considering the dems only controlled congress for 2 years in his first term...


Man. I love my Nationalized Health Care! I never thought it would work, and frankly, when he started his first term by trying to get the ball rolling, I figured that the right wing would launch a massive media campaign--complete with commercials featuring two "average" people trying to make sense of the plan, to which the Admin would have to respond, probably with the President and First Lady spoofing the right-wing ad campaign. I dunno. Something like that. But man, I'm glad that that liberal Clinton stuck to his guns and did what he, and millions of Americans, knew was right.

See this WSJ article. It has these numbers for increases in domestic discretionary spending:
Reagan: -1.3%
Carter: 2%
Clinton: 2.5%
Bush I: 4%
LBJ: 4.3%
Nixon: 6.8%
Ford: 8%
Bush II: 8.2%

The Reagan numbers are a bit misleading because he increased military spending so much, whereas under Clinton they decreased. It's also hard to put LBJ in the middle when he signed some of the big entitlement laws. Also, W. has increased entitlements, but he's already the worst so that wouldn't change his ranking.


Well he famously ran in 1992 on "ending welfare as we know it," and he eventually signed the welfare reform passed by the Repub congress.

I'd consider it small if you remember that they were above 50% a decade earlier, and were as high as 90% two decades earlier. And remember, we're not counting all those other taxes according to you.

Here's another little item from another thread where I'm repling to SDW........

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

That doesn't address my arguments. I have not argued about the quality of jobs that I can remember. If we discuss that topic, we need to look at overall historical numbers for job classifications, pay etc. We also need to compare the job creation/quality numbers to past administrations (particularly quality).

I have little respect for Robert Rubin, so I'm getting into that link with you. I do agree deficits are a problem, and I think we need to address that problem by cutting spending. This is an area that I fault the Bush adminsitration on. I think passing a huge medicare entitlement was a mistake...and I think the same for letting domestic spending explode. I do not fault Bush for military budget increases as I think they are needed. There have also been huge amounts of funding needed for homeland security, 9/11, etc.

Edit: On the jobs topic, we here a lot about outsourcing. What we don't hear about much is insourcing, or jobs coming to this country from overseas. This happens far more than people realize.

1. "Knew was right"? Not judging by his popularity until he came to the center in the mid-nineties.

2. He proposed it. That's the point. Hello?

3. Republicans spend too much money too. No argument there.

Typical SDW he doesn't like where the quote comes from so he ignores the facts.

As for answering your question other's and myslef already have to the best of our ability and what facys we have been able to dig up don't support your suppositions.

Why do we have to compare job quality from past administrations? Why do you need to divert from the topic?

Those numbers are quite misleading. The military's budget falls under "discretionary" spending as well. We are spending much, much more than when Clinton was in office. Really, discretionary spending should be called "non-entitlement" spending.

That being said, I think we need to seriously cut all federal spending by huge amounts. Again...no argument.

"Domestic discretionary spending" excludes military spending.

I'm not discounting the "source". I am saying that Rubin is making opinion statements, and that he's a well known partisan operator.

You HAVE NOT answered my question concerning Clinton and the economy.

You HAVE NOT presented much in the way of facts. You have posted opinion pieces and rhetoric.

Job quality: Wait...isn't it you that posted this?

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/...6576_ca024.htm

Wasn't your point that the new jobs being created are not high quality? Wasn't this point made in a political context? (i.e economic policy of the Bush adminsitration). We must have a frame of reference for things like this...otherwise the numbers really don't have meaning. For example, when you talk about the jobless claims numbers, we must frame them. Historically, anything under 400,000 jobless claims is conisdered a "good" thing. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of those who are frankly more qualified and knowlegable than either of us. The same holds true of unemployment data.

Therefore, we need to know what the "job quality" numbers and facts are like for other administrations and time periods. If one administration created 1,000,000 "high paying/high quality" jobs and the other created 300,000...than we can compare.

What good is data without reference points? That's all I'm saying.

Clinton helped reduce the deficit through raising taxes and paying our debts. I't pretty clear something was working here because of the spectacular results.

Just like it's clear that now something isn't working.

It's up to you to prove otherwise.

I mean here we are with a republican president and congress and we're worse off than ever deficit wise.

http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/graphs.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....prez.clinton/

How do you explain that? And please try not to get 911 in the mix.

I'm sorry but this is history now and it's very difficult to argue with the results.

Now hold on, isn't it people of your political persuasion that say Reagan's tax cuts did not help the economy? Reagan got results too. Come to think of it, so has Bush 43. Tell me what the economy was like in March 2001-December 2002. That's a bit of history as well.

As for deficits, I cannot disagree that the Republican Congress has overspent. However, quite a bit of it is, in fact, defense spending. I'm not even talking about 9/11 related things...I'm talking about the annual defense budget. That being said, we do need to at least acknowledge 9/11, don't we? What about all the money being budgeted for Homeland Security and the TSA? Certainly that plays a part. Granted, we just passed medicare, which I don't support. I'm not making excuses here...the Republican party is starting to look an awful lot like the Democrats right about now in term of they're support of such spending increases. But, some of the reasons for the deficit are valid, inlcuding your favorite topic of the overall economy. When the economy slows, so does revenue. Certainly Bush cannot be blamed for the recession that basically began even before he took office.

Back to Clinton...which was my original question. Can you show that balanced budgets help the overall economy? What specific economic policy did Clinton implement to help the economy? Believe it or not, I'm not trying to flame you or cause an argument. I agree that the economy in the mid to late 1990's was quite good. All I'm asking is "what exactly did Clinton do to cause it, and what has Bush done to hinder it"?

Your answer can't just be "deficits". The relationship between deficits and the "state of the economy" is not clear, just as my overall income is not affected by my credit card debts, for example. Granted, my credit card debt matters to my overall fiscal health...but it doesn't affect my income because that generally depends on other factors. Government revenue depends a great deal on the state of the overall economy. Clinton might get some credit (along with the Republican controlled congress) for balancing the budget and helping to ensure overall fiscal health, but what did he do on the "economy" end?

That's all I'm asking.

Oh come on!

It's pretty common knowlege that deficits affect the economy but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about deficits being bad in themselves.

We have to pay for it sometime and it affects our relationship with the dollar vs. other forms of currency in the world.


Here's a little something to chew on....

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/inde...3-1135&nav=ibs

Just as with your credit debt there is less money to go around when you have a large debt so please don't don't tell me it doesn't effect how much money from your income you have to spend.

For the billionth time : Nobody is blaming Bush for the recession. After the long bull market a downturn was inevitable. It's what a president does in response to a recession that affects it. Spending money wildly in an unfocused response to terrorism and spending it on an unnecessary war isn't a good response.

But you already know this. Drop the smoke screen already.

The question is what kind of jobs are these replacing?
What pay rate did they have?


That's nice but I thought you weren't going to post on AO anymore?

1. It is not common knowledge. I disagree. The country has run deficits and had tremendous expansion at the same time in the past.

2. The dollar can weaken due to deficits. That is true. However, a weak dollar is not always a bad thing.

3. You need to read your own article:


-The deficit does matter. But it's not necessarily bad for the economy...especially in the short term.

4. PLEASE STOP TWISTING MY STATEMENTS AND READ: I was not talking about spendable income!!! I am not even talking about fiscal policy. With all due respect, you are completely missing the point. I used the credit card analogy to show that my income would not be affected by my debt load. Of course I would have less of that income to spend on discretionary purchases if I had a large debt. That's not the point. I used the analogy to demonstrate that "the economy" itself is not necessarily affected by the deficit right now...at least not negatively.

5. What a President does? Bush pushed through two historic tax cuts. Depsite your rhetoric, I as a middle class person got a significant cut in both my marginal rates and through other changes in the law, such as 100% depreciation of equipment in one year. The economy has now recovered.


You are confusing fiscal policy (which I agree needs serious work) with the state of the economy. They are not the same thing.

You'd have less spendable income. I'm not twisting your statements at all. If you have to allocate more of your income to make any head way on your debt it's the same thing as not having as much income. Trust me some project or something somewhere will suffer.

This deficit is so huge even if there was a situation where a deficit could be a good thing that's not applicable here.

It also affects trade with other countries and you can't tell me that doesn't affect the economy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

" The country has run deficits and had tremendous expansion at the same time in the past. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now we have a tremedous deficit and running with little expansion.




Are you really saying you are ok with leaving this bill to our kids?

I don't think you understood the point.


It didn't get anywhere. Hello?


Yes. The problem is that the right wing believes it when Republicans say they spend less. They don't. At all.

Oh, it's that big, evil "right wing" again.

I think he's starting to get it!