We do not have "record" unemployment or the "worst unemployment since WWII".
It is simply not the case. Average unemployment over the past 40 years has been approximately 8.5%. Go to the BLS and get the data. Our unemployment number is very low by any meaningful historical standard.
Jimmac, I've also never said Bush can do no wrong. I've never, ever believed that, so enough with the putting words in my mouth. Bush has done some things I disagree with. In particular, he has supported too much domestic non-defense spending and encouraged too much big government. I also think that though the case for the Iraq war was strong, he could have done a better job articlating the reasons for it beyond WMD. Those are two examples.
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue. For all your talk of how terrible things were after Reagan's tax cuts, the fact is that tax revenues DOUBLED during the decade....mostly due to the soaring economy. Blame Reagan for allowing too much spending if you like (though it was generally military spending that did it, which I support), but the revenue side of the equation was not and IS NOT the problem.
And finally, the fact that you were an adult during the Reagan years does nothing to excuse your utter ignorance of fiscal policy. It also does nothing to excuse your factually inaccurate statements (i.e "record unemployment").
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue. For all your talk of how terrible things were after Reagan's tax cuts, the fact is that tax revenues DOUBLED during the decade....mostly due to the soaring economy. Blame Reagan for allowing too much spending if you like (though it was generally military spending that did it, which I support), but the revenue side of the equation was not and IS NOT the problem.
Hmm. Under Reagan, income revenues increased by about 56%. Under Clinton, income tax revenue increased by near 95%. Carter: 81%. Nixon Ford: 80% Kennedy Johnson: 78%. In fact, the only administration in modern times with lower tax revenues to show for their economic policy than Bush II is-- you guessed it! Bush I with a whopping 26% increase!
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue.
What you've said above is far from utterly right. This is another good spot to recommend the book The Price of Loyalty -- there's some good discussion there from Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan there about practical economics vs. ideological economics.
What you've stated above about tax cuts is a nuance-free, situation-free, fact-free ideological proclamation -- it's not a valid real-word fact, as much as you'd like to treat it as such.
You might be correct that tax cuts will generally stimulate the economy, although a lot depends of the composition of those tax cuts. The stimulative effect could be very small, and even negated or reversed by other effects of cutting taxes, like rising deficits or unemployment of former government workers (if that's a place where cuts were made along with cutting taxes).
It's far, far from certain that the degree of economic stimulus generated by a tax cut will be so great that revenues are actually going to go up when tax rates go down.
The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.
Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.
The completely unfounded Article of Faith for a lot of conservatives is that, no matter where taxes are a the moment, that we're somewhere to the right of T*, not on the left.
One must also realize that the curve is a gross over simplification, it might have multiple maxima, and it doesn't take into a count complicated things about tax structure.
One good fiscally conservative point to make -- although not very meaningful unless you really know where T* is -- is that if government can make do with less revenue than T* represents, then it's certainly not mandatory to push tax rates until revenue is maximized.
We do not have "record" unemployment or the "worst unemployment since WWII".
It is simply not the case. Average unemployment over the past 40 years has been approximately 8.5%. Go to the BLS and get the data. Our unemployment number is very low by any meaningful historical standard.
Jimmac, I've also never said Bush can do no wrong. I've never, ever believed that, so enough with the putting words in my mouth. Bush has done some things I disagree with. In particular, he has supported too much domestic non-defense spending and encouraged too much big government. I also think that though the case for the Iraq war was strong, he could have done a better job articlating the reasons for it beyond WMD. Those are two examples.
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue. For all your talk of how terrible things were after Reagan's tax cuts, the fact is that tax revenues DOUBLED during the decade....mostly due to the soaring economy. Blame Reagan for allowing too much spending if you like (though it was generally military spending that did it, which I support), but the revenue side of the equation was not and IS NOT the problem.
And finally, the fact that you were an adult during the Reagan years does nothing to excuse your utter ignorance of fiscal policy. It also does nothing to excuse your factually inaccurate statements (i.e "record unemployment").
...a lot depends of the composition of those tax cuts. The stimulative effect could be very small, and even negated or reversed by other effects of cutting taxes, like rising deficits or unemployment of former government workers (if that's a place where cuts were made along with cutting taxes).
It's far, far from certain that the degree of economic stimulus generated by a tax cut will be so great that revenues are actually going to go up when tax rates go down.
Time to trot out the old Laffer curve:
The completely unfounded Article of Faith for a lot of conservatives is that, no matter where taxes are a the moment, that we're somewhere to the right of T*, not on the left.
[...]
Thank you for pointing this out. Excellent post. Just excellent.
What you've said above is far from utterly right. This is another good spot to recommend the book The Price of Loyalty -- there's some good discussion there from Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan there about practical economics vs. ideological economics.
What you've stated above about tax cuts is a nuance-free, situation-free, fact-free ideological proclamation -- it's not a valid real-word fact, as much as you'd like to treat it as such.
You might be correct that tax cuts will generally stimulate the economy, although a lot depends of the composition of those tax cuts. The stimulative effect could be very small, and even negated or reversed by other effects of cutting taxes, like rising deficits or unemployment of former government workers (if that's a place where cuts were made along with cutting taxes).
It's far, far from certain that the degree of economic stimulus generated by a tax cut will be so great that revenues are actually going to go up when tax rates go down.
Time to trot out the old Laffer curve:
The completely unfounded Article of Faith for a lot of conservatives is that, no matter where taxes are a the moment, that we're somewhere to the right of T*, not on the left.
One must also realize that the curve is a gross over simplification, and it might have multiple maxima, and it doesn't tax into a count complicated things about tax structure.
One good fiscally conservative point to make -- although not very meaningful unless you really know where T* is -- is that if goverment can make do on less revenue than T* represents, then it's certainly not mandatory to push tax rates until revenue is maximized.
Hey Ross Perot,
I have two businesses, both are service companies. I live in an extreme tourist area. I have been in business for 5 years. Things went south for the economy right before BC left office. I have been struggling and downsizing for the last three years. Over the last six months, I have seen a serious upswing in spending. I can now be found with about $500 in my pocket at ant given time. You can put up charts and quote studies all day long. But this economy is going upwards and it is directly tied to the GWB economic plan.
I and this area ate living proof. Deny if you must.
It must haver something to do with Bush's brillant economic plan. Well I suppose if you try long enough ( 4 years ) you'd probably get some kind of results. To bad the jobs aren't following as quickly.
I have two businesses, both are service companies. I live in an extreme tourist area. I have been in business for 5 years. Things went south for the economy right before BC left office. I have been struggling and downsizing for the last three years. Over the last six months, I have seen a serious upswing in spending. I can now be found with about $500 in my pocket at ant given time. You can put up charts and quote studies all day long. But this economy is going upwards and it is directly tied to the GWB economic plan.
1) My post was directed at the over-simplified mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue. Your anecdote only hints at a rising economy, not rising government revenue. Even if you were managing to prove some point, it's not the counterpoint you seem to think it is.
2) Your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Improvements in your own personal lot, your area, and a particular industry like tourism cannot necessarily be generalized to the economy as a whole. Or to government revenue.
3) What economic recovery has occurred has been very slow and shallow. With three years under his belt (make what excuses you'd like) the economy is worse now than when Bush went into office.
4) What economic recovery has occurred could easily be attributed as much or more to living off borrowed money rather than to tax cuts -- stimulate now, pay later.
1) My post was directed at the over-simplified mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue. Your anecdote only hints at a rising economy, not rising government revenue. Even if you were managing to prove some point, it's not the counterpoint you seem to think it is.
2) Your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Improvements in your own personal lot, your area, and a particular industry like tourism cannot necessarily be generalized to the economy as a whole. Or to government revenue.
3) What economic recovery has occurred has been very slow and shallow. With three years under his belt (make what excuses you'd like) the economy is worse now than when Bush went into office.
4) What economic recovery has occurred could easily be attributed as much or more to living off borrowed money rather than to tax cuts -- stimulate now, pay later.
Oh by the way, my service businesses are not directly tied to tourism. One of my businesses is computer consulting. I have seen an accelerated willingness to buy new computers and people are actually willing pay me to fix them. This is a drastic change from the past 2 - 3 years.
Their are many indicators of economic growth, not just in my area. Please do not paint me as narrow minded and short sighted. I am just giving some evidence in my own life, anecdotal or not.
1) My post was directed at the over-simplified mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue. Your anecdote only hints at a rising economy, not rising government revenue. Even if you were managing to prove some point, it's not the counterpoint you seem to think it is.
2) Your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Improvements in your own personal lot, your area, and a particular industry like tourism cannot necessarily be generalized to the economy as a whole. Or to government revenue.
3) What economic recovery has occurred has been very slow and shallow. With three years under his belt (make what excuses you'd like) the economy is worse now than when Bush went into office.
4) What economic recovery has occurred could easily be attributed as much or more to living off borrowed money rather than to tax cuts -- stimulate now, pay later.
He should try living in some of those states west of the mississippi like Oregon or California. Were still not doing so well. And the unemployment.....well let's just not go into that ( at the end of last year we still had the worst employment since 1986 ).
What they should say is if you have one, come out an make in plainly and succinctly. Offer good counterpoints if you have them to contrary opinion, and address the challenges that have been made to your opinions, without ducking those challenges or trying to substitute sly innuendo for a meaningful contribution to a discussion.
"They" probably don't say that, but a man can dream.
What they should say is if you have one, come out an make in plainly and succinctly. Offer good counterpoints if you have them to contrary opinion, and address the challenges that have been made to your opinions, without ducking those challenges or trying to substitute sly innuendo for a meaningful contribution to a discussion.
"They" probably don't say that, but a man can dream.
Well it could be like the writer Harlan Ellison says : " You're entitled to your informed opinion ".
If I go by logic you and many have espoused in other threads, GWB holds office so it is his to claim. You say the clinton downturn was his fault because he holds office.
Seriously, many (read most) economists agree that the tax cuts have spurred economic growth. As I stated my family has felt those effects.
What they should say is if you have one, come out an make in plainly and succinctly. Offer good counterpoints if you have them to contrary opinion, and address the challenges that have been made to your opinions, without ducking those challenges or trying to substitute sly innuendo for a meaningful contribution to a discussion.
"They" probably don't say that, but a man can dream.
Sorry if you thought that was an attack on you. I was also including myself in that opinion thing.
If I go by logic you and many have espoused in other threads, GWB holds office so it is his to claim. You say the clinton downturn was his fault because he holds office.
Seriously, many (read most) economists agree that the tax cuts have spurred economic growth. As I stated my family has felt those effects.
Actually I think most of us have stated that we were due for a downturn in the late 90's. It's what Bush did in response to that we have issues with.
We're still not feeling much difference here in Oregon.
By the way nice little website you have there ( serious comment not a jab ).
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
ONe more obnoxious post and I lock this thread too.
how about this:
Originally posted by NaplesX
. . .I was trying to inspire jimmac to bring it up a notch. . . .
You mean, up to your level?
Originally posted by pfflam
how about this:
You mean, up to your level?
No, that may be a bit much to ask, just out of the gutter a bit.
ahhh the slide continues...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...le600505.shtml
How to put this? Oh, yeah......
We do not have "record" unemployment or the "worst unemployment since WWII".
It is simply not the case. Average unemployment over the past 40 years has been approximately 8.5%. Go to the BLS and get the data. Our unemployment number is very low by any meaningful historical standard.
Jimmac, I've also never said Bush can do no wrong. I've never, ever believed that, so enough with the putting words in my mouth. Bush has done some things I disagree with. In particular, he has supported too much domestic non-defense spending and encouraged too much big government. I also think that though the case for the Iraq war was strong, he could have done a better job articlating the reasons for it beyond WMD. Those are two examples.
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue. For all your talk of how terrible things were after Reagan's tax cuts, the fact is that tax revenues DOUBLED during the decade....mostly due to the soaring economy. Blame Reagan for allowing too much spending if you like (though it was generally military spending that did it, which I support), but the revenue side of the equation was not and IS NOT the problem.
And finally, the fact that you were an adult during the Reagan years does nothing to excuse your utter ignorance of fiscal policy. It also does nothing to excuse your factually inaccurate statements (i.e "record unemployment").
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac,
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue. For all your talk of how terrible things were after Reagan's tax cuts, the fact is that tax revenues DOUBLED during the decade....mostly due to the soaring economy. Blame Reagan for allowing too much spending if you like (though it was generally military spending that did it, which I support), but the revenue side of the equation was not and IS NOT the problem.
Hmm. Under Reagan, income revenues increased by about 56%. Under Clinton, income tax revenue increased by near 95%. Carter: 81%. Nixon Ford: 80% Kennedy Johnson: 78%. In fact, the only administration in modern times with lower tax revenues to show for their economic policy than Bush II is-- you guessed it! Bush I with a whopping 26% increase!
It's not like it's a secret-- the figures are available here:http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...uence=0#table3 from our very own Congressional Budget Office.
Originally posted by SDW2001
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue.
What you've said above is far from utterly right. This is another good spot to recommend the book The Price of Loyalty -- there's some good discussion there from Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan there about practical economics vs. ideological economics.
What you've stated above about tax cuts is a nuance-free, situation-free, fact-free ideological proclamation -- it's not a valid real-word fact, as much as you'd like to treat it as such.
You might be correct that tax cuts will generally stimulate the economy, although a lot depends of the composition of those tax cuts. The stimulative effect could be very small, and even negated or reversed by other effects of cutting taxes, like rising deficits or unemployment of former government workers (if that's a place where cuts were made along with cutting taxes).
It's far, far from certain that the degree of economic stimulus generated by a tax cut will be so great that revenues are actually going to go up when tax rates go down.
Time to trot out the old Laffer curve:
From http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp:
The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.
Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.
The completely unfounded Article of Faith for a lot of conservatives is that, no matter where taxes are a the moment, that we're somewhere to the right of T*, not on the left.
One must also realize that the curve is a gross over simplification, it might have multiple maxima, and it doesn't take into a count complicated things about tax structure.
One good fiscally conservative point to make -- although not very meaningful unless you really know where T* is -- is that if government can make do with less revenue than T* represents, then it's certainly not mandatory to push tax rates until revenue is maximized.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac,
How to put this? Oh, yeah......
We do not have "record" unemployment or the "worst unemployment since WWII".
It is simply not the case. Average unemployment over the past 40 years has been approximately 8.5%. Go to the BLS and get the data. Our unemployment number is very low by any meaningful historical standard.
Jimmac, I've also never said Bush can do no wrong. I've never, ever believed that, so enough with the putting words in my mouth. Bush has done some things I disagree with. In particular, he has supported too much domestic non-defense spending and encouraged too much big government. I also think that though the case for the Iraq war was strong, he could have done a better job articlating the reasons for it beyond WMD. Those are two examples.
As for tax cuts, you're just utterly wrong. Tax cuts stimluate economic growth, which in turn brings in more revenue. For all your talk of how terrible things were after Reagan's tax cuts, the fact is that tax revenues DOUBLED during the decade....mostly due to the soaring economy. Blame Reagan for allowing too much spending if you like (though it was generally military spending that did it, which I support), but the revenue side of the equation was not and IS NOT the problem.
And finally, the fact that you were an adult during the Reagan years does nothing to excuse your utter ignorance of fiscal policy. It also does nothing to excuse your factually inaccurate statements (i.e "record unemployment").
Ok I guess CNN is wrong and your right!
And I was just asleep during the 80's
Originally posted by shetline
[...]
...a lot depends of the composition of those tax cuts. The stimulative effect could be very small, and even negated or reversed by other effects of cutting taxes, like rising deficits or unemployment of former government workers (if that's a place where cuts were made along with cutting taxes).
It's far, far from certain that the degree of economic stimulus generated by a tax cut will be so great that revenues are actually going to go up when tax rates go down.
Time to trot out the old Laffer curve:
The completely unfounded Article of Faith for a lot of conservatives is that, no matter where taxes are a the moment, that we're somewhere to the right of T*, not on the left.
[...]
Thank you for pointing this out. Excellent post. Just excellent.
Originally posted by shetline
What you've said above is far from utterly right. This is another good spot to recommend the book The Price of Loyalty -- there's some good discussion there from Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan there about practical economics vs. ideological economics.
What you've stated above about tax cuts is a nuance-free, situation-free, fact-free ideological proclamation -- it's not a valid real-word fact, as much as you'd like to treat it as such.
You might be correct that tax cuts will generally stimulate the economy, although a lot depends of the composition of those tax cuts. The stimulative effect could be very small, and even negated or reversed by other effects of cutting taxes, like rising deficits or unemployment of former government workers (if that's a place where cuts were made along with cutting taxes).
It's far, far from certain that the degree of economic stimulus generated by a tax cut will be so great that revenues are actually going to go up when tax rates go down.
Time to trot out the old Laffer curve:
The completely unfounded Article of Faith for a lot of conservatives is that, no matter where taxes are a the moment, that we're somewhere to the right of T*, not on the left.
One must also realize that the curve is a gross over simplification, and it might have multiple maxima, and it doesn't tax into a count complicated things about tax structure.
One good fiscally conservative point to make -- although not very meaningful unless you really know where T* is -- is that if goverment can make do on less revenue than T* represents, then it's certainly not mandatory to push tax rates until revenue is maximized.
Hey Ross Perot,
I have two businesses, both are service companies. I live in an extreme tourist area. I have been in business for 5 years. Things went south for the economy right before BC left office. I have been struggling and downsizing for the last three years. Over the last six months, I have seen a serious upswing in spending. I can now be found with about $500 in my pocket at ant given time. You can put up charts and quote studies all day long. But this economy is going upwards and it is directly tied to the GWB economic plan.
I and this area ate living proof. Deny if you must.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Latest CBS Poll...
ahhh the slide continues...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...le600505.shtml
It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
It must haver something to do with Bush's brillant economic plan. Well I suppose if you try long enough ( 4 years ) you'd probably get some kind of results. To bad the jobs aren't following as quickly.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have two businesses, both are service companies. I live in an extreme tourist area. I have been in business for 5 years. Things went south for the economy right before BC left office. I have been struggling and downsizing for the last three years. Over the last six months, I have seen a serious upswing in spending. I can now be found with about $500 in my pocket at ant given time. You can put up charts and quote studies all day long. But this economy is going upwards and it is directly tied to the GWB economic plan.
1) My post was directed at the over-simplified mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue. Your anecdote only hints at a rising economy, not rising government revenue. Even if you were managing to prove some point, it's not the counterpoint you seem to think it is.
2) Your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Improvements in your own personal lot, your area, and a particular industry like tourism cannot necessarily be generalized to the economy as a whole. Or to government revenue.
3) What economic recovery has occurred has been very slow and shallow. With three years under his belt (make what excuses you'd like) the economy is worse now than when Bush went into office.
4) What economic recovery has occurred could easily be attributed as much or more to living off borrowed money rather than to tax cuts -- stimulate now, pay later.
Originally posted by shetline
1) My post was directed at the over-simplified mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue. Your anecdote only hints at a rising economy, not rising government revenue. Even if you were managing to prove some point, it's not the counterpoint you seem to think it is.
2) Your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Improvements in your own personal lot, your area, and a particular industry like tourism cannot necessarily be generalized to the economy as a whole. Or to government revenue.
3) What economic recovery has occurred has been very slow and shallow. With three years under his belt (make what excuses you'd like) the economy is worse now than when Bush went into office.
4) What economic recovery has occurred could easily be attributed as much or more to living off borrowed money rather than to tax cuts -- stimulate now, pay later.
You know what they say about opinions, right?
Their are many indicators of economic growth, not just in my area. Please do not paint me as narrow minded and short sighted. I am just giving some evidence in my own life, anecdotal or not.
Originally posted by shetline
1) My post was directed at the over-simplified mantra that cutting taxes raises revenue. Your anecdote only hints at a rising economy, not rising government revenue. Even if you were managing to prove some point, it's not the counterpoint you seem to think it is.
2) Your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Improvements in your own personal lot, your area, and a particular industry like tourism cannot necessarily be generalized to the economy as a whole. Or to government revenue.
3) What economic recovery has occurred has been very slow and shallow. With three years under his belt (make what excuses you'd like) the economy is worse now than when Bush went into office.
4) What economic recovery has occurred could easily be attributed as much or more to living off borrowed money rather than to tax cuts -- stimulate now, pay later.
He should try living in some of those states west of the mississippi like Oregon or California. Were still not doing so well. And the unemployment.....well let's just not go into that ( at the end of last year we still had the worst employment since 1986 ).
Originally posted by NaplesX
You know what they say about opinions, right?
What they should say is if you have one, come out an make in plainly and succinctly. Offer good counterpoints if you have them to contrary opinion, and address the challenges that have been made to your opinions, without ducking those challenges or trying to substitute sly innuendo for a meaningful contribution to a discussion.
"They" probably don't say that, but a man can dream.
Originally posted by shetline
What they should say is if you have one, come out an make in plainly and succinctly. Offer good counterpoints if you have them to contrary opinion, and address the challenges that have been made to your opinions, without ducking those challenges or trying to substitute sly innuendo for a meaningful contribution to a discussion.
"They" probably don't say that, but a man can dream.
Well it could be like the writer Harlan Ellison says : " You're entitled to your informed opinion ".
Originally posted by NaplesX
...this economy is going upwards and it is directly tied to the GWB economic plan.
How do you make this leap in logic?
Originally posted by bunge
How do you make this leap in logic?
If I go by logic you and many have espoused in other threads, GWB holds office so it is his to claim. You say the clinton downturn was his fault because he holds office.
Seriously, many (read most) economists agree that the tax cuts have spurred economic growth. As I stated my family has felt those effects.
Originally posted by shetline
What they should say is if you have one, come out an make in plainly and succinctly. Offer good counterpoints if you have them to contrary opinion, and address the challenges that have been made to your opinions, without ducking those challenges or trying to substitute sly innuendo for a meaningful contribution to a discussion.
"They" probably don't say that, but a man can dream.
Sorry if you thought that was an attack on you. I was also including myself in that opinion thing.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If I go by logic you and many have espoused in other threads, GWB holds office so it is his to claim. You say the clinton downturn was his fault because he holds office.
Seriously, many (read most) economists agree that the tax cuts have spurred economic growth. As I stated my family has felt those effects.
Actually I think most of us have stated that we were due for a downturn in the late 90's. It's what Bush did in response to that we have issues with.
We're still not feeling much difference here in Oregon.
By the way nice little website you have there ( serious comment not a jab ).