October 14, 200817 yr I keep reading variations of this same basic argument on here in criticisms of Obama's tax plan, but the facts just don't support it. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 heavily benefitted the super rich (i.e. top 1% of income earners). However, job creation during Bush's presidency has lagged far behind the cumulative total during the same time period of the Clinton administration (see graph below, and official Bureau of Labor Statistics data here). So even with much lower taxes for the super wealthy, job creation during Bush's time in office has been about 1/4 of what it was when the rich were being "soaked" before the Bush tax cuts. How do you square that major league disconnect with your claim that taxing the rich kills jobs? A similar comparison could be made showing how real wages have stagnated since the Bush tax cuts took effect as compared to previous periods under higher tax rates for the wealthy. And the economic data does not show that the tax cuts have helped the overall economy (GDP growth rate has been lower since the tax cuts than during any comparable period in the 1990s). The tax cuts (coupled with reckless spending) also exploded the deficit and national debt to record levels... H, you socialist, you...
October 14, 200817 yr I keep reading variations of this same basic argument on here in criticisms of Obama's tax plan, but the facts just don't support it. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 heavily benefitted the super rich (i.e. top 1% of income earners). However, job creation during Bush's presidency has lagged far behind the cumulative total during the same time period of the Clinton administration (see graph below, and official Bureau of Labor Statistics data here). So even with much lower taxes for the super wealthy, job creation during Bush's time in office has been about 1/4 of what it was when the rich were being "soaked" before the Bush tax cuts. How do you square that major league disconnect with your claim that taxing the rich kills jobs? A similar comparison could be made showing how real wages have stagnated since the Bush tax cuts took effect as compared to previous periods under higher tax rates for the wealthy. And the economic data does not show that the tax cuts have helped the overall economy (GDP growth rate has been lower since the tax cuts than during any comparable period in the 1990s). The tax cuts (coupled with reckless spending) also exploded the deficit and national debt to record levels... Thats is because the deregulation of giving ho,e loans to those who couldn't afford it by Clinton and Obama and NAFTA got us into the mess we are now.
October 14, 200817 yr The fact that Obama makes Clinton look conservative by comparison says it all for me... :thumb:
October 14, 200817 yr The fact that Obama makes Clinton look conservative by comparison says it all for me... :thumb:Obama is so liberal that George McGovern has resurfaced to campaign against part of Obama's platform.
October 14, 200817 yr I keep reading variations of this same basic argument on here in criticisms of Obama's tax plan, but the facts just don't support it. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 heavily benefitted the super rich (i.e. top 1% of income earners). However, job creation during Bush's presidency has lagged far behind the cumulative total during the same time period of the Clinton administration (see graph below, and official Bureau of Labor Statistics data here). So even with much lower taxes for the super wealthy, job creation during Bush's time in office has been about 1/4 of what it was when the rich were being "soaked" before the Bush tax cuts. How do you square that major league disconnect with your claim that taxing the rich kills jobs? A similar comparison could be made showing how real wages have stagnated since the Bush tax cuts took effect as compared to previous periods under higher tax rates for the wealthy. And the economic data does not show that the tax cuts have helped the overall economy (GDP growth rate has been lower since the tax cuts than during any comparable period in the 1990s). The tax cuts (coupled with reckless spending) also exploded the deficit and national debt to record levels... 1) The Bush tax cuts heavily helped all groups. 2) Clinton was probably the luckiest man in history.
October 14, 200817 yr The fact that Obama makes Clinton look conservative by comparison says it all for me... :thumb: :confused: I'm not following your logic here. You were trying to make the case that Obama's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% will kill jobs. That claim is not supported by the data showing that many more jobs were created during the Clinton administration (before taxes on the wealthy were slashed by Bush) than have been created after the tax cuts. So the blanket (and somewhat alarmist) statement that Obama's tax proposal will kill jobs is not supported by historical data.
October 14, 200817 yr 1) The Bush tax cuts heavily helped all groups. The Bush tax cuts have not resulted in significant job creation, and have not spurred historically robust GDP or real wage growth. Partially as a result of the tax cuts (coupled with runaway spending), the national debt has increased from $5.8 trillion to about $10 trillion ($33,333 for every American man, woman, and child) and the budget deficit is the highest in history and climbing. To the extent that the Bush tax cuts have put more money in people's pockets, they merely transferred current tax liabilities into the future. A spending spree put on the national credit card. 2) Clinton was probably the luckiest man in history. Not a very convincing explanation of the cold hard facts.
October 14, 200817 yr I keep reading variations of this same basic argument on here in criticisms of Obama's tax plan, but the facts just don't support it. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 heavily benefitted the super rich (i.e. top 1% of income earners). However, job creation during Bush's presidency has lagged far behind the cumulative total during the same time period of the Clinton administration (see graph below, and official Bureau of Labor Statistics data here). So even with much lower taxes for the super wealthy, job creation during Bush's time in office has been about 1/4 of what it was when the rich were being "soaked" before the Bush tax cuts. How do you square that major league disconnect with your claim that taxing the rich kills jobs? A similar comparison could be made showing how real wages have stagnated since the Bush tax cuts took effect as compared to previous periods under higher tax rates for the wealthy. And the economic data does not show that the tax cuts have helped the overall economy (GDP growth rate has been lower since the tax cuts than during any comparable period in the 1990s). The tax cuts (coupled with reckless spending) also exploded the deficit and national debt to record levels... 1. The tax cuts have benefited GDP. I took the 6 quarters before and after the tax cuts of 2003. (2001 4Q- 2003 1Q)- GDP Growth Rate of 1.7% (2003 2Q- 2004 3Q)- GDP Growth Rate of just under 4% 2. Clinton benefited from the fact that his administration had no recessions. Give me an argument that Clinton's economic policies prevented recessions. I'd guess that, if that were true, then every country in the world would have adopted it by now. I am not saying that Clinton was a horrible Presidency- he did some good things. Although I don't know how much credit I can give for him the economy.... Bush's administration has gone through the dot-com bubble, 9/11, the recession of 2001, and this current Economic crisis. I am not Bush defender. I will agree with you that reckless spending has balooned the debt. But, not only do you not give links to your numbers on job growth and real wages, your statements are misleading, and you are overcrediting Clinton for an economy that I can't imagine we'd see soon again.
October 14, 200817 yr I keep reading variations of this same basic argument on here in criticisms of Obama's tax plan, but the facts just don't support it. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 heavily benefitted the super rich (i.e. top 1% of income earners). However, job creation during Bush's presidency has lagged far behind the cumulative total during the same time period of the Clinton administration (see graph below, and official Bureau of Labor Statistics data here). So even with much lower taxes for the super wealthy, job creation during Bush's time in office has been about 1/4 of what it was when the rich were being "soaked" before the Bush tax cuts. How do you square that major league disconnect with your claim that taxing the rich kills jobs? A similar comparison could be made showing how real wages have stagnated since the Bush tax cuts took effect as compared to previous periods under higher tax rates for the wealthy. And the economic data does not show that the tax cuts have helped the overall economy (GDP growth rate has been lower since the tax cuts than during any comparable period in the 1990s). The tax cuts (coupled with reckless spending) also exploded the deficit and national debt to record levels... Because it doesnt work that way...lets see if those tax cuts create jobs in 8-10 yrs. It takes time to grow business' from when the seed is planted. They dont just sprout up jobs over night. The national debt has exploded for other reasons...not because of the tax cuts. Reckless spending (Yes by Bush), 2 wars fought, 911, recession of '01, etc!
October 14, 200817 yr Socialism----pure socialism----if he wins we're gonners as far as capitalism goes. Down the tubes as a leading nation. How can anyone not see through this political ploy? GO McCAIN and PALIN!!!!
October 14, 200817 yr Because it doesnt work that way...lets see if those tax cuts create jobs in 8-10 yrs. It takes time to grow business' from when the seed is planted. They dont just sprout up jobs over night. The national debt has exploded for other reasons...not because of the tax cuts. Reckless spending (Yes by Bush), 2 wars fought, 911, recession of '01, etc! 8-10 years?!? You've got to be kidding. I realize it takes some time for policy decisions to have measurable effects, but we are 5-7 years into the Bush tax cuts (passed in 2001 and 2003). That is more than enough time for there to be a measureable effect. I doubt you'll find many (any?) economists who agree with the notion that businesses require up to a decade to respond to changes in the tax environment.
October 14, 200817 yr 8-10 years?!? You've got to be kidding. I realize it takes some time for policy decisions to have measurable effects, but we are 5-7 years into the Bush tax cuts (passed in 2001 and 2003). That is more than enough time for there to be a measureable effect. I doubt you'll find many (any?) economists who agree with the notion that businesses require up to a decade to respond to changes in the tax environment. Why, sure! That way, Clinton gets the credit for the Reagan policies; Obama (taking a wild guess here) gets the credit for the Bush II policies. Those lucky Democrats!
October 14, 200817 yr Why, sure! That way, Clinton gets the credit for the Reagan policies; Obama (taking a wild guess here) gets the credit for the Bush II policies. Those lucky Democrats! :lol: Convenient? Actually, there is a such a thing as "inherited economies." But, it's more like one year, or two at most.
October 14, 200817 yr The subject was "job creation"...and that the tax cuts didnt help. That its way too early to understand that impact. And its not the impact of 1 or 2 yrs of tax cuts...but the cumulative effect over many years. And you are wrong about economists...Economic policies take time to work. I have started about 9 different business' since 2000. I can tell you that ANY extra money that I get I reinvest back to help those companies grow. When my companies grow...I hire new workers! But believe it or not...it takes time for them to grow. FTR...I do not support many of the economic policy's Bush has had over the eight years. But i do support his tax policies. As a matter of fact I think taxes should be cut again. Edited October 14, 200817 yr by GusMcRae
October 14, 200817 yr 8-10 years?!? You've got to be kidding. I realize it takes some time for policy decisions to have measurable effects, but we are 5-7 years into the Bush tax cuts (passed in 2001 and 2003). That is more than enough time for there to be a measureable effect. I doubt you'll find many (any?) economists who agree with the notion that businesses require up to a decade to respond to changes in the tax environment. Why, sure! That way, Clinton gets the credit for the Reagan policies; Obama (taking a wild guess here) gets the credit for the Bush II policies. Those lucky Democrats! You can't blame the current (as in past few months) state of the economy on tax cuts.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.