Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

[13]J. D. Foster, "The Tax Relief Program Worked: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2145, June 18, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2145.cfm.

[14]Press release, "The Employment Situation: June 2009," U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2, 2009, p. 1, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (July 29, 2009).

[15]N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide," NBER Working Paper No. 11000, December 2004, pp. 15-16, at http://www.nber.org/tmp/8655-w11000.pdf (July 20, 2009). (Later published in Journal of Public Economics (September 2006).)

[16]Foster, "The Tax Relief Program Worked: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent."

[17]Curtis S. Dubay, "The Economic Impact of the Proposed Capital Gains Tax Increase," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2418, April 29, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2418.cfm, and Curtis S. Dubay, "Obama's Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hurt Seniors," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2433, May 11, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2433.cfm.

[18]U.S. Department of Treasury, "Treasury Conference on Business Taxation and Global Competitiveness," July 23, 2007, p. 15, at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/07230%20r.pdf (July 15, 2009).

[19]William M. Gentry and R. Glenn Hubbard, "'Success Taxes,' Entrepreneurial Entry, and Innovation," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 10551, June 2004, at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=556538 (June 15, 2009).

Here are the cites. Just call them republican and pretend that changes the facts.

Nothing from Foster and/or the Heritage Foundation can be considered unbiased.

Heritage's data claiming to show revenue increases consistently ignore inflation.

Ion doesn't understand the process of making a point using raw data to show its effect. Let's just clear teh slate and make this easy for him: ION, SHOW ME A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUTS WERE IMPOSED AND THE RESULT WAS POSITIVE. OR DO THE OPPOSITE, MAJOR FEDERAL TAX INCREASE THAT TURNED DISASTEROUS.

Of course there are other considerations and attributes of every economy, but just using raw data is a good start to understanding how it works in the real world, OUTSIDE of those fantasyland agenda-based papers you've posted.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like the Civil Rights Act, maybe? Oh, wait...that was the right, sorry.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress.

Yup...that heavily Dem congress that held it in committee hoping it would die...then filibustered it for almost 2 months. The bill that Exalted Cyclops Byrd filibustered against for over 14 hours straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

--> The bill was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963...

--> The bill was sent to the House of Representatives, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee greatly strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters.

--> The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Conservative Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

--> To prevent the humiliation of the success of the petition, Chairman Smith allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.

--> Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself.


So because Mansfield wanted to expedite it by bypassing teh judiciary committee, that is what caused the brief fillibuster. It was the expedient attempt that caused the passage, not general resistance. And one Dem neck was a delay in the House, Howard Smith of Virginia, that was quickly dealt with.

--> The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."


LUCKY: These are called, "Yellow Dog Democrats" this group of southerners still stuck in the Civil War. Today we call this same dying group of people, "Republicans." See, in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, etc southerners loved welfare and hated big city slickers a blacks. They voted Dem in most cases. After the 1964 Civil Rights Act LBJ was elected, but there weren't any Dems elected until Obama other than Carter or Clinton who were homers. This same group of conservative Yellow Doggers became Republican in the years following the Act. As we see today the south is all red, teh same states that kept Dems in office during the racist 50's, they rebelled by going Republican.

--> After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.

LUCKY: If you notice, these are non-southern states that were trying to get this thing thru, so it was less partisan than it was geographical.

--> On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

--> Finally, on June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, referring to the Democratic Party, "We have lost the South for a generation."

LUCKY: That's my point, it was more a geographical issue than a partisan issue. Southern necks rebelled by turning Republican and look what we now have: 12T in debt - who really won?

Even still it was more supported by Dems in teh south:

HOUSE VERSION:

- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

SENATE VERSION:

- Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
- Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

So with all the southern resistance, ZERO southern Republicans voted for it in the House or Senate, 8 combined House/Senate Desm voted for it. So even at it being more a geographical measure, it was still a Democratic move all the way.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

All the bigots became GOP and the GOP took the south for two generations.

Yep, Yellow Dog Dems became self-riteous Republicans.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like the Civil Rights Act, maybe? Oh, wait...that was the right, sorry.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress.

Yup...that heavily Dem congress that held it in committee hoping it would die...then filibustered it for almost 2 months. The bill that Exalted Cyclops Byrd filibustered against for over 14 hours straight.

ALL the Southern Dems in the Senate voted against it.

"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the
Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for
the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for,
6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act.
[...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152
for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103
Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent
(138 for, 34 against) voted for it."


Of course, LBJ was quite correct when he said the Dems would lose the south for a generation (being that a generation is a subset of 2 generations). All the bigots became GOP and the GOP took the south for two generations.

\

Yes, of COURSE they did, John - they just jumped ship and went over to the side of the aisle that overwhelmingly (82% Senate, 80% House) voted for something they were vehemently opposed to.

Bullshit.

The Democratic resistance was HEAVILY in the South. This was more geographical than it was partisan, but Kennedy did initiate it, LBJ furthered it and signed it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ion doesn't understand the process of making a point using raw data to show its effect. Let's just clear teh slate and make this easy for him: ION, SHOW ME A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUTS WERE IMPOSED AND THE RESULT WAS POSITIVE. OR DO THE OPPOSITE, MAJOR FEDERAL TAX INCREASE THAT TURNED DISASTEROUS.

Of course there are other considerations and attributes of every economy, but just using raw data is a good start to understanding how it works in the real world, OUTSIDE of those fantasyland agenda-based papers you've posted.

Wow - the irony here. And a lot of outs for you, so you can reject any raw data at will. Makes it kind of pointless, no?

Reagan lowered taxes, economy pulled out of the stagflation of the 70s.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we had a recession in 1994.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Wow - the irony here. And a lot of outs for you, so you can reject any raw data at will. Makes it kind of pointless, no?

And yet your side would scream bloody murder if I posted Moveon. Of course you will skim over that and not respond, right?

Data is best when it is from the gov and even Wikipedia, any source that is truely objective is going to be fair and usually accurate, but that is what the resonse gets to attack; the accuracy. Op-eds are skewed opinions. What sucks the most is an op-ed from anyone, that is just a personal take from someone other than the poster. If ya want to plagiarize I would rather read a person take that argument and provide independent data rather than an editorial cut-n-pasty with dreamed-up data.

Quote

Reagan lowered taxes, economy pulled out of the stagflation of the 70s.

And as he did unemp went to 10.8% and the debt trippled; wasn't that a great time.

Quote

Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we had a recession in 1994.

Actually GHWB did in 1990 and Clinton did in 93 and show me this recession please. Wait, I enjoy disproving you more:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

Looks like a pretty good upward stream to me, maybe I'm not good at reading these dam pesky things.

Oh wait, maybe it was the unemployment rate. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

No, the unmp in jan 94 was 6.6% and 5.5% in Dec 94. In fact, the unemp rate was 7.3% in Jan 93 and 4.2% in Jan 2001. Do you step in it a lot or just sometimes?

In Jan 94 the Dow was 3,635, in Jan 95 it was 4,157. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined So where exactly did you dream up this recession of 1994? Was it you who lost a job and had a personal recession? That doesn't equate to a national recession.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we had a recession in 1994.

Do you have any more info on that recession? It isn't listed here.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we had a recession in 1994.

Do you have any more info on that recession? It isn't listed here.

Right, all I see is: The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history.

[kelpdiver 2]

Overall, the world had a lousy 2004. And as always, you're a bit sloppy with data.

Yes, as someone entering the job market, I had a pretty clear view of how it was looking that year.

94 Q3 GDP dropped to 2.6%, the first two Qs of 2005 were 1.0 and 0.9%. Saying that doesn't count sounds much like the Republicans here 2 years ago.

The S&P 500 returned 1.32% in 1994. (10.08% for 1993, 37.58% for 1995) If stocks are your metric, the S&P is a much more valid choice than the DOW. It shouldn't have to be said that recessions aren't measured from Jan to Jan either. Quarterly data is necessary. It lost 4% in from Dec 93 to Apr 94. It didn't get back to even until Sept.

[kelpdiver 2]

And of course as I've been telling you all along, your theory that tax cuts/hikes lead to booms/recessions isn't supported by data, not at the simplistic level that you attempt to do so.

You want a simple cause and effect relationship, and that doesn't work in the real world. Macroeconomics are never so simple and direct.

Our most recent recession wasn't caused by tax cuts. It was caused by cheap money.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Overall, the world had a lousy 2004.

I thought we were talking about 1994; are you taking the right meds?

Quote

And as always, you're a bit sloppy with data.

I posted 3 pieces of data:

- GDP
- Unemp Rate
- DJIA

All from the 1990's, so either explain how the data is sloppy or recant. Of course you won't, you juts don't admit error.

Quote

Yes, as someone entering the job market, I had a pretty clear view of how it was looking that year.

Right, so because you were having a personal recession, the world was. Those were the best years of this country starting then.

Quote

94 Q3 GDP dropped to 2.6%, the first two Qs of 2005 were 1.0 and 0.9%.

I love how you post the source. Why wouldn't you? True or not, they were all + and you could have a number of Q's at .5% and not be in a recession. Regardless, I want to see the numbers. We were recovering from the 1900 recession job waise still, but all was OK in 94. SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE.

Quote

Saying that doesn't count sounds much like the Republicans here 2 years ago.

HUH?

Quote

The S&P 500 returned 1.32% in 1994. (10.08% for 1993, 37.58% for 1995) If stocks are your metric, the S&P is a much more valid choice than the DOW.

The S&P? It is never used to define an economy; DUDE, YOU'RE DESPERATE!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC#chart1:symbol=^gspc;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

But let's go with your S&P obscure vision.

S&P Jan 93 - 451
S&P Jan 94 - 445
S&P Jan 95 - 500
S&P Jan 96 - 645
S&P Jan 97 - 757

So the gain in the 1993 year was basically 0 You say 10.08%
So the gain in the 1994 year was 12% You say 1.32%
So the gain in the 1995 year was 29% You say 37.58%
So the gain in the 1996 year was 17%

So again, where the fuck do you get your numbers? I cite mine, you don't cite yours. You want to make the 1993 tax increase a bad thing and you're willing to lie to do it. Dude, hook me up w/your dealer.

Quote

It shouldn't have to be said that recessions aren't measured from Jan to Jan either. Quarterly data is necessary. It lost 4% in from Dec 93 to Apr 94. It didn't get back to even until Sept.

So now we're going to be semantic and argue whethr to use January or December? Either way, your numbers are so far off it's a joke - show me your source. Again, the DJAI is teh best indictor, but either way you're wrong and YOU NEVER POST OBJECCTIVE RAW DATA, IT'S ALWAYS AN OP-ED FROM HERITAGE OR SOME BS LIKE THAT.

Basically as opposed to complaining about the methodology, look at the graph: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC#chart1:symbol=^gspc;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Actually 93 was the year that had a 0 gainer, 94 had 12%, a nice return from an index that is usually very docile and rick-free. Go back to Heritage for more lame arguments.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And of course as I've been telling you all along, your theory that tax cuts/hikes lead to booms/recessions isn't supported by data, not at the simplistic level that you attempt to do so.

You want a simple cause and effect relationship, and that doesn't work in the real world. Macroeconomics are never so simple and direct.

Our most recent recession wasn't caused by tax cuts. It was caused by cheap money.

The recent mess was caused by Bush's tax cuts, caused Greenspan to lower int rates to spur the economy, didn't work - lower, didn't work - lower, didn't work - lower. WHen tehy stayed too low too long, the principle replaced the interest on home payments; buyers were qualifying for higher priced houses and that started the spiral. Your favorite guy, GWB even said that low int rates were part of teh cause; of course they were - follow your hero GWB.

As for tax cuts being the only villian to recessions, of course not, but when they cut the top brkt below 40% we're in trouble. Look at the graph on the lower-left of the page. 2 times it was in the 20's, right before the GD and right before the 1990 recession. The 1980 recession was caused by OPEC and other energy issues in part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

my take on it is that the economy is healthier when people are spending. Lots of people.Not the few rich guys here and there.

I agree and rich people spend all teh time, poor people only spend a lot when wages are up and social programs are up.

Quote

If $10B gets spent by 100M people, I think it's much better for the economy than if $10B gets spent by 100 people.

I agree, which is my argument, you have to redistribute taxes in order to keep that 10B inteh reach of the 100m people - you made my argument. Thank you.

Quote

So what this means is that it's not taxing rich people that helps the economy, but reducing taxes, or getting more money into the pockets of middle & lower class that helps.

Oh, ok, so you're saying that cutting taxes puts money in the hands of teh poor and MC. I'm the spider / you're the fly. So let's see, cut taxes 10% accross teh board and the poor / MC will be loaded, I see. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

So the bottom 50% who only pay <3% of the taxes anyway get that tax cuts and now they pay 2.7% of the taxes and that .3% amounts to nothing collectively and they spend it and nothing happens. In order to get the money to teh 100M people as you desired, we would have to take the entire lower 50% and give them EIC grants and increase taxes on the top brkts to pay for that, so I see we are on the same page. How else can you get the lower 50%, 10's of millions of people to spend that money as we both agree would be the best? Either increase their wages of give them all 20k/yr in EIC and the Republicans don't want to do either, just cut taxes. PLEASE TELL ME THAT YOU STILL DON'T BELIEVE A TAX CUT IS A POSITIVE THING FOR THE PEOPLE IN THAT < 3% BRAKET.

Quote

Now to make such a proposal work, you may have to bump the taxes on upper class a bit in our current system.

A bit? No, a fuck of a lot. The chart I gave you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

We're at 35%, we need to go to 50%, maybe 70% to control the debt and provide for the lower classes.

Quote

still think that once things get a little better, and people start spending more frequently, we should take a more serious look at the FairTax. Most people only see "sales tax" and stop reading. What I really like about it is that monthly there is a "prebate" sent that is meant to offset the sales tax that is going to be paid that month on necessity items.

I think when you isolate taxes on a given thing that people will avoid it and that isn't good. We need a diverse set of things to tax.

[kelpdiver 2]

Only a dumbass would use the Dow over the S&P. One covers 30 major companies, some of which become irrelevant and are replaced (examples - Kodak, AIG, GM, Citibank). It also suffers from price weighting.

The other covers the 500 largest companies in America. It also does substitutions, but those are all on the margin. Overall, the S&P represents 70% of the US Equity market.

My source?
[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500[/url]

Getting monthly data was more convoluted. Since you're going to ignore contrary data anyway, I'm not going to spend a lot of time spelling it out for you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Only a dumbass would use the Dow over the S&P.

Then these guys are dumbasses and you are an undiscovered genius:

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-indicators/12727507-1.html

...one of the world's best-known stock-market benchmarks.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dow+Jones+Industrial+Average

Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), sometimes referred to as the Dow, is the best-known and most widely followed market indicator in the world. It tracks the performance of 30 blue chip US stocks.

http://www.dowjonesstockmarket.info/

However, it is so important and significant to analysts a stock index such as Dow Jones, because to some extent this index is feasible to do a lot of deductions and analysis, most analysts, the focus of the Dow Jones utility as follows:

And you might have heard of the Wall Street Journal. They could use a brilliant guy like you to teach those dumbasses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091002-708758.html

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which was off almost 80 points at its low shortly after the opening bell, was recently up four points, trading at 9513.44. The technology-focused Nasdaq Composite Index was up 0.1%. The small-stock Russell 2000 was flat. The S&P 500 was off 0.1%, led by a 2% decline in its recovery-sensitive industrial sector. But other categories were little changed, with financials and consumer staples managing to post slight gains

http://www.nyse.tv/stocks/nyse.htm

News and Notes about The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), The NASDAQ Composite Index, The S & P 500 Index, New York Spot Gold, NYMEX Crude Oil Future, the 10-Year Treasury Note Yield, the Federal Funds Target Rate and the New York Stock Markets in General.

The DJIA went from 3635 in Jan 94, to 4157 in Jan 95, a 15% gain. So you cherry-picked a small period of time and used the indicator of your choice to make pseudo argument.

Quote

My source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500

Instead of just posting it honestly, you have to be theatric - ridiculous. And where is your citation for the GDP?

Quote

The other covers the 500 largest companies in America.

From your source: The index does include a handful (5 as of September 15, 2009) of non-U.S. companies. This group includes both formerly U.S. companies that have reincorporated outside the United States, as well as firms that have never been incorporated in the United States.

Quote

Getting monthly data was more convoluted. Since you're going to ignore contrary data anyway, I'm not going to spend a lot of time spelling it out for you

So now you read minds? I love contrary data. Hell, I had to pull teeth to get you to cite the S&P source and have yet to see the GDP data. What you mean is that you don't want to be embarrased with your, uh, op-ed Heritage site that refutes other arguments with strict opinion.

Dude you are so desperate that you want to take a reference that obviously uses a different time schedule than typical and try to create an argument that a tax increase in 1993 caused it. Not only is it a microcosm of Clinton's presidency but it isn't the most major ref used, the DJIA is. And to play along with your fantasy, explain the longest growth period in US history after this so-called 1994 recession; how did the rest of the 90's end up so successful? There were no major tax cuts. Again, look at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC#symbol=%5EGSPC;range=my There just isn't anything horrible or great. So I don't know what timeframe they are using, but it's insignificant either way, the market was typical and flat until early 95 when the whole market took off.

The S&P went from 451 in Jan 93 to 1160 in Jan 01, so you're trying to create an argument based upon a numerical chart-based microcosm of time that apparently doesn't coincide with the Yahoo Dow graph.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we had a recession in 1994.

Do you have any more info on that recession? It isn't listed here.

That's because there wasn't one.

The NBER is the OFFICIAL arbiter of recessions in the USA, and they list NO recession in 1994.

www.nber.org/cycles/

All of our recent recessions have started under GOP administrations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

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

This is a great chart that compares Reagan to Clinton in terms of fiscal policy and result. I hope this puts to rest your silly notion that giving the rich more money stimulates growth over increasing taxes and giving the rich more money.

It's a tripod page, but it does cite primary sources which is nice. The author has some trouble staying coherent in his arguments particularly in acknowledging certain accomplishments and writing off others, but there're an important conclusion in here I agree with...

Quote

Lower deficits and higher surpluses clearly have a positive effect on investments ... deficits do long-term damage to the economy.

I think you're trying to pin economic misery on low taxes when what you should be trying to pin it on (even according to the source you brought to the table) is deficit spending. If you want to spend more you have to pay for it responsibly. If you want to tax less you have to get spending under control first.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And to play along with your fantasy, explain the longest growth period in US history after this so-called 1994 recession; how did the rest of the 90's end up so successful? There were no major tax cuts.

Uh, this is your fantasy. I've been trying to educate you - the economy does not track on tax hikes/cuts. It's far more complicated. The latter half of the 90s was fantastic. The internet, largely a US invention (but certainly not entirely), spawned large new industries in which our country had a strong advantage. I lived in the middle of the free money in Silicon Valley, where profits didn't matter. Of course, we eventually to pay for the party and it sucked for a few years. Profits really do matter, and no, things weren't different this time. Just another bubble.

BTW, check out the assets for DIA versus SPY. Money talks.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It's a tripod page, but it does cite primary sources which is nice. The author has some trouble staying coherent in his arguments particularly in acknowledging certain accomplishments and writing off others, but there're an important conclusion in here I agree with...

I posted for the graph data and I think I wrote that when I posted it. I like to post my own args, I just use raw data.

Quote

think you're trying to pin economic misery on low taxes when what you should be trying to pin it on (even according to the source you brought to the table) is deficit spending.

It's both. But most presidents seem to overspend and you can't plan for a 911 or a Katrina other than to have a large cash surplus, so tax levels s/b no less than 50% ever, esp with 12T debts out there.

Quote

If you want to spend more you have to pay for it responsibly. If you want to tax less you have to get spending under control first.

Right that's what GHWB and Clinton did. But waiting for the timing to come around leads to a mess. Let's fix this econ mess, raise taxes to 50%ish, cut military spending immediatley by 25%, get out of Iraq, etc.... We don't have to time anything, we need to just start fixing things.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And to play along with your fantasy, explain the longest growth period in US history after this so-called 1994 recession; how did the rest of the 90's end up so successful? There were no major tax cuts.

Uh, this is your fantasy. I've been trying to educate you - the economy does not track on tax hikes/cuts. It's far more complicated. The latter half of the 90s was fantastic. The internet, largely a US invention (but certainly not entirely), spawned large new industries in which our country had a strong advantage. I lived in the middle of the free money in Silicon Valley, where profits didn't matter. Of course, we eventually to pay for the party and it sucked for a few years. Profits really do matter, and no, things weren't different this time. Just another bubble.

BTW, check out the assets for DIA versus SPY. Money talks.

So this is the turd I get after that long reply? I got ya: game, set, match. Hey Kelp, I think in 1 week during the massive 90's boom that the DJIA actually dropped, must have been those tax increases....Bahahahahaha.

When arguing in major generalizations, which we both are, me saying tax increases fix things and you saying the opposite, you take large blocks of time after major tax increases and cuts and watch the results. As for even dumbasses know you use the S&P vs the DJIA as you stated, I would say even dumbasses know you don't use small periods of time or anything that is being tested. A large sample size is always more reliable than a small one, esp if you're ignoring the DJIA and paying 100% attention to the S&P.

Kelp: explain how your fantasy works when you say the S&P went to hell in 1994 after Clinton's tax increases, yet the market was record strong virtually all of Clinton's terms: the S&P more than doubled and the DJIA went from 3500 to 9800. Explain how the market took off after the deluded so-called 1994 recession, or as you once called it, the 2004 recesssion.

Quote

I've been trying to educate you

W/o data and w/o a clue? You wrote 2004 at one point and you're the teacher? You're the student and not a good one.

As for your other microcosm of the silicon valley, again, a microcosm of one geographical area.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When arguing in major generalizations, which we both are, me saying tax increases fix things and you saying the opposite,

once again, you're so eager to argue with everyone that you can't even figure out the opposing position.

No, I'm not arguing the opposite. I'm arguing that they have little to do with each other.

BTW, it's a bit dishonest (what a shock!) to count all of the index gains during Clinton's second term without including the NASDAQ losses that were certainly caused by the popping of the bubble, not Bush's failings.

Last thought as I merrily head out the door - word count is not a size of strength, but actually of weakness.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

once again, you're so eager to argue with everyone that you can't even figure out the opposing position.

I hear your position, you think because the S&P 500 had a bad 1994 that that means the Clinton tax increase was a bad idea. Of course, according to Yahoo finance, the S&P rose 12% during that year, as I cited, and the S&P more than doubled over Clinton's 8 years and the DJIA almost trippled during the same, so I argue that you little microcosm is not only incorrect but so limited that even if true it would be insugnificant. That's the only evidence you gavce other than saying the GDP only rose a little and never had a negative quarter in 94.

The truth is that you don't want to admit Clinton's policies were hugely sucessful and the most expansive growth period in US history. It's prima facie, wanna keep arguing a falacious point, go ahead, we all see it. Wanna admit Clinton's fiscal policy was great, that's the first step or maybe actually formulate a real argument - I'm all ears.

Quote

No, I'm not arguing the opposite. I'm arguing that they have little to do with each other.

So you admit that the economic indicators were awesome during the Clinton era? Bout time. It's hard to refute even if ya hate the guy.

"They" have little to do with each other. WHat's 'they?' Are you saying the GDP, unemp rate and stocak market have little to do with the fiscal health of the US? Clarify.

Perhaps you're saying tax cuts/increases and the economy have little to do with each other. If so, that's ridiculous. Tax increases can be used to stimulate the economy, tax cuts tend to tighten them up and make the rich uber-rich as with the pre-GD years where the top 0.1% had as much wealth as all the lower 40% combined. That's a problem and a real killer to the economy esp if something goes wrong.

Quote

BTW, it's a bit dishonest (what a shock!) to count all of the index gains during Clinton's second term without including the NASDAQ losses that were certainly caused by the popping of the bubble, not Bush's failings.

OK, let's look at the NASDAQ net result. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EIXIC#chart1:symbol=^ixic;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Jan 93 = 696 / Jan 01 = 2,772 / Lowest point in Sep 02 = 1,172. OK, so the net result is a gain of 476 or 68%. Ok, even if we do it yiour way, he still had a nice gain in that idex; what's your point? I wasn't being dishonets, we didn't talk NASDAQ; you are sooooo desperate. Hey, concede, Clintonenomics were great.

Quote

Last thought as I merrily head out the door - word count is not a size of strength, but actually of weakness.

I don't think either is correct. Make your point, sometimes it's domne in a sentence, others take a book.

See, once again you show your concession and defeat. Just gracefully do so. I used to call Reagan, Bush, Bush the 3 stooges until I checked my own facts and everything GHWB did was positive for the economy. Eisenhower was even better, he kept taxes high and lowered the debt. You can still hate Clinton, but to say his economic policies were bad is just insane denial.

It's a lot more fun to argue with people willing to admit obvious points so you can then move to more constructive sub-points perhaps. As in, you can argue the why, but to argue whether times were great then or not is just silly. Do this, find a major federal tax cut or major federal tax increase and make an argument as to the real outcome of that act upon the economy. Don't be vague, obscure, etc. Teach me how tax cuts help in a major way.

[JohnDeere 0]

It's Ok wonderboy! just tell your boss at 7-11 that you need a raise and the whole world will be better

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I think when you isolate taxes on a given thing that people will avoid it and that isn't good. We need a diverse set of things to tax.

how is a sales tax not diverse? It taxes everything!!

--
Rob

[billvon 3,118]

>It's Ok wonderboy! just tell your boss at 7-11 that you need a raise and
>the whole world will be better.

It's a good thing your open to other's opinion's.