Only in your wacked-out alternative reality and revisionist history.
This is why the GOP is doomed. Without propaganda and obfuscation you wear no clothes.
Only in your wacked-out alternative reality and revisionist history.
This is why the GOP is doomed. Without propaganda and obfuscation you wear no clothes.
Does this look like a solid economy to you?
2000-
Q1 1.0%
Q2 6.5%
Q3 -.5%
Q4 2.1%
2001-
Q1 -.5%
Q2 1.2%
Q3 -1.4%
Q4 1.6%
Stock Market was volatile all through 2000 and ended down for the year and tanked in the 1st qtr of 01. Contrary to popular belief the CBO's projections for indefinate surplus's were laughable.
Tax cuts are indirect costs if borrowing and interest is involved.
You can cut spending but it has to be responsible.
I think we all agree on that, we can stop arguing over small nuances now and get back to the core issue.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
So you agree that Tax-cuts are not outlays and thus are not "cost". Good. Without those base FACTS agreed to, the rest isn't worth even discussing.
Parts are complicated, parts aren't. You cut out in the edit the sentence he said that I said whowed he is too unimformed to discuss - it's not about insulting.
You are posting half truths here. Yes Obama's numbers are terrible - because of the mess Republicans handed him, and us, not because he is doing wrong (he may be doing some things wrong, but that's a separate issue, even if he isn't, his numbers are going to be terrible).
It's fair to note the economy had some bubble bursting going on that threatened the surplue anyway, but the point is, Bush made it a lot worse than it needed to be.
He skyrocketed the deficit for the wrong reasons - for waste, not need and good programs.
You want to counter with 9/11? I think his response was filled with waste - but when you add all the 'security spending' related to 9/11, you get, last I read, a third of his spending increase.
Yes, I know this, and Bush's wrong policies are why I keep bringing them up as a valid criticism of Bush. You treat mitigating factors like the exonerate him entirely.
Thank you, Dr. Goebbels (and if you cannot spell 'indefinite' learn to use a spell-checker). Don't let a few trillion dollars of Bush/GOOPer tax cuts without spending reductions or the $300 Billion+ surplus in the unified budget (handed to Dubs) get in the way of your argument.
And your 'Ass-Facts' are why folks don't take you seriously, Gen. Overall, the DJIA showed amazing consistency even past 9/11 until George Bush invaded Iraq in the Spring of 2002.
_YR/MNTH______First_Day_DJIA_
2009-01 . . . . . 8,772.25
2008-01 . . . . . 13,261.8
2007-10 . . . . . 14,280.0 - (all time high)
2007-01 . . . . . 12,459.5
2006-01 . . . . . 10,718.3
2005-01 . . . . . 10,783.8
2004-01 . . . . . 10,452.7
2003-12 . . . . . 9,785.30
2003-11 . . . . . 9,802.46
2003-10 . . . . . 9,275.06
2003-09 . . . . . 9,416.67
2003-08 . . . . . 9,232.68
2003-07 . . . . . 8,983.66
2003-06 . . . . . 8,851.45
2003-05 . . . . . 8,478.48
2003-04 . . . . . 7,992.83
2003-03 . . . . . 7,890.24
2003-02 . . . . . 8,053.74
2003-01 . . . . . 8,342.38
2002-12 . . . . . 8,902.95
2002-11 . . . . . 8,395.64
2002-10 . . . . . 7,593.04
2002-09 . . . . . 8,659.27
2002-08 . . . . . 8,732.58
2002-07 . . . . . 9,239.25
2002-06 . . . . . 9,923.94
2002-05 . . . . . 9,944.90
2002-04 . . . . 10,402.10
2002-03 . . . . 10,111.00
2002-02 . . . . . 9,923.04
2002-01 . . . . 10,021.70
2001-12. . . . . . 9,848.93
2001-11. . . . . . 9,087.45
2001-10. . . . . . 8,845.97
2001-09 . . . . . .9,946.98 - (DJIA drops to 7,926.93 before rebounding) <<-----
2001-08 . . . . . 10,527.4
2001-07 . . . . . 10,505.0
2001-06 . . . . . 10,913.6
2001-05 . . . . . 10,734.1
2001-04 . . . . . 9,877.16
2001-03 . . . . . 10,493.3
2001-02 . . . . . 10,884.8
2001-01 . . . . . 10,790.9
2000-12 . . . . . 10,416.8
2000-11 . . . . . 10,966.2
2000-10 . . . . . 10,659.1
2000-09 . . . . . 11,219.5
2000-08 . . . . . 10,523.8
2000-07 . . . . . 10,450.4
2000-06 . . . . . 10,532.3
2000-05 . . . . . 10,749.4
2000-04 . . . . . 10,863.3
2000-03 . . . . . 10,128.1
2000-02 . . . . . 10,937.7
2000-01 . . . . . 11,501.9
1999-12 . . . . . 10,876.5
1999-11 . . . . . 10,730.8
1999-10 . . . . . 10,335.7
1999-09 . . . . . 10,828.4
1999-08 . . . . . 10,654.8
1999-07 . . . . . 10,972.4
1999-06 . . . . . 10,549.1
1999-05 . . . . . 10,788.8
1999-04 . . . . . 9,825.29
1999-03 . . . . . 9,315.27
1999-02 . . . . . 9,405.43
1999-01 . . . . . 9,212.84
And LOL at those 'weak A-Fs' on the GDP .....
Nominal GDP
(in billions of dollars)
1993 - - - $6,657.4
1994 - - - $7,072.2
1995 - - - $7,397.7
1996 - - - $7,816.9
1997 - - - $8,304.3
1998 - - - $8,747.0
1999 - - - $9,268.4
2000 - - - $9,817.0
2001 - - - $10,128.0
2002 - - - $10,469.6
2003 - - - $10,960.8
2004 - - - $11,685.9
2005 - - - $12,433.9
2006 - - - $13,194.7
2007 - - - $13,807.5
2008 - - - $14,280.7
2009 - - - Good Luck
http://www.econstats.com/index.htm
While a few people have made arguments about the paper... I have not seen any data that goes againt the thread topic.
I was really hoping for some dissenting views to actually go against the data i used.
If it's not out there than this myth needs to die in the public eyes, fast.
I was really hoping for some dissenting views to actually go against the data i used.
If it's not out there than this myth needs to die in the public eyes, fast.
Uh that wasnt my argument at all dipshit. My argument was the economy was on the verge of a recession before Bush even came into office. It wasnt a strong economy and the idea a surplus going on forever was simply ridiculous.
We had growth and contraction of GDP all through 2000 and into the first qtr of 2001. That continued through the rest of 2001 and we were hit by 9-11.
So cad, are you happy with the announcement that Obamas cabinet is moving forward with plans to cut and/or change wasteful government programs?
It was one of his campaign promises that sold me, honestly.
It was one of his campaign promises that sold me, honestly.
Hmm well, I was hoping for more debate on the topic since it seems to be a popular republican policy...
I will give up on the topic i guess.
I will give up on the topic i guess.
2 things I want to comment.
1. I agree with you and your data that tax policy has not shown a correlation to the GDP growth. But to debate tax policy as an economic issue here at anandtech P&N forum is probably not the right place to do it, you would get better response in a University or other economic related forum. People tend to politicize tax policy here. It is more of an political idealogy, capitalism vs. socialism type of thing. People would not discuss the real economic impact of tax policy, but rather the political idealogy ralated to the tax policy. Not to say tax policy is not a political topic, it is. But you have to distinguish if you are debating it's political merit or economical merit. If you are talking about political merit, you get into people's right to holding to their hard earn money, or things reducing income gap...etc, more of the general issue. Sometime politics doesn't mean doing the best things economically. Economist might think that way, but there are much more things to consider in the real life.
2. While I agree with your data on tax policy and it's correlation to GDP, I think to make a convincing statement, you have to dig deeper. For example, You have to look at the top mariginal rate, and if top marginal rate in the 60's mean as much as 2009. Meaning if top marginal rate is like really selective people in 60's, but covers a big portion of top middle income earner in 2009 and if that is the case, you increase top marginal rate to 90% like the 60's would impact huge number of people and causing big time problem. (just giving you an extreme example) And there are other things like when you say rich, real rich people don't get lots of their income from being paid. They have dividend, capital gain, inherance, property. It's not cut and dry to just look at income tax as rich may have shifted their holdings to other type.
I agree that it's is both a political and an ideological issue. My personal feelings from an ideological standpoint is as follows: You need an economically healthy majority for a healthy economy. This by proxy means that you need to close the income gap between "the haves" and "the have nots". Now when I say "close the gap" im not talking about everyone earning the same... Im talking about reducing that 50x+ multiplier that you see from the median income earners and the top 5%...
Redistribution of wealth is not really the way to go about it... But taxing the top bracket, corporations, and capital gains is the route to paying for government services. I am strongly for reductions in government spending for efficiency, but i feel it must be done in a very careful and responsible way to maintain or improve services for a similar price.
So, in my eyes (this is not based on the paper), the ideology and economic issue are very closely intertwined. You can actually see a lot of these issues mixing in this thread... even from the anemic response.
There was some variance in the actual selection of the top tier tax rate back in the 60's, and you also have to consider inflation pushing more people into the different income brackets over time.
When I was collecting data i took this into careful consideration and decided to omit it because it didnt seem to be a significant determining factor for the data. I rationalized it by saying that the top income bracket actually covered more americans as time went on. So I went on to assume that if even more americans were paying this top tax rate in 1990 vs 1960, changes in the tax rate should have clearly had a larger impact on private investmnt. This simply was not the case from looking at the data.
The data shown in the graphs addresses the capital gains rate and direct income taxes on the top tier after all deductions and writedowns.
This is an interesting thread.
The person arguing that tax cuts cost us nothing is correct. We won't be paying back the loan that was taken to finance these tax cuts, our great great great grand children will be. That is, unless they died in WW3.
The person arguing that tax cuts cost us nothing is correct. We won't be paying back the loan that was taken to finance these tax cuts, our great great great grand children will be. That is, unless they died in WW3.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I am going to guess that most people have not bothered to download the paper and actually read it.
You are asking a lot of people, especially for an internet forum that is mostly a way of wasting time for must of us.
Perhaps you should have cut and pasted your paper, or posted it to a web site where we could read it without having to download it.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
No Craig, you made an absurd suggestion and I responded with one of my own.
I actually think current tax rates are probably about right.
The biggest problem we have is not tax rates, but out of control spending. We can not continue to have out of control spending, it will bankrupt our country.
I actually think current tax rates are probably about right.
The biggest problem we have is not tax rates, but out of control spending. We can not continue to have out of control spending, it will bankrupt our country.
Or, you made an absurd suggestion - "Tax cuts don't cost a thing" - and I merely applied what you said and you called it 'absurd'.
So, you are now admitting what you said is absurd?
If not, what I said was not any different that applying what you said, and you can't call one absurd without calling the other absurd. Stand by your statement, or renouince it. Pick.
Now you say current rates are 'about right'. Why aren't they too high, if cuts are free?
Edit - the above is what you are requested to respond to. Following is additional commentary.
Come on, PJ, you might want to get away with the laziness of posting inconsistent platitudes and hope no one notices, but it doesn't always go that way, and you shouldn't complain when the error is pointed out, if you have any interest in not posting wrong things. Big if, I guess?
You are committing the same sort of fallacy so common on the right - ideology about 'tax rates are always too high and tax cuts are free', but defending the practical when you are actually called on the statements that show how absurd they are. The platitudes are nice for making you 'feel good', like you are championing some battle for good against evil, but you are utterly irrational when you post an 'abusrd' claim, and then simply refuse to address what you said. Answer? Or cut and run?
You need the help, so I'll give you a bit of help. You posted an 'absurd', unqualified statement that 'tax cuts are free'. All of them, all of the time, in all circumstances, no 'when such and such' in your statement. Hey, look at PJ the conservative crusader against excessive taxes. You don't like the error - the 'abusurdity' of your post - pointed out.
So, add the missing qualifiers. Tax cuts can be 'free, in what situations.
Then you have rejoined the discussion of the rational - such as my post where JFK's speech was linked where he explained 'Here is when tax cuts are good, and here is tax increases are good". An informed, balanced, and IMO correct position - unlike the propaganda you tried to get away with.
Use a little common sense, and you might end up fixing your post to agree with the position I took - defending JFK's tax cut and not other tax cuts.
On that last point - your reading comprehension is a problem. I support JFK's tax cut, and linked his explanation for it. Maybe you should try reading the link and THEN say something, instead of exposing the child-like level of your commentary by trying to push your straw man that Democrats oppose all tax cuts, desperate to avoid 'losing' a debate point.
You made the "absurd comment" that tax cuts are free. Without qualification. Meaning ALL tax cuts are free.
Let's take you back to the basic English language and logic:
You say all tax cuts are free.
Cutting taxes to zero is a tax cut.
Therefore, cutting taxes to zero is free.
You can defend your statement - which you already called "absurd" - or you can add the qualifications about why some tax cuts are not free, are not a good idea, and have the actual discussion you refused to have when you lazily posted an "absurd" platitude instead of the sort of statement that's not absurd, but forces you to actually say something more complicated about the tax issue. Which do you choose?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Craig... tax cuts don't cost a thing.
Spending is what costs us money. Simple concept.
And your liberals are idiots on this whole tax/spend issue.
If someone suggests that we cut tax rates you jump up and down about how we can 'afford' a tax cut, but then you turn around and propose a bunch of new spending without worrying one bit about whether we can 'afford' it.
Bush v. Obama is a perfect example. You guys complained endlessly about Bush's tax cuts and how it will bankrupt the country, but now that Obama is in power and spending WAY more than Bush even dreamed of spending you guys have all of a sudden shut up when it comes to deficits and overspending.
Spending is what costs us money. Simple concept.
And your liberals are idiots on this whole tax/spend issue.
If someone suggests that we cut tax rates you jump up and down about how we can 'afford' a tax cut, but then you turn around and propose a bunch of new spending without worrying one bit about whether we can 'afford' it.
Bush v. Obama is a perfect example. You guys complained endlessly about Bush's tax cuts and how it will bankrupt the country, but now that Obama is in power and spending WAY more than Bush even dreamed of spending you guys have all of a sudden shut up when it comes to deficits and overspending.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter