• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

May Unemployment Rises to 9.1%

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Throckmorton said:
Following your logic, George Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't done nothing because we didn't get results as good as he expected....

His tax cuts didn't do anything either because they were supposed to stimulate the economy and we ended up with a massive recession.

Holy shit! Tax cuts have no effect. Can we raise taxes on the rich now to pay down the debt?
Click to expand...

So your opinion is that they were successful in doing what they were supposed to do?
 
Throckmorton said:
Following your logic, George Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't done nothing because we didn't get results as good as he expected....

His tax cuts didn't do anything either because they were supposed to stimulate the economy and we ended up with a massive recession.

Holy shit! Tax cuts have no effect. Can we raise taxes on the rich now to pay down the debt?
Click to expand...
Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003.

The recession did not start till 5 years later.

Hard to say that the recession was a result of tax cuts passed five years earlier, especially since the economy went through a recovery AFTER the tax cuts were passed. Or did you forget the fact that Bush took office during a recession?
 
By "government", CW, you mean the Repub controlled Whitehouse, HOR & Senate of the 2003-2007 timeframe, right? The time of raving about scrumptious goodness of self regulated banking, cutting red tape for borrowers, decreasing reserve requirements of lenders, and the "Ownership Society", huh?

When there was still a Terrarist! under every bed in America, and the "Terrarist Threat" color wheel spun madly every time an election approached?

Musta been the evil Liberals' fault, huh?
 
ProfJohn said:
Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003.

The recession did not start till 5 years later.

Hard to say that the recession was a result of tax cuts passed five years earlier, especially since the economy went through a recovery AFTER the tax cuts were passed. Or did you forget the fact that Bush took office during a recession?
Click to expand...

The tax cuts didn't end in 2008.
 
ProfJohn said:
Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003.

The recession did not start till 5 years later.

Hard to say that the recession was a result of tax cuts passed five years earlier, especially since the economy went through a recovery AFTER the tax cuts were passed. Or did you forget the fact that Bush took office during a recession?
Click to expand...

Republicans were for running deficits to stimulate the economy when it wasn't a recession and didn't need stimulus, but they are against running deficits when the economy is in a recession and needs stimulus. And they want to be taken seriously.
 
ProfJohn said:
Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003.

The recession did not start till 5 years later.

Hard to say that the recession was a result of tax cuts passed five years earlier, especially since the economy went through a recovery AFTER the tax cuts were passed. Or did you forget the fact that Bush took office during a recession?
Click to expand...

GDP - MEW shows that the economy really never exited the 2001 slump - it was just one huge debt binge. Sorry, but there was no "recovery" driven by lower taxes, there wasn't even any growth, it was just debt.

Get it into your massively thick skull. The Laughter Curves are a fucking joke. Supply Side economics is a fucking joke. You are a fucking joke.
 
LegendKiller said:
GDP - MEW shows that the economy really never exited the 2001 slump - it was just one huge debt binge. Sorry, but there was no "recovery" driven by lower taxes, there wasn't even any growth, it was just debt.

Get it into your massively thick skull. The Laughter Curves are a fucking joke. Supply Side economics is a fucking joke. You are a fucking joke.
Click to expand...
And Obama's policies are???
 
Zebo said:
Back in Chemistry class we used to call this entropy, state or path of least resistance (lowest energy state). Science mimics life. Borowing like crazy, from same who profited from the destruction, so the population could continue to consume and live same lifestyle without really having to work very hard or make tough choices. Pretty good deal, right?
Click to expand...


Actually thinking beyond their next fix is not a junkie's strong point. For over a hundred years keeping taxes low, going into debt, and working hard were enough to stoke the economy creating new and better paying jobs. Like Pavlov's dogs they've been conditioned to keep responding in the same manner and its always paid off. Unfortunately it stopped paying off 30 years ago and now less then half the population has a full time job, we've got 13 million illegal aliens taking jobs, and what jobs there are don't pay as well. Throw in the entitlements, the wars, and the economic collapse and it was a recipe for an overdose.
 
ProfJohn said:
And Obama's policies are???
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about Obama's policies, we are talking about the same failed bullshit that's been implemented for the last 30 years that has utterly fucked us. Those are GOP policies, those are conservative policies, those are Laughter policies.

The fucking joke is on and IS you.
 
Which policies are you talking about??

And where were the Democrats during this 30 year period? Especially since Republicans only controlled congress for 12 years of this period.

The idea that our current economic troubles are due solely to GOP policies is idiocy. It took year for the bubble to build up before bursting and both parties had something to do with either adding air to the bubble or not taking steps to keep it from getting too big.
 
ProfJohn said:
Which policies are you talking about??

And where were the Democrats during this 30 year period? Especially since Republicans only controlled congress for 12 years of this period.

The idea that our current economic troubles are due solely to GOP policies is idiocy. It took year for the bubble to build up before bursting and both parties had something to do with either adding air to the bubble or not taking steps to keep it from getting too big.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the GOP sold the public on the Laughter Curves/Supply Side Economics, now every poor person thinks that it will magically create a utopia of epic proportions and is the panacea for all of our ills. Even Stockman has come out against the BS, but people like you continually spout the same tax-cut trash despite one basic fact - IT DOES NOT WORK. You just don't seem to get it, yet you prance around asking "how am I at fault? How is the GOP at fault, we weren't in control the whole time". No shit you weren't, but now your ideas are so ingrained that they are like a nasty ass tick dug in.

Look at you duhflecting now, same shit, different day.
 
What is the purpose of taxes? To raise revenue, correct??

So lets look at revenue raised via income taxes by year. (figures are in billions)
We'll start with Reagan.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

1981 $285
1982 $297
1983 $288
1984 $298
1985 $334
1986 $348
1987 $392
1988 $401

So despite Reagan's tax rate cuts the amount of money raised by income taxes went up every year he was in office, but one. And yet you act as if tax cuts in themselves are the source of our problems.

If you want to know the real source of our problems I suggest you look at spending in terms of GDP.

The HIGHEST amount of money raised by the government since 1944 was the 20.6% we raised in 2000 due to the tech bubble.

Meanwhile current government spending in in excess of 25% of GDP.

So even if we raised tax revenue to its highest point since 1940 we would still have a HUGE deficit. And yet people on the left think we aren't spending enough and want to blame tax cuts for our problems??
 
Last edited:
BTW Stockman has come out against BOTH sides.

We have a revenue AND a spending problem. But neither side wants to move away from their core position.
 
ProfJohn said:
What is the purpose of taxes? To raise revenue, correct??

So lets look at revenue raised via income taxes by year. (figures are in billions)
We'll start with Reagan.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

1981 $285
1982 $297
1983 $288
1984 $298
1985 $334
1986 $348
1987 $392
1988 $401

So despite Reagan's tax rate cuts the amount of money raised by income taxes went up every year he was in office, but one. And yet you act as if tax cuts in themselves are the source of our problems.

If you want to know the real source of our problems I suggest you look at spending in terms of GDP.

The HIGHEST amount of money raised by the government since 1944 was the 20.6% we raised in 2000 due to the tech bubble.

Meanwhile current government spending in in excess of 25% of GDP.

So even if we raised tax revenue to its highest point since 1940 we would still have a HUGE deficit. And yet people on the left think we aren't spending enough and want to blame tax cuts for our problems??
Click to expand...

So where is the Reagan surplus if he raised so much revenue?
 
ProfJohn said:
What is the purpose of taxes? To raise revenue, correct??

So lets look at revenue raised via income taxes by year. (figures are in billions)
We'll start with Reagan.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

1981 $285
1982 $297
1983 $288
1984 $298
1985 $334
1986 $348
1987 $392
1988 $401

So despite Reagan's tax rate cuts the amount of money raised by income taxes went up every year he was in office, but one. And yet you act as if tax cuts in themselves are the source of our problems.

If you want to know the real source of our problems I suggest you look at spending in terms of GDP.

The HIGHEST amount of money raised by the government since 1944 was the 20.6% we raised in 2000 due to the tech bubble.

Meanwhile current government spending in in excess of 25% of GDP.

So even if we raised tax revenue to its highest point since 1940 we would still have a HUGE deficit. And yet people on the left think we aren't spending enough and want to blame tax cuts for our problems??
Click to expand...

Taxes are about money moving first of all. He moved in 4 Trillion debt, which became dollars, which xfered bunches of times, and profits were made, salaries made which were taxed. (this is similar to housing bubble where builders, realtors, construction companies paid tons of taxes - all predicated on debt)

Second he raised taxes lots of times. SS tax went up. Excise taxes went up..RAISED capital gains taxes from 20 to 33%.. It's embarrassing you don't even know your heroes record. You have NO place in tax talk. Here let Tom Colburn explain.
http://www.republicansforobama.org/node/9355

In sum the Laugher curve is a lie when you look into it or even have basic sense.
 
Last edited:
Jhhnn said:
By "government", CW, you mean the Repub controlled Whitehouse, HOR & Senate of the 2003-2007 timeframe, right? The time of raving about scrumptious goodness of self regulated banking, cutting red tape for borrowers, decreasing reserve requirements of lenders, and the "Ownership Society", huh?

When there was still a Terrarist! under every bed in America, and the "Terrarist Threat" color wheel spun madly every time an election approached?

Musta been the evil Liberals' fault, huh?
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was the liberals' fault - only the fault of government. Both sides are equally capable of screwing things up for the greater good. If you read Bush's State of the Union announcing his plan to pursue these policies, you will quickly see how liberal his housing goals were. The results speak for themselves: problems arise when the government decides when people should spend money in a given market. The government can never make a better decision for all people than most of those individuals will make for themselves.
 
CycloWizard said:
I didn't say it was the liberals' fault - only the fault of government. Both sides are equally capable of screwing things up for the greater good. If you read Bush's State of the Union announcing his plan to pursue these policies, you will quickly see how liberal his housing goals were. The results speak for themselves: problems arise when the government decides when people should spend money in a given market. The government can never make a better decision for all people than most of those individuals will make for themselves.
Click to expand...

Bush's housing goals weren't "liberal", at all- they were cover for the greatest financial looting spree in the history of finance. Those goals never were based on the reality of what people could pay, but rather on the illusion of ever increasing prices & the reality of how much Wall St could steal before it all fell down & the Greenspan put came into play. The Bush Admin didn't decide for us, they just let Wall St have their way with us, cheering them on & soothing our sensibilities at the same time. Self regulated banking, reduced capital reserves & cutting red tape were the code words, remember?

"Liberal" policy isn't about boom & bust, but rather about creating stability, the stability we had prior to Reagan, when New Deal policies were in force to police activities in banking, investment & insurance- the whole financial industry. W/o constructive and moderating govt interference, we get things like the crashes of 1873, 1929, & today. Every few generations we forget, listen to "conservatives", and are taken for chumps all over again.
 
Jhhnn said:
Bush's housing goals weren't "liberal", at all- they were cover for the greatest financial looting spree in the history of finance. Those goals never were based on the reality of what people could pay, but rather on the illusion of ever increasing prices & the reality of how much Wall St could steal before it all fell down & the Greenspan put came into play. The Bush Admin didn't decide for us, they just let Wall St have their way with us, cheering them on & soothing our sensibilities at the same time. Self regulated banking, reduced capital reserves & cutting red tape were the code words, remember?

"Liberal" policy isn't about boom & bust, but rather about creating stability, the stability we had prior to Reagan, when New Deal policies were in force to police activities in banking, investment & insurance- the whole financial industry. W/o constructive and moderating govt interference, we get things like the crashes of 1873, 1929, & today. Every few generations we forget, listen to "conservatives", and are taken for chumps all over again.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot or a liar. Bush's policies forced the financial sector to take huge gambles shortly after they lost their shirts on 9/11 - he was kicking them when they were down. Those huge gambles backfired when federal support for those programs dropped dramatically a few years later, forcing the recipients to pay their own way: the government failed to fulfill its obligations. Obama and the Dems actually saved the industry from Bush's folly by bailing them out. Bush's policy was liberal in that it was attempting to use government policy to improve the lot of minorities and other "economically disadvantaged" persons. No one builds policy on the idea that it will cause booms or busts, but that's often how it works out when good intentions lead to government policies which are later forgotten, leaving those the government had intended to help under the bus. Are you really so naively partisan that you think all Republicans have an evil agenda and all Democrats are angels?
 
Last edited:
Engineer said:
People afraid to spend (ones that have jobs)
Click to expand...
thiiiiiiiissssssss
I have a job, but I'm always thinking about what happens if it goes away. I'm saving my money like crazy right now. It's not good when everyone else is doing the same thing.

Clinton ran a surplus despite paying for Reagan's debt interest payments.
Click to expand...
it was a very small surplus....
It is sad that his surplus was pathetic, yet it was still the largest in 40 years D:
 
CycloWizard said:
Most of them start with a "g" and rhyme with "overnment." For example:

1. Regulate that people who don't deserve mortgages must get them. Shocking outcome: these people don't pay back their loans, tanking the housing market not only for themselves, but for those of us who had good credit and paid our bills.

2. Anti-business political bellowing generated huge amounts of uncertainty. Shocking outcome: people like me who were thinking of starting a small business couldn't afford the huge gamble without knowing the extent we would be thrown under the bus if all of this rhetoric were actually institutionalized. Therefore, we didn't hire anyone, generate new products and revenues, and didn't improve the quality of life of people who might have used our products.

3. Bailouts of large corporations. Shocking outcome: huge corporations that should have died stuck around, clogging up the marketplace for small, more agile businesses that would have created more jobs and ideas to bear.

There are others, but hopefully you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Not a single word of Wall Street's involvement. Interesting. granted, that was a gov't problem.

Anyway, I am always amazed at how ignornat peopel are of the past, present and future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top