Tax Cuts for the Wealthy [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

cj's dad

05-02-2011, 12:50 PM

Since the late 60's when I cut my teeth in the shipyard, let's have a look at the industries, businesses, etc... which no longer or barely exist:

1- shipbuilding and or repair yards (except for in most cases, the Navy yards)
2- steel mills (a few remain, but nothing like the 50-60's)
3- copper refineries (3 in Baltimore alone are gone)
4- clothing manufacturers ( where are they now ?)
5- coal mining ( production curtailed due to lack of coal fired power plants)
6- Industrial chemical manufacturers (those making herbicides and pesticides)

And these are a few off the top of my head.

And these closed due the environmentalists screaming at the top of their lungs that the USA was killing the earth while your comrades in China, India, Pakistan, and the like were ignoring calls for pollution control.

mostpost

05-02-2011, 12:51 PM

C'mon Cap' lol.....if that were the case....which is not at all shown to be true from your graph, then what would be the cause for all of the other drops? Like from the 40'sto the 50's??? A fourteen percent drop seems pretty significant and BUSH was not in office!!! lol:lol:
No, but a Republican was.

rastajenk

05-02-2011, 01:11 PM

I looked again at the WaPo article and Bush tax cuts are not mentioned. At all.

bigmack

05-02-2011, 02:01 PM

I looked again at the WaPo article and Bush tax cuts are not mentioned. At all.
This is where mosty & hcap step-off and declare they "kicked-ass" on another subject. They're heroes to each other.

cj's dad

05-02-2011, 02:27 PM

This is where mosty & hcap step-off and declare they "kicked-ass" on another subject. They're heroes to each other.

LMAO - and yet once again 'Caps chart has no significance to real life.

Hey cap, did the WP poll count illegals paying zero taxes and holding down jobs here in the good old USA ??

Oh, that's right there would be no way to track that !!

hcap

05-02-2011, 03:14 PM

The article I linked to was referenced by a more comprehensive look at conservative economic myths. So yes the Wash post article itself does not say Bush Tax Cuts, but the lead in does...
Here is the lead in statement..

Tax cuts for the wealthy don't create jobs. Instead of producing job growth and prosperity, the Bush era tax cuts resulted in an era of zero net job creation.

Here is the the lead article

13 Conservative Myths About Taxes -- Debunked

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150799/13_conservative_myths_about_taxes_--_debunked/

I think the graph showing a that the 2000's was the only decade with zero job growth right on the trail of Clinton's fine performance and the only decade to loose a net 20% . Zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent.

Here is another graph that shows correlation with other factors as percent of GDP

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/23/business/0124-biz-websubCHARTS.gif

And this

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/3489255980_d747bdb1d5.jpg

And this...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4524250851_8a16aebb74.jpg

bigmack

05-02-2011, 03:41 PM

Behold the inside workings of a dishonest joke.

Somebody ax hcap if those graphs include all Bush tax cuts. He, & others, like to portray they were only for "the rich." They basically lie, bunch it all together and start their finger pointing.

Note how he supports his mendacious propaganda with links to alternet.org. :rolleyes: The basement dwelling blogger, Terrance Heath, is his "expert" witness. :D

This is how he tried to con his way into believing he made any headway in the GW debate. Ginned up graphs that can say anything you want them to say with no level of honesty.

rastajenk

05-02-2011, 03:44 PM

Ah, the Alternet. Where you get nuggets like, "The wealthy don't spend their tax cuts." Neither do they stuff it into mattresses for safe-keeping. I don't know of any alleged economist that ever suggested that a wild spending spree on the part of the rich was the purpose of the tax cuts.

cj's dad

05-02-2011, 08:23 PM

Try responding to post #7 - no charts and/or graphs please- this would be where reality kicks in !!

ElKabong

05-02-2011, 08:32 PM

So yes the Wash post article itself does not say Bush Tax Cuts,

I had salmon and wild rice for dinner. Very tasty. About to top it off with a croissant.

Guess what.... The article didn't mention my dinner, just like it didn't mention Bush Tax Cuts. Imagine my surprise!

hcap

05-02-2011, 09:24 PM

The lead in article did
Myth # 4 and linked to thee Wash Post article

13 Conservative Myths About Taxes -- Debunked

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150...es_--_debunked/

Here is another

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

The Bush tax cuts didn’t deliver what they promised

“Tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities.” So said President George W. Bush on April 16, 2001 as he was pushing for the passage of the first of his many tax cuts. President Bush was pushing the same line on his second package two years later: “These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans…By speeding up the income tax cuts, we will speed up economic recovery and the pace of job creation.”

They didn’t deliver. The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law. Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts. The next three years were better than the first three as the private sector struggled back to its feet following the first Bush recession. By June of 2007, before the start of the Great Recession, total jobs had grown to 137.7 million. Overall, the six years following the Bush tax cuts saw a 4.8 percent increase in jobs.

Percentage increase in jobs after President Clinton's tax increases and President Bush's tax cutsThat’s not nothing, but it’s pretty anemic compared to job growth under President Bill Clinton. President Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year (the month Clinton’s budget plan passed, including the increase in taxes) to 129 million jobs six years later—an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html/issues/2010/07/img/lindenchart_1.jpg

bigmack

05-02-2011, 09:34 PM

mostpost

05-02-2011, 10:48 PM

Try responding to post #7 - no charts and/or graphs please- this would be where reality kicks in !!
There were many factors more germane to the loss of manufacturing in the United States than environmental regulations. There was the increase in manufacturing capacity in other countries as they recovered from WWII. There was the lowering of tariffs and the move away from protectionism. Once companies in other countries were able to sell their products in the United States while not having to pay wages comparable to those paid to United States workers it became difficult for US companies to compete.

Add to this the stagnation in wages and jobs over the last three decades and you have a situation where the American consumer is not able to purchase enough to sustain a strong economy.

So we had a situation where it was difficult for America to compete. But it was greatly intensified by the rise of greed. More so than at any other time a group came to corporate power that valued company over country. At the same time, or maybe because of this, the political power began to shift to those who valued profit over people. who judged the value of the society by the success of a very small segment of that society.

I am proud and pleased that the United States took the lead on environmental issues. Had not the neocons done everything they could to sabotage the Kyoto protocols we would have been much further along that trail.

mostpost

05-02-2011, 10:58 PM

Awww shit; grab an umbrella. Looks like we're in for a graph storm.

Don't bother answering any of the inquiries.

alternet.org & americanprogress.org :confused: - Do ya have anything from WackedOutProgressive.org or FindAGraphToFitYourGripe.net?

Your ignorant response to any factual argument is getting old. I'm sure you are sitting in your room thinking how clever you are. You are not. Using AX instead of ask is not clever. It is a mark of stupidity. Posting mocking remarks is not clever. Not only that but it does not, will not stop us from posting the truth.
We do not get tired, except of you playing the fool. That is very tiresome.
Newt and Tom and Elkabong may think you are witty and clever. We don't.

We post graphs and charts because they prove our points. We find those charts and graphs at places like alternet and american progress but that is not where they originate. They originate in places like CBO & CBPP. Mocking those charts does not make them less valid. It makes you look the fool.

Tom

05-02-2011, 11:23 PM

I think hcap's graph is strongly correlated to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

ArlJim78

05-02-2011, 11:32 PM

the Clinton tax hikes were not the key to the job growth, and I'm pretty sure everyone older than 5 knows that. The jobs were created despite the tax increase. We can't create jobs now even by printing money out of thin air, not even taking it from anyone, just creating it. It still hasn't stimulated or created much of anything.

Why would a tax hike, the act of transferring money from the private to public sector do any better? Where does the magic take place?

If anyone believes that hiking taxes creates and promotes job growth better than tax rate reductions, please walk us through the process and explain how it works that people who suddenly have a higher tax burden decide that the best thing to do is to expand their businesses and hire people.

newtothegame

05-02-2011, 11:45 PM

Your ignorant response to any factual argument is getting old. I'm sure you are sitting in your room thinking how clever you are. You are not. Using AX instead of ask is not clever. It is a mark of stupidity. Posting mocking remarks is not clever. Not only that but it does not, will not stop us from posting the truth.
We do not get tired, except of you playing the fool. That is very tiresome.
Newt and Tom and Elkabong may think you are witty and clever. We don't.

We post graphs and charts because they prove our points. We find those charts and graphs at places like alternet and american progress but that is not where they originate. They originate in places like CBO & CBPP. Mocking those charts does not make them less valid. It makes you look the fool.

No, you two post graphs and charts that M.I.T. scientist have trouble deciphering. When the argument comes down to reality and your words, well...they fall far short of "factual arguments".

As Jim has asked several times and I have posed the same question to you many times...
How can you justify raising someone, anyone's taxes and expect them to create jobs after???
No graphs needed...

NJ Stinks

05-03-2011, 01:00 AM

The Bush tax cuts were dumb and unaffordable from the beginning. You were and are kidding yourself if you somehow bought/buy the idea that government revenues could/can be slashed while government services and expenditures remained/remain steady at best.

How does that work in real life?
__________________________

Husband: "Honey, how much are you paying for food every month?"

Honey: " It costs me $500 a month, George. And that's using every coupon I can find. You wanted 5 kids. Remember?"

Husband: "Well, from now on you will have to make due with $400 a month. If you can't make due with $400, just put the extra on the credit card."

Honey: "I don't understand. Did you get a cut in pay, George? :mad: "

Husband: "No. In fact, I'm expecting a raise any day now so we should be able to pay off the credit card easily down the line. And I want to invest that extra $100 in the stock market. It's bound to be a money maker in the long run."

Honey: "What? Are you nuts? Why the hell don't you just keep giving me the $500 a month for food and we won't have to hope you get a raise or that some stock goes up. And we won't have to worry about paying our credit card bill later on either! :bang: "

Husband: "What would Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush say? :rolleyes: "

ElKabong

05-03-2011, 01:04 AM

I'm sure you are sitting in your room thinking how clever you are. You are not. .

Good lord, I had a great laugh at this comment. It's like we have a 3rd grade hall monitor posting on the board.

OK Mack, no more humor posts for you! You've been corrected by Cliffy.

bigmack

05-03-2011, 01:06 AM

We post graphs and charts because they prove our points. We find those charts and graphs at places like alternet and american progress but that is not where they originate. They originate in places like CBO & CBPP. Mocking those charts does not make them less valid. It makes you look the fool.
Wow. While I read that I heard military drums in the background. Very moving piece. :D

Fact is, the jig is up on both you clowns. You're both dishonest frauds. You walk away from a multitude of threads when the heat gets too hot, and then have the gall to declare yourselves victors at a later date.

Your technique of fact checking minutia and playing dumb on others is pathetic.

If you want to play in this game bring some honesty or I will continue to ridicule your lying ass.

ElKabong

05-03-2011, 01:10 AM

We post graphs and charts because they prove our points. .

"Charts are like assholes. Everybody has one, none of which will work in unison with another"

Replace the word Chart with Spreadsheet, and you have one of my ex- boss' favorite saying & quite true.

Anyone can produce a chart to "prove a point". Numbers lie, can be massaged. Plain truth is, Dems think they can tax their way out of a recession. Conservatives would rather see growth in the economy, expand the tax base & grow into recovery.

It's that simple.
.

mostpost

05-03-2011, 01:10 AM

No, you two post graphs and charts that M.I.T. scientist have trouble deciphering. When the argument comes down to reality and your words, well...they fall far short of "factual arguments".

As Jim has asked several times and I have posed the same question to you many times...
How can you justify raising someone, anyone's taxes and expect them to create jobs after???
No graphs needed...
Hcap's graphs are quite simple. If the subject is job creation, the longest line is when the most jobs were created. The shortest the least. If there is no line
that means George W. Bush was president.

Now I am going to try to explain to you why raising taxes can mean job growth and why lowering taxes does not necessarily mean job growth.

When Clinton raised taxes his purpose was too reduce the deficit. Doing this has two positive effects. One, it causes lower interest rates and improves our bond rating. Two, it frees up money which otherwise would be needed to pay interest on the debt. Therefore there is more money available for businesses to borrow and that money costs less. There was the dot com bubble during the nineties, but would that bubble have taken place if those entrepreneurs not had capital readily available?

Now let's say we cut taxes to the wealthy, or more correctly to business owners. This puts more money in the hands of the businessman. He is selling x number of whatever. Your theory is that he is going to increase production hire more workers and sell more of his product. Why? If he does as you suggest, and sales do not pick up, then he is worse off than before.

His lack of sales is not caused by lack of product. If that were the case, then why do we hear, during tough economic times of businesses having an excess of inventory.

What will happen is the businessman will say "Business is bad. I don't know when it will pick up. I need to protect myself and my family. I need a nest egg" and he will put the money away for a rainy day. (which is already here)

Now suppose we get an intelligent President (Bill Clinton you out there) and he understands economics. He raises taxes, cuts some spending, does not sign Nafta. Result: Deficit down. Bond rating up. Interest rates down. More money available. More jobs. Higher salaries. More spending. More manufacturing and the cycle continues.

Take off your conservative blinders. The economy works from the bottom up with some help from the top. The Mississippi River starts from a spring in Minnesota and grows and flows grandly sown to New Orleans. New Orleans is much greater than that Minnesota spring, but without that spring New Orleans would not be much.

ElKabong

05-03-2011, 01:14 AM

Mosty didn't mention the Tech Boom, I see.

FAIL
------------------------------
Cliffy sez> Now suppose we get an intelligent President (Bill Clinton you out there) and he understands economics. He raises taxes, cuts some spending, does not sign Nafta. Result: Deficit down. Bond rating up. Interest rates down. More money available. More jobs. Higher salaries. More spending. More manufacturing and the cycle continues.

newtothegame

05-03-2011, 01:31 AM

Hcap's graphs are quite simple. If the subject is job creation, the longest line is when the most jobs were created. The shortest the least. If there is no line
that means George W. Bush was president.

You two are laughable....as I asked earlier...IN YOUR OWN GRAPHS (well you and cap)....what about the other decades, PRE bush tax cuts where there was SIGNIFICANT, loss from the previous decade??

Now I am going to try to explain to you why raising taxes can mean job growth and why lowering taxes does not necessarily mean job growth.

When Clinton raised taxes his purpose was too reduce the deficit. Doing this has two positive effects. One, it causes lower interest rates and improves our bond rating. Two, it frees up money which otherwise would be needed to pay interest on the debt. Therefore there is more money available for businesses to borrow and that money costs less. There was the dot com bubble during the nineties, but would that bubble have taken place if those entrepreneurs not had capital readily available?

How could they have capital ready when you and your lib friends want capital gains tax?? Or is it your position that they should of that money BEFORE the business ventures? Sorry, but if they would of had the money BEFORE hand, what would be the purpose of starting those dot coms??

Now let's say we cut taxes to the wealthy, or more correctly to business owners. This puts more money in the hands of the businessman. He is selling x number of whatever. Your theory is that he is going to increase production hire more workers and sell more of his product. Why? If he does as you suggest, and sales do not pick up, then he is worse off than before.

You keep talking "ifs"...but businesses do not and can not run successful business' on "ifs". These are facts and they are indisputable.
1. A business can NOT expand without capital.
2. If a business can NOT expand, it can NOT hire new employees.
3. If it hires no new employees, the economy does NOT grow.
4. In order for an economy to grow, you must have a circulation of money. You may ask where does the circulation come from? Good question...CONSUMERS.
5. Consumers without jobs can NOT spend (unless they are nanny recipients) which ultimately we know who pays for that.

His lack of sales is not caused by lack of product. If that were the case, then why do we hear, during tough economic times of businesses having an excess of inventory.

What will happen is the businessman will say "Business is bad. I don't know when it will pick up. I need to protect myself and my family. I need a nest egg" and he will put the money away for a rainy day. (which is already here)

That's given the assumption of times like NOW where the consumers are scared to spend and borrow.
Do you not understand supply and demand?? This is basic economics...

Now suppose we get an intelligent President (Bill Clinton you out there) and he understands economics. He raises taxes, cuts some spending, does not sign Nafta. Result: Deficit down. Bond rating up. Interest rates down. More money available. More jobs. Higher salaries. More spending. More manufacturing and the cycle continues.
The bottom line here..and I seriously want you to try and answer this....
At the current spending by this administration and our current deficit, how do you plan to pay for 14 TRILLION dollars when the governments revenue is not even a scratch of that?? You can tax the rich 100% and not even get to that number....now what??

Take off your conservative blinders. The economy works from the bottom up with some help from the top. The Mississippi River starts from a spring in Minnesota and grows and flows grandly sown to New Orleans. New Orleans is much greater than that Minnesota spring, but without that spring New Orleans would not be much.

No, the economy is a work by BOTH companies and consumers. Piss either one off too much and the economy shuts down!

mostpost

05-03-2011, 01:56 AM

Mosty didn't mention the Tech Boom, I see.
Open your eyes.
From the post where I didn't mention the Tech Boom. :rolleyes:
When Clinton raised taxes his purpose was too reduce the deficit. Doing this has two positive effects. One, it causes lower interest rates and improves our bond rating. Two, it frees up money which otherwise would be needed to pay interest on the debt. Therefore there is more money available for businesses to borrow and that money costs less. There was the dot com bubble during the nineties, but would that bubble have taken place if those entrepreneurs not had capital readily available?

mostpost

05-03-2011, 02:18 AM

You two are laughable....as I asked earlier...IN YOUR OWN GRAPHS (well you and cap)....what about the other decades, PRE bush tax cuts where there was SIGNIFICANT, loss from the previous decade??
It's cap's graph, I merely agree with it. The point is that the aughts were the only decade in the last seven with zero job growth.
Can't you figure out why there was a 14% smaller rate of job growth from the '40's to the '50s ? During the 40s we had this little thing called WWII. Manufacturing was at full capacity to supply war materials. In the last half of the decade we were catching up on consumer goods.

How could they have capital ready when you and your lib friends want capital gains tax?? Or is it your position that they should of that money BEFORE the business ventures? Sorry, but if they would of had the money BEFORE hand, what would be the purpose of starting those dot coms??

Are you suggesting that if you have money, there is no need to start a business or continue one. Money runs out. You missed the whole point of the paragraph which was that a lower debt results in lower interest rates. Businesses borrow money to buy raw materials; to meet payroll etc. When they sell their goods the pay it back. If interest is high they can't (won't ) borrow as much. Capital gains tax is actually a benefit. If it were taxed as income (It is income) the tax would be much higher> So stop complaining about the capital gains tax. It is income. The only difference is you don't have to work to earn it.

I have to go to bed> I will address your other points tomorrow.

bigmack

05-03-2011, 02:44 AM

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101701.gif
Where did your nutbag get his numbers. They look quite a bit different than this:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/jobgrowth.png

hcap

05-03-2011, 02:50 AM

You two are laughable....as I asked earlier...IN YOUR OWN GRAPHS (well you and cap)....what about the other decades, PRE bush tax cuts where there was SIGNIFICANT, loss from the previous decade??
The fact is During the Bush administration job growth was the worst in 75 years. Bush's job creation disaster was the worst since Hoover, and on his watch Americans' incomes dropped as well. Poverty levels increased. I posted a chart showing the correlation between the Bush tax cuts and the higher deficits. Higher federal deficits have a negative effect on long-term saving, investment and capital accumulation. Pretty much what businesses need to expand and create new jobs.

Supply siders have been empirically wrong

bigmack

05-03-2011, 03:04 AM

The fact is During the Bush administration job growth was the worst in 75 years.
Actually Obama takes the cake.

Speaking of taking the cake; you're pulling what is commonly referred to as an "hcap." Not unlike a "Munson."

You extrapolate disparate figures and try to tie them together. Just like you & your comrades do with GW. If A is happening and B is happening then the reason B is happening is solely the result of A. Things are a bit more complex.

Your mind might be that simple but don't pretend to fool others with your A/B idiocy.

hcap

05-03-2011, 03:16 AM

Where did your nutbag get his numbers. They look quite a bit different than this:Once again you do not post a link. Instead you do pictures which
makes it harder to tabulate numbers.

Any way....
For example

Clinton started his term according to your source at 109725 Jobs.
After he finished he had a total of 132469 Jons
Or a net increase of 20.7%

Same as the "nutjob" numbers from the Wash Post. Anything else?

Capper Al

05-03-2011, 03:25 AM

Actually those tax cuts got us out a recession in the early part of the decade.

How do you come to this conclusion?

bigmack

05-03-2011, 03:33 AM

Same as the "nutjob" numbers from the Wash Post. Anything else?
Like I said; you & your nutjobs take liberties with figures & massage them for your own dopey arguments.

Last I checked Clinton punched in the double-O, Jan '93. Your graph says 90's. Did 3 years just go down the toilet?

How is 00-10, zero? I know, I know, just suck on the graphs and don't ask questions. :rolleyes:

Come on man, get honest.

toetoe

05-03-2011, 03:40 AM

Bush tax cuts.

One good thing will come out of these taxes-that-will-save-the-world. We will be speaking of the Obama tax hikes. Maybe even the Roosevelt tax hikes. Maybe the Washington tax hikes ?

toetoe

05-03-2011, 03:48 AM

When Clinton raised taxes his purpose was too reduce the deficit.

Please tell me that Blood 'n' Guts Obama has the same goal --- reducing the deficit. Oh, joy. Y'know, if you say it, I'll believe it. :jump:

No, I fear this Spender-in-Chief will leave our recycle bin laden with scrap dollars. It's okay, cuz Jay Leno told him, "Spend all ya want, Yer Highness ... we'll print more." (:Shaking head bobblehead doll style.)

hcap

05-03-2011, 03:52 AM

Like I said; you & your nutjobs take liberties with figures & massage them for your own dopey arguments.

Last I checked Clinton punched in the double-O, Jan '93. Your graph says 90's. Did 3 years just go down the toilet?

How is 00-10, zero? I know, I know, just suck on the graphs and don't ask questions. :rolleyes:

Come on man, get honest.Cut the toetoe/BM cutesy talk and speak english.
One good thing will come out of these taxes-that-will-save-the-world. We will be speaking of the Obama tax hikes. Maybe even the Roosevelt tax hikes. Maybe the Washington tax hikes ?So far Obama has given in to extending the Bush cuts. Let's see if he can fight the retugs next year as well as killing terrorists

fast4522

05-03-2011, 06:50 AM

We do not live in a perfect world, left wing liberals like to post fancy graphs and charts that what they are selling to continue far left filthy policy. In every instance of such postings these data is one sided and skewed to support only one side. The fact here is in the last 50 years the amount of immigration increases to our country gets larger every year. We are at the point now when there are fewer jobs than people. If you continue to take in people when there are no jobs for them what is the result? Depressed wages, no jobs, and on and on. Just cutting immigration in half for a few years would have a profound affect on putting America back to work. But you see your basic left wing liberal will refuse to look at any data but his own skewed view. More over the liberal has no capacity to accept that there is a spending problem at all and expects all of us to share, because the truth is that without the middle middle class footing the bill there is no way to cover the cost period.

jognlope

05-03-2011, 08:35 AM

I think the debt commission's recommendation to lower corporate rates by 25% should be passed, because it takes out the loopholes, and there is an actual gain in tax revenue.

Robert Goren

05-03-2011, 09:20 AM

Reagan tried the cutting the loop hole route in the 80s. They just keep coming back. When ever a politician(including Obama) mentions that I consider it a cop out.

delayjf

05-03-2011, 10:57 AM

as the private sector struggled back to its feet following the first Bush recession

The article lost all credibility right here - the recession began in March of 2000, 10 months before Bush took office.

When Clinton raised taxes his purpose was too reduce the deficit. Doing this has two positive effects. One, it causes lower interest rates and improves our bond rating.

Interest rates were lower under Bush.

Two, it frees up money which otherwise would be needed to pay interest on the debt. Therefore there is more money available for businesses to borrow and that money costs less. There was the dot com bubble during the nineties, but would that bubble have taken place if those entrepreneurs not had capital readily available?
How is taking money from a business and then loaning it back to that same business (plus interest) good for that business?? This makes no sense, you are making expansion more expensive.

Now let's say we cut taxes to the wealthy, or more correctly to business owners. This puts more money in the hands of the businessman. He is selling x number of whatever. Your theory is that he is going to increase production hire more workers and sell more of his product. Why? If he does as you suggest, and sales do not pick up, then he is worse off than before.
But if he borrows the money and the same thing happens, now he has to pay interest on his expansion which is even worse.

Now suppose we get an intelligent President (Bill Clinton you out there) and he understands economics. He raises taxes, cuts some spending, does not sign Nafta.
But he did sign NAFTA and it was approved by a Congress controlled by the Dems and he then compounded his mistake by getting the US involved with the WTO.

Result: Deficit down. Bond rating up. Interest rates down. More money available. More jobs. Higher salaries. More spending. More manufacturing and the cycle continues.
The whole theory that money borrowed from the Gov is more likely to be used for expansion than profits makes no sense to me.

hcap

05-03-2011, 12:15 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html?hpid=z1

....Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. A new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients contributed another $272 billion. The Troubled Assets Relief Program bank bailout, which infuriated voters and led to the defeat of several legislators in 2010, added just $16 billion — and TARP may eventually cost nothing as financial institutions repay the Treasury.

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data by the nonprofit Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO

Mike at A+

05-03-2011, 12:32 PM

How sadly disillusioned you are. This is nothing less than DELIBERATE ECONOMIC DAMAGE being thrust upon the middle class by Obama. He wants an America dependent upon him for everything. He is a racist who wants to destroy the white middle class and doesn't mind hurting many hard working blacks in doing so along the way. If we don't wake up and teach our children what is happening in America, an entire generation will suffer at the hands of government and union elites who will live high on the hog while tossing a few crumbs to the unfortunate many who fell for the big lie. Every time this piece of racist trash goes on TV to whine about the "fat cats", more good jobs go away. The "rich" are far too smart for this racist punk who never did anything but mooch off the taxpayers. The dirtbag you helped to elect is running the most powerful nation on earth when he clearly isn't qualified to run a corner candy store.

toetoe

05-03-2011, 01:10 PM

Cut the toetoe/BM cutesy talk and speak english.
So far Obama has given in to extending the Bush cuts. Let's see if he can fight the retugs next year as well as killing terrorists

I am honored, good sir. :blush:

mostpost

05-03-2011, 01:38 PM

Where did your nutbag get his numbers. They look quite a bit different than this:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/jobgrowth.pngThank you for posting this information which proves out point. To make it clear I have listed the information by Presidential term and in descending order. In other words the term with the highest percentage increase in job growth is first; the lowest last.

Included is the Presidents name, party, start of term and the tax rate for the majority of that term

1. FDR (D) 1933........5.3% growth...........Tax rate 63%

2. FDR (D) 1941.........5.2%.......................81 to 94%

3. LBJ (D) 1965..........3.9 %......................70%

4. Carter (D) 1977......3.2%.......................77%

5 Truman (D) 1949 .....3.0%.....................70%

6. Reagan (R)1985.......2.7%......................50%

7. Clinton (D) 1993.......2.6%......................39.6%

8. Kenn/John (D)1961,,,,,,,2.6%.......................91% (77 in 1964)

9. FDR (D)1937................2.6%....................... 79%

10 Clinton (D) 1997............2.3%.......................39.6%

11 Nixon (R)1969..............2.2%.......................77 %

12.FDR Truman (D) 1945......1.8%......................86%

13 Nix/Ford (R)1973...........1.7%.......................70%

14. Reagan (R)1981..............1.5%.....................50% down to 28% in 1980

15. Ike (R) 1953.................1.4%.....................91%

16. GHWB (R) 1989.............. 0.6%......................31%

17 Ike (R) 1957..................0.4%......................91 %

18. GWB (R) 2001...............0.1%.......................35%

19. GWB (R) 2005...............0.0%......................35%

What do these numbers tell us?

1. Nine of the top ten presidential terms for job growth came under democrats.
2. The bottom seven were during Republican Administrations

3. Except for Clinton twice, all of the top ten had tax rates of 50% or higher .

4. Lower taxes do not mean more jobs.

mostpost

05-03-2011, 01:58 PM

The article lost all credibility right here - the recession began in March of 2000, 10 months before Bush took office.

Interest rates were lower under Bush.

How is taking money from a business and then loaning it back to that same business (plus interest) good for that business?? This makes no sense, you are making expansion more expensive.

But if he borrows the money and the same thing happens, now he has to pay interest on his expansion which is even worse.

But he did sign NAFTA and it was approved by a Congress controlled by the Dems and he then compounded his mistake by getting the US involved with the WTO.

The whole theory that money borrowed from the Gov is more likely to be used for expansion than profits makes no sense to me.

The first Bush recession ran from March 2001 to November 2001. That does not mean that previous factors were not contributory, nor does it mean that effects of the recession were not felt after.

The government does not take money in taxes, then loan it back at interest.
Loans are made by private banks. I think you know that.

If the government can take in enough to reduce the debt, it can increase the supply of money available to the private sector. Then the banks can loan that money.
Clinton's plan was reduce the deficit, reduce the debt and eventually eliminate the debt. Then we would have no interest to pay. It was working until Bush sabotaged it.

Sugar Ron

05-03-2011, 02:01 PM

Gotta love that "Truth-O-Meter" ... especially when it buries another misguided con...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/19/joe-walsh/rep-joe-walsh-said-every-time-weve-cut-taxes-reven/

Robert Goren

05-03-2011, 02:09 PM

Don't worry, the conservatives who post here will never let the facts get in the way of their pet theories.

mostpost

05-03-2011, 02:26 PM

The whole theory that money borrowed from the Gov is more likely to be used for expansion than profits makes no sense to me.
Yet, you so fervently believe that if a business owner receives a tax cut they will automatically use it to expand their business. You are living in oppositeland .

A tax cut is yours to keep. You don't have to pay it back. So if business is slow, why take the chance on investing it. Why not put it aside?

If, on the other hand, you get a loan from a bank you must feel that the climate is right for an expansion of your business. You are not going to get a loan and put the money in the bank and declare an increased profit, because that money is not yours to keep. Not only can't you keep it, but you have to pay for the privilege of holding it.

To summarize:
Tax cut- You get it whether you are planning to expand your business or not.
There is no incentive to expand because you have a revenue stream consisting of the business you are currently doing and the extra money you are getting from the government.

Loan from a private bank- you get the loan only when you request it. You request it because you feel the time is right to expand your business. You have an incentive to make that expansion successful because you need to repay that loan and because you feel the expansion will increase your business and profit.

mostpost

05-03-2011, 02:39 PM

PaceAdvantage

05-03-2011, 03:14 PM

Gotta love that "Truth-O-Meter" ... especially when it buries another misguided con...Are you one of those "if I say it often enough, it becomes true" guys? :lol:

Let me guess, you call yourself a professional horseplayer as well? :lol: :lol:

hcap

05-03-2011, 03:52 PM

Funny the way all publications, articles ad historical records back up our contention that GW Bush was the absolute worst in creating jobs.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Wall Street Journal

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

And just to illustrate it a bit more clearly.
You gentlemen will have to swallow another leftest elitist bells and whistles CHART.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/job-creation-by-president-political-party.jpg

bigmack

05-03-2011, 04:21 PM

Just think of how in 4 years, BO will blow all the job stats to smithereens. Negative. Negative. Negative. Negative.

__________________

I am honored, good sir. :blush:I think this means we're going steady. Wanna wear my varsity letter jacket?

hcap

05-03-2011, 04:26 PM

Total job creation by party

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Z6xo0qSnI/AAAAAAAAACY/p8SkoEnN5dw/s640/job+creation+by+president.jpg

bigmack

05-03-2011, 04:34 PM

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/bushrecord.png
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/13/ed-gillespie/gillespie-touts-bush-record-taxes-job-creation/

hcap

05-03-2011, 04:34 PM

Just think of how in 4 years, BO will blow all the job stats to smithereens. Negative. Negative. Negative. Negative.
You come across as an idiot when you are your usual arrogant self

Just to be clear, blue is Obama, red is the rutabaga.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/jobs.gif

bigmack

05-03-2011, 04:46 PM

60 Economists surveyed:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/bushtaxcuts.png
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

Vote to extend Bush tax rates in Dec '10:

- The House passed the measure 277 to 148, with 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting "no."

- Within moments of the 81-19 Senate vote, President Barack Obama urged the House to follow suit without making any changes.

______________________________________

61% of Americans agreed to extend Bush tax rates:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/15/5654897-nbcwsj-poll-nearly-60-approve-of-tax-deal

And yet, here we have mosty & hcap STILL whining. :lol:

newtothegame

05-03-2011, 04:54 PM

Well, I will leave you guys with this thought. It's obvious that libs will never see the other side. And, I am fine with that. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
Next. You libs had best retake the house or your dreams of redistribution, through the raising of taxes, will never happen.
For me personally, I will vote against ANY tax hike locally until politicians understand we ALL have budgets and have to spend within our means.
Next, I will vote against ANY politician who votes to increase taxes. Now you can tell me i am a baby killer, senior hater, etc etc. I could really care less. If our ELECTED officials cant balance a budget i will vote for ones who can!

delayjf

05-03-2011, 05:29 PM

The date has been revised since 2008 - to more closer association with the dot.com bubble. (from wiki pedia - the emphasis is mine)

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee (BCDC) uses monthly, rather than quarterly, indicators to determine peaks and troughs in business activity[1], as can be seen by noting that starting and ending dates are given by month and year, not quarters. However, controversy over the precise dates of the recession led to the characterization of the recession as the "Clinton Recession" by Republicans, if it could be traced to the final term of President Bill Clinton. A move in the recession date in a 2004 report by the Council of Economic Advisors to several months before the one given by the NBER was seen as politically motivated.[2] BCDC members suggested they would be open to revisiting the dates of the recession as newer and more definitive data became available.[3] In early 2004, NBER President Martin Feldstein said:

"It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late. We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."[3]
Thus, the date was revised in late 2008.From 2000 to 2001, the Federal Reserve in a move to quell the stock market, made successive interest rate increases, credited in part for "plunging the country into a recession."[4] Using the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was relatively unscathed by the NASDAQ's crash until the September 11, 2001 attacks, after which the DJIA suffered its worst one-day point loss and biggest one-week losses in history up to that point. The market rebounded, only to crash once more in the final two quarters of 2002. In the final three quarters of 2003, the market finally rebounded permanently, agreeing with the unemployment statistics that a recession defined in this way would have lasted from 2001 through 2003.

Yet, you so fervently believe that if a business owner receives a tax cut they will automatically use it to expand their business.
What I am saying is that if a business is of the mind to expand - and it has the capital to do so, that's a better situation for the business because it would be cheaper and less restrictive, as they would not be beholden to the banks to approve their business plan.

There is no incentive to expand because you have a revenue stream consisting of the business you are currently doing and the extra money you are getting from the government.

The incentive is the same whether you borrow from a bank or invest your own capital - to increase your company's profits. Have you considered that higher tax rates will reduce your ROI and thus your incentive to expand?

NJ Stinks

05-03-2011, 06:41 PM

61% of Americans agreed to extend Bush tax rates:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/15/5654897-nbcwsj-poll-nearly-60-approve-of-tax-deal

And yet, here we have mosty & hcap STILL whining. :lol:

Is this the same 61% who scream bloody murder that we are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren?

Just curious. :rolleyes:

bigmack

05-03-2011, 06:49 PM

Is this the same 61% who scream bloody murder that we are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren?
Just curious. :rolleyes:
Yeah, by spending money on the salaries of government flunkies. Know what I mean?

They're the same 61% who are smart enough to know that if we took every nickel from every citizen making over $250K, it would fund the government for 150 days. Wrap your brain around that, as you have no answer for a solitary thing besides taxation.

NJ Stinks

05-03-2011, 07:00 PM

Yeah, by spending money on the salaries of government flunkies. Know what I mean?

They're the same 61% who are smart enough to know that if we took every nickel from every citizen making over $250K, it would fund the government for 150 days. Wrap your brain around that, as you have no answer for a solitary thing besides taxation.

To answer your question, I just wish I could have shown my competence examining your tax return.

Give me the source of what you claim in the second paragragh so I can check it out.

bigmack

05-03-2011, 07:10 PM

Give me the source of what you claim in the second paragragh so I can check it out.
See what I mean about flunkies? I have to do their homework for them.

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/liberty_one/2011/apr/3/eating-the-rich-wont-work/

bigmack

05-03-2011, 08:24 PM

To answer your question, I just wish I could have shown my competence examining your tax return.
Q: Inheritance of $200K. Does inheritance tax apply?

Sugar Ron

05-04-2011, 12:52 PM

Are you one of those "if I say it often enough, it becomes true" guys? :lol:

Let me guess, you call yourself a professional horseplayer as well? :lol: :lol:

More a ' post the facts and hope that some of them can actually penetrate cons' thick skulls ' kind of guy.

And I'm having plenty of success as a professional in some other areas ... so I doubt I'll try to make a living playing horses anytime soon.

cj's dad

05-04-2011, 01:28 PM

More a ' post the facts and hope that some of them can actually penetrate cons' thick skulls ' kind of guy.

And I'm having plenty of success as a professional in some other areas ... so I doubt I'll try to make a living playing horses anytime soon.

Don't know many "professionals" using the "Sugar" tag - just sayin' !

Sugar Ron

05-04-2011, 04:00 PM

Don't know many "professionals" using the "Sugar" tag - just sayin' !

Sugar Ray Leonard
Sugar Ray Robinson
Sugar Shane Mosley

Tom

05-04-2011, 09:52 PM

Mel Gibson......

PaceAdvantage

05-05-2011, 12:05 AM

More a ' post the facts and hope that some of them can actually penetrate cons' thick skulls ' kind of guy.You only post the facts that suit you. Others that don't suit you, you ignore, like everyone else.

It's ok to be a hypocrite...really... :lol:

hcap

05-17-2011, 08:13 AM

The fact is During the Bush administration job growth was the worst in 75 years. Bush's job creation disaster was the worst since Hoover, and on his watch Americans' incomes dropped as well. Poverty levels increased. I posted a chart showing the correlation between the Bush tax cuts and the higher deficits. Higher federal deficits have a negative effect on long-term saving, investment and capital accumulation. Pretty much what businesses need to expand and create new jobs.

Supply siders have been empirically wrongFurther proof that rethugs TALK garbage.

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/whoincreasedthedebt.jpg

Tom

05-17-2011, 10:14 AM

No way that is correct.
See who's office it came from? :lol:

Sugar Ron

05-17-2011, 10:49 AM

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!!!

And some people still refer to themselves as "Reagan Conservatives"???!!!???

riskman

05-17-2011, 01:14 PM

What about the novel idea of lowering our corporate tax rates, just so that more American businesses would do more of their business at home, providing more Americans with much-needed jobs? In the left's war against "the rich" and big business, why is it that we don't hear how much damage there is to workers who end up unemployed. Such a cut would ultimately benefit the unemployed imo.

hcap

05-17-2011, 01:16 PM

No way that is correct.
See who's office it came from? :lol:From the shooter himself

Dick Cheney in 2002: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” :bang:

hcap

05-17-2011, 01:31 PM

nUx7z1-ZqWo

Tom

05-17-2011, 02:36 PM

From the shooter himself

Dick Cheney in 2002: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” :bang:

No way it is only 16% under Obama.

hcap

05-17-2011, 05:37 PM

Using 1.2 trillion as what Obama inherited from bush and the CBO projected 1.4 trillion for this fiscal year gives a 16% increase

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/05/12/us_revenue_from_taxes_rises_but_not_enough/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+Boston+Globe+--+National+News

US revenue from taxes rises, but not enough
By Martin Crutsinger
Associated Press / May 12, 2011
ASHINGTON — The government is taking in more tax revenue as the economy improves, but not nearly enough to keep the federal budget deficit from exceeding $1 trillion for a third straight year.

The deficit for April dropped to $40.5 billion, half that of the same month last year, the Treasury Department said yesterday. Tax receipts were up 45 percent last month compared to the same time period.

Still, the deficit is on pace to grow to $1.4 trillion in this budget year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would top last year’s $1.29 trillion deficit and nearly match the record $1.41 trillion deficit hit in 2009.

..........................................

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

Obama came into office "with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law
The Truth-O-Meter Says: Mostly True

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-mostlytrue.gif

Barack Obama on Friday, January 29th, 2010 in a Republican retreat in Baltimore
Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion.