NationStates Jolt Archive

Dems state that the tax cuts have seriously hurt the economy. Repubs state that the tax cuts have helped the economy. I have been attempting to research this everywhere(for my own interest, so no, this is not a homework thread) but all I've run into is one biased source after another. Now, my understanding of economics and what occurred over the past several years is that we went into a recession due both in part to the recent boom of the nineties(you always have a recession afterwards) and the 9/11 attacks. The recession was much shorter and much less severe than one might have expected, leading one to conclude that the tax cuts might have helped prevent the recession from being worse than it was.

Am I, however, mistakenly interpreting the data, or am I correct?

Dems state that the tax cuts have seriously hurt the economy. Repubs state that the tax cuts have helped the economy. I have been attempting to research this everywhere(for my own interest, so no, this is not a homework thread) but all I've run into is one biased source after another. Now, my understanding of economics and what occurred over the past several years is that we went into a recession due both in part to the recent boom of the nineties(you always have a recession afterwards) and the 9/11 attacks. The recession was much shorter and much less severe than one might have expected, leading one to conclude that the tax cuts might have helped prevent the recession from being worse than it was.

Am I, however, mistakenly interpreting the data, or am I correct?


Tax cuts have caused an Uber-Deficit.
HOWEVER. Businesses are now Uber.

The result?
The collapse of the American state with poverty stricken people, but its ok because Multi-National Corporations originate from there.

All I know is from growing up in the Clinton years, things sucked during then. Technology was extremely slow. Clinton couldn't handle terrorism. Low military budget.

I'm quite happy with George Bush....really happy.

The tax cuts are bad. Spending was not cut to match the tax cuts, instead spending has increased. This has resulted in giant deficits. The deficits crowd out investment and reduce the rate of growth of the economy. (People buy T-bills instead of actually investing their money.) Tax rates will have to be raised in the future to pay the deficit, which will hurt the economy in the future. The tax cuts weren't even very helpful in ending the recession as they went mostly to the rich who tend to spend much less than the poor. So the tax cuts have:

1. Weakened economic growth.

2. Failed to be a cost effective economic stimulis.

3. Require taxes to be raised to higher levels in the future. (This could come in the form of an unofficial tax such as 15% inflation.)

4. They have reduced the capacity of the United States to deal with shocks and crisises. Not a good thing in an uncertain world.

That is correct. In the short term they certainly helped the economy. The problem is the long-term results.

There are two economic effects here. The first is the "free market" effect, where a government, by reducing taxes, allows private industry to manage more of the economy as a proportion. As private industry is more efficient than the government, the economy is better off for it. However, this is more of a medium to long-term effect, and not why the recession was ended.

The second effect is the "borrowing" effect (don't worry - I know I'm making these terms up, but not the economics). When Bush cut taxes, he did not cut spending. The effect of this is that the government is borrowing money. If it borrows it from abroad, this quickly brings money into the economy, stimulating growth. This is probably the reason why the tax cuts ended the recession, and if he had cut spending at the same time the effects would not have been as noticeable and swift. But the big problem is that the money that is being borrowed must of course be paid back, and that is why the democrats think the tax cuts are harming the economy. In the long term they are probably right, as either taxes will need to be raised or spending cut, and money sent back abroad, each of which will have depressive effects on the economy in the future.

Borrowing is not always bad, as it allows countries to give their economies boosts at the right time in order to smooth out growth, which is beneficial in itself. The problem is that the extent of the borrowing is probably reckless, because Bush does not care what the economy does after 2008 when he leaves office and the US will begin to feel the effects of it beginning to bite.


One additional point is that interest rates in the US were kept very low for a long time, which made borrowing much easier. This is extremely helpful for companies, especially, as they usually rely on borrowed money to grow.

Tax cuts have caused an Uber-Deficit.
HOWEVER. Businesses are now Uber.

The result?
The collapse of the American state with poverty stricken people, but its ok because Multi-National Corporations originate from there.
How have the tax cuts created a deficit? From my understanding, it is spending that causes deficits. If they choose to spend regardless of money, then it is their fault due to the SPENDING, NOT any tax cuts. Tax cuts merely reduce the revenue a government possesses.

Also, please provide sources for your information. I'm asking for detailed posts here, not two or three sentences that may or may not be factually correct.

Brains: I can see where you are going, but again, sources for exactly how these have affected the economy. I hear the same facts being shown to prove both arguments, as I stated in the original post, hence the difficulty.

Bul-Katho: I fail to see where you are getting the idea that the pace of technology was slow under the Clinton administration. At the beginning of his administration in 1992, the best computer was one with MS-DOS 6, with approximately 16 megabytes of RAM and 40 megabytes of hard disc space. The best computer at the end of his administration in 2000 was one with Windows 98, with approximately 1.0 gigahertz processing speed, 512 megabytes of RAM, and 200 gigabytes of hard disc space. That, of course, is just one piece of the technological puzzle. Thing is, that would have happened regardless of the president. The pace of technology is rarely affected by the leadership of the nation.

That is correct. In the short term they certainly helped the economy. The problem is the long-term results.

There are two economic effects here. The first is the "free market" effect, where a government, by reducing taxes, allows private industry to manage more of the economy as a proportion. As private industry is more efficient than the government, the economy is better off for it. However, this is more of a medium to long-term effect, and not why the recession was ended.

The second effect is the "borrowing" effect (don't worry - I know I'm making these terms up, but not the economics). When Bush cut taxes, he did not cut spending. The effect of this is that the government is borrowing money. If it borrows it from abroad, this quickly brings money into the economy, stimulating growth. This is probably the reason why the tax cuts ended the recession, and if he had cut spending at the same time the effects would not have been as noticeable and swift. But the big problem is that the money that is being borrowed must of course be paid back, and that is why the democrats think the tax cuts are harming the economy. In the long term they are probably right, as either taxes will need to be raised or spending cut, and money sent back abroad, each of which will have depressive effects on the economy in the future.

Borrowing is not always bad, as it allows countries to give their economies boosts at the right time in order to smooth out growth, which is beneficial in itself. The problem is that the extent of the borrowing is probably reckless, because Bush does not care what the economy does after 2008 when he leaves office and the US will begin to feel the effects of it beginning to bite.


One additional point is that interest rates in the US were kept very low for a long time, which made borrowing much easier. This is extremely helpful for companies, especially, as they usually rely on borrowed money to grow.
I knew I didn't understand economics as well as I thought I did. I see how this works. So, in essence, the tax cuts were good for short to medium term, and bad for the long term due to increased spending. Also, if he had decreased spending to match the decrease in revenue, the tax cuts would not have harmed anything at all. Am I understanding this correctly?

Apparently he's under the impression the President dictates processing speed.

How have the tax cuts created a deficit? From my understanding, it is spending that causes deficits. If they choose to spend regardless of money, then it is their fault due to the SPENDING, NOT any tax cuts. Tax cuts merely reduce the revenue a government possesses.
Then you've answered your own question. If Governments have spending commitments and then reduce their income, they have deficits.

Also, please provide sources for your information. I'm asking for detailed posts here, not two or three sentences that may or may not be factually correct.
If this really is 'for your own information', then you could be a little more polite. If you've looked at all the facts as you claim, then there's little anyone can add except opinion.

Er, yes and no?

The cuts vs spending has been mentioned, but a lot of what I have read said that the cuts didn't help as much as the rates on loans were kept low, leading to a very hot housing market in places. Indeed, even with the cuts, buisnesses were not expanding the way it was predicted.

I'm told it's more "Do more with less" than "We got more money to burn" which explains why, even if the economy is up, consumer confidence is not and many people feel pinched more than previous.

The tax cuts DID (when the rebate checks came) gave America an excuse to do more shopping, which helped. But in terms of turning around the economy... eh... it helped, but so did a host of other things.

Then you've answered your own question. If Governments have spending commitments and then reduce their income, they have deficits.


If this really is 'for your own information', then you could be a little more polite. If you've looked at all the facts as you claim, then there's little anyone can add except opinion.
...I was polite, wasn't I? I said please. :confused:

I apologize if anyone took offense in the way I phrased my statements.

As for asking for sources: I've looked at most sources I can find. There are, obviously, going to be a vast number of sources I have not found yet that can therefore be pointed to, is what I meant.

The first thing that needs to be said is that tax revenues have been rising. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy, so while the US government is taxing at a lower percentage, there is more to tax.

The next thing that must be said is that all government expenditure must eventually be paid out of taxes (either directly, or as payment on loans. The failure of Congress to reign in spending has meant a huge debt left to future generations to pay off through taxes. Surely this is "taxation without representation", and Americans used to object to that sort of thing.

Another problem with this is government borrowing, especially on the scale of the US government's, massively distorts capital markets.

I can understand a government borrowing in an emergency, but it should never do so in normal circumstances. I suggest that this proviso does not apply to the Bush Administration since most of their spending increases have not been related to security, or the War on Terror.

The tax cuts weren't even very helpful in ending the recession as they went mostly to the rich who tend to spend much less than the poor.

This statement reveals a lack of thought. They may not have spent as much, but they have more money, and that money is invested (hence the economic growth), or left in the bank (it is then lent out for spending or investment).

Money was spent upfront - without emplacing mechanisms to pay it off later.

Shoulda cut spending, not taxes.

Good or bad is too simplistic a way to aproach the question. The tax cuts were good for some and bad for others, and it's all a matter of perspective. And the whole argument about "the economy would have been worse without them" is a non-starter in my book, because there's really no way of knowing that for certain. Predictions about the economy, especially long term ones, are even hazier than predictions about the weather.

I knew I didn't understand economics as well as I thought I did. I see how this works. So, in essence, the tax cuts were good for short to medium term, and bad for the long term due to increased spending.

That is how I see it in this case because of the size of the deficit, though sometimes tax cuts and borrowing may be the right thing to do to a degree.

Although when money is borrowed it will always have to be paid back (even if it is "paid back" through inflation or a falling dollar reducing the true value of the debt), sometimes you can use the money well in the meantime so you come out of whole process much better off than you went in. But as someone else said earlier, the current policy does not seem to be "cost effective". It just seems to be spending now because it feels good.


Also, if he had decreased spending to match the decrease in revenue, the tax cuts would not have harmed anything at all. Am I understanding this correctly?

Well, this is getting quite complicated now. I think that if government spending had been cut as precipitously as taxes it would have harmed the economy, because suddenly the economy loses that stream of stimulation from the government. That is balanced by the extra money now being spent in the private sector because of the equal tax cut, but that might take a short while to get going, so in the meantime you will have a lot of government employees out of jobs with nowhere to go. In general, slow and gradual movements are the best thing for an economy, as it can adjust and absorb the changes better as it goes along.

Of course if you cut spending then the public services/welfare or whatever that the money used to be spent on would have been reduced, but that is a question of how much you think government should be doing in those areas in general, and not really something that affects the economy.

Sometimes these discussions get a little complex and bogged down in details. Here is an anology that I think is broadly correct:

I'm a slacker. Every week my rich family gives me $500 to live off and I spend it all. However, I tell my familly that I am going to be more independant and improve my financial situation and that they should only give me $400 a week. My familly is very happy happy about this and expect to be financially better off because of this. However, instead of cutting my spending I actually increase my spending to $550 dollars a week and make up the difference by borrowing money on my family's credit cards. So my familiy saves $100 a week and invests some of it which will make them better off in the future, but soon they will realize that they will have to pay back the money I didn't stop spending, the extra money I spent, plus interest. So there is no way they are really going to end up better off in the long term.

The tax cuts, while not immediatly adversly affecting our economy, will eventually do so, because of the deficet they cause. In the mean time, though, the cuts probably are helping the economy a bit.

All I know is from growing up in the Clinton years, things sucked during then. Technology was extremely slow. Clinton couldn't handle terrorism. Low military budget.

I'm quite happy with George Bush....really happy.
You mean "I am disgusted that despite Clinton causing some of America's greatest ever economic growth, he didn't spend much of it on the army, as opposed to Bush, who's nose-dived the economy into enormous debts, the likes of which the world had never seen, but at least we have a massively overfunded army", right?

You mean "I am disgusted that despite Clinton causing some of America's greatest ever economic growth, he didn't spend much of it on the army, as opposed to Bush, who's nose-dived the economy into enormous debts, the likes of which the world had never seen, but at least we have a massively overfunded army", right?

And don't forget assigning the blame for all of America's woes on Billy Graham going soft on gays...

The tax cuts are bad. Spending was not cut to match the tax cuts, instead spending has increased. This has resulted in giant deficits. The deficits crowd out investment and reduce the rate of growth of the economy. (People buy T-bills instead of actually investing their money.) Tax rates will have to be raised in the future to pay the deficit, which will hurt the economy in the future. The tax cuts weren't even very helpful in ending the recession as they went mostly to the rich who tend to spend much less than the poor. So the tax cuts have:

1. Weakened economic growth.

2. Failed to be a cost effective economic stimulis.

3. Require taxes to be raised to higher levels in the future. (This could come in the form of an unofficial tax such as 15% inflation.)

4. They have reduced the capacity of the United States to deal with shocks and crisises. Not a good thing in an uncertain world.



I am sorry to dissillusion you but the reason the deficit went up is that the economy went in the tank - starting in March of 2000. That was nearly a full year before Bush took office.

Economic growth has been VERY strong ESPECIALLY when you consider that we went through the 911 attacks, and some of the worst Hurricanes in history. More people have jobs now than at any time in our history. More people own their own homes now than at any time in our history. The average hourly wages have increased under Bush - even after adjusting for inflation and government revenues are at the highest point they have ever been in the history of this country.

Government spending has been held flat - except for Homeland Security and Defense. Given that we were left so vulnerable by the past administration, I cannot say that is a bad thing.

I would suggest you actually check your facts before spouting such inaccurate statements.

I knew I didn't understand economics as well as I thought I did. I see how this works. So, in essence, the tax cuts were good for short to medium term, and bad for the long term due to increased spending. Also, if he had decreased spending to match the decrease in revenue, the tax cuts would not have harmed anything at all. Am I understanding this correctly?


No you understood fine. Read my post above. I am an economist by trade. If you need links, I can back up absolutley everything I said. The "facts" the others have stated are simply not accurate - at all.

The tax cuts, while not immediatly adversly affecting our economy, will eventually do so, because of the deficet they cause. In the mean time, though, the cuts probably are helping the economy a bit.

Deficit does not automaticlly = adverse effect on the economy. Many people feel the deficit has actually a fairly minor impact on our economy.

The tax cuts, while not immediatly adversly affecting our economy, will eventually do so, because of the deficet they cause. In the mean time, though, the cuts probably are helping the economy a bit.


Why do you say this??? Have you ignored the fact that government revenues have INCREASED since the tax cuts? They have and DRAMATICALLY so.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits,excessive spending does.

The pace of technology is rarely affected by the leadership of the nation.

Unless you give tax cuts and reduce the regulatory burden on those companies that are developing new technologies. This draws investment into them and greatly increases the pace of developement.

Tax cuts have caused an Uber-Deficit.
HOWEVER. Businesses are now Uber.

The result?
The collapse of the American state with poverty stricken people, but its ok because Multi-National Corporations originate from there.
No. Spending has caused an incredible deficit. Tax cuts provided the stimulus to end the 1999-2000 recession and are providing increasingly larger revenues. The real culprits in the deficit mess are the Congressmen that think they need to spend every penny and then some.

No. Spending has caused an incredible deficit. Tax cuts provided the stimulus to end the 1999-2000 recession and are providing increasingly larger revenues. The real culprits in the deficit mess are the Congressmen that think they need to spend every penny and then some.

Kinda like reminding my ex-wife that it wasn't the fact that I only made a quarter million a year that put us in financial trouble - it was her profligate spending.

Sometimes these discussions get a little complex and bogged down in details. Here is an anology that I think is broadly correct:

I'm a slacker. Every week my rich family gives me $500 to live off and I spend it all. However, I tell my familly that I am going to be more independant and improve my financial situation and that they should only give me $400 a week. My familly is very happy happy about this and expect to be financially better off because of this. However, instead of cutting my spending I actually increase my spending to $550 dollars a week and make up the difference by borrowing money on my family's credit cards. So my familiy saves $100 a week and invests some of it which will make them better off in the future, but soon they will realize that they will have to pay back the money I didn't stop spending, the extra money I spent, plus interest. So there is no way they are really going to end up better off in the long term.

This example makes no sence. First of all, if you have a rich family giving you $500 a month then they arnt borrowing it in the first place and therefore arnt paying any interest. Also you are misrepresenting your numbers. If your getting $400 a week plus $150 a week in CCs then your spending hasnt decreased its increased. So your assertion that the family is saving $100 a week is factually incorrect. So logically if your spending is up and they are paying the bills of course logically they are worse off. But this is due to simple math not economics.

Capitol gains tax rate caps have been a huge personal boon to me and for that reason alone i voted for Bush.

I would suggest you actually check your facts before spouting such inaccurate statements.

I think we are having one of these internet dimensional leakages again.

I am sorry to dissillusion you but the reason the deficit went up is that the economy went in the tank - starting in March of 2000.

Obviously you live in a universe where cutting taxes does not decrease government revenue. In my universe a 10% tax cut decreases revenue by about 8.3% So while tax cuts can pay part of their cost through increased economic activity, they certainly don't pay for themselves in this dimension.

I think we are having one of these internet dimensional leakages again.



In my universe a 10% tax cut decreases revenue by about 8.3%

Cite? I disagree, the whole POINT of the tax cut is in fact overall tax revenue increases due to greater volume of business due to the cost of business being less expensive to run.

Cite? I disagree, the whole POINT of the tax cut is in fact overall tax revenue increases due to greater volume of business due to the cost of business being less expensive to run.

That is the theory, but it doesn't work. It does help growth a lot, and a 10% cut will certainly reduce revenues by less than 10%, but the cut on its own is unlikely to actually increase revenue on its own. I believe that tax as a proportion of GDP has been rising again in the US, which is why tax revenues are high. I can't actually find historical data on that point, but I can infer it from this:

These are US tax revenues (I chose 2003 because that is when revenues began to rise again):

2003: $1,782,342
2006: $2,205,666

That is about a 7-8% increase each year, which is faster than the economy has been growing, therefore tax has been rising as a % of GDP anyway. The tax cuts are being slowly reversed.

Of course, maximising revenue is emphatically not the proper objective of tax policy anyway, so the tax cuts cannot be criticised simply for lowering taxes.


The argument over whether the deficit is caused by high spending or low taxes is bizarre. It is caused by neither on their own, but both together - "high" and "low" in this context are relative terms, not absolute ones. Cutting taxes does not cause a deficit if you cut spending. Raising spending does not cause a deficit if you raise taxes. We can debate about whether taxes in general should be low or high (I believe low, as most would, but that means less welfare and government services than some might be used to), but one thing that we should all be able to agree on is that pointlessly large deficits when none are needed are short-termist and irresponsible.

Considering the deficit we are in, yes, they are bad.

Its funny how everyone gets pissed at Dems for raising taxes, when in reality they are just trying to clean up the Republican mess.

Considering the deficit we are in, yes, they are bad.

Its funny how everyone gets pissed at Dems for raising taxes, when in reality they are just trying to clean up the Republican mess.
Tax cuts are not bad. :rolleyes:
Spending above and beyond revenue is bad.
Too much spending is not a Democrat vs Republican thing (anymore).
Tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts...
Spending has increased more than revenues have.

Tax cuts are not bad.

Tax cuts are not bad. :rolleyes:

If by not bad you mean "you get votes if you cut taxes" then yeah you are right.

Spending above and beyond revenue is bad.

Taxes = revenue.
Higher taxes = higher revenue
If you spend a shitload youre gonna need to raise taxes.


Too much spending is not a Democrat vs Republican thing (anymore).

Yeah, its a stupid vs smart thing.


Tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts...

...???

If by not bad you mean "you get votes if you cut taxes" then yeah you are right.

Taxes = revenue.
Higher taxes = higher revenue
If you spend a shitload youre gonna need to raise taxes.

Yeah, its a stupid vs smart thing.

...???
After the tax cuts the government took a smaller percentage, but of a larger ammount of money therefor tax revenue went up.

It's really a simple concept.

It wasn't the tax cuts that caused the deficits... it was the spending.

After the tax cuts the government took a smaller percentage, but of a larger ammount of money therefor tax revenue went up.

This is more of a paradox than being your own grandfather.

This is more of a paradox than being your own grandfather.
You really can't understand that?
Ok let me put it this way... say the government was getting 10% of $1000. Therefor it's revenue was $100.
Now let's say tax cuts were implemented. Tax cuts means more spending by the people and more investments. Now the available money to be taxed is $2000.
Now the government is getting 7% of $2000.
There for it's revenue is $140.

Pretty simple.

Government spending has been held flat - except for Homeland Security and Defense.
And education.

And education.
And prescription drugs.

You really can't understand that?
Ok let me put it this way... say the government was getting 10% of $1000. Therefor it's revenue was $100.
Now let's say tax cuts were implemented. Tax cuts means more spending by the people and more investments. Now the available money to be taxed is $2000.
Now the government is getting 7% of $2000.
There for it's revenue is $140.

Pretty simple.

Yes, but it doesn't work. As I showed earlier, the high revenues that the US has now are as much to do with the government taking a higher proportion of GDP since 2003 as with the GDP increasing. If you think that headline tax cuts mean that underlying tax rates are falling, you're wrong.

This idea of cutting taxes to increase revenues first came to prominence in the 1970s, and was influential in making Reagan cut taxes without feeling the need to push for lower spending. The result was huge deficits that were not really sorted out until the Clinton years. The graphic illustration of the idea is the Laffer curve, which Laffer came up with after noting that both 0% tax and 100% tax would produce zero revenue (the latter because work would be entirely pointless so none would be done), and in between there must be an optimum. Here is a version of the curve:

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/47/images/tax10.gif

This is probably entirely correct. The issue is: where on the curve are we? If we are above the maximum, as this graph assumes, then lowering taxes will increase revenue. But we have no idea where we are on the curve, if we're being honest. I suspect we are below the optimum, which means that higher tax rates will lead to higher revenues. I think most economists agree.

There are other problems too. Firstly, as GDP increases, government spending almost invariably increases as well, and government comes to take on more, and spends more on what it does do. If this was not the case then government spending as a proportion of GDP would invariably decline over time as GDP pulled away from it, but it doesn't. The proportion remains constant, and so the effect of the Laffer Curve is annulled. Whether you think this is a good thing or not is hardly relevant, because basing your economic policy on wishful thinking is foolish.

The Laffer curve also massively simplifies things, and different sorts of tax cuts will probably have entirely different effects. This has led, after much intensive research, to the development of the Neo-Laffer curve, which illustrates the difficulty of saying that anything in this field amounts to more than a mere rule of thumb:

http://www2.psy.mq.edu.au/~tbates/424/neolaffer.jpg

:D

A minor nit of mine. A blanket statement that private industry is more efficient than government is, like most blanket statements, wrong.

The reality is that competitive industries are more efficient than monopoly industries, and even that has to be qualified by, "where those industries are producing goods and services that follow a normal supply and demand curve.". Most of the time this means that private industry is more efficient, but there are important areas (such as health care, education, national defense, and transportation infrastructure) where it is not.

The other thing that gets me is people saying that "If the rich have money, they'll put it in the bank or invest it, where it gets spread around the economy." If that's the case, it doesn't matter whether the money is held by the rich or the government, because they both do the same thing. The key difference is, the government will try to invest the money in things that benefit the greatest number of voters, the rich person will try to invest the money in things that benefit emself.

Tax cuts=good.

I like my taxes cut.

Tax cuts=increased revenue to government. Sounds paradoxical, but it is empirically true. First proposed by Democrat President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Tax cuts=better economic growth.

Increased spending=bad.

Spending increased more than the increase in revenue=bad.

Need to: cut taxes and spending both.

Dems state that the tax cuts have seriously hurt the economy. Repubs state that the tax cuts have helped the economy. I have been attempting to research this everywhere(for my own interest, so no, this is not a homework thread) but all I've run into is one biased source after another. Now, my understanding of economics and what occurred over the past several years is that we went into a recession due both in part to the recent boom of the nineties(you always have a recession afterwards) and the 9/11 attacks. The recession was much shorter and much less severe than one might have expected, leading one to conclude that the tax cuts might have helped prevent the recession from being worse than it was.

Am I, however, mistakenly interpreting the data, or am I correct?

It's difficult to say what caused the recession that occurred toward the end of the Clinton administration and continued into the first year of the Bush administration, but it predated the 9/11 attacks sufficiently that I think it's fair to say they did not cause the recession, although they may have weakened the resulting recovery slightly.

That being said, the evidence suggests that the Bush tax cut was a mistake. I say this for three basic reasons: it appears that something other than the tax cuts is driving U.S. consumer behavior, the possible benefits of deficit spending were squandered, and the tax cuts were maintained long after they stopped being prudent. I'll cover each point in order.

One of the main arguments for supply-side economics is that by returning money to the individual consumer and investor, you will encourage consumption and investment to such a degree that in the long term the economy will outgrow the deficit, allowing the government to ultimately collect more than they originally did. Historically, however, this has rarely been borne out, and never by the typical supply-side strategy of focusing tax cuts on the upper-income brackets. Contrary to supply-side propaganda, the Reagan tax cuts, for instance, proved to be so disastrous that Reagan was forced to significantly raise taxes in 1983 to prevent the shutdown of the government. The same has proved true since 2001 (the lack of fruition in supply-side theory, not the disastrous consequences). The idea that the tax cuts are stimulating investment is belied by the fact that of all post-recession recoveries recorded, the current recovery shows the weakest rates of reinvestment, reemployment, and wage hikes of any such recovery. Rather than reinvesting in useful productivity gains, such as universal broadband or wireless internet uplinks, increasingly efficient cellular coverage, or more infrastructure, companies have shifted most of their windfall in increased earnings and investment directly into profit. This is great for stockholders; for the average Bush economy recoveree, whose job is on average worth $9,000 less per year than the Clinton-economy job he lost and does not cover the medical care he once had, not so much. Additionally, most productivity gains that have occurred in the last five years have not come through increased tech, but through the Walmart strategy of making fewer workers do more work for the same amount of pay, effectively a pay decrease.

Nevertheless, consumer spending is up, something that is helping to buoy nervous investors. However, and although I haven't seen hard evidence on this point I'd stake a dollar on it, that most of this increased spending comes in the form of inflationary pressure and the necessity of paying for more goods in the new economy. Healthcare increasingly is an out-of-pocket expense. Gas prices are up. Consequently, so are the prices of most consumer goods that people must buy. If I were to explain why it is that despite stagnant or falling real wages, people are spending more, it is because they have to in order to survive. To this point, their spending has been supported by high rates of home refinancing in the housing bubble and increased availability of debt. As interest rates rise, however, and consequently home refinancing dwindles and debt becomes more expensive, I expect this behavior to decline, instead leaving workers increasingly squeezed.

Now, this post shouldn't be read as a blanket condemnation of tax cuts or approval of tax increases. Generally speaking, national debt can be a good thing if used properly, as debt properly employed during a time of recession can ease the recession and be paid off in the resulting uptick of the economy. This is especially true if the debt accrued is used to build infrastructure that helps bring about the resulting boom. My problem with the Bush tax cut isn't that it was a tax cut, but that in addition to screwing the average joe, he also squandered any possible benefit that the tax cut might have produced. Instead of investing in increased productive capacity or increased transportation or communication technologies to build infrastructure, if you look at our economy today, you'll see that the biggest new sectors of the economy are retail (traditionally low-paying) and home construction. The biggest losers are industry. Essentially, we've put ourselves into debt and sold off our heavy industry to make sure that we as a nation of Walmart workers can sell each other cheaply-made Chinese goods and buy and sell houses built by illegal immigrants to each other. Our employment of new communication technology like broadband access, by contrast, lags behind virtually every other industrialized nation. Any way you cut it, we invested our tax cuts in this nation absolutely terribly. In the meantime, our debt has spiked well over 40% in five years, our economy drags along, workers continue to suffer, and our infrastructure is either dead or dying. If the United States does go into a spiral, which I'm increasingly inclined to believe it is, the tax cut will go down as the first nail in the coffin.

Tax cuts?

Don't see any real affects around here. COL continues to rise. Companies are shifting more and more health care costs to the emps. School requires fund raising to offset costs of paper supplies and music programs.

I don't know. My free cash supply has dwindled to where I just don't buy much anymore.

I am the wrong class so I probably won't see the affects. No if I was the company owners, I would probably hail them as a God send. Our CEO and the founders think they are great......

A minor nit of mine. A blanket statement that private industry is more efficient than government is, like most blanket statements, wrong.

In general it's right, and we only need to concern ourselves with generalities when we are talking about the economy as a whole.

Money was spent upfront - without emplacing mechanisms to pay it off later.

Shoulda cut spending, not taxes.

Thats not how economics works... if you want to stimulate economic growth.. u spend more... not less. Had the government cut spending, it would have served only to further depress the economy rather then stimulate it.

Thats not how economics works... if you want to stimulate economic growth.. u spend more... not less. Had the government cut spending, it would have served only to further depress the economy rather then stimulate it.

Correct.

But in my view tax cuts should not actually be used as tools to stimulate the economy (even though they can be), because it is more important to keep the budget balanced. Interest rate changes are a more flexible method of doing the same thing, in my view, and they won't produce deficits that have to be made up for later.

So, I think that budgets should generally balance, though with flexibility over the years rather than trying to make each budget balance.

I think we are having one of these internet dimensional leakages again.



Obviously you live in a universe where cutting taxes does not decrease government revenue. In my universe a 10% tax cut decreases revenue by about 8.3% So while tax cuts can pay part of their cost through increased economic activity, they certainly don't pay for themselves in this dimension.


Tell that to the IRS because revenues are at an ALL TIME HIGH since the tax cuts.

Before the 2003 tax cuts, Government revenues were falling.

From 2000 to 2003 the fell from $20,252,000,000 to $17,825,000,000. Since the tax cut, receipts have rebounded to $22,895,000,000 (est.) and they are projected to increase to $24,159,000,000 next year.

SOURCE: 2006ERP table B-78
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13feb20061330/www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/2006_erp.pdf

The tax cut REVERSED a downward trend in government revenues.

Considering the deficit we are in, yes, they are bad.

Its funny how everyone gets pissed at Dems for raising taxes, when in reality they are just trying to clean up the Republican mess.


Fact free posting at it's best.

If by not bad you mean "you get votes if you cut taxes" then yeah you are right.



Taxes = revenue.
Higher taxes = higher revenue
If you spend a shitload youre gonna need to raise taxes.




Yeah, its a stupid vs smart thing.




...???



Do facts matter to you at all???

GOOD

- Stimulated entrepreneurialism

- Stimulated investing (given more money to invest, people are bound to invest more of it... when you invest, it gives a company money... and if they're not completely worthless, they'll use that money to their advantage... which in the end, generally benefits the consumer.)

Blah. Most everything else flows from those two. I am too tired to expand on the points.

another really basic way to look at the tax cuts:

If you pay taxes, they were good for you -- inasmuch as you got to keep more of what you earn.

If you don't pay taxes, then they probably weren't... unless they inspired you to get off your keester and get a job. hehe

Sometimes these discussions get a little complex and bogged down in details. Here is an anology that I think is broadly correct:

I'm a slacker. Every week my rich family gives me $500 to live off and I spend it all. However, I tell my familly that I am going to be more independant and improve my financial situation and that they should only give me $400 a week. My familly is very happy happy about this and expect to be financially better off because of this. However, instead of cutting my spending I actually increase my spending to $550 dollars a week and make up the difference by borrowing money on my family's credit cards. So my familiy saves $100 a week and invests some of it which will make them better off in the future, but soon they will realize that they will have to pay back the money I didn't stop spending, the extra money I spent, plus interest. So there is no way they are really going to end up better off in the long term.

Unless, of course, that the extra $50 were very smartly invested in stocks.

Tell that to the IRS because revenues are at an ALL TIME HIGH since the tax cuts.

Before the 2003 tax cuts, Government revenues were falling.

From 2000 to 2003 the fell from $20,252,000,000 to $17,825,000,000. Since the tax cut, receipts have rebounded to $22,895,000,000 (est.) and they are projected to increase to $24,159,000,000 next year.

SOURCE: 2006ERP table B-78
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13feb20061330/www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/2006_erp.pdf

The tax cut REVERSED a downward trend in government revenues.


OK, maybe you don't have time to read all the posts here. Whatever. I'll make this one shorter.

Tax revenues have risen at 7-8% per year since 2003 - more than the economy has expanded. Tax revenue as a proportion of GDP has therefore risen since 2003. The "tax cuts" evidently hid effective tax increases elsewhere. I don't know what from (bracket creep?), but that is how it is.

Your idea rests on the idea of the tax burden being less, and driving up receipts through overall growth. If that was the case here then we would necessarily see tax receipts as a proportion of GDP lower since the 2003 tax cuts.

I am not saying that cutting taxes does not stimulate the economy, only that it does not increase overall tax revenues.


Moreover, taxes were first cut in 2001. From then until 2003, tax as a proportion of GDP fell, as did tax revenues.

Why do you say this??? Have you ignored the fact that government revenues have INCREASED since the tax cuts? They have and DRAMATICALLY so.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits,excessive spending does.You know, you and Disraeliland have made this comment in this thread, but neither has actually bothered to back it up. Now I know that the belief that tax cuts make revenues increase is an act of faith among supply-siders, and that the religious right lives in a faith-based community (I think we just found their common ground), but I'd like to see some actual figures to prove that assumption. So either of you want to find those numbers? They ought to be available.

Edit: I post that, and then I see that there's a link in a quote right above me. Doh!

But I went to that very table and here's what I saw under the heading receipts:

2000 2025.5 Billion
2001 1991.4 Billion
2002 1853.4 Billion
2003 1782.5 Billion
2004 1880.3 Billion
2005 2153.9 Billion

So from 2000 to 2003, tax receipts went down rather than up, and you've got to figure that Bush's tax cuts were in place for 2 of those years. There's a big jump in 2005, but we should remember that some of that happened because of a special factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ei=5090&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ex=1278907200&pagewanted=print) that was not repeatable.
In addition, while a lot of the increase in tax revenue flows from the improving economy and higher incomes, part of the jump stemmed from a special factor: the expiration of a temporary tax break that allowed companies to write off their investment in new equipment much more rapidly than normal.And even then we're only talking about a return to 2000 level receipts. So I think the burden is still on the supply siders to show that cutting taxes increases revenue.

So from 2000 to 2003, tax receipts went down rather than up, and you've got to figure that Bush's tax cuts were in place for 2 of those years. There's a big jump in 2005, but we should remember that some of that happened because of a special factor that was not repeatable.


Except you do not understand the tax cut that was passed in 2001 but was not fully implemented at that time. You see, the parts that stimulate investment was phased in over time. You also neglect to account for policy lag - the time it takes for a policy to take effect.

ALSO you ignore the fact that 911 took a HUGE toll on our economy at the end of 2001 and well into 2002.

There is a bigger jump projected for 2006 - Because of the investment credits and accelerated depreciation schedules. They lead to greater investment which in turn is leading to more jobs, and thus more tax revenue.

Except you do not understand the tax cut that was passed in 2001 but was not fully implemented at that time. You see, the parts that stimulate investment was phased in over time. You also neglect to account for policy lag - the time it takes for a policy to take effect.

ALSO you ignore the fact that 911 took a HUGE toll on our economy at the end of 2001 and well into 2002.

There is a bigger jump projected for 2006 - Because of the investment credits and accelerated depreciation schedules. They lead to greater investment which in turn is leading to more jobs, and thus more tax revenue.
Okay, first of all, I do take that into account. Secondly, if I've learned one thing about economic projections in general, it's that they don't mean dick. We had projections in 2000 that had us paying off the national debt in 10 years, for crying out loud. So save your projections. 2005 was artificially high. Let's see where 2006 ends up before we start beating the "supply side" drum again.

Edit: Let me add one more thing, kid. Higher revenues mean dick if run huge-ass deficits year after year.

Except you do not understand the tax cut that was passed in 2001 but was not fully implemented at that time. You see, the parts that stimulate investment was phased in over time. You also neglect to account for policy lag - the time it takes for a policy to take effect.
......

Hmmmm so what do you do for a job?

You know, you and Disraeliland have made this comment in this thread, but neither has actually bothered to back it up. Now I know that the belief that tax cuts make revenues increase is an act of faith among supply-siders, and that the religious right lives in a faith-based community (I think we just found their common ground), but I'd like to see some actual figures to prove that assumption. So either of you want to find those numbers? They ought to be available.

Edit: I post that, and then I see that there's a link in a quote right above me. Doh!

But I went to that very table and here's what I saw under the heading receipts:

2000 2025.5 Billion
2001 1991.4 Billion
2002 1853.4 Billion
2003 1782.5 Billion
2004 1880.3 Billion
2005 2153.9 Billion

So from 2000 to 2003, tax receipts went down rather than up, and you've got to figure that Bush's tax cuts were in place for 2 of those years. There's a big jump in 2005, but we should remember that some of that happened because of a special factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ei=5090&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ex=1278907200&pagewanted=print) that was not repeatable.
And even then we're only talking about a return to 2000 level receipts. So I think the burden is still on the supply siders to show that cutting taxes increases revenue.
But the CBO reports that, even without this "special" circumstance, revenues are still way up from 2005 to 2006. The following numbers are from a table on page 2 of the report.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7184/05-2006-MBR.pdf
Individual Income Tax Revenue up 10 percent.
Corporate Income Tax Revenue up 30 percent.
Social Insurance receipts up 7 percent.
Other (?) reciepts up 10 percent.
Total receipts up 11 percent.
That paints a pretty nice picture of growth to me. Higher wages, more employment, more capital gains. That's what tax cuts are designed to do and it certainly appears that they are succeeding. We take it as an axiom that tax cuts increase revenue because it's so. It was so for Kennedy, it was so for Reagan, and it's so for Bush.

That paints a pretty nice picture of growth to me. Higher wages, more employment, more capital gains. That's what tax cuts are designed to do and it certainly appears that they are succeeding. We take it as an axiom that tax cuts increase revenue because it's so. It was so for Kennedy, it was so for Reagan, and it's so for Bush.
In Kennedy's case, you were dealing with a top tax rate in the 90% range, if I recall correctly, so it would be a surprise if there weren't any stimulus. In Reagan's case, he had one massive tax cut, and then yearly tax increases until in 1986, he'd given all of it back--that was a case of tax cuts working as a short term stimulus. Of course, having oil prices drop precipitously helped him out just as much as the tax cuts did. And as for Bush, I think the jury is still out on that. So to say tax cuts necessarily stimulate the economy is, well, silly--it all depends on a lot of other factors. After all, Clinton didn't cut taxes, and he got a lot of economic growth as well.

In Kennedy's case, you were dealing with a top tax rate in the 90% range, if I recall correctly, so it would be a surprise if there weren't any stimulus. In Reagan's case, he had one massive tax cut, and then yearly tax increases until in 1986, he'd given all of it back--that was a case of tax cuts working as a short term stimulus. Of course, having oil prices drop precipitously helped him out just as much as the tax cuts did. And as for Bush, I think the jury is still out on that. So to say tax cuts necessarily stimulate the economy is, well, silly--it all depends on a lot of other factors. After all, Clinton didn't cut taxes, and he got a lot of economic growth as well.
Clinton's years makes one think of the twenties. I couldn't do anything wrong in the market until right around 2000, when my portfolio tanked like everyone else's. Hell of a time, I did get a lake house out of it, though, 'cause I sold my options while they still had some value.

Anyway, tax cuts are a guaranteed way to invigorate an economy. They give all the right people money to spend. Tax increases are a guaranteed way to constrict an economy because discretionary income just drys up. The best thing we could do is to abolish the income tax and just watch the economy explode. Yes, I'm saying adopt the Fair Tax. If we truly want to help the economy and not provide social engineering with tax code changes, the income tax is a real hinderance to that goal.

Hmmmm so what do you do for a job?


I am an economic consultant.

In Kennedy's case, you were dealing with a top tax rate in the 90% range, if I recall correctly, so it would be a surprise if there weren't any stimulus. In Reagan's case, he had one massive tax cut, and then yearly tax increases until in 1986, he'd given all of it back--that was a case of tax cuts working as a short term stimulus. Of course, having oil prices drop precipitously helped him out just as much as the tax cuts did. And as for Bush, I think the jury is still out on that. So to say tax cuts necessarily stimulate the economy is, well, silly--it all depends on a lot of other factors. After all, Clinton didn't cut taxes, and he got a lot of economic growth as well.


Your premise is wrong. Reagan DID raise taxes after he cut them, but you will notice that the net outcome was still a massive tax cut. You will also notice that the economy began to slow down when those tax increases were enacted. Clinton's job growth was a result of a couple of things, first when you look at the industries that experienced large growth, they almost exactly coincide with the industries that were started, or had large investments as a result of the Reagan tax cuts. The economy is STILL benefitting from the Reagan tax cuts. Secondly the net effect, no matter what the Dems and the unions say, of NAFTA was a job increase. Yes, some industry's did go to Mexico because of it, but the unions seem to include jobs that went to India, China and SE Asia when they talk of job losses and this skews the numbers. That tactic is simply a lie - those countries were not in any way part of the NAFTA agreements. Meanwhile, many foriegn companies who wanted access to the Canadian and Mexican markets, but still needed our skilled workforce, began locating offices, and plants here in large numbers. EPI has been lying to you all on this one. Clinton gets a lot of credit for taking up that mantle when it was very unpopular with his party.

Okay, first of all, I do take that into account. Secondly, if I've learned one thing about economic projections in general, it's that they don't mean dick. We had projections in 2000 that had us paying off the national debt in 10 years, for crying out loud. So save your projections. 2005 was artificially high. Let's see where 2006 ends up before we start beating the "supply side" drum again.

Edit: Let me add one more thing, kid. Higher revenues mean dick if run huge-ass deficits year after year.


You are absolutely correct when talking about runaway spending - if your spending increases faster than revenue you will increase the deficit and the debt. I am not arguing otherwise.

Economic projections are only as good as the economist who makes them. The ONLY thing I missed in the last 20 years was the slower recovery due to 911.

That one, I will admit, caught me by suprise.

Once that was taken into account however, I NAILED the exact timing (2nd quarter of 2004) and the magnitude of job creation and recovery.

OK, maybe you don't have time to read all the posts here. Whatever. I'll make this one shorter.

Tax revenues have risen at 7-8% per year since 2003 - more than the economy has expanded. Tax revenue as a proportion of GDP has therefore risen since 2003. The "tax cuts" evidently hid effective tax increases elsewhere. I don't know what from (bracket creep?), but that is how it is.

Your idea rests on the idea of the tax burden being less, and driving up receipts through overall growth. If that was the case here then we would necessarily see tax receipts as a proportion of GDP lower since the 2003 tax cuts.

I am not saying that cutting taxes does not stimulate the economy, only that it does not increase overall tax revenues.


Moreover, taxes were first cut in 2001. From then until 2003, tax as a proportion of GDP fell, as did tax revenues.



The reason the proportion of taxes to GDP went up is that there was a SHIFT in where the taxes were coming from. Contrary to leftist propoganda, the rich are paying a higher portion of the taxes as a result of the tax cuts. Here is why.

I forget the exact number, but MILLIONS of the people in the lower tax brackets had their taxes cut to ZERO. This by default, meant that proportionally higher income people (and thus people with higher tax rates) were bearing more of the burden. Bracket creep was also a significant factor - more people were making more money than in the past so they were moved to higher tax brackets. So you are absolutely correct on the bracket creep idea.

You also were correct to state that tax cuts do not necessarily lead to higher government revenues. There IS a point where tax cuts will not stimulate enough growth to pay for themselves. It depends on the slope of the revenue curve. If the slope is fairly steep, you will see increased revenues. If the slope is flat, you will not. So far, the tax cuts have taken place in a period with relatively steep revenue slope.

They were bad because they were exactly that, tax cuts. Now, if he had eliminated the income tax, reduced all government spending (except on national defense, which would be reduced to a minimum) to absolutely nothing, that would have been great. Under Bush, the federal Leviathan continues to grow explosively. Bush makes even statists like LBJ look like anarchists in comparison.

Clinton's years makes one think of the twenties. I couldn't do anything wrong in the market until right around 2000, when my portfolio tanked like everyone else's. Hell of a time, I did get a lake house out of it, though, 'cause I sold my options while they still had some value.

Anyway, tax cuts are a guaranteed way to invigorate an economy. They give all the right people money to spend. Tax increases are a guaranteed way to constrict an economy because discretionary income just drys up. The best thing we could do is to abolish the income tax and just watch the economy explode. Yes, I'm saying adopt the Fair Tax. If we truly want to help the economy and not provide social engineering with tax code changes, the income tax is a real hinderance to that goal.
You're falling into the same mistaken paradigm of a good/bad economy, when it's not that simple. It's frustrating because this happens in any discussion of the subject. It's a rare bird for an economy to be bad for everyone. Even during the Great Depression, there were a very few who were making out like bandits--that number is somewhat larger today, but that doesn't mean that the economy is "good" for most people. That's why consumer confidence flutters around most months, and why economic predictions are more useless than ever right now. The markets are about where they've been for the last five years, unemployment is down, but it's down artificially, and we're nowhere near a full employment economy, and the Fed's panicked about inflation. Is that good? For some, sure. Not for most, I'd wager.

You're falling into the same mistaken paradigm of a good/bad economy, when it's not that simple. It's frustrating because this happens in any discussion of the subject. It's a rare bird for an economy to be bad for everyone. Even during the Great Depression, there were a very few who were making out like bandits--that number is somewhat larger today, but that doesn't mean that the economy is "good" for most people. That's why consumer confidence flutters around most months, and why economic predictions are more useless than ever right now. The markets are about where they've been for the last five years, unemployment is down, but it's down artificially, and we're nowhere near a full employment economy, and the Fed's panicked about inflation. Is that good? For some, sure. Not for most, I'd wager.
Without looking for numbers, I'd say employment is between 4 and 5 percent. Not zero, but there has never been a time when employment was zero. Below 2-3 percent? Probably WW2, if ever. The 4-5 percent range is about as good as I would ever expect to see it.

And inflation seems to be a ghost that the Fed sees, but one that won't materialize for the rest of us. I'm convinced that Friedman hastened the recession in '99 by tightening up the money supply and I'm worried that it will happen again. The last monthly numbers I remember were about 0.4 percent inflation for whatever recent month it was reported. Couple that with the Fed tax receipts that are up 11 percent from last year, and I think we can safely say we have a growing economy.

I figure satellite communications is about as trendy and as unnecessary a market as any, but I still see steady growth in it. I don't need to make any major purchases right now, but would I? Sure.

All I know is from growing up in the Clinton years, things sucked during then. Technology was extremely slow. *snip*
What the fuck are you talking about? The dot com boom and the brith of the internet came during the clinton years. Technology slow? Huh?

What the fuck are you talking about? The dot com boom and the brith of the internet came during the clinton years. Technology slow? Huh?
He probably means we only had 16 Mhz computers and 9600 baud modems. Either that or he used AOL.

I think both Clinton and Bush are riding bubles and that tax cuts and tax increases don't have as much of an impact on teh economy as people thing. Clinton had the .com bubble that created a lot of wealthy people who wanted to livelike wealthy peope so they bought a lot of stuff and this, in turn, created jobs and more wealthy people. Bush is riding the real estate boom. A relaxation of mortgage lending rules combined with the constant interest rate drops in the first four years of Bush led to a major upswing in the demand for houses. People who simply can't afford them were buying them up like ther ewas no tomorrow. The value of people's property was skyrocketing and they took the equity out in the form of either sales of their property or, most often, as loans on their equity. They use this money to buy boats and go on vacation and increase their DVD libraries, which also creates jobs and makes more wealthy people. The real estate boom, like the .com boom, will come crashing down only I think it will be worse than the .com bubble because it's middle class and working class Americans that have now gotten themselves into debt, it's not just a few people that got insanely wealthy overnight. As interest rates rise all those bartenders who make $30,000/year are going to default on their ARM interest only loans and this will flood the market with disclosed properties and drop teh housing prices like a rock. When that happens, coupled with higher energy prices, all those people in the outter bands of sprawl are going to fidn themselves $500,000 in debt on a $250,000 home. They'll be stuck. Unable to sell their homes for enough money to pay back their two and three mortgages while at the same time finding themselves paying the equivalent of a second mortgage in energy prices.

You're falling into the same mistaken paradigm of a good/bad economy, when it's not that simple. It's frustrating because this happens in any discussion of the subject. It's a rare bird for an economy to be bad for everyone. Even during the Great Depression, there were a very few who were making out like bandits--that number is somewhat larger today, but that doesn't mean that the economy is "good" for most people. That's why consumer confidence flutters around most months, and why economic predictions are more useless than ever right now. The markets are about where they've been for the last five years, unemployment is down, but it's down artificially, and we're nowhere near a full employment economy, and the Fed's panicked about inflation. Is that good? For some, sure. Not for most, I'd wager.


Not full employment????? How so??? It used to be considered that 7% unemployment was full employment and right now we are under 5%. This is using the EXACT same standard that Clinton used for his unemployment rates. So that line of crap is just that - crap.

The fed just stated yesterday that inflation was under controll and being managed properly.

The only thing bad about our economy is the manner in which it is reported.

What the fuck are you talking about? The dot com boom and the brith of the internet came during the clinton years. Technology slow? Huh?


That was when the investments that were spurred by Reagans tax cuts came to fruition.

Not full employment????? How so??? It used to be considered that 7% unemployment was full employment and right now we are under 5%. This is using the EXACT same standard that Clinton used for his unemployment rates. So that line of crap is just that - crap.

The fed just stated yesterday that inflation was under controll and being managed properly.

The only thing bad about our economy is the manner in which it is reported.

I believe he's referring to the fact that economists no longer count as unemployed people who are no longer looking for work, a fact that artificially inflates unemployment numbers from back in the day, and makes our current numbers artificially low by comparison because it ignores people who have gotten so discouraged that they've stopped looking and gone back to college.

Moreover, you seem to have ignored the fact I posted about two pages back, to the effect that the median Bush recovery job pays $9,000 less than the median job lost, and the majority of the jobs lost had health insurance while the overwhelming majority of those picked up do not. How you can call it a recovery at all given those kind of statistics eludes me. Put simply, the very fact that 800 people will sign up for 50 slots of an ass-end job like a Wal-Mart store worker demonstrates that there is a hell of a lot of untapped and desperate labor potential out there, well beyond what the "official" numbers indicate.

That was when the investments that were spurred by Reagans tax cuts came to fruition.
That's true. Just like the current economic growth can be traced to Clinton's balancing of the current accounts deficit.

If the cuts would have been at the bottom they would have rippled through the economy and been helpful. By cutting taxes for the rich the money went into the stock market which through supply and demand drove up the price of stocks but did little for the overall economy. But since most people look at the market for their decision as to whether the economy is good or bad it did give an image of a good economy.

If the cuts would have been at the bottom they would have rippled through the economy and been helpful. By cutting taxes for the rich the money went into the stock market which through supply and demand drove up the price of stocks but did little for the overall economy. But since most people look at the market for their decision as to whether the economy is good or bad it did give an image of a good economy.
Ok, you gave, what was in your opinion, a false indication of a good economy.

What would you say is an indication of a "real" good economy?

Tax cuts should be counter cyclical.

You should cut taxes when you are in a poor economic state - this allows you to bring the economy out of a recession and raise taxes on a good economy because that allows you to take the heat out of it while saving for the money you will need later. This smoothes the bumps in the economy and helps with planning. (at times in some sectors you might choose to run a boom bust cycle - but not usually)

If this was done correctly it would distort historical data because you would lower taxes heading into a recession but then lowering taxes would appear to be associated with a drop in growth - it would only be associated with increased growth if you "overshot".
the average level of tax (over multiple decades) would then be set by the amount of money you require to cover expenditure. That expenditure should be spent in such a way as to benefit the country in the long run (i.e. provide a return on investment).
The net debt level would be the amount of money you could reasonably borrow at any moment to purchase net positive ROI capital investments.

As to if bush did it right – he was aiming for a tax cut originally to “return the profits of the boom to the people” which is pretty stupid frankly (it causes inflation and so forth), but then the “bubble burst” and it became stimulus (which might be good in itself. Im not sure if the design of the tax cuts was good and he does seem to have spent excessively but I guess those are separate issues – for example without the tax cuts he might have spent more!

Not full employment????? How so??? It used to be considered that 7% unemployment was full employment and right now we are under 5%. This is using the EXACT same standard that Clinton used for his unemployment rates. So that line of crap is just that - crap.

The fed just stated yesterday that inflation was under controll and being managed properly.

The only thing bad about our economy is the manner in which it is reported.
I'm glad you're posting. I can't bring myself to be quite so excited about bad posts.

I believe he's referring to the fact that economists no longer count as unemployed people who are no longer looking for work, a fact that artificially inflates unemployment numbers from back in the day, and makes our current numbers artificially low by comparison because it ignores people who have gotten so discouraged that they've stopped looking and gone back to college.

Moreover, you seem to have ignored the fact I posted about two pages back, to the effect that the median Bush recovery job pays $9,000 less than the median job lost, and the majority of the jobs lost had health insurance while the overwhelming majority of those picked up do not. How you can call it a recovery at all given those kind of statistics eludes me. Put simply, the very fact that 800 people will sign up for 50 slots of an ass-end job like a Wal-Mart store worker demonstrates that there is a hell of a lot of untapped and desperate labor potential out there, well beyond what the "official" numbers indicate.
I don't see too much quantification for these myths. What I do know is that the way the government taxes corporations just about guarantees that the corporation will move offshore.

Speaking of that, John Stossel wrote a book that deals with the offshoring myth, among others. He found that for every job that goes to Mexico or India, two jobs are created in the United States. Each of those jobs pays more than the job that was offshored.

If the cuts would have been at the bottom they would have rippled through the economy and been helpful. By cutting taxes for the rich the money went into the stock market which through supply and demand drove up the price of stocks but did little for the overall economy. But since most people look at the market for their decision as to whether the economy is good or bad it did give an image of a good economy.


Why are you insisting on propogating this falsehood??? Do the facts not matter. Just pass on any old lie the libs tell you???? MILLIONS of people in the lowest tax bracket were given a 100% income tax cut. Meanwhile a few thousand in the upper income bracket got a couple of percentage points!

Why are you insisting on propogating this falsehood??? Do the facts not matter. Just pass on any old lie the libs tell you???? MILLIONS of people in the lowest tax bracket were given a 100% income tax cut. Meanwhile a few thousand in the upper income bracket got a couple of percentage points!
I wish there was an acceptable way to eliminate the rich, so we might better focus on the problems that affect the other 99.44 percent of us.

I believe he's referring to the fact that economists no longer count as unemployed people who are no longer looking for work, a fact that artificially inflates unemployment numbers from back in the day, and makes our current numbers artificially low by comparison because it ignores people who have gotten so discouraged that they've stopped looking and gone back to college.

Moreover, you seem to have ignored the fact I posted about two pages back, to the effect that the median Bush recovery job pays $9,000 less than the median job lost, and the majority of the jobs lost had health insurance while the overwhelming majority of those picked up do not. How you can call it a recovery at all given those kind of statistics eludes me. Put simply, the very fact that 800 people will sign up for 50 slots of an ass-end job like a Wal-Mart store worker demonstrates that there is a hell of a lot of untapped and desperate labor potential out there, well beyond what the "official" numbers indicate.



Try getting your stats from the labor department instead of the completely (and purposely) misleading Economic Policy Institute. The average hourly wage is higher now than at ANY point during the Clinton administration. In fact, real wages are higher now than any time since they took a free fall during the Carter Administration.

EPI is LYING, but don't take my word for it. Look here for yourself.

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm

Click the link and it will open up to the BLS website. On the right half of your screen, you will see several columns: Calculator Special Notices Most Requested Statistics Create Customized Tables (one screen) Create Customized Tables (multiple screens) Flat files (FTP)


Under the column labled "most requested statistics" click the second icon down. It will link you to the tables for: Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)


Once that page opens up click on the fifth and the seventh box down labled "Total Private Average Hourly Earnings of Production Workers - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0500000006" and "Total Private Average Hourly Earnings, 1982 Dollars - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0500000049" The fifth box is the average nominal hourly wage. The 7th box is the real wage - "1982 dollars" means that they are adjusting for inflation.

Go to the bottom and click "retrieve data". This will pull up the charts for for these two statistics.

You will find that What the left is telling you is simply not true.

I wish there was an acceptable way to eliminate the rich, so we might better focus on the problems that affect the other 99.44 percent of us.


I KNOW!!! The rich are the cause of all the problems in the world!!!




If only they would stop funding hospitals, colleges, libraries and providing jobs, the world would be a much better place!

:rolleyes:

I wish there was an acceptable way to eliminate the rich, so we might better focus on the problems that affect the other 99.44 percent of us.
well, there goes my plan. I was going back to school to get a masters in Geology. Fuck it. If I'lll make the same amount of money I'll just stick to what I'm doing.

Dems state that the tax cuts have seriously hurt the economy. Repubs state that the tax cuts have helped the economy. I have been attempting to research this everywhere(for my own interest, so no, this is not a homework thread) but all I've run into is one biased source after another. Now, my understanding of economics and what occurred over the past several years is that we went into a recession due both in part to the recent boom of the nineties(you always have a recession afterwards) and the 9/11 attacks. The recession was much shorter and much less severe than one might have expected, leading one to conclude that the tax cuts might have helped prevent the recession from being worse than it was.

Am I, however, mistakenly interpreting the data, or am I correct?

There is nothing in economic theory that says after an economic boom there is a recession. I’m not sure where you got that from. The economy is always going to go up and down if that’s what you mean. The basis behind supply side economic theory (sometimes called Reaganomics) is the Laffer curve, which basically says that if government cuts taxes then more people will have a greater incentive to pay their taxes, therefore the government makes more money. Another way to say it is, to make money off volume instead of the individual. Cutting taxes is fiscal policy tool, and it does stimulate the economy. Economic theory proves this. Now what Dems. say is that increasing gov. spending stimulates the economy, well that is true as well. Reps. and Dems. will argue about which works till the cows come home, but in reality they both work. So yeah I believe the tax cuts helped the economy.

* Interesting tid bit is the Laffer curve was first wrote down in a bar on a napkin.

Dems state that the tax cuts have seriously hurt the economy. Repubs state that the tax cuts have helped the economy. I have been attempting to research this everywhere(for my own interest, so no, this is not a homework thread) but all I've run into is one biased source after another. Now, my understanding of economics and what occurred over the past several years is that we went into a recession due both in part to the recent boom of the nineties(you always have a recession afterwards) and the 9/11 attacks. The recession was much shorter and much less severe than one might have expected, leading one to conclude that the tax cuts might have helped prevent the recession from being worse than it was.

Am I, however, mistakenly interpreting the data, or am I correct?

There is nothing in economic theory that says after an economic boom there is a recession. I’m not sure where you got that from. The economy is always going to go up and down if that’s what you mean. The basis behind supply side economic theory (sometimes called Reaganomics) is the Laffer curve, which basically says that if government cuts taxes then more people will have a greater incentive to pay their taxes, therefore the governments makes more money. Another way to say it is, to make money off volume instead of the individual. Cutting taxes is fiscal policy tool, and it does stimulate the economy. Economic theory proves this. Now what Dems. say is that increasing gov. spending stimulates the economy, well that is true as well. Reps. and Dems. Will argue about which works till the cows come home, but in reality they both work. So yeah I believe the tax cuts helped the economy.

* Interesting tid bit is the Laffer curve was first wrote down in a bar on napkin.

There is nothing in economic theory that says after an economic boom there is a recession. I’m not sure where you got that from. The economy is always going to go up and down if that’s what you mean. The basis behind supply side economic theory (sometimes called Reaganomics) is the Laffer curve, which basically says that if government cuts taxes then more people will have a greater incentive to pay their taxes, therefore the government makes more money. Another way to say it is, to make money off volume instead of the individual. Cutting taxes is fiscal policy tool, and it does stimulate the economy. Economic theory proves this. Now what Dems. say is that increasing gov. spending stimulates the economy, well that is true as well. Reps. and Dems. will argue about which works till the cows come home, but in reality they both work. So yeah I believe the tax cuts helped the economy.

* Interesting tid bit is the Laffer curve was first wrote down in a bar on a napkin.
Caveat: This only applies if you're "over the hump" in the Laffer curve already. What data do you have pinpointing where the US currently is on it?

Caveat: This only applies if you're "over the hump" in the Laffer curve already. What data do you have pinpointing where the US currently is on it?


Evidence on revenue collection from the last tax cut indicates that at least at this time, we are still on a relatively steep part on the right side of the peak.

I think only time will tell. If these tax cuts have any similarity to what happened in the 80's under Raegan, we will likely be seing a huge escalation in the budget deficit.

Tax cuts have caused an Uber-Deficit.
HOWEVER. Businesses are now Uber.

The result?
The collapse of the American state with poverty stricken people, but its ok because Multi-National Corporations originate from there.
Um, no. Just no. Government revenue is not directly connected to the tax rate. In fact, government revenue has been increasing quite a bit faster than predicted with the lower tax rates. So yes, the tax cuts were good for the economy. The deficit is caused entirely by the amount of government spending being greater than the money being taken in. Not to mention that the national debt is much greater than what is being advertised. The reason there is no hubbub about that is because most of that debt is coming directly from various social ills correction plans as well as government pension programs. In 2005 alone, SocSec and Medicare accrued almost 3 trillion in debt. That doesn't even begin to consider pension plans. But since cash accounting, the system that the government uses to state whether there is a deficit or surplus, doesn't recognize contract obligations as a basis for debt the public gets a nice small figure(relatively speaking, of course) around 427 billion.

.
Economic growth has been VERY strong ESPECIALLY when you consider that we went through the 911 attacks, and some of the worst Hurricanes in history. Explain why 2003, 2004 were poor then?

More people have jobs now than at any time in our history. If you mean Overseas and Illegals then yes.

More people own their own homes now than at any time in our history.
That they bought with borrowed money because of the artifically lowered interest rates that are now going up. Forcing some to pay more and more each month.

The average hourly wages have increased under Bush. Proof?

- even after adjusting for inflation and government revenues are at the highest point they have ever been in the history of this country. Right... And that's why they are shutting down government services.

Government spending has been held flat - except for Homeland Security and Defense. Given that we were left so vulnerable by the past administration, I cannot say that is a bad thing.
And all those expenses go to helping the War Mongering Businesses mainly. While they shut down military bases. And Homeland Security is a joke.

I would suggest you actually check your facts before spouting such inaccurate statements. I suggest you show your facts before you spouting such inane statements.

The reason there is no hubbub about that is because most of that debt is coming directly from various social ills correction plans as well as government pension programs. In 2005 alone, SocSec and Medicare accrued almost 3 trillion in debt.
And how much is Homeland and Defense Combined currently? If Social Security and Medicare is the SOLE reason the government is in debt then why is it THIS Adminstration the one with the bigger deficit? Until then I shout Strawman.

Explain why 2003, 2004 were poor then?

If you mean Overseas and Illegals then yes.

That they bought with borrowed money because of the artifically lowered interest rates that are now going up. Forcing some to pay more and more each month.

Proof?

Right... And that's why they are shutting down government services.

And all those expenses go to helping the War Mongering Businesses mainly. While they shut down military bases. And Homeland Security is a joke.

I suggest you show your facts before you spouting such inane statements.

I'll give you a choice - you can proove all of these wrong - Or I will provide links demonstrating which are correct and which are not and then you shut the fuck up.

You decide.

It is very difficult to definitely prove causality of policy to economic effect.

What is undeniable is that there is a correlation between huge deficit growth under Reagan and the Bushes while Carter and particularly Clinton taught the nation how to save money.

Politically I'm entitled to say that most republicans or libertarians haven't the slightest clue as to how to run the country or stimulate positive effects in the economy. Their whole economic and domestic policy is one of having no policy at all. Turning their backs on problems that require solutions in their belief that these problems will solve themselves.

The tax cuts are bad. Spending was not cut to match the tax cuts, instead spending has increased. This has resulted in giant deficits. The deficits crowd out investment and reduce the rate of growth of the economy. (People buy T-bills instead of actually investing their money.) Tax rates will have to be raised in the future to pay the deficit, which will hurt the economy in the future. The tax cuts weren't even very helpful in ending the recession as they went mostly to the rich who tend to spend much less than the poor. So the tax cuts have:

1. Weakened economic growth.

2. Failed to be a cost effective economic stimulis.

3. Require taxes to be raised to higher levels in the future. (This could come in the form of an unofficial tax such as 15% inflation.)

4. They have reduced the capacity of the United States to deal with shocks and crisises. Not a good thing in an uncertain world.

This is the crux of why the US has the current budget problems..
"tax cuts are bad" but apparently irresponsible and unrestrained government spending is not. If revenues have increased (and they have), then the deficit cannot be blamed on tax cuts. Duh! Big giant DUH!
Deficits are caused by spending - not taxes. Period.

Oh - and since when do rich people spend less than the poor? Not to mention - tax cuts NEVER help anyone who does not pay taxes (aka-the poor). Yet again - Duh fucking DUH!

I'll give you a choice - you can prove all of these wrong - Or I will provide links demonstrating which are correct and which are not and then you shut the fuck up.

You decide.
Did I strike a nerve with you? Provide the links... But I won't shut the Fuck up unless I want to.

Well to address some of these I have proof of.

Interest Rates.
Someone I know bought their house using a Loan back when interest was low, now they can't afford to pay it. (Of course instead of trying to work it out the guy pitched a Fit.) So fore-closed!

Crappy Defense funding.
Multiple Military bases closed, yet a company that was in charge of water purification in Iraq gets a huge bonus even though they failed to purify the water, which got soldiers sick. This same company gets put in charge of fixing up the Gulf Coast. Is that effective use of Money?
Nope smells like corruption.

The issue in BOTH instances was spending. NOT the tax cuts.

In 1981 when Reagan stepped in, we had a military that was utterly decimated and left in a shambles by the prior administration. Reagan spent a HUGE amount of money to rebuild. This rebuilding however allowed Bush #1 and Clinton the opportunity that was the "peace dividend". Unfortunately it was largely squandered.

In the current instance, we were attacked on 9-11 and that again set off the military spending and instigated the founding of a whole new cabinet level department.

So, whether or not you think the money spent on the military was not the right thing to do or not, the Tax Cuts were not the issue in either deficit. PERIOD.

It is very difficult to definitely prove causality of policy to economic effect.

What is undeniable is that there is a correlation between huge deficit growth under Reagan and the Bushes while Carter and particularly Clinton taught the nation how to save money.

Politically I'm entitled to say that most republicans or libertarians haven't the slightest clue as to how to run the country or stimulate positive effects in the economy. Their whole economic and domestic policy is one of having no policy at all. Turning their backs on problems that require solutions in their belief that these problems will solve themselves.


Not quite. Carter at the time, had record deficits - this despite an absolute neglect of the armed forces. He also presided over a time that it was popular thought that America was on the verge of becoming a third - world nation. Our economy was in a shambles with very low economic growth exceptionally high interest rates, unemployment and VERY high inflation.

Reagans tax cuts and tight monetary policy whipped inflation, dramatically reduced interest rates and created millions of new jobs.

Clinton was well on the way to record deficits when in his first term, the Republicans gained controll of the congress, and thus the purse strings. The republicans of the time enforced the fiscal discalpline, not Clinton.

Sadly, the Republicans we have today are not willing to hold themselves to that same level of fiscal restraint.


Both Reagan and the current Bush administration cut taxes and if you care to look at facts instead of listening to people who don't know up from down in terms of economics, I will be glad to walk you through the actual statistics.

Explain why 2003, 2004 were poor then?

They weren't. 2003 may have been, but we were still recovering from the recession that was on the way before Bush took office. On 911, we were attacked and that SHOULD have put us into a DEPRESSION, not just a recession. 2004 was a boom year, as was 2005 and so far, 2006.

If you mean Overseas and Illegals then yes.

I do NOT mean them - although they too benefitted. American CITIZENS enjoy an economy that has more of them working than at ANY time in our entire HISTORY. Don't take my word for it go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and look it up your self. HERE:http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm


That they bought with borrowed money because of the artifically lowered interest rates that are now going up. Forcing some to pay more and more each month.

Proof?

Right... And that's why they are shutting down government services.

Um the reason interest rates are going up (although they are still historically low), is because the FED has raised them in order to SLOW DOWN the economy. They feel that our economy is growing so fast that we risk rising inflatiion and interest rates are one way they use to control it. I will not endorse the extent to which the FED has raised rates - I think they have done too much, but the fact remains that the reason for higher rates is the FED - which Bush has almost ZERO control over.


And all those expenses go to helping the War Mongering Businesses mainly. While they shut down military bases. And Homeland Security is a joke.

War mongering??? what a loon. We were attacked you moron.




And how much is Homeland and Defense Combined currently? If Social Security and Medicare is the SOLE reason the government is in debt then why is it THIS Adminstration the one with the bigger deficit? Until then I shout Strawman.

I cannot disagree with you here, however I will state that the spending on Defense and Homeland security was warranted if not well administered. Social Security and Medicare threaten to DWARF all other expenses the government has. The problem there is literally mushrooming and the Dems are basking in their sucess in stopping ANY type of cure.


I suggest you show your facts before you spouting such inane statements.


I am the ONLY one who has shown relevant facts. I would suggest you actually think before you type.

Not quite. Carter at the time, had record deficits - this despite an absolute neglect of the armed forces. He also presided over a time that it was popular thought that America was on the verge of becoming a third - world nation. Our economy was in a shambles with very low economic growth exceptionally high interest rates, unemployment and VERY high inflation.

Reagans tax cuts and tight monetary policy whipped inflation, dramatically reduced interest rates and created millions of new jobs.

Clinton was well on the way to record deficits when in his first term, the Republicans gained controll of the congress, and thus the purse strings. The republicans of the time enforced the fiscal discalpline, not Clinton.

Sadly, the Republicans we have today are not willing to hold themselves to that same level of fiscal restraint.


Both Reagan and the current Bush administration cut taxes and if you care to look at facts instead of listening to people who don't know up from down in terms of economics, I will be glad to walk you through the actual statistics.

Spare me...
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

You moved the goal. Your graph is not the Debt, it is the debt as a percentage of GNP. There is a difference.

Either way, I did not deny the debt went up under Reagan and Bush. Read my post again.

I said Reagan brought us out of a VERY bad economic time. The debt did go up but that was due to the defense spending necessitated by Carters neglect. We had better than half of some divisions unable to take the field due to a lack of spare parts.

Even your graph shows that the reductions in debt/gnp ratio occured AFTER the Republicans took control.


Under Bush #2, we were headed for a slump before Bush took office. We had the 911 attacks which should have put us in a full blown recession. The tax cuts brought us out of it. If you will look, government revenues are WAY up. In fact they are at the highest level EVER. Tax cuts do not necessarily mean lower revenues.

The problem is in the spending.

I believe the tax cuts were by and large a good thing for the economy. During the collapse of the dot-com bubble and the subsequent recession, some $7 trillion dollars of paper wealth was destroyed; the ripple effects of the wealth effect and the huge overbinges of hiring and investment were all converging to make the recession far more prolonged, albeit less serious, than others in the past. This made a huge fiscal stimulus package along with loosening the money supply necessary to climb out of the hole created by such dramatic wealth destruction.

When 9/11 and the corporate scandals hit, it became necessary to pump even more money in to the economy to help recoup the $2 trillion in losses from 9/11 and the wealth destroyed in the post-Enron stock market bottom in 2002. The 2001/2003 tax cuts prevented a "double-dip" recession in 2002 and helped revive the economy far faster than it would have without them.
Also, we have to take in to account the fact that in 2001/2002 there was a very real threat of deflation in the US economy, and in order to stoke inflation and stave off the possibility of a deflationary period like that in post-bubble Japan we had to spend a lot and do it with deficits and tax cuts. The expansion of the money supply was an important part of this, and running deficits had a lot to do with it.

Looking forward, the tax cuts become somewhat less necessary. Right now, when the economy is slowing down due to higher borrowing costs and the cooling housing market it is best to keep the taps of deficit spending open to provide support to the economy until the various headwinds to growth are bypassed. However, if growth rebounds in the 2007 and later period it will become necessary to scale back the tax cuts for the purpose of preparing for the upcoming Social Security and Medicare liabilities and to rein in inflation caused by the "crowding out" effect of government borrowing. The biggest threat of the deficits and tax cuts is, after all, inflation and it is important that the government remain committed to keeping it and the value of the US dollar stable.

Whether this goal will require tax cuts or tax hikes in addition to monetary policy is speculative, but I can say with confidence that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were a good thing at the time they were used and continue to be so up to the present date.

Explain why 2003, 2004 were poor then?.

They really wern't. If you look at the graph of 2002-2006 GDP growth, you see that it slows noticeably in Q4 2002 and then suddenly starts to accelerate to over 7% by Q4 2003. It then slows to a 4% level in 2004 and 3.5% in 2005, and is at 5.3% in Q1 2006.


2002-2006 (http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp_large.gif)

2003-2005 were all stronger or equal to the average rate of the 1990's expansion. The main difference was the slow growth of employment, which is a product of the hiring binge and rapid productivity growth of the late 1990's rather than a product of the tax cuts or anything else.

If you mean Overseas and Illegals then yes.


No, that's not true. US unemployment is at 4.6%, same as its level in 1998 and a rate lower than any level before that since the 1960's. However, participation and employment-population are still lower than their 1990's peaks; most of this is due more to accelerating retirement and fewer people entering the workforce than any other reason.

Offshoring is at best a mild effect and is slowing down as costs overseas rise. Only about 108,000 jobs per year were affected by offshoring; that's equal to less than 0.0008% of the total US payrolls per year and only about 1% of the total from 1996-2006. The effect is marginal at best, and is only getting weaker; the main problem facing the economy is not offshoring but the lack of skilled US workers. Many companies simply can't find the right people for jobs, and as older workers retire the situation is only getting worse. Skill antiquation is the main challenge to our economy.

Caveat: This only applies if you're "over the hump" in the Laffer curve already. What data do you have pinpointing where the US currently is on it?

Economic theory says that cutting taxes as fiscal policy tool will stimulate the economy. Part of the reason is the wealth affect. Economic theory also states that the more money people have has a whole the more they will spend. Cutting taxes gets more money back in peoples pockets, therefore they will spend more money. Consumer confidence is also a big part of things. As a conservative I believe in less government, and I believe the more money we can get back to people the less government we will need. The laffer curve from my belief of economic theory does not get to a point to where it is null and void. The principle of the laffer curve is the same principle a huge retailer like walmart uses. Walmart does not make a lot of money off just one customer, they make their money by getting millions of customers. The old saying “buy low sell low”. The idea is just to make money off volume, which is the same idea as the laffer curve.

Notice how it got awfully quiet in here once the lies of the left were exposed????

Notice how it got awfully quiet in here once the lies of the left were exposed????

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I think people just got bored even before I posted on the thread...I mean, no one even responded to one of my posts.

I think people just got bored even before I posted on the thread...I mean, no one even responded to one of my posts.

Boredom is the big reason. Attention spans are rather small in the general. ;)

His comment was only worth a :rolleyes:

Boredom is the big reason. Attention spans are rather small in the general. ;)

I think the off-cycle nature of the thread did it in...were we in the brief Economy cycle, it might have been different.

His comment was only worth a :rolleyes:

Nah, not enough posts for that. I wait until they've got at least 1,000 for a :rolleyes:.

His comment was only worth a


Why would you say that? His comments were one of the few that actually were supported by the facts.

Why would you say that? His comments were one of the few that actually were supported by the facts.
Oh please... supporting facts have never been a requirement on general. :p

Apparently not!

I think people just got bored even before I posted on the thread...I mean, no one even responded to one of my posts.
I know how you feel. My posts was the best in the thread and no one even quote balsted me. :(

I think both Clinton and Bush are riding bubles and that tax cuts and tax increases don't have as much of an impact on teh economy as people thing. Clinton had the .com bubble that created a lot of wealthy people who wanted to livelike wealthy peope so they bought a lot of stuff and this, in turn, created jobs and more wealthy people. Bush is riding the real estate boom. A relaxation of mortgage lending rules combined with the constant interest rate drops in the first four years of Bush led to a major upswing in the demand for houses. People who simply can't afford them were buying them up like ther ewas no tomorrow. The value of people's property was skyrocketing and they took the equity out in the form of either sales of their property or, most often, as loans on their equity. They use this money to buy boats and go on vacation and increase their DVD libraries, which also creates jobs and makes more wealthy people. The real estate boom, like the .com boom, will come crashing down only I think it will be worse than the .com bubble because it's middle class and working class Americans that have now gotten themselves into debt, it's not just a few people that got insanely wealthy overnight. As interest rates rise all those bartenders who make $30,000/year are going to default on their ARM interest only loans and this will flood the market with disclosed properties and drop teh housing prices like a rock. When that happens, coupled with higher energy prices, all those people in the outter bands of sprawl are going to fidn themselves $500,000 in debt on a $250,000 home. They'll be stuck. Unable to sell their homes for enough money to pay back their two and three mortgages while at the same time finding themselves paying the equivalent of a second mortgage in energy prices.

They weren't. 2003 may have been, but we were still recovering from the recession that was on the way before Bush took office. On 911, we were attacked and that SHOULD have put us into a DEPRESSION, not just a recession. 2004 was a boom year, as was 2005 and so far, 2006.
Taking down a couple of buildings can cause the US to go into a depression?

I do NOT mean them - although they too benefitted. American CITIZENS enjoy an economy that has more of them working than at ANY time in our entire HISTORY. Don't take my word for it go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and look it up your self. HERE:http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm
Could you actually provide a link that directly supports your claim?

BTW, the US population is growing at the rate of 2.5 million per year. One would figure that there would be more jobs.

Perhaps a more relevant figure would be the US employment participation rates. My guess is that they would be less than during the Clinton boom years, especially since the US economy struggled for several years?

War mongering??? what a loon. We were attacked you moron.
Calling people "morons" is not a great debating tool, and is considered flaming, and can get you deated. Welcome to NS....please try and keep it civil.

I am the ONLY one who has shown relevant facts. I would suggest you actually think before you type.
More flaming.

BTW, making blanket statements does not equate to providing facts.

(snip)
More flaming.

BTW, making blanket statements does not equate to providing facts.
This, coming from the master of such statements.

BTW, the US population is growing at the rate of 2.5 million per year. One would figure that there would be more jobs.


You think that Americans are spat out of the womb looking for work?

And do you think the majority of immigrants are going to be working in documented jobs?

Bzzt, try again.

This, coming from the master of such statements.
Is it tag team? He flames and you troll? What exactly have you added to this debate, other than your opinion?

The Bush tax cuts were pandering horseshit designed to solidify votes. It wasn't economic, it was purely political. As such, I made a political statement with my $300 check. I spent it in Canada.

By the way, $300 or $600 does nothing for the average taxpayer but remind them of how screwed they are.

All I know is from growing up in the Clinton years, things sucked during then. Technology was extremely slow. Clinton couldn't handle terrorism. Low military budget.

I'm quite happy with George Bush....really happy.
Exactly what terrorism are you grunting about? Oh, you mean all the stuff he warned the incoming Bush team about?

Capitol gains tax rate caps have been a huge personal boon to me and for that reason alone i voted for Bush.
Well, at least you're honest. And you can't gain capitol unless you build one. Capital.

You think that Americans are spat out of the womb looking for work?
I don't know exactly where you are going with that thought???

And do you think the majority of immigrants are going to be working in documented jobs?

Bzzt, try again.
So, the majority of immigrants won't get a job, or pay taxes? The majority are allowed into the country so that they can live off welfare?

A minor nit of mine. A blanket statement that private industry is more efficient than government is, like most blanket statements, wrong.

The reality is that competitive industries are more efficient than monopoly industries, and even that has to be qualified by, "where those industries are producing goods and services that follow a normal supply and demand curve.". Most of the time this means that private industry is more efficient, but there are important areas (such as health care, education, national defense, and transportation infrastructure) where it is not.

The other thing that gets me is people saying that "If the rich have money, they'll put it in the bank or invest it, where it gets spread around the economy." If that's the case, it doesn't matter whether the money is held by the rich or the government, because they both do the same thing. The key difference is, the government will try to invest the money in things that benefit the greatest number of voters, the rich person will try to invest the money in things that benefit emself.
One of the few posts in this thread I both understood and agreed with. Kudos.

The back-and-forth on the same issue is what leads me to my belief that economics is no more a science than meteorology, and only slightly more scientific than astrology.

It's difficult to say what caused the recession that occurred toward the end of the Clinton administration and continued into the first year of the Bush administration, but it predated the 9/11 attacks sufficiently that I think it's fair to say they did not cause the recession, although they may have weakened the resulting recovery slightly.

That being said, the evidence suggests that the Bush tax cut was a mistake. I say this for three basic reasons: it appears that something other than the tax cuts is driving U.S. consumer behavior, the possible benefits of deficit spending were squandered, and the tax cuts were maintained long after they stopped being prudent. I'll cover each point in order.

One of the main arguments for supply-side economics is that by returning money to the individual consumer and investor, you will encourage consumption and investment to such a degree that in the long term the economy will outgrow the deficit, allowing the government to ultimately collect more than they originally did. Historically, however, this has rarely been borne out, and never by the typical supply-side strategy of focusing tax cuts on the upper-income brackets. Contrary to supply-side propaganda, the Reagan tax cuts, for instance, proved to be so disastrous that Reagan was forced to significantly raise taxes in 1983 to prevent the shutdown of the government. The same has proved true since 2001 (the lack of fruition in supply-side theory, not the disastrous consequences). The idea that the tax cuts are stimulating investment is belied by the fact that of all post-recession recoveries recorded, the current recovery shows the weakest rates of reinvestment, reemployment, and wage hikes of any such recovery. Rather than reinvesting in useful productivity gains, such as universal broadband or wireless internet uplinks, increasingly efficient cellular coverage, or more infrastructure, companies have shifted most of their windfall in increased earnings and investment directly into profit. This is great for stockholders; for the average Bush economy recoveree, whose job is on average worth $9,000 less per year than the Clinton-economy job he lost and does not cover the medical care he once had, not so much. Additionally, most productivity gains that have occurred in the last five years have not come through increased tech, but through the Walmart strategy of making fewer workers do more work for the same amount of pay, effectively a pay decrease.

Nevertheless, consumer spending is up, something that is helping to buoy nervous investors. However, and although I haven't seen hard evidence on this point I'd stake a dollar on it, that most of this increased spending comes in the form of inflationary pressure and the necessity of paying for more goods in the new economy. Healthcare increasingly is an out-of-pocket expense. Gas prices are up. Consequently, so are the prices of most consumer goods that people must buy. If I were to explain why it is that despite stagnant or falling real wages, people are spending more, it is because they have to in order to survive. To this point, their spending has been supported by high rates of home refinancing in the housing bubble and increased availability of debt. As interest rates rise, however, and consequently home refinancing dwindles and debt becomes more expensive, I expect this behavior to decline, instead leaving workers increasingly squeezed.

Now, this post shouldn't be read as a blanket condemnation of tax cuts or approval of tax increases. Generally speaking, national debt can be a good thing if used properly, as debt properly employed during a time of recession can ease the recession and be paid off in the resulting uptick of the economy. This is especially true if the debt accrued is used to build infrastructure that helps bring about the resulting boom. My problem with the Bush tax cut isn't that it was a tax cut, but that in addition to screwing the average joe, he also squandered any possible benefit that the tax cut might have produced. Instead of investing in increased productive capacity or increased transportation or communication technologies to build infrastructure, if you look at our economy today, you'll see that the biggest new sectors of the economy are retail (traditionally low-paying) and home construction. The biggest losers are industry. Essentially, we've put ourselves into debt and sold off our heavy industry to make sure that we as a nation of Walmart workers can sell each other cheaply-made Chinese goods and buy and sell houses built by illegal immigrants to each other. Our employment of new communication technology like broadband access, by contrast, lags behind virtually every other industrialized nation. Any way you cut it, we invested our tax cuts in this nation absolutely terribly. In the meantime, our debt has spiked well over 40% in five years, our economy drags along, workers continue to suffer, and our infrastructure is either dead or dying. If the United States does go into a spiral, which I'm increasingly inclined to believe it is, the tax cut will go down as the first nail in the coffin.
I was going to *snip* for brevity, but I wanted to have this reposted. Brilliantly conceived and expressed, Xeno.

I don't know exactly where you are going with that thought???


So, the majority of immigrants won't get a job, or pay taxes? The majority are allowed into the country so that they can live off welfare?


Unless you support infant labor, current population growth rates don't translate into job growth expectations.

And many illegal immigrants which makes up a huge portion of the US's growth right now work under the table. I worked construction last year and was paid cash with no reporting of wages earned.

All I know is from growing up in the Clinton years, things sucked during then. Technology was extremely slow. Clinton couldn't handle terrorism. Low military budget.

I'm quite happy with George Bush....really happy.

You scare me, because technically your generation is the future.

The issue in BOTH instances was spending. NOT the tax cuts.

In 1981 when Reagan stepped in, we had a military that was utterly decimated and left in a shambles by the prior administration. Reagan spent a HUGE amount of money to rebuild. This rebuilding however allowed Bush #1 and Clinton the opportunity that was the "peace dividend". Unfortunately it was largely squandered.

In the current instance, we were attacked on 9-11 and that again set off the military spending and instigated the founding of a whole new cabinet level department.

So, whether or not you think the money spent on the military was not the right thing to do or not, the Tax Cuts were not the issue in either deficit. PERIOD.
One of your better posts.

Squandered the Peace Dividend surely was. Why develop shitloads of advanced weaponry when we're being attacked with nothing of the sort? Where was the funding for the human intelligence that might have stopped 9/11? It went into the pockets of Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and like corporations thriving on the Military-Industrial complex that Eisenhower (EISENHOWER, for fuck's sake) warned the nation about in 1959.

Also, a question for you:

Since you are reasonable in your argument and are forthright in your beliefs and defense of them, I respect you even if I rarely agree. That said, what is your take on corporate irresponsibility when it comes to taxation? Up here in Seattle, we shit bricks whenever Boeing is even remotely unhappy with its tax breaks. The state has built many freeway, rail and infrastructure improvements specifically for Boeing. I'm no economic/tax expert, but when corporations get so much in the way of favorable treatment, I understand that it saves them money. In fact, Boeing recently coughed up stock worth about $5000 for each employee vested in their stock option plan. Surely good news for those employed by Boeing and those who will receive some of that money indirectly (stockbrokers, investment and insurance companies, contractors for those using the windfall for home improvement, travel agencies, and others related to windfall spending).

But what about those corporations who drive hundreds of millions through freighter-sized loopholes in tax law? How does a corporation call itself a US entity when it's headquartered in the Caribean in order to avoid paying US taxes (many of which are ameliorated through the type of pay-or-we-leave-and-take-out-jobs-with-us pressure Boeing drops on the Washington state legislature every five years or so). What's your stance on corporate accountability (notice I didn't use the pejorative term "corporate welfare" because I hate repeating EITHER side's talking points).

Unless you support infant labor, current population growth rates don't translate into job growth expectations.
When babies are born, they require food, clothing, and shelter, all which increases demands for those commodities and increases jobs.

And many illegal immigrants which makes up a huge portion of the US's growth right now work under the table. I worked construction last year and was paid cash with no reporting of wages earned.
Because you commited a federal offence, doesn't mean that every immigrant is illegally working under the table. Also, the new immigrants, be they legal or otherwise, will all require the necessities of life, such as food, clothing and housing. Thus, more jobs are created.

When babies are born, they require food, clothing, and shelter, all which increases demands for those commodities and increases jobs.


Because you commited a federal offence, doesn't mean that every immigrant is illegally working under the table. Also, the new immigrants, be they legal or otherwise, will all require the necessities of life, such as food, clothing and housing. Thus, more jobs are created.

*shakes head* When I have a child, there isn't a job created solely for the purpose of making my child diapers, bottles, pacifiers etc. Those "commodities" are all manufactured on AUTOMATED assembly lines. Any increase in demand doesn't not mean any substanial increase in jobs created.

And I didn't say every illegal immigrant was working under the table, but it does make up a large portion because it's beneficial to both the employer and employee. The employer avoids paying worker benefits and can usually pay a lesser wage and the employee doesn't have to report to the IRS.

Try getting your stats from the labor department instead of the completely (and purposely) misleading Economic Policy Institute. The average hourly wage is higher now than at ANY point during the Clinton administration. In fact, real wages are higher now than any time since they took a free fall during the Carter Administration.

EPI is LYING, but don't take my word for it. Look here for yourself.

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm

Click the link and it will open up to the BLS website. On the right half of your screen, you will see several columns: Calculator Special Notices Most Requested Statistics Create Customized Tables (one screen) Create Customized Tables (multiple screens) Flat files (FTP)


Under the column labled "most requested statistics" click the second icon down. It will link you to the tables for: Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)


Once that page opens up click on the fifth and the seventh box down labled "Total Private Average Hourly Earnings of Production Workers - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0500000006" and "Total Private Average Hourly Earnings, 1982 Dollars - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0500000049" The fifth box is the average nominal hourly wage. The 7th box is the real wage - "1982 dollars" means that they are adjusting for inflation.

Go to the bottom and click "retrieve data". This will pull up the charts for for these two statistics.

You will find that What the left is telling you is simply not true.
Wages are marginally increasing and are adjusted for inflation, but what about the actual decline in spending power that is created by increased health care costs, and decreased coverages to employees? That certainly is not figured into your calculations?

Facts on the Cost of Health Care (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

How does one balance the expected shortfall?

U.S. savings rate hits lowest level since 1933 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/)

US Consumer Spending (http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/USConsumerSpending.html)

All I know is from growing up in the Clinton years, things sucked during then. Technology was extremely slow. Clinton couldn't handle terrorism. Low military budget.

I'm quite happy with George Bush....really happy.
This is the weirdest thing I've heard about the Clinton years. Well, I've heard the terrorism thing before but besides that.

How does one balance the expected shortfall?

U.S. savings rate hits lowest level since 1933 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/)

US Consumer Spending (http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/USConsumerSpending.html)

The savings rate is growing increasingly inaccurate because the number of people retired are increasing faster and faster, which means they are fueling their spending with income from their retirement accounts; this does not count as personal income but is measured in spending, meaning that all retired people have a negative savings rate regardless of the performance of their retirement funds. A positive savings rate will be next to impossible until the retirement wave is over.

Also, the debt to income ratio is falling, which means people are limiting their spending to rein in debts. This will slow the economy but will not produce a recession. There will be no debt crisis in the United States in the forseeable future. A recession, definitely, but no crisis; people are still able to meet their debts and will reduce spending to balance their budgets, especially given the new difficulty of declaring bankruptcy.

Consumer Credit (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/econodayframe.asp?page=http://www.nasdaq.com/econoday/index.html)

Debt is slowing, and debt-to-income is falling. People are starting to slow their debt and are doing so at a rate fast enough to keep up with rising interest rates.

*shakes head* When I have a child, there isn't a job created solely for the purpose of making my child diapers, bottles, pacifiers etc. Those "commodities" are all manufactured on AUTOMATED assembly lines. Any increase in demand doesn't not mean any substanial increase in jobs created.

It most certainly does! That assembly line has to increase production which means people will be hired to build and maintain the new facilities, and more managers and support staff will be needed to oversee it. More engineers will be needed to maintain the computer networks, and more transportation and delivery workers will be needed to ship the additional product. More people will be needed to produce and ship the raw materials for additional production, and more stores will open to deliver the additional products to consumers, and so on throughout the economy.

Don't forget the additional doctors, nurses, support staff, teachers, and innumerable service positions required to handle growing demand. Growth in demand is the main reason why employment increases. Without a growing labor force, the economy and job growth both slow; that's one of the reasons why job growth in the 1990's and 2000's has been slowing down compared to the 80's or earlier.

All I know is from growing up in the Clinton years, things sucked during then. Technology was extremely slow. Clinton couldn't handle terrorism. Low military budget.

I'm quite happy with George Bush....really happy.

Clinton handled terrorism fine. He was the one who figured out who Osama Bin Laden was. When Bush coulnd't handle terrorism he lied about how it was because Clinton hadn't set the state for counter terrorism. In truth, terrorism was the number 1 priority under Clinton. Under Bush the number one priority was prostitution, after that Iraq.

As for the military budget. Sure it's gotten bigger. But it's not going to the troops. It's being used to hire mercenaries for a hundred times the price. So a big portion of what he's spending is practically being flushed down the toilet. The rest is being used to give military supply contracts to his family members. Look up "bucky bush."

Clinton didn't inflate the numbers on his military spending with graft and money laundering, and the military was more effective under his care. Remember, when Clinton went in to effect regime change of a war criminal we actually left the place in pretty good shape and had the rest of the world happy with us.

Technology extremely slow? What the fuck are you smoking? Do the words "tech bubble" mean anything to you? What techological revolutions occured from Bush's ministration? Despite the conservatives ridicule on the topic Al Gore's legislation was instrumental in creating the internet as we know it today. But I guess that's nothing compared to the two way pager phones we have today.

You may have been a youth during the Clinton administration, but you didn't grow up in it at all.

Good for Rich, Bad for Poor.

Partial Explanation:

Recession was lessened due to manipulation of interest rates. All it really did was buy time for a recession in about a year or so. This one should be much worse due to the constraints on interest rates.

I believe he's referring to the fact that economists no longer count as unemployed people who are no longer looking for work, a fact that artificially inflates unemployment numbers from back in the day, and makes our current numbers artificially low by comparison because it ignores people who have gotten so discouraged that they've stopped looking and gone back to college.


This is a bunch of baloney. The unemployment statistics are measured exactly the same now, as they were for President Clinton.

Moreover, you seem to have ignored the fact I posted about two pages back, to the effect that the median Bush recovery job pays $9,000 less than the median job lost, and the majority of the jobs lost had health insurance while the overwhelming majority of those picked up do not.

This is a load of crap also. Average hourly wages under President Bush are higher than at ANY point in our country's HISTORY. (after adjusting for inflation they are higher now than at ANY point during the last 25-26 years, when Jimmy Carter destroyed our economy)
http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm



How you can call it a recovery at all given those kind of statistics eludes me. Put simply, the very fact that 800 people will sign up for 50 slots of an ass-end job like a Wal-Mart store worker demonstrates that there is a hell of a lot of untapped and desperate labor potential out there, well beyond what the "official" numbers indicate.


It is because EPI (the source of those statistics you quote) are absolutely incompentant AND biased.

I prefer to get my information directly from the source, not filtered through groups with a grudge.

Since this thread is about tax cuts in general and Bush's in specific, I thought I would add this.

clipped from the Wall Street Journal editorial pages July 5th edition.

Democrats for Tax Cuts.

Democrats in Congress should get out more - out of Washington, that is, and into state capitals, where some of their fellow party members are embracing tax cuts, and even supply-side logic in the bargain.

Only last week, the very blue state of Rhode Island adopted one of the most sweeping pro-growth tax reforms in any state in recent years. Democrats, who control 70% of the state legislature, teamed up with Republican Governor Donald L. Carcieri to enact a plan that allows residents the choice of a flat tax that cuts the top tax rate on high income earners to 5.5% from 9.9% if they voluntarily give up deductions. In an instant, Rhode Island has gone from the state with the third highest income tax rate in the nation to the 27th, according to the Tax Foundation.

For good measure, the state also cut property taxes, passed a tax credit of up to $1 million for businesses to help fund private school tuition, and reformed the health insurance market by allowing small businesses to buy "stripped down" health insurance free of many costly mandates. The latter could save employers 25% while expanding the number of insured workers.

Just as impressive is the economic logic that Rhode Island Democrats used to justify the tax cuts. "Our high tax rates make us uncompetitive," says Democratic House Speaker William Murphy. "Business leaders with incomes of more than $250,000 look at Massachusetts and see a 5.3% income tax, Connecticut with a 5% tax, and Rhode Island with a 9.9% tax. They make a choice on where to move and create jobs, and that difference in tax rates is a big factor in where they go." Art Laffer couldn't have said it better.

A handful of Democratic Governors have also signed tax cut bills in recent weeks. Arizona's Janet Napolitano agreed to a 10% across the board cut in income tax rates, and Oklahoma's Brad Henry signed into law a budget that will cut rates by nearly 20%, from 6.25% to 5.25% and abolish the state estate tax.

Governors Henry and Napolitano resisted the tax cuts for much of this year, but now they are taking political credit for signing them. Maybe they learned from Bill Clinton, who signed a reduction in the capital gains tax in 1997 after campaigning against "tax cuts for the rich" and basked in the stock market rise and strong economy for much of the rest of his second term.

Another Democratic Governor who's embraced tax cutting and benifited politically is New Mexico's Bill Richardson. Since winning the state house in 2002, he has cut the state's top income tax rate to 4.9% from 8.2% and cut the capital gains tax in half. "This was our way of declaring to the world that New Mexico is open for business," Mr. Richardson tells us. "After all, businesses move to states where taxes are falling, not rising." But don't tax cuts produce budget deficits? Not in New Mexico, which now has a half-billion-dollar surplus and has seen tax revenues soar by 27% this year, faster than in any other sate over the past year, according to the Rockerfeller Institute state revenue report.

We asked Mr. Richardson how he thought his party could regain it's competitiveness with the GOP on the national level. His answer is good advice for democrats everywhere: "We have to be the party of growth and the American dream, not the party of redistribution."