Posted by Tina
Rush Limbaugh just made the remarkable point that the Chinese, a communist government, is now the worlds fastest growing economy…while America, land of the free, is in sharp decline…on the road to third world status by design!.
The numbers are out today and economic growth was a lousy on tenth of one percent (.1%). Obama is bragging that Obamacare “helped” the economy grow. We should be humming along at 4% growth at a minimum by now! Can you imagine the economy had Obamacare NOT been in forced sign up mode? We’d have negative growth!
ATTENTION LIBERALS: Your economic policies are doo doo! Your talking points against Ronald Reagan and supply side economics are complete crap! We are drowning under the suffocating weight of progressive economic policy.
ATTNENTION REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP: Pull your heads out and get serous! We’re drowning here!
ATTNENTION AMERICA: This administration is causing the cost of everything to rise…the big promise to lower health insurance is a complete bust…and he’s not done.
Case in point: Obamacare does not deliver as promised!
Despite President Barack Obama and Democrat’s bold promise that Obamacare would lower the typical American family’s health insurance premiums by $2,500, a devastating new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that just 8% of Americans report lower health care costs because of Obamacare. (emphasis mine)
ATTENTION MINORITIES: Radical Democrats are not your friends. Their goal is to turn America’s economy to the same model of the country you fled…no opportunity or jobs…just bare bones survival.
ATTENTION MILLENIALS: If you ever want to work or own a single piece of property you had better come out and vote Republican/Independent. It’s your only hope. Then get your butts on the internet, read about the founding of this nation and the meaning of personal freedom, supported by the rule of law. Learn about the tyrannical failed polices of fascism and communism, the underpinnings of deceptive, controlling progressive radicals. Consider! Unemployment for millennials is stuck at 15%. Does this give you confidence that the President is concerned about you and your future prospects?
The travel costs for vacations taken by the first family and the Bidens have reached over $40 million with the Air Force’s revelation that two golf outings by President Obama this year cost $2.9 million, according to the taxpayer watchdog group Judicial Watch.
The poor house for thee but not for me, eh Mr. President?
No we can’t!!
China just overtook the US as the top economic power in the world and they did it 4 years earlier than expected.
In 2.5 years we’ll be third or lower and Obama’s goal of “transforming” us into a third-world nation will be complete.
Dewey use your bean. Tax cuts don’t cause businesses to leave America. Tax cuts would be incentive to come back to America.
Cheap labor elsewhere is a fact of life, at least until the third world catches up. Workers get to compete for jobs just like business does…grow up and smell the adulthood!
If American workers want to have jobs they better learn more about the higher costs that unions and progressive policies add to business (and government) expenses. Busting the budget doesn’t help anyone.
Greedy union demands at GM helped ruin that company and ultimately cost the American taxpayers $11.2 Billion:
The car company failed in part because of union demand for extravagant pension and healthcare benefits. That huge expense caused the company to use robots first and then later seek cheaper labor.
Progressive policy over the past five years have not helped ANY company hire in America. The Washington Post:
Five long years of slow growth and high unemployment, of a shrinking middle class and more people living in poverty and the clowns are still defended and praised as the smart guys.
Wake up America. Life is never fair and some people will always make more money than the average person BUT there are ways to provide an abundance of opportunity so that people are free to pursue their dreams and accumulate their own nest eggs!
Conservatives know how…elect them!
The Dow Jones industrial average closed at an all time high today.
So looks like business is confident in the future of the US economy.
Jim are you saying that main street doesn’t matter?
I watch a business program every morning. The business people that come on as guests express confidence, what else would they say when stock holders are listening? (smile) But they also express everything from deep concern to discouragement. Almost all say, as diplomatically as they can, that we should be doing much better…that it would help if the government was more business friendly. then they list the many ways this administration has added to their costs and kept them doing paperwork.
Big businesses can survive in this atmosphere. Smaller businesses and main street retail have a lot harder time as do families.
The recession was over by June of 2009. We are nearly five years past the end of the recession. There is no excuse for this slow growth ad unemployment. As our leader the President’s policies should work to create opportunity and benefit all Americans. I’m afraid his agenda all along has been in direct conflict with that tradition of leadership.
Poor Dewey should really give serious consideration to giving up the medical marijuana.
The Dow swings like a pendulum driven by the forces of greed and fear. It is not a bellwether for the health of the economy.
The Chinese (as well as the Russians and many others) are laughing at us, and with good reason with Obama at the helm.
Tina, I agree with you about how big business is doing well, but small business struggles. Of course it was much the same when Bush was president. It’s been going on for a long time and kicked into high gear with Reagan and his policies. Clinton and Obama haven’t improved things either.
Big business runs this country, they call the shots. Take WalMart, Lowes, Home Depot, Staples and Office Depot for examples, they have killed off many small businesses in this town. The local hardware, office supply and department stores are gone. The system is rigged to make it hard for small business so larger businesses can prevail.
Electing more Republicans isn’t going to help, because unfortunately they obey the same corporate masters.
By the way, stop watching TV, it will turn your mind into mush.
Jim can you point to a specific policy or set of policies Reagan had that was harmful to small business?
I agree small business on main street is losing business to larger companies; I saw my main street business hurt when grocery stores decided to sell more than groceries.
But that was not due to policies of government but somebodies good idea that the public really liked. When a shopper can get everything on its shopping list in one place, when they don’t have to trudge up and down long sidewalks…in the rain, snow, hail, or heat, when they can get a better price on their items they will go for it. So in a way it was the public, always the main driver of trends did the small main street business in. That’s why we also now have local cities trying to build a boutique atmosphere in their downtown area. Some cities are well equipped to do this…they have some type of local, intimate charm and shops with things that tourists who don’t mind the high prices and locals who can afford and love the unique fair will flock to browse. Chico’s downtown is trying. The portion that serves the college is nice but it does lack intimacy and many businesses are too far from the heart. It’s a tough situation.
I sense another change coming as citizens begin to demand spaces with shopping within walking distance of home. That could spell a return for some small businesses…except that now the internet is promising to interfere. The future is never certain.
So the point is that there is a difference between the trends and innovations that upset the status quo in business (Those changes and trends also slay big businesses) and policies of government. When government enacts policies that affect costs profits, hiring, shipping and production the entire economy either soars, maintains steady growth, or slowly chugs to a near stop. When the economy is affected adversely by policy all business is affected but small business or businesses that are specifically targeted (coal) most of all. Jobs become scarce and business goes into survival mode.
I appreciate your concerns for my mind. You assume, however, that I am merely a sponge and I have to say I find that offensive and insulting. If I may, I will return the favor.
You show a decided lack of business and political savvy. You assume causality rather than being curious to discover how things work. You have a decided bias against people that have gone into business and made it really big or aspired to jobs that pay extremely well. You assume such people have a greater propensity toward evil (see them as in control), which is preposterous.
A very slight shift in thinking could set you free but you seem disinclined to shift preferring to hang on to your established sense of things and your resentments. Thus ends this presumptuous and forward evaluation. My intent was not to offend but to assist; you seem lost and in despair.
Can you name a specific policy Reagan had that made life tough for businesses? I’d really like to know what you see that I don’t.
Dewey: “The tax code does allow companies to deduct business expenses”
That’s right because expenses are not profits. Businesses are taxed on their profits. Saying the country “pays them” to go overseas is a leftist talking point to make people who know very little and enjoy being resentful angry so they will vote Democrat.
“That needs to be for domestic moves only!”
Why? Because people in America aren’t free to make decision about their own property? You are seriously deficient in American values if you believe the state, the federal government should have that kind of control over a business decision! Taxing expenses…preventing people from opening offices in other countries? NO!
“That is to say that the revenue earned by the company’s foreign subsidiary remains untaxed by the IRS until that money is brought back to the parent company in the U.S.”
Yes, because the money came from buyers in that country and because they pay taxes on that money in the other country. America should be competitive about business taxes and more businesses would locate here (bringing jobs with them)! In truth the customer pays the price of higher taxes with higher prices on the goods they buy. Uncompetitive tax rates on business is a stupid. Raising tax rates on business, as a means to creating more revenue flowing to our government, is stupid because it discourages the very thing we need to expand for more jobs and a dynamic vibrant economy. If you do it right, a simplified tax code would help a lot, MORE revenue will flow to government as well. This is simple common sense.
Tina: “But that was not due to policies of government but somebodies good idea that the public really liked.”
Tina, sometimes your posts remind me of the first twenty minutes of the Matrix.
Wal-Mart didn’t get as big as it did due to the free market. According to some free market absolutists, it couldn’t possibly have gotten as big as it is due to the free market. I disagree with this guy’s position on minimum wage laws, but he raises a lot of good points:
http://c4ss.org/content/22385
Big business exists in its current form because of government policy. Regulations, the progressive tax system…these are minor inconveniences compared to the massive favors cut by the government to these capitalistic enterprises.
What utter nonsense.
Wal-Mart did get big due to a free market. Everyone in the market was free to exploit eminent domain laws, government subsidies and wage controls. To put it simply, anyone could avail themselves of private property being stolen by the state and for all intents and purposes handed over to corporate interest.
The usual dopes blame Wal-Mart for taking advantage of an environment created by government that everyone else had available to them. For some reason the squealing dopes focus on Wal-Mart but no other large retailers or entrepreneurs.
Stupid is as stupid does. The Center For A Stateless Society is no exception.
Anyone besides me notice how the horrid economic policies of the Obama administration and liberals which we are now reaping got transmuted into nonsense, juvenile, boiler-plate pabulum about Wal-Mart and corporations?
Chris: “According to some free market absolutists, it couldn’t possibly have gotten as big as it is due to the free market”
Then what did happen?
WalMart established itself before 2005 and works with local governments. You can’t tell me that local retail could afford to pay it’s workers more than WalMart pays all things considered (including some of its workers especially in the early days were retirees that didn’t want to make a lot of money they just wanted something to do! As for the subsidies the government entities that offer these usually do so because the return after the business is established will be greater and benefit the community both in terms of jobs and tax revenues. Its just a fact of life that small businesses don’t offer the cities/states the same return. The conspiracy atmosphere in these arguments should be directed toward governments that set the incentives and perks in motion. WalMart would build without them.
Generally speaking these have nothing to do with the success of Walmart. They represent the governments desires and the hoops and process that have to be met by WalMart to get the building in place. they have nothing to do with sales.
“…these are minor inconveniences compared to the massive favors cut by the government to these capitalistic enterprises.”
And yet you favor progressive big government solutions and management. You make the business the evil entity rather than the government. And you assume all subsidies are a giveaway without benefit to the community or society at large.
You people really are confused.
Keep us on point Pie…and thank you!
The crap economy is absolutely a progressive night terror come to life.
I continue to be amazed at the depth of the problem…indoctrination has made people stupid.
Happy May Day comrades…I’m off to dream land…zzzzzzzzzzzz
#4 Jim: “The Dow Jones industrial average closed at an all time high today.
So looks like business is confident in the future of the US economy.”
Jim, the reason the Dow is so high is because of the horrible .1% growth. They know the Fed. Reserve bank will continue to print billions more dollars and keeping the interest rates at close to zero.
Mega rich LOVE cheep money. More for them and less for the average income earner who can’t get a loan if they’re lucky enough to have a job.
Here’s why the Dow high is nothing to celebrate.
The Dow Hit A Record High, But 5 Other Recent Headlines Show Why It’s a Victory for Almost No One:
Any second now, your neighborhood Democrat will point to Wednesday’s record Dow number as a sure sign of the Obama administration’s success.
You might hear something like, “Oh yeah, well if he has done such a bad job, why is the stock market at record highs?” or “He’s managed to lead the economy to the best Dow performance in history.”
So, let’s brush up on reality with these other recent headlines:
1U.S. GDP Grew A Glacial 0.1% In The First Quarter 2014. “The Bureau of Economic Analysis’ advance estimate of first quarter 2014 real gross domestic product shows output produced in the U.S. grew at a glacial 0.1% rate. … Economists were anticipating growth around 1.1%.” Then the White House blamed – the weather. (Forbes, April 30)
2The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest. Average American income may be higher, but when you look at incomes at various percentiles, the once-enjoyed lead evaporates. Over the past few years, American incomes have declined. A well-performing stock market doesn’t impact this at all. (New York Times, April 22)
3U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to the Lowest Since 1995. This is despite the fact that interest rates are currently less than half of what they were in 1995. We’re sitting at the lowest rate in nineteen years, and it’s certainly not because things are going swimmingly for everybody. (Bloomberg, April 29)
4The Unemployment Puzzle: Where Have All the Workers Gone? The labor participation rate – the number of people actually working- is 63.2%. That is the lowest rate since 1977, and a dismal statistic. (Wall Street Journal, April 4)
5
Income inequality is worse under Obama. “The president is getting dangerously close to leaving a legacy of soaring corporate profits and slumping wages.” (MSN Money, Jan. 24, 2014)
Don’t be too disappointed if you don’t get through all five of these headlines with a “progressive,” let alone delve into the details.
They prefer to call people epithets without actually debating what’s going on, and likely won’t consider if their best-laid plans are actually working – even by their own measures. Typical neighborhood Democrat.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/134464-dow-hit-record-high-today-things-theyre-telling/
Tina, if these big corporations provide such a big benefit to the community, then by your own logic they shouldn’t need big government to help them do that. They should be able to prove their own merits without handouts.
It’s interesting that you never hesitate defend the benefit of subsidies to giant corporations, yet always ignore the benefits of subsidies to working class people.
“Socialism for me, but not for thee” seems to be the implied conservative mantra these days.
“And yet you favor progressive big government solutions and management. You make the business the evil entity rather than the government.”
I am against the incestuous relationship between big government and big business. Unlike the Center for a Stateless Society, I still think the government can be used as a tool to help the less fortunate. We just have to put the power back in the hands of citizens and trust in democracy again.
Tina: “Jim can you point to a specific policy or set of policies Reagan had that was harmful to small business?”
You are correct when you say “You show a decided lack of business and political savvy.”
I never have claimed to be the smartest bear in the woods. But I do know that the American people are being scammed. Both the left and the right politicians haven worked to kill off the middle class and make the rich richer.
Most of these troubles have started with the Reagan administration. When you look at the graphs, American started going down hill at that point. Trickle down economics, tax cuts for the wealthy and bigger tax cuts for capital gains have hurt us in the long run. When Reagan was president unemployment went up, wages started going down, family farms went bankrupt and we nearly tripled the national debt. The Bushes, Clinton and Obama haven’t helped. Heck tax rates are lower under Obama then they were with Reagan.
Some pundents (such as Thom Hartman) recommend that we increase import tariffs to protect American workers. I’m not sure that is the answer. Clinton brought us NAFTA which made it easier to move jobs to Mexico and Canada. As Ross Perot said, “there will be a giant sucking sound as American jobs move out of the country” and he was right. However China workers under cut Mexican workers so the jobs moved over there. China has better engineers too. While working in high tech back in the ’80s, I watched the company I was working for pack up an entire division and ship it off to China. We had to train the Chinese workers too. So maybe tariffs would help keep jobs here, but it’s probably too late.
My comment about TV was not intended as an insult. I give the same advice to my friends. Unfortunately, all our minds are like a sponge while watching TV. Psychologists have known for over 30 years that our mental defenses are lowered while watching TV. Our brain waves go into a trance like state in less than a minute. Why do you think that advertisers are willing to pay so much to sell cheap junk on TV? It’s how they got us to eat so darn much junk food, pay for expensive brand name clothing and buy tons of crap that we don’t need.
So here is my challenge for you; give your self a week away from TV. Just one week, no TV at all. You can still read news and politics, but only read it. Listen to beautiful music, read a novel, hang out with your friends, get outside and enjoy the sunshine, surround your life with beauty.
Jim: “When you look at the graphs, American started going down hill at that point. Trickle down economics, tax cuts for the wealthy and bigger tax cuts for capital gains have hurt us in the long run.”
Jim I know that’s the way the left describes it but there are others who disagree. I ask that you look at all of the evidence and use your own common sense to evaluate the information. “Tax cuts for the rich” is a great political phrase. It conjures up images of Scrooge, hoarding his millions and denying his workers a day off for Christmas not to mention the means to buy Christmas dinner. That’s why the left uses it so often; they win on class envy. But what happens when you cut tax rates (or meet the rates that are competitive in the world economy for business)? What is done with the money saved? The rich don’t need more to live on; they have that covered and have for some time. Those striving to get rich at the upper end of the middle class might use it to buy a new car or take a vacation but id they do they are putting it into the sector of the economy that provides jobs to lower and middle class people…it’s a win for the economy and jobs. The rich are more likely to invest it and that too is good for the economy and jobs overall. It gets directed according to the interests of each investor or in the case of lenders to small business people…it’s dynamic and again good for jobs. This has the potential to increase the tax base and revenue flows to government.
There are a few things going on today that would likely put a damper on this outcome despite the logic behind it. In fact some of it has been going on for some time. Increases in costs generated by ridiculously complex regulation, complex tax laws, and “wars” waged on energy production. It is folly to threaten and punish those who produce the wealth we all depend on…they simply won’t want to play.
CATO evaluates the Reagan record:
One reason savings declined was because interest rates were brought down to reasonable levels and people took their savings out of bank CD’s to invest in the stock market again so that wasn’t all bad.
The left hated Reagan because he was such a good communicator. They evaluate his record based on the first couple of years and the last as we went into a slight recession. They ignore the overall picture and times like when his policies resulted in 1 million jobs being created in a single month. They don’t talk about the numbers of poor that moved into the middle class or the number of black people who were inspired to take a risk and go into business. When they talk about him raising tax rates they don’t mention that the tax policy he enacted was targeted where it would do the least damage to the average worker and economic growth. Many were were consumption taxes. They also avoid the horrendous spending the Democrats engaged in in Congress which masked the increases in revenue that flowed to government.
Daily Kos slams the Reagan record moving right into the debt that Congress incurred. I recall the moment after the deal Tip O’Neille made with Reagan to cut spending by $3.00 for every dollar of tax increase. They brought him a budget that stacked on a table stood about a foot high and they gave him one night to look it over before the government shut down. There are so many examples of dishonest and underhanded tactics of this nature. Some people think it’s clever or smart. It may be in the dirty business of politics but it sure sure doesn’t help the people…that’s where the debt came from. Reagan’s tax policies spurred growth that expanded the economy and brought unprecedented revenue to the government coffers and they spent all of it and much more. Government spending never really goes down. Cuts in spending are cuts in projected increases.
There are several things that are hurting both our national economic outlook overall and the people personally. Unsustainable social programs are the biggest thing adding to our debt. Debt is always a drag on growth and that affects jobs and that affects revenue flow…its a downward spiral. Now we have added another program that will also become unsustainable. The interest on our debt is over $2.5 trillion. Can you imagine when interest rates rise what will happen to that interest payment? The CBO projects that interest will balloon to $21 trillion by 2024 based on current policy and conditions. That’s a laugh because as we have noted, government just keeps getting bigger.
Too much growth in government and too much oppressive, complex management and control is killing the middle class and future prospects for the American people. The increasing government is making us a nation of serfs and dependents.
I heard a projection this morning that millennials will need a nest egg of $7 million for their retirement years. Currently it $1 million. Most seniors are not that wealthy and one reason is that the social security taxes they and their employers were forced to contribute were not well managed. Private sector investment, even with the temporary dips in the market and the devastating hit to Wall street on September 11th have steadily increased. Had that money been invested in instruments considered safe every senior would have the money he needed to be more independent of government. When you consider that for every dollar that flows to government something like twenty five cents goes to its purpose and the rest to the bureaucracy of government to collect and distribute you can see that this is a poor way to manage our money. It also is important to note that instead of being invested for the retiree the money has been dumped into the general fund and is now a budget item that is represented by IOU’s.
As long as there are poor countries trying to move toward prosperity we will be challenged by cheap labor “over there” I don’t know what the answer is either but I imagine it has to do with creativity, innovation, and being smarter about how we prepare students for the future.
Peter Ferrara of Forbes evaluates the Reagan policies and President Obama’s policies as expressed in 2009 in case you’re interested. We’re living the results of Obama’s policies…it’s incredible to me that the left can continue to defend them after five years. Not everything can be blamed on him but a lot does flow from his policies and leadership.
I know; I do go on. But this is important stuff. Getting it right is important for every American but especially our kids! We need to be competitive in the world. We have to stop the growth of government and do a better job of preparing our kids so they become contributing productive adults. What we are doing now works against those things.
I freely admit to being a conservative Republican. But I am not interested in this because I am a Republican. I am interested because I care about the people and the country. I go on and on because I really want people to understand so politicians of any stripe can’t keep pulling the wool over the public’s eyes and kicking us in the butt while we’re blinded.
I don’t watch cheap junk on TV. I am a fan of the movies but I am also aware it’s just entertainment.
The wrap on Fox is a left inspired cheap shot at the competition. Every single alternative to FOX has left bias and until FOX came along that is the only news we got. FOX may have a right bias but at least there is an effort toward balance and we do get the other perspective. If any outlets should be criticized it is the originals that all repeat the same talking points and left perspective. Most of them are manned by people with direct ties to democrats in politics or serve in the current White House!
“…surround your life with beauty.”
Your challenge isn’t knew to me…been there, know how to do that. I live in such a place and am fortunate to have found it twenty six years ago. Before that I spent six years walking my Irish Setter in the beautiful mountains of Montana I spent many years reading novels…been there. I have always loved all kinds of music. My current passion is doing my small part to educate and inform so the future will look brighter for our kids. I think its pretty important.
Chris: “It’s interesting that you never hesitate defend the benefit of subsidies to giant corporations.
I don’t recall defending them overtly. I’ve called for an end to subsidies and tax loop holes through a simplified tax code.
I will defend when blatant lies are told about “evil corporations” being the root of all evil. I explain that subsidies to oil companies, for instance, at least benefit all Americans indirectly. They are given to oil companies in the exploration phase, for instance, which helps to cover costs when there is no income. The amount of tax that is realized more than compensates for the subsidy so the government is the biggest winner (they profit much more than the oil companies from the sale of products)
“…yet always ignore the benefits of subsidies to working class people”
I deplore the incentive to settle for less. I deplore the fact that after seeing the “war on poverty” doesn’t work that well that we are not allowed to question or try something else. I deplore the fact that democrats use poor people to get elected by promising them more of the largess…it’s a terrible message and it ultimately undermines the entire economy by creating deficit spending and debt.
I care about what works. i think we should be free to set politics aside so we can talk honestly about the effects of the programs and how to improve what we do.
““Socialism for me, but not for thee” seems to be the implied conservative mantra these days.”
That’s not an honest evaluation Chris.
“I am against the incestuous relationship between big government and big business.
GOOD! So am I!
“Unlike the Center for a Stateless Society, I still think the government can be used as a tool to help the less fortunate. ”
The question is HOW? I think we can be more affective. I think we should measure the effectiveness of policies by the number of people who no longer need the services. I think when we spend the people’s money there should be measurable results and it should not create debt for future generations.
“We just have to put the power back in the hands of citizens and trust in democracy again.”
I agree. But it won’t happen until we return to the concepts and ideals the founders relied on when they formed a republic.
Tina, I certainly don’t hate Reagan. But I think he governed as a moderate when compared to today’s Republicans. Now that may be true of all Republican presidents–each party seems to get more extreme when they’re not in the White House and don’t have to do the real work of governing–but even while he was running for office Reagan articulated positions that would get him branded a RINO today.
I am willing to admit that Reagan’s tax cuts spurred economic growth, but that doesn’t mean that tax cuts today will solve the problem. Our problems today are not the same. Many of Reagan’s top economic advisers agree with me. The tax rate when Reagan came into office really was punitively high. No lefty with any real power is arguing for a 70% tax rate–if they were, they wouldn’t have any real power for long. Of course Reagan was right to lower taxes (though I think his low of 28% was too low).
However, it’s not true that Reagan’s tax cuts brought “unprecedented revenue.” The only proper way to measure revenue is as a percentage of GDP. The dollar amount in revenues goes up nearly every year (yes, even under Obama), so looking only at the dollar amount ignores inflation and tells you almost nothing. According to Bruce Bartlett, Reagan’s top economic adviser, revenues as a share of GDP actually went down significantly due to Reagan’s policies:
“This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.”
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2276/no-gov-pawlenty-tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves
Bartlett goes on to cite similar comments by Bush economists arguing against the popular conservative meme that his tax cuts paid for themselves by raising revenue:
For example, Alan Viard, senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, told the Washington Post in 2006, “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.” Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush’s second term, also told the Post, “As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.” On September 28, 2006, Stanford economist Edward Lazear, chairman of the CEA in Bush’s second term, testified before the Senate Budget Committee:
“Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data…do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.””
So while tax cuts may sometimes be a positive measure for other reasons, even conservative economists don’t really argue that they raise government revenues.
This will make you laugh, cry and answer why this country is such a mess.
https://fbcdn-vthumb-a.akamaihd.net/hvthumb-ak-ash3/t15.0-10/574092_2119864173407_2119858853274_22777_366_b.jpg
Try again.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hank+johnson+guam+video&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=92F5CE1174EFD19EA90892F5CE1174EFD19EA908
Chris: “Reagan articulated positions that would get him branded a RINO today.”
Like what? Reagan’s writings were prolific and his public statements many so you shouldn’t have any trouble finding examples.
“but that doesn’t mean that tax cuts today will solve the problem”
How do you know? What is the basis for this opinion?
“Our problems today are not the same. Many of Reagan’s top economic advisers agree with me.”
I agree with you. Our problems are never “the same”. Tax rates for business are not competitive so in that respect they are too high. If the other nations of the world were to suddenly put there rates at zero we would have to adjust or die. Its a fact we ignore at our peril. Regulations are to confusing and difficult to follow…that costs companies money so that too is a stupid government move that is harming American’s.
“According to Bruce Bartlett, Reagan’s top economic adviser, revenues as a share of GDP actually went down significantly due to Reagan’s policies”
I see lots of criticism and appeal to authority in that comparison bu zero facts.
Try this:
Or this on the spending side and approach:
As we have said before clever people can use data to prove almost any point. I rely on information from many sources but I also look at my experience of the times. When Reagan took the helm America came alive. People were inspired to go int business. We had the sense that the guy in the White House was looking out for America…all of us. Obama’s agenda is to take from some and give to others and to punish to please special interest groups. That doesn’t inspire confidence or enthusiasm. Put on top of that more types of taxes, more regulations, an uncompetitive business tax rate, Obamacare, and his war on energy…is it really any wonder our economy sputters and people can’t find good jobs?
This quote blows me away:
Then goes on to say they haven’t resulted in more revenue because of the losses of previous years…what about going forward? I would think the improvement in increased growth, jobs higher disposable income and low unemployment would be a good indicator that barring another devastating terror attack (or market crash) the revenue would keep pouring in going forward.
These opinions are useless because they are responses to specific questions about limited time frames and circumstances. Shouldn’t whoever was questioning him have been dazzled by the growth and opportunity that flowed from the tax cuts? Shouldn’t government take a back seat to the workers of the nation and the overall economy? After all that’s the source for all revenues…we need it healthy and strong…not the way it’s been since we jumped on the Keynes and redistribution band wagon.
We still haven’t seen the full affects of these policies either because the government has kept interest rates artificially low…we could end up with hyper inflation or as jack has pointed out deflation which will be a devastating beginning for whomever becomes the predecessor. I’m praying for a soft landing but don’t hold out a lot of hope.
Tina: “Like what? Reagan’s writings were prolific and his public statements many so you shouldn’t have any trouble finding examples.”
I’m not sure why you’re pretending that I haven’t already shown you many examples in previous discussions on this issue. I find it tiresome that you are asking me to go through them all over again. Try to remember.
“How do you know? What is the basis for this opinion?”
Again, you’re asking me to explain something I’ve explained multiple times. I’m not in the mood for that tonight.
“I agree with you. Our problems are never “the same”. Tax rates for business are not competitive so in that respect they are too high.”
They are competitive; we have the lowest effective tax rate among OECD countries. But you knew that already.
“I see lots of criticism and appeal to authority in that comparison bu zero facts.”
Excuse me? Bartlett’s statement that revenues as a share of GDP went down under Reagan IS a fact. Citing him is not constitute an appeal to authority fallacy for two reasons. The first is that I’m not asking you to believe this just because Bartlett said it; you can easily find this information anywhere. The second is that Bartlett actually is a legitimate authority, having been the architect of the Reagan tax cuts, and also would have plenty of reason to defend those tax cuts any way he can. That even he isn’t arguing that the cuts raised revenue is a legitimate point to make. Citing legitimate authorities on an issue is not a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
“Try this:
In the Reagan years, revenues as a share of GDP never fell lower than 17.3%, despite (or we would say because of) his pro-growth tax cuts. In 2010, by contrast, the White House now says tax revenues will hit an astonishing low of 14.5% of GDP, rising only to 15.8% in 2011, even with the huge tax increase that hits on January 1, 2011.”
Tina, this framing of the evidence is useless. The writer says that revenues as a share of GDP “never fell lower than 17.3%,” but leaves out what revenues were before his cuts. As I said, they were higher when tax rates were higher. Then he skips ahead a decade and change to make a comparison about revenues as a share of GDP under Obama, ignoring that there have been both tax cuts and tax raises since Reagan’s terms.
To use this as evidence that tax cuts increase revenue is ludicrous. It demonstrates that you don’t really know how to sort through evidence to come to the most accurate conclusions.
The only point you have right is this:
“As we have said before clever people can use data to prove almost any point.”
You have definitely shown that this is true, but not in the way you intended. The problem is that you don’t know the difference between good data and bad data. You judge the worth of evidence based on whether or not it fits your per-conceived subjective opinions.
Sorry Chris this isn’t the same conversation and you are not speaking only to me. If you are going to make an assertion please back it up or give an example, not just for me but for our readers…they might not remember our previous conversations! They may be new to the blog!
Here’s what you said in case you forgot…it’s tedious scrolling back and forth:
I repeat, like what? You are so sure what you say is right you must have some examples.
“They are competitive; we have the lowest effective tax rate among OECD countries.”
I’d like apples to apples evidence, please. Tomorrow will be fine since you’re not in the mood to be anything but a pain in the butt tonight.
The results of a study done between 2006 and 2009 is not particularly current but, as things have not gotten better in America but worse, might serve as a guide:
Veroniqu Du Rugy of Mercatus charted rates for the OECD countries and in May 2011 wrote:
Maybe you can just skip tomorrow’s rebutt.
“Bartlett’s statement that revenues as a share of GDP went down under Reagan IS a fact.”
Does that communicate an accurate (honest) picture of Reagan’s Presidency? Or is it an attempt to make you think something is generally true when it might be true for just a few months? Do you even care or is making a statement that might be somewhat true good enough for you?
In contrast the excerpt of the WSJ article was more specific:
So?
And you wonder why Pie gives you a bad time. You take that superior tone…but all you do is repeat talking points. You get it from the idiots you trust on the left whose goal is not the facts or the truth but the complete discrediting of supply side and Reagan. They must destroy both because the polices that Reagan employed worked! The people thrive in an atmosphere like he created but dependency politics don’t play well because people find out they can depend on themselves and have a real shot at becoming comfortably middle class or even higher!
“…this framing of the evidence is useless. The writer says that revenues as a share of GDP “never fell lower than 17.3%,” but leaves out what revenues were before his cuts.”
It’s not as useless as citing someone who says, “revenues as a share of GDP actually went down significantly”
Compared to what? By how much…and is that more or less significant than the records of those who raised taxes?
The thing that’s more important to the average Joe is how tax policy harms or empowers the private sector. We need policies that empower the private sector if we are ever going to get Americans working again. Tax policy that makes government bigger but results in extended high unemployment is policy made by someone who doesn’t mind if people barely make ends meet! A person who doesn’t mind that 1/3 of the American people are completely dependent, downhearted and feel there is little hop!. A person who cares more about creating a permanent Democrat leadership in DC than he does in seeing America and Americans shine!
Hello!!
“To use this as evidence that tax cuts increase revenue is ludicrous”
Sorry kid, your argument is ludicrous. He was comparing what happened under Reagan to what happened under Obama within their own time frames. That’s the only way to judge the affect of tax policy.
There is also the unaccounted for affects under Obama’s policies that are difficult to factor in. How do you count patentable ideas sitting on a shelf waiting for more favorable conditions? Under Reagan entrepreneurial and innovative activity surged! How do you account for plans to expand that have been shelved because of new punishing regulations and uncertainties about energy policy? We can’t read people’s minds but we could see the effects when interest rates fell, inflation was stopped, and energy prices came down after Reagan took office. Reagan didn’t talk about special interest groups either…he talked about America and Americans.
See, isn’t just Obama’s tax policy, it’s everything else he does to stifle and discourage business and jobs.
“The problem is that you don’t know the difference between good data and bad data. You judge the worth of evidence based on whether or not it fits your per-conceived subjective opinions.
And I think that applies to you much, much more than me.
Peter Ferrara of Forbes is a very smart man. As far as I can tell from his observations you and Obama are two peas in a pod; you have swallowed the same class warfare junk and it consumes you and colors everything you see and everything that spews from your equally arrogant mouth:
George Bush raised that per child tax credit to $1000 per child too!
Tax policy, in fact all policy under Obama is about redistribution, green religious control, and consolidation of power in Washington DC…next stop the world. No thanks!