Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK, I have to admit. I am totally confused about what it is that you are proposing. Sounds exactly like libertarian economics, as far as you go. Is that your idea? No taxes? No gov jobs? No gov regulations? No gov place at all?I see. So there is a depression, the consumers are not buying enough stuff. So, you would take the money from the gov contractors and the gov employees and you and others would buy stuff. And then you and others would buy more. Etc. Sounds like gov demand creation just worked!!! But without demand creation, the depression just keeps on keeping on. Of course, you could lay off gov employees, lower taxes, and that would do what - oh yeah, the laid off gov workers would not buy, you would sell less, you would then lay off, you and your laid off employees would buy less. So, maybe you could get gov to lay off more workers, pay less taxes, and the beat goes on....I'd take all the money the government would be willing to give me in a heartbeat but it doesn't alter the fact that government money is confiscated from other citizens or printed from worthless paper. If there was a demand for a product you can bet your ass-ets that the private sector would hire more people to keep up with the demand. Consumers do not grow the economy, the "rich" smart, tough entrepreneurs build or expand the factories and comply with often confusing government regulations and taxes and meet payrolls grow the economy.
The depression scenario is yours. I'm saying that confiscated taxpayer money does not grow the economy. Few people would dispute the fact that successful private sector entrepreneurs are smarter than the drones in congress who like the president probably never met a payroll or even made a living that wasn't furnished by taxpayers. It's trendy for hyprocite neo-socialists to hate corporations and banks but Fannie Mae is an example of how government would regulate the private sector and it ain't pretty.
OK, I have to admit. I am totally confused about what it is that you are proposing. Sounds exactly like libertarian economics, as far as you go. Is that your idea? No taxes? No gov jobs? No gov regulations? No gov place at all?I see. So there is a depression, the consumers are not buying enough stuff. So, you would take the money from the gov contractors and the gov employees and you and others would buy stuff. And then you and others would buy more. Etc. Sounds like gov demand creation just worked!!! But without demand creation, the depression just keeps on keeping on. Of course, you could lay off gov employees, lower taxes, and that would do what - oh yeah, the laid off gov workers would not buy, you would sell less, you would then lay off, you and your laid off employees would buy less. So, maybe you could get gov to lay off more workers, pay less taxes, and the beat goes on....
The depression scenario is yours. I'm saying that confiscated taxpayer money does not grow the economy. Few people would dispute the fact that successful private sector entrepreneurs are smarter than the drones in congress who like the president probably never met a payroll or even made a living that wasn't furnished by taxpayers. It's trendy for hyprocite neo-socialists to hate corporations and banks but Fannie Mae is an example of how government would regulate the private sector and it ain't pretty.
So, what is your idea about what to do about unemployment? And can you suggest when your idea has ever helped a bad economy with high unemployment?
Consumers create demand for products and services. (Rich?) entrepreneurs risk capital and comply with hundreds of government regulations and invest in ventures to supply the goods and services. Government jobs do not grow the economy. They only move confiscated money around.
OK, I have to admit. I am totally confused about what it is that you are proposing. Sounds exactly like libertarian economics, as far as you go. Is that your idea? No taxes? No gov jobs? No gov regulations? No gov place at all?The depression scenario is yours. I'm saying that confiscated taxpayer money does not grow the economy. Few people would dispute the fact that successful private sector entrepreneurs are smarter than the drones in congress who like the president probably never met a payroll or even made a living that wasn't furnished by taxpayers. It's trendy for hyprocite neo-socialists to hate corporations and banks but Fannie Mae is an example of how government would regulate the private sector and it ain't pretty.
So, what is your idea about what to do about unemployment? And can you suggest when your idea has ever helped a bad economy with high unemployment?
Can you point out when raising taxes in a bad economy HELPED with high unemployment? That's what the Democrats wish to do. Keynesian economics says raising taxes in a depressed economy is bad fiscal policy...yet that is what Barack Obama is proposing.
Oldstyle asks: Can you point out when raising taxes in a bad economy HELPED with high unemployment? That's what the Democrats wish to do. Rshermr responds: Lets be clear, oldstyle. Raising taxes are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. So, no, no one wants to raise taxes for the hell of it. That is what repubs say, but there is no truth to it. You would raise taxes if you need to stimulate an economy. Most normally, when unemployment rates are high. So your question should be "Can you point out when raising taxes in a bad economy where the revenue raised by the tax increase HELPED with high unemployment? The answer to that is yes. Reagan, starting in 1981. Decreased unemployment from 10.8 under his own administration, to about 5% with the help of heavy borrowing to allow stimulus spending. Clinton in 1993. Highest job creation of any administration since roosevelt. first ballenced budget in decades. And others, should you want them. The question is, though, when did tax DECREASES and decreased spending help unemployment during a bad unemployment economy.OK, I have to admit. I am totally confused about what it is that you are proposing. Sounds exactly like libertarian economics, as far as you go. Is that your idea? No taxes? No gov jobs? No gov regulations? No gov place at all?The depression scenario is yours. I'm saying that confiscated taxpayer money does not grow the economy. Few people would dispute the fact that successful private sector entrepreneurs are smarter than the drones in congress who like the president probably never met a payroll or even made a living that wasn't furnished by taxpayers. It's trendy for hyprocite neo-socialists to hate corporations and banks but Fannie Mae is an example of how government would regulate the private sector and it ain't pretty.
So, what is your idea about what to do about unemployment? And can you suggest when your idea has ever helped a bad economy with high unemployment?
Can you point out when raising taxes in a bad economy HELPED with high unemployment? That's what the Democrats wish to do. Keynesian economics says raising taxes in a depressed economy is bad fiscal policy...yet that is what Barack Obama is proposing.
Oldstyle asks: Can you point out when raising taxes in a bad economy HELPED with high unemployment? That's what the Democrats wish to do. Rshermr responds: Lets be clear, oldstyle. Raising taxes are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. So, no, no one wants to raise taxes for the hell of it. That is what repubs say, but there is no truth to it. You would raise taxes if you need to stimulate an economy. Most normally, when unemployment rates are high. So your question should be "Can you point out when raising taxes in a bad economy where the revenue raised by the tax increase HELPED with high unemployment? The answer to that is yes. Reagan, starting in 1981. Decreased unemployment from 10.8 under his own administration, to about 5% with the help of heavy borrowing to allow stimulus spending. Clinton in 1993. Highest job creation of any administration since roosevelt. first ballenced budget in decades. And others, should you want them. The question is, though, when did tax DECREASES and decreased spending help unemployment during a bad unemployment economy.OK, I have to admit. I am totally confused about what it is that you are proposing. Sounds exactly like libertarian economics, as far as you go. Is that your idea? No taxes? No gov jobs? No gov regulations? No gov place at all?
So, what is your idea about what to do about unemployment? And can you suggest when your idea has ever helped a bad economy with high unemployment?
Can you point out when raising taxes in a bad economy HELPED with high unemployment? That's what the Democrats wish to do. Keynesian economics says raising taxes in a depressed economy is bad fiscal policy...yet that is what Barack Obama is proposing.
Keynesian economics says raising taxes in a depressed economy is bad fiscal policy...yet that is what Barack Obama is proposing. Keynsian economics, or neo-Keynsian economics, or New Keynsian economics, or post keynsian economics? Why be so concerned about keynsian economics?Keynsian economics explained a lot, but as all economic theories do, missed or was plain wrong about other issues. As it has evolved, Keynsian economics always has and still does suggest stimulus spending to combat high unemployment. The question is, how do you finance that spending. Or do you simply go further into debt??
But beyond that, what is known today about tax impacts on the economy is much, much greater than during Keynes day.
That's what we hear from political groups, and not what we get by looking at what happened:... Clinton's tax raises... ...The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it...
Sorry, expat. Your second source is Heritage. Shows where you are coming from. Not sure where the first is from. When you take the link, it leads only to this chart. Integrity requires independent as possible sources. Which is why I do not use links from moveon.That's what we hear from political groups, and not what we get by looking at what happened:... Clinton's tax raises... ...The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it...
Political mantras aside, real life jobs were growing a full year before Clinton took office. His tax hike in late '93 stopped job growth, and led to Republicans taking over the House and halting tax'n'spending. Eventually we got the '97 tax cuts that further really let businesses hire. Besides jobs, the effects were seen with wages and GDP:
Oldstyle says: You don't finance the spending by raising taxes...not if you believe in Keynesian economic principles. Rshermr responds: Again, oldstyle, you are all caught up in believing or not believing in an economic theory, in this case, Keynsian Economics. Go look at the other versions and takeoffs of Keynsian economics, like neo keynsian economics. Or, more importantly, other economic theories. It is stupid to believe entirely in a single economic theory. Today, you need stimulus spending which is the primary Keynsian premis. How you finance it is the issue. And you can not go back today to get revenue from good economic times since that money has been spent.Oldstyle says: Keynes advocated raising taxes in boom periods to pay back the money that was borrowed to stimulate during bust periods. He did not advocate raising them in a bad economy, something that Christina Romer agreed with last year when asked if taxes should be raised...stating that a during a bad economy was the wrong time to raise taxes on "anyone". Rshermr responds: But later stated that a tax increase had to be part of the economic plan. The link below is to an article in the NY Times by Ms. Romer. It is the full context of her view of which you have taken a bit out of context. Overall, tax increases are necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/economy/03view.html
Oldstyle says: Since raising taxes in a bad economy was seen as a further damper on economic growth, Keynes would not have agreed with President Obama's planned tax increase on the rich. He would have been in favor of more stimulus...with the intent of repaying that borrowed money with increased taxes when the economy rebounded. Ah, but you disagree with those who have looked at the current political economic environment. So the question for them would be "which republican congressmen are going to agree to tax increases in the future. Are you able to assure anyone that their pledge to Grover Norquist will not have meaning in the future? Can you assure anyone that the republican congress will not require decreases in spending to cover the increase in spending required for stimulus spending to work? Of course you can not. So, why are you still on the Keynsian bandwagon, pushing for no new tax increases, as are all the repubs in about every repub outlet in existence. The concept you are pushing does not pass the giggle test, oldstyle.
Oldstyle says: On the other hand, Keynes would have been in favor of Clinton's tax raises because the Dot Com boom stimulated the economy to a point where taxes COULD be raised. Rshermr replies: Interesting idea. The problem was the .com bubble, which most repubs want to say was not a bubble, happened AFTER the tax increases and resultant spending. Remember the famous saying, oldstyle, that said ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID. The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it. Integrity, me man. But beyond that, what is known today about tax impacts on the economy is much, much greater than during Keynes day.
Yes, you are correct. Truth is, changes to taxes depend a lot on the target of the tax. That is, decreasing taxes on low income workers tends to be stimulative to a large degree when compared to other taxes. Not so stimulative compared to many spending options.But beyond that, what is known today about tax impacts on the economy is much, much greater than during Keynes day.
Even this discussion merely looks at rates of taxation without looking at tax context, like targeted deductions.
Nice job of copy and paste of a tortured effort by some republican oriented source to show that tax increases do not help.Oldstyle says: You don't finance the spending by raising taxes...not if you believe in Keynesian economic principles. Rshermr responds: Again, oldstyle, you are all caught up in believing or not believing in an economic theory, in this case, Keynsian Economics. Go look at the other versions and takeoffs of Keynsian economics, like neo keynsian economics. Or, more importantly, other economic theories. It is stupid to believe entirely in a single economic theory. Today, you need stimulus spending which is the primary Keynsian premis. How you finance it is the issue. And you can not go back today to get revenue from good economic times since that money has been spent.Oldstyle says: Keynes advocated raising taxes in boom periods to pay back the money that was borrowed to stimulate during bust periods. He did not advocate raising them in a bad economy, something that Christina Romer agreed with last year when asked if taxes should be raised...stating that a during a bad economy was the wrong time to raise taxes on "anyone". Rshermr responds: But later stated that a tax increase had to be part of the economic plan. The link below is to an article in the NY Times by Ms. Romer. It is the full context of her view of which you have taken a bit out of context. Overall, tax increases are necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/economy/03view.html
Oldstyle says: Since raising taxes in a bad economy was seen as a further damper on economic growth, Keynes would not have agreed with President Obama's planned tax increase on the rich. He would have been in favor of more stimulus...with the intent of repaying that borrowed money with increased taxes when the economy rebounded. Ah, but you disagree with those who have looked at the current political economic environment. So the question for them would be "which republican congressmen are going to agree to tax increases in the future. Are you able to assure anyone that their pledge to Grover Norquist will not have meaning in the future? Can you assure anyone that the republican congress will not require decreases in spending to cover the increase in spending required for stimulus spending to work? Of course you can not. So, why are you still on the Keynsian bandwagon, pushing for no new tax increases, as are all the repubs in about every repub outlet in existence. The concept you are pushing does not pass the giggle test, oldstyle.
Oldstyle says: On the other hand, Keynes would have been in favor of Clinton's tax raises because the Dot Com boom stimulated the economy to a point where taxes COULD be raised. Rshermr replies: Interesting idea. The problem was the .com bubble, which most repubs want to say was not a bubble, happened AFTER the tax increases and resultant spending. Remember the famous saying, oldstyle, that said ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID. The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it. Integrity, me man. But beyond that, what is known today about tax impacts on the economy is much, much greater than during Keynes day.
Once again I disagree with your "take" on what happened during the Clinton Presidency. The following article from Forbes encapsulates what Clinton did with taxes during his eight years in office and how his actions affected the economy.
""The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar."(Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s. In their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed last Friday, for example, Clinton campaign manager James Carville and Democratic pollster and Clinton advisor Stanley Greenberg write the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% “produced the one period of shared prosperity in this past era (since 1980).”
While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.
The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.
Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: ”Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”
During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.
For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.
Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.
Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996.
However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.
Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.
The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:
Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.
Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.
A shared prosperity can be achieved again. But to do so, the American people will have to overcome the envy feeding myth perpetrated by President Barack Obama and the spin-masters and leadership of the Democratic Party that raising tax rates on high incomes will somehow lead to more job creation, more opportunity and increased prosperity and security for the middle-class."
The liberal "myth" that Clinton spurred economic growth because he slightly raised tax rates on the top 1.2% ignores the fact that he cut the effective tax rates on most people with a revamping of the welfare system, deep cuts to the tax on capital gains, increased the limit of what people could put into their 401K's and increase the taxable limit on the death tax by 40%. Show me where Barack Obama is doing ANY of those things and if those things aren't included in his fiscal plans then explain to me what is going to drive the economic engine to expand.
Yes, you are correct. Truth is, changes to taxes depend a lot on the target of the tax. That is, decreasing taxes on low income workers tends to be stimulative to a large degree when compared to other taxes. Not so stimulative compared to many spending options.But beyond that, what is known today about tax impacts on the economy is much, much greater than during Keynes day.
Even this discussion merely looks at rates of taxation without looking at tax context, like targeted deductions.
Tax decreases to more wealthy targets have very little stimulative value. Perhaps the best example was Reagans tax decreases, which had the opposite effect on employment that the administration intended.
Nice job of copy and paste of a tortured effort by some republican oriented source to show that tax increases do not help.Oldstyle says: You don't finance the spending by raising taxes...not if you believe in Keynesian economic principles. Rshermr responds: Again, oldstyle, you are all caught up in believing or not believing in an economic theory, in this case, Keynsian Economics. Go look at the other versions and takeoffs of Keynsian economics, like neo keynsian economics. Or, more importantly, other economic theories. It is stupid to believe entirely in a single economic theory. Today, you need stimulus spending which is the primary Keynsian premis. How you finance it is the issue. And you can not go back today to get revenue from good economic times since that money has been spent.Oldstyle says: Keynes advocated raising taxes in boom periods to pay back the money that was borrowed to stimulate during bust periods. He did not advocate raising them in a bad economy, something that Christina Romer agreed with last year when asked if taxes should be raised...stating that a during a bad economy was the wrong time to raise taxes on "anyone". Rshermr responds: But later stated that a tax increase had to be part of the economic plan. The link below is to an article in the NY Times by Ms. Romer. It is the full context of her view of which you have taken a bit out of context. Overall, tax increases are necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/economy/03view.html
Oldstyle says: Since raising taxes in a bad economy was seen as a further damper on economic growth, Keynes would not have agreed with President Obama's planned tax increase on the rich. He would have been in favor of more stimulus...with the intent of repaying that borrowed money with increased taxes when the economy rebounded. Ah, but you disagree with those who have looked at the current political economic environment. So the question for them would be "which republican congressmen are going to agree to tax increases in the future. Are you able to assure anyone that their pledge to Grover Norquist will not have meaning in the future? Can you assure anyone that the republican congress will not require decreases in spending to cover the increase in spending required for stimulus spending to work? Of course you can not. So, why are you still on the Keynsian bandwagon, pushing for no new tax increases, as are all the repubs in about every repub outlet in existence. The concept you are pushing does not pass the giggle test, oldstyle.
Oldstyle says: On the other hand, Keynes would have been in favor of Clinton's tax raises because the Dot Com boom stimulated the economy to a point where taxes COULD be raised. Rshermr replies: Interesting idea. The problem was the .com bubble, which most repubs want to say was not a bubble, happened AFTER the tax increases and resultant spending. Remember the famous saying, oldstyle, that said ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID. The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it. Integrity, me man. But beyond that, what is known today about tax impacts on the economy is much, much greater than during Keynes day.
Once again I disagree with your "take" on what happened during the Clinton Presidency. The following article from Forbes encapsulates what Clinton did with taxes during his eight years in office and how his actions affected the economy.
""The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar."(Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s. In their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed last Friday, for example, Clinton campaign manager James Carville and Democratic pollster and Clinton advisor Stanley Greenberg write the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% “produced the one period of shared prosperity in this past era (since 1980).”
While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.
The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.
Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: ”Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”
During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.
For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.
Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.
Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996.
However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.
Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.
The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:
Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.
Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.
A shared prosperity can be achieved again. But to do so, the American people will have to overcome the envy feeding myth perpetrated by President Barack Obama and the spin-masters and leadership of the Democratic Party that raising tax rates on high incomes will somehow lead to more job creation, more opportunity and increased prosperity and security for the middle-class."
The liberal "myth" that Clinton spurred economic growth because he slightly raised tax rates on the top 1.2% ignores the fact that he cut the effective tax rates on most people with a revamping of the welfare system, deep cuts to the tax on capital gains, increased the limit of what people could put into their 401K's and increase the taxable limit on the death tax by 40%. Show me where Barack Obama is doing ANY of those things and if those things aren't included in his fiscal plans then explain to me what is going to drive the economic engine to expand.
Oldstyle, if you are going to copy and paste a con dogma piece, then at least have the integrity to give a link to the data so that someone can actually find the author. Again, perhaps I should use move on as my resource. I could spend an hour or so bringing you data from impartial sources to disprove this drivel, but I should not have to. You mentione Forbes as where the piece was run. And Forbes is ok, but this looks like one of many op ed pieces that they carry. Try a little integrity....
Here is a quote from a US News article:
The economic policies of the GOP have come under sharp attack from a surprising direction. These policies (let's call them "GOPonomics") have been challenged by former leaders of President Ronald Reagan's economic team. They've also been challenged by executives at the pinnacle of major financial services companies. These new critics reject the core principles of GOPonomics: that tax cuts are always good, regardless of the circumstances, and that regulation is always bad.
Reagan-Era Conservatives Reject Economics of Today
Notice the actual LINK. Notice the impartial source.
Watching cons post completely partial dogma is a total waste of time, in addition to being a major effort by the repubs to rewrite history. Highly tacky.
I did not say forbes is a bad source. What forbes is, is a conduit for information very often for either far left or far right sources. Being carried by forbes tells you very little about the document or the author. It is a great way to hide behind a good name without providing any assurance of independence of information. So, a link to the information is of value, quoting the article without a link to the document in full tells me nothing.Nice job of copy and paste of a tortured effort by some republican oriented source to show that tax increases do not help.Once again I disagree with your "take" on what happened during the Clinton Presidency. The following article from Forbes encapsulates what Clinton did with taxes during his eight years in office and how his actions affected the economy.
""The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar."(Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s. In their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed last Friday, for example, Clinton campaign manager James Carville and Democratic pollster and Clinton advisor Stanley Greenberg write the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% “produced the one period of shared prosperity in this past era (since 1980).”
While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.
The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.
Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: ”Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”
During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965.
For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession.
Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there.
Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996.
However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.
Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.
The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:
Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.
Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.
A shared prosperity can be achieved again. But to do so, the American people will have to overcome the envy feeding myth perpetrated by President Barack Obama and the spin-masters and leadership of the Democratic Party that raising tax rates on high incomes will somehow lead to more job creation, more opportunity and increased prosperity and security for the middle-class."
The liberal "myth" that Clinton spurred economic growth because he slightly raised tax rates on the top 1.2% ignores the fact that he cut the effective tax rates on most people with a revamping of the welfare system, deep cuts to the tax on capital gains, increased the limit of what people could put into their 401K's and increase the taxable limit on the death tax by 40%. Show me where Barack Obama is doing ANY of those things and if those things aren't included in his fiscal plans then explain to me what is going to drive the economic engine to expand.
Oldstyle, if you are going to copy and paste a con dogma piece, then at least have the integrity to give a link to the data so that someone can actually find the author. Again, perhaps I should use move on as my resource. I could spend an hour or so bringing you data from impartial sources to disprove this drivel, but I should not have to. You mentione Forbes as where the piece was run. And Forbes is ok, but this looks like one of many op ed pieces that they carry. Try a little integrity....
Here is a quote from a US News article:
The economic policies of the GOP have come under sharp attack from a surprising direction. These policies (let's call them "GOPonomics") have been challenged by former leaders of President Ronald Reagan's economic team. They've also been challenged by executives at the pinnacle of major financial services companies. These new critics reject the core principles of GOPonomics: that tax cuts are always good, regardless of the circumstances, and that regulation is always bad.
Reagan-Era Conservatives Reject Economics of Today
Notice the actual LINK. Notice the impartial source.
Watching cons post completely partial dogma is a total waste of time, in addition to being a major effort by the repubs to rewrite history. Highly tacky.
Why is it that whenever anyone disagrees with your take on things they are spouting "dogma" but when you do the same thing it's not? Why is it you accuse me of not "citing" enough sources to back up my personal opinions yet when I do you accuse me of "cutting and pasting"? Which would you like...my opinions...or someone else's? I've done both and you've criticized me for each.
Make up your mind...you tell me that Forbes is "OK" but then pooh pooh what was in Forbes...all the while not rebutting what it is that the author of that article wrote. Do you dispute his take on how Clinton handled taxes? If so...what do you find to be incorrect?
As for your description of what the economic policies of the GOP are? All that is...is an attempt to pigeon hole conservatives into what YOU think they believe in...something which has little basis in reality. First of all conservatives are not opposed to taxes...what the majority of fiscal conservatives are opposed to is the continual raising of taxes while we ignore the vast amounts of money that our government wastes. We feel that instead of constantly raising taxes to make up with budget shortfalls brought about through mismanagement of government that we would be better served to fix the problems instead of just trying to figure out who we can soak to pay for the problems. It's the same with regulations. Conservatives look at the layer upon layer of governmental regulations that businesses have to deal with...costing billions of dollars each and every year...much of which could be spent on R&D that would potentially create new technologies and new jobs...and they ask why we need all that? The truth is that many regulations start out with a noble intent but end up not doing what they were intended to do...which leads to yet another layer of regulations...and then another. As someone who works in the business world I can't tell you how many thousands of hours I've wasted simply churning out paperwork to appease governmental agencies. There are good regulations and there are mountains of bad ones. The problem is...once you enact legislation it's hard to "de-enact" it. The inclination of legislators is to enact MORE legislation...not less. It's how they justify their existence.
Tax decreases to more wealthy targets have very little stimulative value.
So, what is your idea about what to do about unemployment? And can you suggest when your idea has ever helped a bad economy with high unemployment?
I did not say forbes is a bad source. What forbes is, is a conduit for information very often for either far left or far right sources. Being carried by forbes tells you very little about the document or the author. It is a great way to hide behind a good name without providing any assurance of independence of information. So, a link to the information is of value, quoting the article without a link to the document in full tells me nothing.Nice job of copy and paste of a tortured effort by some republican oriented source to show that tax increases do not help.
Oldstyle, if you are going to copy and paste a con dogma piece, then at least have the integrity to give a link to the data so that someone can actually find the author. Again, perhaps I should use move on as my resource. I could spend an hour or so bringing you data from impartial sources to disprove this drivel, but I should not have to. You mentione Forbes as where the piece was run. And Forbes is ok, but this looks like one of many op ed pieces that they carry. Try a little integrity....
Here is a quote from a US News article:
The economic policies of the GOP have come under sharp attack from a surprising direction. These policies (let's call them "GOPonomics") have been challenged by former leaders of President Ronald Reagan's economic team. They've also been challenged by executives at the pinnacle of major financial services companies. These new critics reject the core principles of GOPonomics: that tax cuts are always good, regardless of the circumstances, and that regulation is always bad.
Reagan-Era Conservatives Reject Economics of Today
Notice the actual LINK. Notice the impartial source.
Watching cons post completely partial dogma is a total waste of time, in addition to being a major effort by the repubs to rewrite history. Highly tacky.
Why is it that whenever anyone disagrees with your take on things they are spouting "dogma" but when you do the same thing it's not? Why is it you accuse me of not "citing" enough sources to back up my personal opinions yet when I do you accuse me of "cutting and pasting"? Which would you like...my opinions...or someone else's? I've done both and you've criticized me for each.
Make up your mind...you tell me that Forbes is "OK" but then pooh pooh what was in Forbes...all the while not rebutting what it is that the author of that article wrote. Do you dispute his take on how Clinton handled taxes? If so...what do you find to be incorrect?
As for your description of what the economic policies of the GOP are? All that is...is an attempt to pigeon hole conservatives into what YOU think they believe in...something which has little basis in reality. First of all conservatives are not opposed to taxes...what the majority of fiscal conservatives are opposed to is the continual raising of taxes while we ignore the vast amounts of money that our government wastes. We feel that instead of constantly raising taxes to make up with budget shortfalls brought about through mismanagement of government that we would be better served to fix the problems instead of just trying to figure out who we can soak to pay for the problems. It's the same with regulations. Conservatives look at the layer upon layer of governmental regulations that businesses have to deal with...costing billions of dollars each and every year...much of which could be spent on R&D that would potentially create new technologies and new jobs...and they ask why we need all that? The truth is that many regulations start out with a noble intent but end up not doing what they were intended to do...which leads to yet another layer of regulations...and then another. As someone who works in the business world I can't tell you how many thousands of hours I've wasted simply churning out paperwork to appease governmental agencies. There are good regulations and there are mountains of bad ones. The problem is...once you enact legislation it's hard to "de-enact" it. The inclination of legislators is to enact MORE legislation...not less. It's how they justify their existence.
Relative to what he said about how Clinton handled taxes, I will not take the time to rebut a source who I do not know. Give me the full link, and I will consider it. But in general, unless the author is known to be impartial, it is a waste of time. There was no proof stated, just opinion. Which is why it was most likely simply an op ed.
You say "First of all conservatives are not opposed to taxes". What I say is that nearly every repub in congress has signed Grover Norquist's no tax increase pledge. That and their refusal in congress to pass any new taxes gives me the strong opinion that what I said is correct. Consider:
U.S. no-tax pledge creator entreats Republicans - Chicago Tribune
In reference to your statements about rising tax rates, that is simply not true. Taxes are lower now than at any time over the past 50 plus years.
GOP Can't Handle The Truth: Taxes Are Lower Under Obama Than Reagan | ThinkProgress
Fact: tax rates are at a 30-year low under Obama | Death and Taxes
And, gov spending has gone along with taxes.
And regulation has not been rising in any real way. You have issues with regulation, I have issues with regulation that was eliminated that would almost certainly have stopped the great recession of 2007 - 2008. I know of no one who likes regulation. I just see that there are reasons for some regulation to be placed on industries where lack of same can hurt the citizenry of this country. And, if you can show any objective proof that regulation has hurt our economy, lets see it.
Ah, me boy. The point is that both references got you to the full information. No need to wonder what was left out. And you know who the source is. Think progress is a source of information in this case, not the writer of the information. So no, me boy. Sorry that you did not notice that you did not provide the link to the information that you did a copy and paste on some part of the article you found. I have no way of seeing the article, or of knowing who the author is. You do. Both the publication and the author. And there is a second source, which you do not reference. So no, no double standard. One provides reference to the actual articles, the other does not. You are the other.I did not say forbes is a bad source. What forbes is, is a conduit for information very often for either far left or far right sources. Being carried by forbes tells you very little about the document or the author. It is a great way to hide behind a good name without providing any assurance of independence of information. So, a link to the information is of value, quoting the article without a link to the document in full tells me nothing.Why is it that whenever anyone disagrees with your take on things they are spouting "dogma" but when you do the same thing it's not? Why is it you accuse me of not "citing" enough sources to back up my personal opinions yet when I do you accuse me of "cutting and pasting"? Which would you like...my opinions...or someone else's? I've done both and you've criticized me for each.
Make up your mind...you tell me that Forbes is "OK" but then pooh pooh what was in Forbes...all the while not rebutting what it is that the author of that article wrote. Do you dispute his take on how Clinton handled taxes? If so...what do you find to be incorrect?
As for your description of what the economic policies of the GOP are? All that is...is an attempt to pigeon hole conservatives into what YOU think they believe in...something which has little basis in reality. First of all conservatives are not opposed to taxes...what the majority of fiscal conservatives are opposed to is the continual raising of taxes while we ignore the vast amounts of money that our government wastes. We feel that instead of constantly raising taxes to make up with budget shortfalls brought about through mismanagement of government that we would be better served to fix the problems instead of just trying to figure out who we can soak to pay for the problems. It's the same with regulations. Conservatives look at the layer upon layer of governmental regulations that businesses have to deal with...costing billions of dollars each and every year...much of which could be spent on R&D that would potentially create new technologies and new jobs...and they ask why we need all that? The truth is that many regulations start out with a noble intent but end up not doing what they were intended to do...which leads to yet another layer of regulations...and then another. As someone who works in the business world I can't tell you how many thousands of hours I've wasted simply churning out paperwork to appease governmental agencies. There are good regulations and there are mountains of bad ones. The problem is...once you enact legislation it's hard to "de-enact" it. The inclination of legislators is to enact MORE legislation...not less. It's how they justify their existence.
Relative to what he said about how Clinton handled taxes, I will not take the time to rebut a source who I do not know. Give me the full link, and I will consider it. But in general, unless the author is known to be impartial, it is a waste of time. There was no proof stated, just opinion. Which is why it was most likely simply an op ed.
You say "First of all conservatives are not opposed to taxes". What I say is that nearly every repub in congress has signed Grover Norquist's no tax increase pledge. That and their refusal in congress to pass any new taxes gives me the strong opinion that what I said is correct. Consider:
U.S. no-tax pledge creator entreats Republicans - Chicago Tribune
In reference to your statements about rising tax rates, that is simply not true. Taxes are lower now than at any time over the past 50 plus years.
GOP Can't Handle The Truth: Taxes Are Lower Under Obama Than Reagan | ThinkProgress
Fact: tax rates are at a 30-year low under Obama | Death and Taxes
And, gov spending has gone along with taxes.
And regulation has not been rising in any real way. You have issues with regulation, I have issues with regulation that was eliminated that would almost certainly have stopped the great recession of 2007 - 2008. I know of no one who likes regulation. I just see that there are reasons for some regulation to be placed on industries where lack of same can hurt the citizenry of this country. And, if you can show any objective proof that regulation has hurt our economy, lets see it.
I'm amused by your decision to only rebut sources you know. Does your knowing them somehow make their premise more debate worthy? Either you have something to debunk their view or you don't. What I find even more amusing is that immediately after your decision to not address the Forbes article because you've not been assured of the author's unbiased approach to the topic, you respond by citing a piece from Think Progress. Not for nothing, Rshermr but you'd be hard pressed to find a more biased site than Think Progress. Why is it that my cites need to be "vetted" to meet your approval but you're allowed to use extreme far left sources like Think Progress? Do you not see a double standard at work there?
Are you really trying to make the argument that our spending is at a 30 year low under Barack Obama? I'd really like to see your proof of that. The same goes for your claim that regulations haven't been rising. The amount of new regulations passed in the last three years has been staggering. They would have been even worse except Barry and a whole bunch of Democrats are up for reelection this November and didn't want to be on record for passing things like Cap & Trade and new EPA regulations on green house gas emissions.
