Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Oldstyle]

Let me get this straight? You're going to list a tax imposed by Hoover as one that Roosevelt imposed because he used the revenue it produced? Are you kidding?

I've never made the assertion that Reagan didn't raise SOME taxes, Rshermr...but you've attempted to portray what Reagan did as applicable to what Obama is trying to do now and that's simply a distortion of his fiscal policies. Reagan revamped the tax code, cutting out exemptions and imposed excise taxes on cigarettes, booze, gas and telephone service the latter of which translates out into almost imposing a flat tax on those items or services. Obama wants to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan dropped that tax rate and fought hard to keep it from being raised again.

So, oldstyle said the following:

Let me get this straight? You're going to list a tax imposed by Hoover as one that Roosevelt imposed because he used the revenue it produced? Are you kidding?

Apparently you are reading something into what I said that I did not say. Lets look. Here is my statement, copied and pasted here from post 412:

The first major tax increase was by Hoover, in 1932. At the point that, as I have said before in this thread, he determined finally that he had to do something. However, Hoover was voted out and did not have an opportunity to see the revenue from that tax increase. The point here is that Roosevelt did use that revenue for stimulus spending and the UE rate started down as a result.

So, oldstyle, read it again. It does not say FDR was responsible for that tax increase, now did it, oldstyle. What it said is that FDR used the revenue of Hoovers tax increase for stimulus spending. Which is absolutely true. And makes your breathless assertion absolutely wrong.

I've never made the assertion that Reagan didn't raise SOME taxes, Rshermr...but you've attempted to portray what Reagan did as applicable to what Obama is trying to do now and that's simply a distortion of his fiscal policies. Reagan revamped the tax code, cutting out exemptions and imposed excise taxes on cigarettes, booze, gas and telephone service the latter of which translates out into almost imposing a flat tax on those items or services. Obama wants to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan dropped that tax rate and fought hard to keep it from being raised again.

Right. Sure, oldstyle. Here is the thing, oldstyle. Both wanted to do stimulus spending, and both had the need to use tax increases to do so. The big difference is that reagan borrowed like crazy to gain those revenues. Obama is not. He is straight up about what he wants to do, which is stimulus spending paid for by taxes, by the very people who will benefit. Mostly the wealthy. And not by people who will be paying off the national debt for years.

Did you just say that Obama isn't borrowing? Dude, you are so delusional at this point that it's scary to listen to you. The tax on the wealthy that Obama is looking for would fund our government for about 8 days. I repeat 8 DAYS!!! So what pays for the REST of the spending that Barry, Harry and Nancy want to do? None of them are willing to cut entitlements which are the drivers of our debt. All of them are content to keep racking up more debt.

What's amusing is that compared to Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan was a piker when it came to borrowing money.

 

[Norman]

So, norman says.
Yeah he has been told countless times he is completely wrong. And in fact I don't even understand what he is trying to say. That tax cuts do not stimulate the economy? But increase in spending somehow does then? Probably a hack... Maybe even paid as he repeats the same message over and over. Although his message is unusual in that everyone usually agrees that tax cuts are a sort of stimulus.

Anyway let's look at the tax% 1981 to 1989, raw numbers instead of bullcrap. And for the record I think that the notion that tax rates control the whole of economy absolutely ridiculous in the first place, which you more or less have to assert to draw conclusions in Rshermr fashion. And to add to that it's much more complex than just the tax rates... how do you account for taxes collected vs tax rates and how do the different kind of taxes affect the economy etc. Anyway, here are the numbers for this useless discussion:


(80: 32% $886 B)
81: 32% $1,016 B
82: 33% $1,077 B
83: 31% $1,104 B
84: 31% $1,221 B
85: 32% $1,347 B
86: 32% $1,439 B
87: 33% $1,582 B
88: 33% $1,676 B
89: 33% $1,822 B
(90: 33% $1,928 B)

So there you go. Yes, absolutely massive conclusion can be drawn from these numbers.


Only by con tools. Like you.
1. You forgot a link to your source of information. At this point I have no idea if they are true or completely made up, or somewhere in between.
2. You make the assumption that the raw tax receipt numbers tell us something. They tell a little. But they do not tell where those receipts were spent.
3 You apparently do not believe that unemployment affects the economy. It went to 10.8% in 1982, a year and a half after the great tax decrease of 1981.


Unemployment Rates in the United States since 1948




inShare
2


The Bureau of Labor Statistics currently provides unemployment data from January 1st, 1948, right up until the present day.

If you need to look up national unemployment rates from a specific month and year, simply use the tool below.


Month: Year:

The unemployment rate in January of 1981 was 7.5%

Non-Farm Payroll Jobs Added: 95,000

--

Unemployment Rates in 1981
January 1981 - 7.5%
February 1981 - 7.4%
March 1981 - 7.4%
April 1981 - 7.2%
May 1981 - 7.5%
June 1981 - 7.5%
July 1981 - 7.2%
August 1981 - 7.4%
September 1981 - 7.6%
October 1981 - 7.9%
November 1981 - 8.3%
December 1981 - 8.5%

Unemployment Rates in 1982
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
That last line is called a LINK. And the data above, me boy, says volumes.

4. In 1982 when the UE hit it's highest rate Reagan did the second largest tax increase every, as a percentage of GCP. So you had counterbalancing impacts on gov receipts that year. Unemployment took it down, the tax increase took receipts up. Kind of ignored that, eh.

So, there you go. Facts with links. And not opinion based on agenda.

Jesus...

First of all according to the numbers the tax revenue increased in 1981, so perhaps it was the tax HIKE of 0.700576914% that caused the unemployment shift of 14107%. I took the numbers from usgovermentspending.com. These are pretty readily available numbers, use the damn google...

You have pull your head out of the tax bucket. Your whole economic look is so tax centric that you must be an IRS employee or something. Only that way can you possibly claim that minute changes in taxes are immediately going to cause huge shifts in unemployment, ignoring all the other possible causes. Pure (and dumb) speculation at it's finest.

And to me it's enough to use some common sense logic to solve this issue. Low taxes usually incentivize people to work more be it employee or employer. NO statistical proof that isn't so complicated that I or you couldn't possibly go through it all is going to change my mind on this. 100% tax rates = people won't be working, 0% rate = they will be. Tax cuts increase the money people have in their pockets as well and thus add demand, if you come from the Keynesian framework. Thus it's a stimulus at least when combined with deficits.

Sorry for personal insult, but this is a joke of a thread and I won't be participating in this farce anymore. And yes, there are plenty of years where tax% went down and unemployment went down with it, in any developed country. And I am not even a Con, so I guess... One Big Fail.

 

[Rshermr]

Jesus...

First of all according to the numbers the tax revenue increased in 1981, so perhaps it was the tax HIKE of 0.700576914% that caused the unemployment shift of 14107%. I took the numbers from usgovermentspending.com. These are pretty readily available numbers, use the damn google...

You have pull your head out of the tax bucket. Your whole economic look is so tax centric that you must be an IRS employee or something. Only that way can you possibly claim that minute changes in taxes are immediately going to cause huge shifts in unemployment, ignoring all the other possible causes. Pure (and dumb) speculation at it's finest.

And to me it's enough to use some common sense logic to solve this issue. Low taxes usually incentivize people to work more be it employee or employer. NO statistical proof that isn't so complicated that I or you couldn't possibly go through it all is going to change my mind on this. 100% tax rates = people won't be working, 0% rate = they will be. Tax cuts increase the money people have in their pockets as well and thus add demand, if you come from the Keynesian framework. Thus it's a stimulus at least when combined with deficits.

Sorry for personal insult, but this is a joke of a thread and I won't be participating in this farce anymore. And yes, there are plenty of years where tax% went down and unemployment went down with it, in any developed country. And I am not even a Con, so I guess... One Big Fail.

Ah, but this is not about taxes. It is about stimulus. Again, taxes are the a means to providing the money to do stimulus spending. So, what you are saying from what I read is that stimulus spending could never work if taxes had to be raised to generate the revenue. Sorry, but that is proveably wrong. If you believe that taxing the wealthy makes people stop working, then read this:
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance

So, you say it is just common sense that taxes stifle the economy?? Prove it with numbers. Answer me why, when the economy went to shit under reagan after lowering taxes greatly, that he raised taxes, borrowed like crazy, and spent stimulatively. Why did Clinton raise taxes, and the economy got BETTER? And where is that case where taxes were lowered and the economy got better as a result??

Sorry for the insults, me boy, but your opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Where is the proof?

 

[Katzndogz]

Europe has a benefit that the United States never enjoyed. It was the same benefit Japan had. The countries were totally devastated by war. They could rebuild it, mostly with money from the United States.

Rebuilding infrastucture and paying for it with the use of confiscatory taxes is what Japan tried during its lost decade. That's how we know it doesn't work.

 

[Rshermr]

Jesus...

First of all according to the numbers the tax revenue increased in 1981, so perhaps it was the tax HIKE of 0.700576914% that caused the unemployment shift of 14107%. I took the numbers from usgovermentspending.com. These are pretty readily available numbers, use the damn google...

You have pull your head out of the tax bucket. Your whole economic look is so tax centric that you must be an IRS employee or something. Only that way can you possibly claim that minute changes in taxes are immediately going to cause huge shifts in unemployment, ignoring all the other possible causes. Pure (and dumb) speculation at it's finest.

And to me it's enough to use some common sense logic to solve this issue. Low taxes usually incentivize people to work more be it employee or employer. NO statistical proof that isn't so complicated that I or you couldn't possibly go through it all is going to change my mind on this. 100% tax rates = people won't be working, 0% rate = they will be. Tax cuts increase the money people have in their pockets as well and thus add demand, if you come from the Keynesian framework. Thus it's a stimulus at least when combined with deficits.

Sorry for personal insult, but this is a joke of a thread and I won't be participating in this farce anymore. And yes, there are plenty of years where tax% went down and unemployment went down with it, in any developed country. And I am not even a Con, so I guess... One Big Fail.

Norman,

About your numbers. Here are the numbers from a different source:


-- iN CONSTANT 2005 FY DOLLARS--- --AS PERCENT OF GDP---
FY Receipts Outlays Deficit (-) Deflator Receipts Outlays Deficit (-)
1980 1,197.6 1,368.6 -171.0 0.4318 19.0 21.7 -2.7
1981 1,251.4 1,416.2 -164.9 0.4789 19.6 22.2 -2.6
1982 1,202.8 1,452.0 -249.2 0.5136 19.2 23.1 -4.0
1983 1,113.6 1,498.9 -385.3 0.5393 17.5 23.5 -6.0
1984 1,174.3 1,501.0 -326.6 0.5675 17.3 22.2 -4.8
1985 1,250.9 1,612.7 -361.8 0.5868 17.7 22.8 -5.1
1986 1,277.7 1,645.2 -367.5 0.6020 17.5 22.5 -5.0
1987 1,375.7 1,616.8 -241.1 0.6210 18.4 21.6 -3.2
1988 1,421.1 1,663.7 -242.5 0.6398 18.2 21.3 -3.1
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

So, once you correct for inflation, receipts increased very slightly in '81, but decreased in '82 and '83, and did not reach '81 numbers until '85.

So, your numbers and my numbers say completely different things. I provided a link. You did not. I have tried to find the numbers you provided at the site you gave. No go. I am now of the opinion that they came from howtoliewithnumbers.com. Which would explain why you are not providing a link.

And relative to your statement that there are plenty of years when taxes went down and unemployment went down with it, in plenty of countries. Yes, that would be true. But, of course, that was NOT the question. The issue is has history shown that tax decreases during high unemployment times resulted in unemployment rate improvements, in the US. Dipshit. And I see why you are leaving this thread. Because you were quite aware that you were going to get caught in your very own lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

Jesus...

First of all according to the numbers the tax revenue increased in 1981, so perhaps it was the tax HIKE of 0.700576914% that caused the unemployment shift of 14107%. I took the numbers from usgovermentspending.com. These are pretty readily available numbers, use the damn google...

You have pull your head out of the tax bucket. Your whole economic look is so tax centric that you must be an IRS employee or something. Only that way can you possibly claim that minute changes in taxes are immediately going to cause huge shifts in unemployment, ignoring all the other possible causes. Pure (and dumb) speculation at it's finest.

And to me it's enough to use some common sense logic to solve this issue. Low taxes usually incentivize people to work more be it employee or employer. NO statistical proof that isn't so complicated that I or you couldn't possibly go through it all is going to change my mind on this. 100% tax rates = people won't be working, 0% rate = they will be. Tax cuts increase the money people have in their pockets as well and thus add demand, if you come from the Keynesian framework. Thus it's a stimulus at least when combined with deficits.

Sorry for personal insult, but this is a joke of a thread and I won't be participating in this farce anymore. And yes, there are plenty of years where tax% went down and unemployment went down with it, in any developed country. And I am not even a Con, so I guess... One Big Fail.

Rshermr lives in an economic "Alice in Wonderland" where taking money out of people's pockets in the form of taxes...running that money through an inefficient and wasteful government structure...and then putting what remains of the money back in some of the people's pockets in the form of "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs...makes sense. It's why his threads inevitably end up with him sputtering about "con tools" and "dogma".

He has the classic progressive mindset that when it comes to taxing and spending...you can't have too much of either!

 

[Rshermr]

Rshermr lives in an economic "Alice in Wonderland" where taking money out of people's pockets in the form of taxes...running that money through an inefficient and wasteful government structure...and then putting what remains of the money back in some of the people's pockets in the form of "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs...makes sense. It's why his threads inevitably end up with him sputtering about "con tools" and "dogma".

He has the classic progressive mindset that when it comes to taxing and spending...you can't have too much of either!

Oldstyle, reduced to nothing but attacking, says:

Rshermr lives in an economic "Alice in Wonderland" where taking money out of people's pockets in the form of taxes...running that money through an inefficient and wasteful government structure...and then putting what remains of the money back in some of the people's pockets in the form of "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs...makes sense.

And, of course, that would be the oldstyle version of stimulus. Much different from that of the CBO, which analyzes the stimulus and finds that it worked. But oldstyle, instead, posts lies over and over. Because that is simply the only thing he can do to support his dogma. He can not provide links, because his links come from partisan sites. So, in the end, he attacks. Always ends up that way, because he has nothing left to do, having used the same lies over and over and over and been caught and proven wrong each time.

It's why his threads inevitably end up with him sputtering about "con tools" and "dogma".

No sputtering, oldstyle. Just considered opinion that what you say lines up absolutely every single time with the conservative dogma from the right wing conservative sites. Their dogma = your dogma each and every time. And you post no proof from rational sites. And that wastes my time.

He has the classic progressive mindset that when it comes to taxing and spending...you can't have too much of either!

And then there is this nonsense. Oldstyle opinion. Which has nothing to do with reality. I am simply arguing that in a bad economy the only tool that I have ever seen work is stimulus. Based on simple economic history. Oldstyle is basing his belief, which is taxes are bad, reducing taxes stimulates, on the con agenda that is Supply Side Economics. The theory that no one but most CONS and a few well paid con economists agree with. The vast majority of the economic world believes in stimulus, and economic history, unfortunately for oldstyle, says stimulus works. And unfortunately, tax increases are generally the only way to pay for stimulus.
And you are lying again, oldstyle, when you say that I believe you can not have too much of either. So, Oldstyle, now try to listen because I have said this to you over and over: tax increases are sometimes necessary to provide the revenue for stimulus spending. That is the only time that I argue for tax increases. And no, oldstyle, again, as I have said over and over, stimulus spending is useful ONLY when the economy is bad.

So, again for your educational pleasure, decreasing taxes or raising taxes are neither good nor bad. They neither help nor hurt in all cases. Depends on the economy. Got it yet, Oldstyle. Or is this simply too complex. Because I am getting really tired of saying the same thing to your same lies, over and over.

So, as usual, your post is your opinion, and you know how much I value your opinion, oldstyle. You seem to have decided that you can keep trotting out the same bs. I can not understand how you live with posting lies, oldstyle. But even more odd, is that you do so over and over even when those lies are vetted, and proven to be untrue.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

The Election is over, Obama "won".

Will Obama keep his campaign promise from 2008 and bring the troops home?

Let's see $700 Billion is Stimulus didn't work. I have an idea!

More Stimulus!

The stimulus created 3 million jobs, plus a 3rd of that 700 billion was tax cuts for the middle class and small business.

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

The Election is over, Obama "won".

Will Obama keep his campaign promise from 2008 and bring the troops home?

Let's see $700 Billion is Stimulus didn't work. I have an idea!

More Stimulus!

The stimulus created 3 million jobs, plus a 3rd of that 700 billion was tax cuts for the middle class and small business.

The figure of 3 million jobs created was the "high" end of the CBO's estimate. The "low" end was 600,000. Since the numbers keep getting adjusted ever lower, which do you think is closer to the truth? For the vast sums of money that we spent to achieve either the stimulus was a colossal failure because the majority of those jobs were temporary...hence the unemployment rate staying over 8% for over 40 consecutive months. How do I KNOW it was a failure? You don't invent a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" if your fiscal policy is creating jobs...you do that if it hasn't and you desperately want to obscure that fact.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, reduced to nothing but attacking, says:

And, of course, that would be the oldstyle version of stimulus. Much different from that of the CBO, which analyzes the stimulus and finds that it worked. But oldstyle, instead, posts lies over and over. Because that is simply the only thing he can do to support his dogma. He can not provide links, because his links come from partisan sites. So, in the end, he attacks. Always ends up that way, because he has nothing left to do, having used the same lies over and over and over and been caught and proven wrong each time.




No sputtering, oldstyle. Just considered opinion that what you say lines up absolutely every single time with the conservative dogma from the right wing conservative sites. Their dogma = your dogma each and every time. And you post no proof from rational sites. And that wastes my time.



And then there is this nonsense. Oldstyle opinion. Which has nothing to do with reality. I am simply arguing that in a bad economy the only tool that I have ever seen work is stimulus. Based on simple economic history. Oldstyle is basing his belief, which is taxes are bad, reducing taxes stimulates, on the con agenda that is Supply Side Economics. The theory that no one but most CONS and a few well paid con economists agree with. The vast majority of the economic world believes in stimulus, and economic history, unfortunately for oldstyle, says stimulus works. And unfortunately, tax increases are generally the only way to pay for stimulus.
And you are lying again, oldstyle, when you say that I believe you can not have too much of either. So, Oldstyle, now try to listen because I have said this to you over and over: tax increases are sometimes necessary to provide the revenue for stimulus spending. That is the only time that I argue for tax increases. And no, oldstyle, again, as I have said over and over, stimulus spending is useful ONLY when the economy is bad.

So, again for your educational pleasure, decreasing taxes or raising taxes are neither good nor bad. They neither help nor hurt in all cases. Depends on the economy. Got it yet, Oldstyle. Or is this simply too complex. Because I am getting really tired of saying the same thing to your same lies, over and over.

So, as usual, your post is your opinion, and you know how much I value your opinion, oldstyle. You seem to have decided that you can keep trotting out the same bs. I can not understand how you live with posting lies, oldstyle. But even more odd, is that you do so over and over even when those lies are vetted, and proven to be untrue.

The entire concept that you were ever intelligent enough to teach a college level course in economics is so laughable at this point that you ought to just give up trying to get ANYONE to buy into that silliness.

When Keynes called for government spending on stimulus to counter economic downturns he did not call for increases in taxes to pay for that spending. Why? Because Keynes knew enough about economics that he recognized that raising taxes slows an economy. Hence his call for government to borrow the capital needed for stimulus spending...borrowing that Keynes advocated would be paid back by tax increases when the economy had recovered. That concept is why both Bill Clinton and Christina Romer stated last year that now was a bad time to raise taxes on anyone. They both understood that because they both understand basic Keynesian economic theory.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They both understood that because they both understand basic Keynesian economic theory.

I love to see you killing the poor Rshermer!! Here's some more:

In August of 2009, President Barack Obama explained to NBC's Chuck Todd that, "you don't raise taxes in a recession." President Obama, at the time, seemed to acknowledge the basic economic reality that increased taxes are a burden on an economy, and that adding this burden to a struggling economy is a bad idea.

Well, during the last two fiscal quarters, the nation's economic growth has slowed to an anemic 0.85% of GDP, and unemployment has remained unacceptably high at more than 9%. Despite two years of "stimulus" spending, nearly $4 trillion in new debt accumulated since January of 2009, and unprecedented efforts by the Federal Reserve to prop up a struggling economy, consumer and investor confidence has dropped to record lows. Our markets have tumbled downward to an 11-month low. It's no surprise that economists are becoming increasingly worried about a double-dip recession.

Why does President Obama think now is a good time to raise taxes?-Hon. KB Hutchinson


“Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.”JM-Keynes

"But preference should be given to those which can be made to mature quickly on a large scale, as for example the rehabilitation of the physical condition of the railroads. The object is to start the ball rolling. The United States is ready to roll towards prosperity, if a good hard shove can be given in the next six months." JM Keynes

Keynes was a liberal fool who at the time had no idea about mal-investment or housing bubbles!

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, being angry at being caught in lies, says:

The entire concept that you were ever intelligent enough to teach a college level course in economics is so laughable at this point that you ought to just give up trying to get ANYONE to buy into that silliness.

That would be your opinion, oldstyle. And again, you know how much I value your opinion.

When Keynes called for government spending on stimulus to counter economic downturns he did not call for increases in taxes to pay for that spending. Why?

Well, oldstyle, those were different times. As I have told you before, much less income disparity then. Not so today. So, oldstyle, where would you suggest the revenues come from to pay for the stimulus. Dipshit.

Because Keynes knew enough about economics that he recognized that raising taxes slows an economy.Hence his call for government to borrow the capital needed for stimulus spending...borrowing that Keynes advocated would be paid back by tax increases when the economy had recovered.

Ah, me poor ignorant con tool. As I have shown you, and as most economists agree, taxing the wealthy does not slow the economy. And, in Keynes time, you could get tax increases to pay back borrowing. When was the last time you saw that occur, Oldstyle. Repubs block ANY tax increases for ANY reason at all. Were you aware, oldstyle, as most everyone else is that nearly all repubs signed a pledge to NOT raise taxes for any reason. So, you can raise taxes and support stimulus spending. And the cost is paid for by the taxes. Or you can pay by borrowing, and let our kids and grandkids be saddled with the national debt. Because it will NOT be paid for by tax increases. You really need to get serious.

Here. AGAIN:
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance

Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth, CBO says - Business on NBCNews.com

That concept is why both Bill Clinton and Christina Romer stated last year that now was a bad time to raise taxes on anyone. They both understood that because they both understand basic Keynesian economic theory.

They were justifying an unpopular decesions by obama to go along with allowing the Bush tax cuts to go no for a while longer. Which Obama did in order to get repubs to ok unemployment payments.
The quote by Romer you are misuseing, according to her, was in 2010.
Here is Romer in mid 2011:
"Some in Washington and in the news media have seized on a study I conducted with David Romer, my husband and colleague, that they say shows tax increases having a bigger short-term effect on the economy than spending cuts.

They are mistaken.

That’s a very polite, scholarly way for saying, how’s about you people go read the paper before you talk about it?"
Tax cut versus spending cuts–editorial by Christina Romer « Urban ethics and theory

More to the point, Oldstyle, you may have noticed that both Clinton and reagan did increase taxes during bad economic times. In order to provide stimulus. And, me boy, if you were paying any attention, you would note that Clinton is now fully behind the tax increases that Obama is behind. but nice try, again.

Maybe you should run along and do some dishes, Oldstyle. I have seen these con dogma bits enough already.

 

[Rshermr]

And here we have oldstyle lying again, this time about how many total jobs the CBO said were created by the stimulus:

The figure of 3 million jobs created was the "high" end of the CBO's estimate. The "low" end was 600,000. Since the numbers keep getting adjusted ever lower, which do you think is closer to the truth?

Your statement that 3 million jobs was the high estimate is another lie, oldstyle. Here is the quote you may have used:
"The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office."
Read more: CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

So, you were looking here at a quote for the THIRD QUARTER of 2011. That would be ONE QUARTER, Oldstyle. And the big impact of AARA was NOT in 2011, but in 2010.

Here, from the CBO, is the detailed analysis:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-25-Impact_of_ARRA.pdf
Should you actually read it, you will find that the upper estimate by the CBO is over 11 million jobs.

So, do you see the difference, oldstyle. A quarter is only 3 months, me boy. But the AARA has been going on for four years, and is still generating jobs. So, who do we believe, oldstyle. You, with agenda based statements and no links to prove your accusations, or the actual CBO analysis. You know, a food services guy or a large crew of non-partisan economists.

For the vast sums of money that we spent to achieve either the stimulus was a colossal failure because the majority of those jobs were temporary.

And the food services guy says the jobs were temporary. No link, of course, because it is another lie. Not that some may have been, but the gain shown in the link above is permanent jobs. At least at that point in time. And, if you understood employment numbers, you would know that they do not distinguish between permanent and temporary jobs. The unemployment rate tells that story.
So, there we have again a post that is absolutely in line with the con web sites, but is not at all in line with the CBO. I think I will believe the CBO, thanks.

.hence the unemployment rate staying over 8% for over 40 consecutive months.

Now, that is an interesting quote. The great republican recession of 2008 had employment going down for months, until October of 2009. The obama admins efforts saw it turn around in 9 months. Which was really, really fast based on the economy he had. But Oldstyle wants to take the time from when Obama was first in office, when employment was still going down FAST, to the time it went below 8% Even though the rate went to 10.2% based on policies that were not his. Con agenda at its best.

How do I KNOW it was a failure? You don't invent a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" if your fiscal policy is creating jobs...you do that if it hasn't and you desperately want to obscure that fact.

Another lie, oldstyle. But what could you expect from a food services guy. Jobs saved and jobs created have been used for at least decades. But Oldstyle, being a con tool, wants to push that good old con dogma that it is something new. And, by the way, oldstyle, those numbers are used and have been for many years by the CBO. Again, we have a decision. Oldstyle, or the CBO.

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what's REALLY sad, Rshermr? That "food service guy" knows way more about economics than you do...a person who supposedly taught the subject at the college level. All of your arguments here are pulled straight from the talking points of progressive web sites and fall apart when examined with even a modicum of common sense. What's ironic is that the whole time you're cutting and pasting this statistical nonsense...you accuse OTHERS of being "tools" and spouting "dogma". YOU are the biggest "tool" on this site, little buddy and all you post is "dogma".

Show me where the economic statistic "jobs created or saved" was ever used before Obama's joke of a jobs program? You say it's been around for ever and used extensively? Let's see where.

 

[Rshermr]

And here we have another example of Oldstyle's Opinion:

You know what's REALLY sad, Rshermr? That "food service guy" knows way more about economics than you do...a person who supposedly taught the subject at the college level.

You know what, oldstyle, you are simply proving what studies have shown about stupid people. Stupid people nearly always believe that they are very smart. Because they are too ignorant to know all of the things that they do not know. At any rate, oldstyle. More of your opinion, and you do know how much I value it.

All of your arguments here are pulled straight from the talking points of progressive web sites and fall apart when examined with even a modicum of common sense.

Really, Oldstyle? Like the CBO, you mean?? Look, oldstyle, as a con tool, any site that is not a con site is a progressive site. Part of your pathology.

What's ironic is that the whole time you're cutting and pasting this statistical nonsense...you accuse OTHERS of being "tools" and spouting "dogma".

You really hate that link thing. You know, the links that prove you are lying.

YOU are the biggest "tool" on this site, little buddy and all you post is "dogma".

Well, Oldstyle, that would be your opinion. My master is truth. I dislike liars, and you are one. And contrary to you, I believe truth is based on evidence. And on fact. So, you dislike it when I show you, for instance, that what you have said is totally untrue.

Take your last post, in which you made multiple unsuportable statements about the Stimulus and what the CBO said. I simply gave you the CBO's exact statements. Which proved you wrong. So, you think that is dogma? But you see, Oldstyle, that just proves you to be stupid. Or perhaps not, perhaps you just have an agenda, and are trying every way that you can to argue your destroyed lie.

Show me where the economic statistic "jobs created or saved" was ever used before Obama's joke of a jobs program? You say it's been around for ever and used extensively? Let's see where.

Simple enough concept, oldstyle. The UE numbers do not differentiate between jobs created or jobs saved. They have exactly the same economic impact. Lower unemployment in either case. Or did you think it made a difference.
I am not going to take the time to find old references for you. Rather, why don't you show me a reference that is impartial that says they are different. Or better yet, old economics expert/dishwasher, explain why there is an economic difference.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you make the statement that I'm "lying" because I say that the whole "jobs saved" thing was an Obama Administration thing and wasn't used by previous Administrations but when I ask you for proof...your reply is that you don't have time to find "old references" for me?

LOL...you couldn't find it when you Google'd it...could you little buddy? And it wasn't in any of your progressive web sites. Oh goodness...what's a lying poser like you to do? You make a pathetic attempt to change the topic of discussion, declaring that jobs saved and jobs created are the same thing and asking me to prove that they aren't. Here's the MAIN difference between the two, Sparky...jobs created is a verifiable number...jobs saved is a number that's anyone's guess because there IS no way to verify it...which of course makes it PERFECT when you're trying to bullshit people on whether or not your fiscal policy worked. You can trot out any number you like and there's no way to say if it's right or wrong which is EXACTLY what the Obama Administration did repeatedly.

So are you going to show me where other Administrations were using jobs saved, Rshermr? Or were you going to continue to flounder as usual?

 

[Si modo]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

Pssst, Deanie-do. It's not your idea or all that original of one.

I'll let you ponder that for a year or two. I light bulb might go on, but I'm not all that confident. I give it a 6% chance of happening.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, the only jobs numbers that matter are the current unemployment number. Jobs created has exactly the same effect on the unemployment number as jobs saved. No difference. And has been part of the unemployment number forever. So, being a con tool, you are hard after the jobs saved number. If you google jobs saved you get nothing but con tool sources, over and over. Odd, eh oldstyle. Because con tools want to attack the jobs saved idea, JUST AS YOU DO. So, me little con tool, go talk to an auto worker and ask him if he sees his job being saved as being any different than having a job created. Dipshit. You are such a con tool.
So, relative to jobs saved numbers, you will never see them in the stats. But if you google jobs saved and CBO, there is that subject, dipshit.
"Because of the recovery act, the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill,” he said. In fact, he said, it saved or created more than 3 million jobs."
Congressional Budget Office Director Discusses the Stimulus - NYTimes.com
So, apparently the CBO made this up. Or are you saying that they only use the phrase because obama told them to. Jesus H. Christ, oldstyle. You are such an amazing con tool. And, sparky, are you saying that the cbo is "trying to bullshit people on whether or not Obama's fiscal policy worked". Just wondering, me poor ignorant con, do you really want to get into that space. Attacking the CBO? Because I can show you all sorts of places where your con heroes praise the CBO. But, you see, the CBO has used the concept of jobs created and saved for years, though they often say jobs created or jobs created and saved about the same thing, with the same number.

You will see it criticized in the con tool sites, your favorites. Over and over and over. But, mr dishwasher, you can not explain to anyone why a job saved is less valuable than a job created. Because posting dogma is completely different than explaining a concept. Maybe the CBO would like to talk to a dishwasher about jobs saved. Dipshit.

So, there you are, oldstyle, reduced to nothing but parroting the con dogma. You can not argue the subject of this thread, that infrastructure stimulus makes sense. Because every argument you bring up about whether it works in theory or in history, you loose. Over and over. So, again, Oldstyle, maybe there are some dishes you should be washing. Because you sure fail here. Maybe it is you that is the lying poser. Because you can not show me the lie you say I am making. Because, you see, I do not lie. Ever. But you, oldstyle, do and it is provable. Over and over and over.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still can't show where "jobs saved" was used before the Obama stimulus fiasco...can you, "Tommy"?

So what do you do? You give us another cut and paste puff job from the liberal NY Times editorial page that tries it's best to cover for the Obama Administration's fiscal shortcomings. Go back and REALLY read that. Recognize that all Elmendorf REALLY says about the stimulus is that in the CBO's opinion spending all those billions of dollars improved the economy compared to not spending anything at all. He doesn't say how much it improved it...just that it was an improvement over not spending it at all.

GEE, WHAT AN AMAZING CONCEPT! THAT SPENDING 800 BILLION IN STIMULUS IMPROVED THE ECONOMIC NUMBERS!! HOW COULD IT NOT?

And then he trots out what the CBO has "guessed" is the number of jobs "created or saved". Why do I say "guessed"? Because neither the CBO...or any other economist...or any other politician...has ANY idea what that number really is. But that isn't his problem, is it? He's simply given a job to do and given the parameters of that job. In this case it's to estimate a number that can't REALLY be determined one way or the other.

Now if they asked him how many jobs did the Stimulus "create" then he would be able to give us a statistically verifiable number. That's what was used to measure the performance of all other Administrations prior to Barry's but this wasn't about getting an accurate appraisal of the effectiveness of the Obama Stimulus...this was ALWAYS about obscuring the awful "jobs created" number with one that was more politically acceptable.

 

[Norman]

Norman,

About your numbers. Here are the numbers from a different source:


-- iN CONSTANT 2005 FY DOLLARS--- --AS PERCENT OF GDP---
FY Receipts Outlays Deficit (-) Deflator Receipts Outlays Deficit (-)
1980 1,197.6 1,368.6 -171.0 0.4318 19.0 21.7 -2.7
1981 1,251.4 1,416.2 -164.9 0.4789 19.6 22.2 -2.6
1982 1,202.8 1,452.0 -249.2 0.5136 19.2 23.1 -4.0
1983 1,113.6 1,498.9 -385.3 0.5393 17.5 23.5 -6.0
1984 1,174.3 1,501.0 -326.6 0.5675 17.3 22.2 -4.8
1985 1,250.9 1,612.7 -361.8 0.5868 17.7 22.8 -5.1
1986 1,277.7 1,645.2 -367.5 0.6020 17.5 22.5 -5.0
1987 1,375.7 1,616.8 -241.1 0.6210 18.4 21.6 -3.2
1988 1,421.1 1,663.7 -242.5 0.6398 18.2 21.3 -3.1
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

So, once you correct for inflation, receipts increased very slightly in '81, but decreased in '82 and '83, and did not reach '81 numbers until '85.

So, your numbers and my numbers say completely different things. I provided a link. You did not. I have tried to find the numbers you provided at the site you gave. No go. I am now of the opinion that they came from howtoliewithnumbers.com. Which would explain why you are not providing a link.

And relative to your statement that there are plenty of years when taxes went down and unemployment went down with it, in plenty of countries. Yes, that would be true. But, of course, that was NOT the question. The issue is has history shown that tax decreases during high unemployment times resulted in unemployment rate improvements, in the US. Dipshit. And I see why you are leaving this thread. Because you were quite aware that you were going to get caught in your very own lies.

You must be a giant troll. First of all my numbers are % GDP which give far better picture of the actual effective tax percentage. Growing economy always mean nominally growing taxes so it looks like you have put the cart before the horse. But your numbers are dishonest anyway as they only include the federal portion of taxes. Because state taxes are not taxes! Yeah right... I think the only honest way to do this is use %GDP and all of the different government taxes. I guess your way would be to look at the year and use which ever methodology gives the "correct" results in that year.


Of course, so far you have actually missed my point entirely, which s that what you are trying to prove is completely impossible in either case. Tax% changing by 1 or 2% is simply IRRELEVANT. This would of course require you to have the view that tax rates do not solely dictate the direction of an economy in recession.


And further I agree that hiking taxes and increasing spending has a stimulus effect according to Keynes. But that's not the point. The point is that increasing spending AND cutting taxes has an even bigger stimulus effect.


I guess I will have to go look at the different US recessions and pick a year where GDP grew and taxes went down as % of gdp. Shouldn't be too hard and it will destroy your argument. However, I am too lazy to do that right now.