Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Republicans could pass their budget without any opposition, it would lead to 750,000 men and women losing their jobs as a direct result of the cuts they are seeking.
If they are not needed, then they SHOULD lose their jobs. It does not make any sense to employ people whose labor is not required.
I'm still waiting for a Republican sponsored bill in the House of Representatives that addresses ECONOMIC ISSUES. I've seen plenty that addressed Planned Parenthood, Abortion etc. After all during the 2010 midterm elections they told the American people they were going to focus on jobs.
Lol, you are an astute student of politics. I direct your attention to the Ryan plan.
Haha, oh I love this tired misconception of the right. If they never produced anything, they wouldn't have a job. I can name multitudes of things they produce:
Driver's Licenses
Roads
Defense
Security (Police/Fire Protection)
Educated Students
Mail
Verdicts on Court Cases
...
Yes. This is clearly the case as the Bush tax cuts have shown us to have even more economic activity than the 80s, since of course, taxes are now much lower than then. We are just booming with all of those tax cuts, now aren't we!?
You really don't get economics, do you? Those things you listed are nothing more than money laundering outfits.
Tax receipts were higher in 2000 for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the tech bubble, no terrorist attacks and we were in a recession in 2001. Using you logic the tax cut in 2003 should have reduced tax receipts, it didn't.
But overall the Bush 43 administration had the WORST record in terms of the rate of federal tax revenue increases of any two terms post World World II president.
Historical Tax Revenue
George W. Bush Jr.
All figures are trillions of dollars
2001 - $1.9911
2002 - $1.8531
2003 - $1.7823
2004 - $1.8801
2005 - $2.1536
2006 - $2.4069
2007 - $2.5680
2008 - $2.5240 Increase from beginning to end of term: 26.56%
Highest Marginal Tax Rate 2003 -39.6%
Lowest Marginal Tax Rate 2004 -35%
Bill Clinton
1993 - $1.1543 trillion
2000 - $2.0252 trillion Increase - 75.43%
Highest Marginal Tax Rate - 39.6%
Keep in mind he followed the "Tricke Down Economics" playbook. He had lower taxes and had lower interest but that sitll didn't drive significant economic growth. The Bush 43 could only come up with two quarters of GDP growth of 4%. That is also worlst record of any two term post World War II president. In short the Bush 43 administration proved the failure of "Trickle Down" economics.
Fortunately it's not that simple. Since half of the workforce didn't lose their jobs, they aren't going to see twice the increase in taxes.
Person A lost a job yes. But Persons B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J will easily be able to afford the increased tax rate as a group.
Also, raising revenues is not equal to spending. That is basic economics.
Quite the little communist, aren't you. So you've decided that B-J can "easily" afford a tax increase. How generous of you, to decide that someone else pay more.
The truth is, B-J are probably living on a lot less than they need, thanks to the failed economic policies coming out of our govts.
Here in Texas, we are cutting education by 4 billion. Thousands of teachers in the Houston area have lost their jobs. City employees are losing their jobs by the hundreds. Carole Strayhorn, our comptroller at the time predicted this would happen due to GOP policies in Texas.
And now, here we are. Even stranger, our government refuses to touch our rainy day fund. It has billions of dollars.
What caused this? Tax cuts and tax breaks, of course. All GOP policies in a red state.
Even with the ecomony nudging along slowly, I believe Obama will win easily in 2012. All he has to do is point to GOP controlled states such as Texas. Hell, he could campaign with the slogan, "Don't turn the U.S. into Texas."
You completely left out unfunded Federal mandates on education.
And the state is using part of the rainy day fund.
Did your property taxes drop due to lower appraisals ? That would also account of less $$$ for your local education.
Same went on here in Austin. Close schools, lay of thousands of teachers.
What ended up happening though was no schools got closed and some teachers got laid off but not the hundreds that they initially told us. Now the Austin ISD "found" money to subsidize pre-K next year , "found" money to open the schools for the summer food program and the school board is now looking for a site for the future district Performing Arts Center. Does that sound like a district "on the brink" ?
Tax receipts increased in 2004. As you pointed out tax receipts have been in the 17-18% range, the Bush years were no different.
Wrong...
2000 $2,310 Billion, 20.6% of GDP
2001 $2,215 Billion, 19.5% of GDP
2002 $2,029 Billion, 17.6% of GDP
2003 $1,901 Billion, 16.2% of GDP
2004 $1,950 Billion, 16.1% of GDP
2005 $2,154 Billion, 17.3% of GDP
The federal government was able to collect more in taxes (and consequently balanced the budget) in 2000 than it did even in 2005, even with economy growing by 11%. The numbers are, of course, in 2005 dollars to allow for comparison. In fact, since 1970, the federal tax receipts have remained above their previous peak every year except in...
1971, 1975, 1976
1983, 1984
1991, 1992
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010
Quote:
Not only has he not produced a turnaround, he has made matters far worse.
Compared to what? 2001 recovery?
Quote:
Well that is most certainly not true, unemployment was very, very low through most of the Bush presidency.
So, if job growth was excellent, the economy was growing, and tax cuts increase revenues, why do we see massive decrease in tax revenues? BTW, number of private sector jobs on Jan, 2004 was at a level (108.8 million) seen in Jul 1999. So much for very very low unemployment rate?
Quote:
Good luck starting a business now. If you think it is better tp start a business now than in 2005 I would question your business accumen.
Outside of your worry about my business acumen, of those others who are doing just what I've started, thank you!
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 06-06-2011 at 01:20 PM..
I totally agree! We should have Math Presented by Citi® and Police Protection Insurance by Anthem®!
Obama is not a socialist. Please educate yourself on what socialism actually is. Also, I love how you are totally ignoring the facts presented in this thread and elsewhere that GOP policies have directly led to the decline of the economy.
I am quite familiar with socialism and its negative effects on an economy. Witness what four years of a democratic congress and two and half of Obama has done for us.
Perhaps you could rehash these "facts" that you are talking about. The only facts I have seen is that the state governments laid off some state workers and improved the bottom line for the state government. Government was never supposed to be the major employer in the US and the creation of more and more federal jobs simply robs from the private sector. If this was not the case, then the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea would have been the economic miracles of the last century.
Wake up- Keynesian economics of massive federal spending is dead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
