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.
No, actual evidence to the contrary would be quite interesting. Sadly, none of your various posts fell into that category.
How convenient. When did that happen exactly? What indicators of bubble-bursting could be pointed to?
Maybe, wrong, and wrong. Models of the 1960's do show a slight and delayed gain in revenues after JFK's tax cuts. Might have been the tax cuts against the background of pent-up demand resulting from Eisenhower's three recessions. Might have been something else as well. No such effect at all after Reagan's tax cuts, and none after Bush's tax cuts either. There is no other evidence outside the scant evidence of the 60's at all. Only kooks actually believe in the effect. Here are some statements on the matter. All of the sources were officials during the Bush-43 administration...
Edward Lazear, CEA Chairman... I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.
Greg Mankiw, former CEA Chairman... Most economists believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.
Alan Viard, CEA Sr Economist... Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.
Robert Carroll, Treasury DAS for Tax Policy... As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.
Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman... I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues.
Andrew Samwick, former CEA Chief Economist... You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
By freeing up resources, you mean creating three million unemployed people, I take it. Does your economic acumen suggest that this would have been healthy for an already struggling economy? What do you think a sudden collapse of the Big Three would have done for confidence and expectations? Any thoughts?
LOL. None of these companies was remotely healthy. Their imminent failures would only have sent ripples of further failure coursing across the global economy. Describe for us the effects of letting tiny Lehman Brothers go.
Those are transition costs and there will be more of those of course. Single-payer UHC would be a huge cost-saver, which is why you hear so much about even a tiny public option being a threat to drive the private sector out of business. What's the matter? They can't compete or something? But we won't go there in one fell swoop. A gentle transition that doesn't step on anybody's toes too badly. And at the end of the day, the disastrous system of today will be gone.
No, they aren't full of loonies, but they do have their share. The FDR revisionists have no better case than what Bush had for WMD. Read some actual criticism for a change.
Depends on the nature of the alternate view. Yours is a hallucination.
No sarcasm. The entire point of Cap & Trade is to redirect resources so as to create a cleaner, more efficient, more durable, less dependent energy base for the economy to function on. Babbling naysayers offer nothing. Jobs will be lost in the process and jobs will be gained. Just as job losses in the buggy-whip and blacksmith trades were offset by job gains in the automotive and related industries. That point seemed to lie beyond your grasp last time. Maybe it will sink in this time.
Again folks notice nothing but sarcasm and liberal pablum when faced with evidence the poster says, as I predicted, that it isn't evidence or those producing it are stupid. Nothing to address real live evidence of the Spanish experience with cap and trade. Those healthy banks I pointed out miraculously recovered in 6 months to pay the TARP back. When presented with evidence that tax cuts indeed do pay for themselves we are presented with no they don't.
On one hand the poster is so concerned about millions of jobs in the auto industry but then goes on to say that cap and trade will reallocate jobs from polluting jobs to green jobs. Again Spain proves Cap and Trade causes net job loses. All those who think big auto is green raise their hands. (talk about buggy whips).
Again we have another dreamer who believes costs will suddenly vanish from the system. Of course they will if services are rationed but not under any other scenario.
So sad, see my recitation rational lucid no ad hominem attacks . The poster above, sadly not so much.
Bush and his republican controlled congress were down right terrible at running an economy that the unemployment rate jumped to 4.6% for June 2006.
The dems were livid, saying that the Bush administration was hurting the economy with their policies and spending.
So lets spin forward to June 2009, liberals have controlled congress since 2007 and Obama is nearing 6 months in office and unemployment is now 9.5 and rising quickly.
Bush and Rep controlled congress 4.6% and the dems were going crazy.
Obama and the Dems controlled congress 9.5% and the dems are silent.
So lets recap-
Bush and the rep controlled congress 4.7% unemployment June 2006
Obama and the dem controlled congress 9.5% unemployment June 2009
Under Bush the national debt in 2006 was 574.3 million with 9-11,
3 disasters and two wars.
Under Obama the national debt in 2009 with no disasters, no 9-11 and we are now 11 trillion and growing every day with massive over spending with no end in sight.
So lets recap the debt-
Bush and the rep controlled congress 574 billion
Obama and the dems controlled congress 11 trillion+
Foreclosures-
Bush and the Rep controlled congress - 1.2 million foreclosures in 2006 for the entire year.
Obama and the Dem controlled congress 1.0 million so far this year and that is only 6 months time.
So lets recap-
Bush and the Rep congress had 1.2 million foreclosure filings for the entire year of 2006
Obama and the Dem controlled congress have hit 1 million foreclosures already and that was from Jan to June. Predictions are it will hit 2 million plus.
Bankruptcies-
Bush and the Rep controlled congress for the entire year of 2006 was
1,074,225
Obama and the Dem controlled congress so far in 2009 and it is only June has already hit 1, 202,503 filings.
So lets recap
Bush for the entire year of 2006 1,074,225
Obama for only 6 months of 2009 already has hit that mark with 1,202,503
Amazing how facts seem to fall into place and show some people who whined and complained just a few short years ago find themselves sticking their foot in their mouths today and facts show they are worse then the same people they complained about just afew years ago.
Facts will show that our current economy and job losses are getting worse by the day and we have spent ourselves into trillion of dollars of debt to stimulate the economy when in FACT it has absolutely done nothing but make things worse.
We had better wake up and real quick before it is to late. Obama told us we need to stimulate the economy and rushed this massive spending through as quick as possible and now the economy is worse and there is no urgency anymore.
Sad to see America falling apart as the facts show above and sad to see that the idea of Hope and Change that these democrats ran on turned out to be nothing but a bunch of false ideas and no real plans.
Oh my god, lol.
Read a book or study the situation before making random assumptions without thinking about how the economy actually works!!
Oy.
It was reckless finance, housing bubble, debt spending....and it finally caught up with us.
Read a book or study the situation before making random assumptions without thinking about how the economy actually works!!
Oy.
It was reckless finance, housing bubble, debt spending....and it finally caught up with us.
Action and reaction.
Whatever, but then when things ever turn around if they ever do you will be saying the opposite.
My FACTS above are facts, not random assumptions.
Facts show this man was elected only because he promised he would makes things better and turn the economy around on a budget.
Well, looks to me like Barack Obama needs to read that same book your pitching because he surely has no freakin clue how to run any economy.
Your wrote "It was reckless finance, housing bubble, debt spending....and it finally caught up with us."
Thanks for clarifying, those are exactly what the liberals are all about and what caused this mess.
Now Obama has quadrupled the debt, his ACORN buddies caused the housing bubble and liberals borrowing money and sucking up to the corporations they so hate like the banks shows us all that the liberals are a wrecking ball for our economy.
Facts are facts and the facts show you elected a person who has no clue in the world how money works. His record speaks for itself.
Send him your book, he could sure use some pointers right now.
Now Obama has quadrupled the debt, his ACORN buddies caused the housing bubble and liberals borrowing money and sucking up to the corporations they so hate like the banks shows us all that the liberals are a wrecking ball for our economy.
Housing bubble popped mid 2007 where it hit the news.
You have any links tying Obama to ACORN pre-2007 showing they caused this housing bubble ?
All the liberals borrowing money started after the dot com bust when interest rates were lowered. Got any links to prove that it was liberals doing all the borrowing ?
Greedy people from all parties took part in the fall of our economy; it was not just the liberals.
As short sighted as it is, I understand that the economy is now on the presidents shoulders. He has to take the good with the bad. But I would hate to think that people are stupid enough to think that 20 years of disastrous economic policy can be fixed in a matter of months. Our economy has been a complete sham for the last 20 years. It's time to pay that big bill....that credit card that financed our prosperity. I mean what we thought was prosperity.
As short sighted as it is, I understand that the economy is now on the presidents shoulders. He has to take the good with the bad. But I would hate to think that people are stupid enough to think that 20 years of disastrous economic policy can be fixed in a matter of months. Our economy has been a complete sham for the last 20 years. It's time to pay that big bill....that credit card that financed our prosperity. I mean what we thought was prosperity.
I hate to tell you, but yes, people really are "stupid enough . . . ." In particular, that rabid 20%+ of FOX-going "I wuv Sarah Palin" folks. Who knew there were so many uneducated and hateful people in the U.S.?
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.
