Randall Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Is there proof they were successful? I mean if nothing was done VS the tax cuts what would have been the result. This is like a placedo in drug trials. If the adm had told us the economy would reound would it have been less successful than the upper tier tax cuts? Is there any evidence that the cuts worked better than staying the course and letting it recover by it's own strength? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I don't know I'd say this is more in wiegie's realm, but I'd ask, is there any evidence that they didn't? I know I've hired 30 or so people since getting the tax cut, an will probably hire another 10-15 this fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 There have been discussions of this before. If someone was arguing that the Laffer curve was in effect, and that lowering taxes increased tax revenues... that has was proven false the last time we looked at it. If someone was arguing that the tax cuts increased the number of jobs, I believe that was not a tendency supported by the data. If someone was arguing that the tax cuts put more money in the pocket of the average american... I can't remember what the results of that test would be (you know, after adjusting for inflation and increase in other expenses). So, I guess it depends on what you consider "effective". What was their purpose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Is there proof they were successful? 1308012[/snapback] who cares....the function of the govt is not to tax the crap out of us. taxes are still too high, it's just that our loser politicians can't stop spending our money. "Success" means they stop wasting so much of my dough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 well, economic growth pretty much went through the roof after the 2003 tax cuts went into effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 well, economic growth pretty much went through the roof after the 2003 tax cuts went into effect. 1308735[/snapback] He doesn't want proof that the cuts worked. He wants proof that the economy wouldn't have improved sans cuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 well, economic growth pretty much went through the roof after the 2003 tax cuts went into effect. 1308735[/snapback] You mean... after the crash, we rebounded? That's kinda like saying, "after I threw the tennis ball at the gound, it came back." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Where is the economy now, after 5 year's of Bush's tenure, compared to where it was when Clinton left office. And the 9-11 attack's impact cannot be ignored, as I -for one - can vouch that it pretty well buttoned up hollywood cash flow for 16+ months. That's a fair start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big F'n Dave Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 If the goal was to plunge the U.S. economy to an unprecedented deficit, then yes, it was effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Where is the economy now, after 5 year's of Bush's tenure, compared to where it was when Clinton left office. And the 9-11 attack's impact cannot be ignored, as I -for one - can vouch that it pretty well buttoned up hollywood cash flow for 16+ months. That's a fair start. 1309510[/snapback] I don't think the economy is any worse off now than it was then. Wiegie will be by shortly I'm sure and post some comparisons in GDP. The big difference is the stock market. The stock market doesn't have near the groth it did under Clinton. This can be looked at as a good and a bad thing. The market through much of Clinton's administration was way over valued, and needed a correction. The fact that correction started in May of 2001 leads me to believe it had nothing to do with Bush but regular market forces. I don't know historically how long it takes to come out of one of these corrections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I don't think the economy is any worse off now than it was then. Wiegie will be by shortly I'm sure and post some comparisons in GDP. The big difference is the stock market. The stock market doesn't have near the groth it did under Clinton. This can be looked at as a good and a bad thing. The market through much of Clinton's administration was way over valued, and needed a correction. The fact that correction started in May of 2001 leads me to believe it had nothing to do with Bush but regular market forces. I don't know historically how long it takes to come out of one of these corrections. 1309564[/snapback] I agree with that, but even you have to agree that the current deficit and subsequent additional debt can't bo GOOD overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 If the goal was to plunge the U.S. economy to an unprecedented deficit, then yes, it was effective. 1309559[/snapback] your post reminded me that I read this today about deficit spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.