Analysts: Letting Bush tax cuts die would kill recovery...

[gbpfan1231]

Complete and utter drivel.

 

The Bush tax cuts "provide jobs" right? Isnt that the argumnet du jour for how this will crush all small business? That should be relatively easy to compare private sector hiring before and after passage.

Why is it drivel? Isn't it the same argument used by the left to justify the stimulus? Unemployment is still high but the answer from the left is "It saved jobs - it would have been much worse" knowing it can't be proved right or wrong.

 

Same with Bush tax cuts - maybe it saved tons of jobs - nobody will ever know.

[bpwallace49]

This is only valid when Fed Gov stays within the boundaries of the constitution, which clearly. the far left whackos can't seem to do.

But then again, running the Country within the boundaries of the Constitution, wouldn't cost a third of the annual budget we have today.

 

 

Sooo a quote by Adam Smith (largely acknowledged as the founder of free market economics) . . in his book that was published in 1776 . . in Scotland . .. is only valid when "in the boundaries of the constitution". . . .. that was written in 1787.

 

Gotcha . . .

[The Mucca]

Who cares when it was quoted, I stand by what I said, only a far left whacko wouldn't understand the truth to it.

 

Wait forgot to do this you seem to think that these add something to the statement.

Edited July 31, 2010 by The Mucca

[bpwallace49]

Why is it drivel? Isn't it the same argument used by the left to justify the stimulus? Unemployment is still high but the answer from the left is "It saved jobs - it would have been much worse" knowing it can't be proved right or wrong.

 

Same with Bush tax cuts - maybe it saved tons of jobs - nobody will ever know.

 

WSJ Blogs

Real Time Economics

Economic insight and analysis from The Wall Street Journal.

.Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

 

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

 

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

 

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.

 

Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records. –Sudeep Reddy

 

The chart can be sorted by any of the following categories.

 

 

President Jobs created Jobs at end of term Jobs at start of term Payroll expansion Jobs created per year in office Population growth Percent change in population

George W. Bush 3.0 million 135.5 million 132.5 million 2.3% 375,000 22.0 million 7.7%

Bill Clinton 23.1 million 132.5 million 109.4 million 21.1% 2,900,000 25.2 million 8.9%

George H.W. Bush 2.5 million 109.4 million 106.9 million 2.3% 625,000 12.5 million 4.8%

Ronald Reagan 16.0 million 106.9 million 90.9 million 17.6% 2,000,000 17.3 million 7%

Jimmy Carter 10.5 million 90.9 million 80.4 million 13.1% 2,600,000 9.8 million 4.3%

Gerald Ford 1.8 million 80.4 million 78.6 million 2.3% 745,000 5.1 million 2.3%

Richard Nixon 9.4 million 78.6 million 69.2 million 13.6% 1,700,000 12.3 million 5.7%

Lyndon Johnson 11.9 million 69.2 million 57.3 million 20.8% 2,300,000 11.3 million 5.6%

John F. Kennedy 3.6 million 57.3 million 53.7 million 6.7% 1,200,000 8.2 million 4.3%

Dwight Eisenhower 3.5 million 53.7 million 50.2 million 7% 438,000 23.3 million 12.8%

Harry Truman 8.4 million 50.2 million 41.8 million 20.1% 1,100,000 N/A N/A

 

Sorry gbfan . . but that dog wont hunt. the tax cuts were SPECIFICIALLY marketed as "creating jobs". Just like if they expire for the 5% of wealthiest Americans, that will somehow destroy all job creation. But the job creation numbers just dont add up . . .

 

the jobs saved by Obama is an equally spurious argument that is unprovable. But if you use the argumnet that the Bush tax cuts created a lot of jobs, it just doesnt hold water.

 

Plus when you add in the growing wealth concentration gap and the erosion of what is considered "middle class" then it is even harder to prove.

[The Mucca]

Obamas saved and created jobs Nice spin Obama

[bpwallace49]

Obamas saved and created jobs Nice spin Obama

 

You must have missed when i said that the saved number is equally unprovable. That was agreeing with you.

 

But when you post an opinion article from a guy that starts out with

 

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration

 

It might not be viewed as all that objective.

[The Mucca]

You must have missed when i said that the saved number is equally unprovable. That was agreeing with you.

 

But when you post an opinion article from a guy that starts out with

 

 

 

It might not be viewed as all that objective.

 

 

So only unnamed bloggers are objective?

 

WSJ Blogs

Real Time Economics

Economic insight and analysis from The Wall Street Journal.

.Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

[bpwallace49]

So only unnamed bloggers are objective?

 

WSJ Blogs

Real Time Economics

Economic insight and analysis from The Wall Street Journal.

.Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

 

Do you really not know the difference between objective facts presented (in the Wall Street Journal economic section . .) versus an OPINION EDITORIAL from a former GWB Staffer???

 

there is a BIG difference betwen something objectively presented in the WSJ versus a STATED OPINION that is in the OPINION EDITORIAL section.

 

One . . is a reported fact gathered from multiple sources and vetted data.

 

Two . . is a individual's opinion that is decidedly NOT objective, hence the word OPINION.

 

Or is the Wall Street Journal somehow run by a vast left-wing media conspiracy? And only the opinions of former staffers for GWB are valid?

[gbpfan1231]

You must have missed when i said that the saved number is equally unprovable. That was agreeing with you.

 

But when you post an opinion article from a guy that starts out with

 

 

 

It might not be viewed as all that objective.

I read the article Mucca linked and when I saw it was a WSJ blogger the first thing I thought was - Will bpwallace be stupid enough to do the whole who can trust an opinion piece from a blogger" - even though he posted one minutes before.

 

Wow - amazed by the intelligence.

[bpwallace49]

I read the article Mucca linked and when I saw it was a WSJ blogger the first thing I thought was - Will bpwallace be stupid enough to do the whole who can trust an opinion piece from a blogger" - even though he posted one minutes before.

 

Wow - amazed by the intelligence.

 

I really and truly give up.

 

If you honestly cannot distinguish between an OPINION EDITORIAL versus a published article in the Wall Street Journal (pretty sure that ISNT a liberal leaning newspaper . . .) then you are truly a lost cause.

 

Do you KNOW the difference between and editorial opinion and an article? I am seriously asking here . . .do you?

[The Mucca]

Do you really not know the difference between objective facts presented (in the Wall Street Journal economic section . .) versus an OPINION EDITORIAL from a former GWB Staffer???

 

there is a BIG difference betwen something objectively presented in the WSJ versus a STATED OPINION that is in the OPINION EDITORIAL section.

 

One . . is a reported fact gathered from multiple sources and vetted data.

 

Two . . is a individual's opinion that is decidedly NOT objective, hence the word OPINION.

 

Or is the Wall Street Journal somehow run by a vast left-wing media conspiracy? And only the opinions of former staffers for GWB are valid?

 

 

You show us a cut and paste article, no link, that no one seems to want to take credit for writing, and totally blow off a Dem supporting what a GWB staffer says, "It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

 

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

 

Wow, amazed by the spin

[The Mucca]

I read the article Mucca linked and when I saw it was a WSJ blogger the first thing I thought was - Will bpwallace be stupid enough to do the whole who can trust an opinion piece from a blogger" - even though he posted one minutes before.

 

Wow - amazed by the intelligence.

 

 

My article was credited, it was BPs that was an unnamed blogger.

[gbpfan1231]

My article was credited, it was BPs that was an unnamed blogger.

Sorry - I was wrong - Is me being wrong a FACT or just an OPINION?

[The Mucca]

Sorry - I was wrong - Is me being wrong a FACT or just an OPINION?

 

Got me, ask BP.

 

IIRC, it was the far left around here that went on a tangent about bloggers not being trusted, I guess they can when used by them

Edited July 31, 2010 by The Mucca

[Ursa Majoris]

Ah yes, the trickle down effect. It sounds so good. Too bad it is, in no way, based in reality. People bring it up all the time and then fall silent when this simple question is asked: Are rich people so stupid that they'll create jobs simply because they've got some extra money laying around and have nothing better to do with it? Or do you think, just maybe, they'll create jobs if there's an increased demand for their products do to a middle and lower class with cash in their pockets, looking to spend?

Abso-freakin'-lutely. How hard can it be for people to understand that 70% of our economy is driven by internal consumption so if you want to sell more stuff, give the money to the people most likely to spend it, which is clearly the poorest and then work your way up. A f'n no-brainer if ever there was one. Trickle down was lipstick on a pig, merely a means of hiding a hugh - and successful - effort to increase wealth at the top.

[caddyman]

screed from "JournoList" founder Ezra Klein. but hey, just don't go quoting "faux news" around barackpwally, he'll have none of it!

You guys really need to take it easy on this simpleton. Each and every thread he is more exposed as the ultra liberal liar that he is. How many times does he have to get abused like this before he realizes he is embarrassing himself?

Edited July 31, 2010 by caddyman

[WaterMan]

Abso-freakin'-lutely. How hard can it be for people to understand that 70% of our economy is driven by internal consumption so if you want to sell more stuff, give the money to the people most likely to spend it, which is clearly the poorest and then work your way up. A f'n no-brainer if ever there was one. Trickle down was lipstick on a pig, merely a means of hiding a hugh - and successful - effort to increase wealth at the top.

 

+1

[gbpfan1231]

Abso-freakin'-lutely. How hard can it be for people to understand that 70% of our economy is driven by internal consumption so if you want to sell more stuff, give the money to the people most likely to spend it, which is clearly the poorest and then work your way up. A f'n no-brainer if ever there was one. Trickle down was lipstick on a pig, merely a means of hiding a hugh - and successful - effort to increase wealth at the top.

I agree with some of the things you are saying but I just don't get why it makes sense to GIVE money to the people who spend it while a lot of these people that are given the money NEED the money because they spend in ways that they should not. Is it not just a big circle jerk?

 

There should be no efforts to increase wealth at the top if the top earners EARN (I know you don't like that term) more they should get to keep it.

 

It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to use our money to increase the middle class in the same ways that it is not OK to do to non middle class - why the difference?

[Ursa Majoris]

I agree with some of the things you are saying but I just don't get why it makes sense to GIVE money to the people who spend it while a lot of these people that are given the money NEED the money because they spend in ways that they should not. Is it not just a big circle jerk?

 

There should be no efforts to increase wealth at the top if the top earners EARN (I know you don't like that term) more they should get to keep it.

 

It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to use our money to increase the middle class in the same ways that it is not OK to do to non middle class - why the difference?

I don't think I'm saying that at all. I just think taxation should be balanced to match what the economy needs and our economy, rightly or wrongly, requires people to have disposable income. I'm much better off than most and able to save a considerable amount so what good does it do to give me a tax break I won't spend? Give that tax break to people on half my wage with two kids and there will be increased spending.

 

FWIW, I don't believe increasing taxes on corporations is helpful at all. I would much rather see those taxes reduced and a higher top level tax bracket for individuals introduced, say at $500,000.

 

I also don't think tax credits (free money) should be increased. I would rather the threshold for tax liability go up so you earn more before paying tax but don't get freebies off the government.

[detlef]

I agree with some of the things you are saying but I just don't get why it makes sense to GIVE money to the people who spend it while a lot of these people that are given the money NEED the money because they spend in ways that they should not. Is it not just a big circle jerk?

 

There should be no efforts to increase wealth at the top if the top earners EARN (I know you don't like that term) more they should get to keep it.

 

It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to use our money to increase the middle class in the same ways that it is not OK to do to non middle class - why the difference?

There's a difference between advocating hand-outs to the lowest rungs of society and not believing that the rich will just decide to make more jobs if they have more money laying around.

 

Taxing the highest tiers of society and spending that money on something like public works puts money into the hands of labor because these are the guys paving the streets and such. Then they go and take their wife out for dinner and I get paid, so does everyone who works for me, plus the farmers who I buy from and the dudes driving the delivery trucks. Then my wife and I finally do the deck expansion we've been talking about and a carpenter gets paid, and so on. Eventually, the CEOs of all the companies running the show end up with the jack, because they get a cut of almost everything going on, and the cycle starts all over again when we tax them and build a new library or something.

 

Either that or we can just leave the money at the top and hope that they decide to start a new factory to sell products that there's no market for because they're bored.

 

I think the biggest mistake made is the assumption that we're advocating taxing the rich and then just handing everyone at the bottom a check.

 

Mind you, that said, it would still actually be pretty damned effective. The money would still get instantly pushed into the economy (even if a bunch buy drugs because drug dealers buy food and clothes as well). I think the assumption that these policies make it so nobody wants to work are overblown. So I think it's an idea that sounds worse than it is.

Edited July 31, 2010 by detlef

[gbpfan1231]

There's a difference between advocating hand-outs to the lowest rungs of society and not believing that the rich will just decide to make more jobs if they have more money laying around.

 

Taxing the highest tiers of society and spending that money on something like public works puts money into the hands of labor because these are the guys paving the streets and such. Then they go and take their wife out for dinner and I get paid, so does everyone who works for me, plus the farmers who I buy from and the dudes driving the delivery trucks. Then my wife and I finally do the deck expansion we've been talking about and a carpenter gets paid, and so on. Eventually, the CEOs of all the companies running the show end up with the jack, because they get a cut of almost everything going on, and the cycle starts all over again when we tax them and build a new library or something.

 

Either that or we can just leave the money at the top and hope that they decide to start a new factory to sell products that there's no market for because they're bored.

 

I think the biggest mistake made is the assumption that we're advocating taxing the rich and then just handing everyone at the bottom a check.

 

Mind you, that said, it would still actually be pretty damned effective. The money would still get instantly pushed into the economy (even a bunch buy drugs because drug dealers buy food and clothes as well). I think the assumption that these policies make it so nobody wants to work are overblown. So I think it's an idea that sounds worse than it is.

Again - I agree - everything you said makes sense and is correct. The only issue I have is why tax the only rich?

 

Let's see - someone who has spent money going to college and has worked hard and has moved up today's world should give money to someone who may have not worked as hard who just happens to make less money. The last time I checked the dude that is rich uses the same roads that the guy who is not rich so why make the rich dude pay for the roads? Make everyone pay for the roads - the road still costs the same if a rich dude pays for it so you will still get your same piece of the pie.

[detlef]

Again - I agree - everything you said makes sense and is correct. The only issue I have is why tax the only rich?

 

Let's see - someone who has spent money going to college and has worked hard and has moved up today's world should give money to someone who may have not worked as hard who just happens to make less money. The last time I checked the dude that is rich uses the same roads that the guy who is not rich so why make the rich dude pay for the roads? Make everyone pay for the roads - the road still costs the same if a rich dude pays for it so you will still get your same piece of the pie.

Well, for starters, I've worked for the very, very rich. They get their money's worth, I can assure you. When you or I want change, we write our congressman and hope for the best. When the people I used to cook for back in Cali wanted change, they had lunch with a congressman and told him what was up.

 

Our tax money goes to pay for roads and the city hires Granite Construction to pave it. Who owns the biggest shares of Granite Construction? The people at the top? Our tax money goes to fight a war in Iraq and Halliburton makes mad jack doing loads of laundry at $100 a batch. Who makes the money? Dick Cheney and his bros. In other words, the rich know how to get theirs and they don't need any help from us.

 

More importantly, taxing the rich is more stimulative than taxing the poor. Again, it's an idea that, while it smells like socialism, is still the most effective way to keep the ball rolling. Now, perhaps $250K is too low a line to draw, but that's not what I'm arguing. At that level,

[WaterMan]

In other words, the rich know how to get theirs and they don't need any help from us.

 

But the poor rich victims won't be able to buy the best of the best anymore. Maybe they should move to another country to escape this socialism. They have the means to.

 

They could go build a manson next to their sweat shop in Ethiopia.

Edited July 31, 2010 by WaterMan

[Ursa Majoris]

Again - I agree - everything you said makes sense and is correct. The only issue I have is why tax the only rich?

Because that is the most efficient way of stimulating the economy as Detlef has so eloquently pointed out. I just don't see any point in grabbing an extra tax grand from people who would otherwise certainly spend that grand, benefiting the overall economy. A large part of that grand will wind up back in the hands of the wealthy anyway, since they are the ones making the things that the poorer people are buying.

[detlef]

But the poor rich victims won't be able to buy the best of the best anymore. Maybe they should move to another country to escape this socialism. They have the means to.

 

They could go build a manson next to their sweat shop in Ethiopia.

Now, now, there's no need to turn this into some class warfare b!tch-fest. I'm just pointing out what would be an effective way to stimulate the economy. And, for the record, the whole point is that the wealthiest still would be able to afford the best of the best. The entire premise of increasing the % tax as you go up the ladder is because there comes a point where you simply can only spend so much on yourself.

 

If a guy strikes it rich, I would never dare to deprive him of living it up. However, it's just that I don't think having him pay a higher percentage of his $1mil a year income than I do of my, well significantly less that $1mil a year income, does that.

 

The part that smells sort of stinky about the whole thing is that it is basically mandating re-investment of money earned by the wealthiest into the markets that support their wealth. I'm sure the likes of perch would just as soon as let those at the top decide for themselves what the best way to perpetuate those markets. It does seem counter intuitive to give your money away in order to keep people employed and thus capable of buying your goods. After all, why not just keep the money for yourself to begin with?

 

Because then you'd have to lock yourself in your mansion and never leave, because the streets would become more and more dangerous as people became more and more desperate. So, on one hand, you give money away so people can keep doing what they're doing and have that same money end up back in your pockets, or the world goes to hell all around you. I mean, what good is all that money if the world around you sucks ass?

 

At any rate, my guess is that guys like Buffett would see this and do what it took. He was also on record as saying Bush's taxes regarding dividend earnings was a bit off. But I'm afraid others might not consider that.

Edited July 31, 2010 by detlef