why? Why? WHY?
Posted on 02/03/2006 5:36:15 AM PST by new yorker 77
Unemployment Falls to 4.7%
January +193,000 Jobs
December +140,000 Jobs - A 32,000 Upward Revision
But the result after the tax increase (and it should be noted that it was very clear early in the year that clinton was going to reneg on his campaign promise of middle-class tax relief and seek a major tax increase -- businesses and investors started planning accordingly even before the tax hike became law) growth started SLOWING almost immediately. After the Bush tax cuts, the economy started growing at a faster rate. And still reeling from 9/11 and the war on terror, the economy picked up steam following the second round of Bush tax cuts. Oh, and by the way, what precipitated that brief recession during the term of GHW Bush's presidency? Oh yeah, it was that compromise with the democrats tax increase that caused him to be a one-term president.
If you are talking about the Carter years, that was mainly the result of a supply side shock brought on by the OPEC manipulation of the oil markets.
Obviously, the worst economy since the depression.
Hmmm. I never thought of it that way, I see your point.
Cheers!
Yes, the year before Clinton took office, GDP growth was 4.15%. In the trailing twelve months before the tax hike passed, growth was 2.74%. After the tax hike, growth picked up, as said before, to 4.29% in the twelve months following the tax hike. So with both the tax cut and the tax rise we've seen a spike in GDP growth followed by a contraction in growth for 12-24 months out. Longer term growth rates are almost identical, as said many times before....
2003-2001=2
If you want to continue to delude yourself into thinking that Michigan was in good shape in 2001, 2002, 2003, or any year since, feel free. There's no point in trying to get you past your delusions and into reality any more.
Nonetheless,
Employment prayers offered for you.
When did Engler leave office? Straight question.
I hope you find something soon. Whats your background?
Is that the new standard? A governor (who spent more than 10 years in office) should be judged by the last two years of his term? Why? (I'm asking you for the third time).
You read the stories, right? They said that the BLS revised FIVE months of data as part of the overall adjustment of the numbers the govt. makes every year.
-george
Clinton's tax hike didn't pass until August 1993, but we knew it was coming.
February 15, 1993 : Less than one month after Inauguration, Clinton backtracked from his campaign promise to lower taxes for the middle class. From the oval office Clinton said "I had hoped to invest in your future by creating jobs, expanding education, reforming health care and reducing the debt without asking more of you ... but I can't."
I don't suppose you think this knowledge could have reduced growth before August 1993?
We went from +4.2, +3.9, +4.0, +4.5 in 1992 to +0.5, +2.0, +2.1, +5.5 in 1993. I guess the drop from +4.5 to +0.5 happens all the time at that point in a recovery? Nothing to do with anticipated hikes? And you know why the 4Q93 growth was so high, don't you?
I thought this here "outsourcing" was supposed to kill all our jobs and ruin our economy. Guess the doom-and-gloomers are proven wrong yet again.
There was a drop in GDP in 4Q02 to 0.2%, 5 quarters into the recovery. The drop to 0.5% occurred 8 quarters in. I guess the 4Q02 drop was in anticipation of the tax cut then?
Interesting. It dropped from +2.4 to +0.2.
The drop to 0.5% occurred 8 quarters in.
Yes, it dropped from +4.5 to +0.5.
So, after the talk of a hike, growth dropped 4.0%. The Bush drop was 2.2%.
You never told me why the 4Q93 growth was so high.
I guess your entire point is that people don't change their behavior when tax rates change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.