Posted on 02/03/2006 5:36:15 AM PST by new yorker 77
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
"We have a drop in Norway too. Unemployment stands at 3,3%."
I read your bio and most of what you say fits in very, very well with Free Republic and with the Republican Party. However, you say that you will want to vote with the Progressive type party in the U.S. Well, that would be the Democrats however all of the things that you want are the same as the things that the Democrats work AGAINST. They believe in big government providing handouts to groups which they segment out of the population. That sounds like it's 180 degrees away from what you say you believe, so keep reading Free Republic and make your choices.
The entire point is really that the tax rates don't have as much of an influence on behavior as people may want to think. That doesn't justify high taxes or out of control spending. What I see looking at historical data is that there is little statistical significance to tax rate changes and longer term growth. I know that a marginal tax rate of 32% instead of 28% is not going to get me to stop working for pay raises, so similarly a drop is not going to get me to change, either. It *may* affect the way in which I deal with my finances. For example, post 2003, I went more for capital gains and dividends. Pre-03, I had a more balanced approach. In either case, my money was available for investment. Most people are the same (even if your money is in the bank, the bank loans it out for investments).
I just don't see evidence that growth is any better than coming out of other recessions. Growth HAS become more stable over the past 30 years, though... that leads to a more stable job market. Tax cuts are good. But if you don't get an unusual spurt to make up for lost revenue, you'll end up with massive deficits unless spending is cut at the same time. The current government didn't manage to do that, and the $600 billion hole we're looking at for this year is evidence....
Before the Bush May 2003 cut, +1.7. After the cuts, +7.2, +3.6, +4.3, +3.5. I guess a sudden jump of 5.5% in one quarter happens all the time? Remember, the recession was already over.
Tax cuts are good.
Glad you can admit this. I guess you're not 100% nuts.
But if you don't get an unusual spurt to make up for lost revenue, you'll end up with massive deficits unless spending is cut at the same time.
I prefer my money and earning 10% on it. I'm willing to let the Feds borrow at less than 5%. Sounds like a winner. Keep telling us we need to give more money to the Feds, for the children. Because we know they won't just spend more. Like they did after the Bush I and Clinton tax hikes.
ah yes, the Ketchup bottle protest. hahaha. I was only around 12 or 13 at the time (20 right now), so I wasnt into politics at all, but I remember my dad telling me about that. I didnt realize that was Gephardt. ha!
The 5.5% jump took 2 quarters - 1Q was at 1.7%, 3Q was at 7.2%.
5.5% in 2 quarters is good - but it was immediately followed by a pullback to a 3.6% annual rate. How is that growth rate any better when the longer term growth rate is almost identical to that after the 1993 tax hike? Does it matter if the quarterly growth rates are 1%,8%,3% then 4% or 3%, 5%, 3%, 4.8%? One shows a 7% spike in growth. But over 4 quarters you end up with the same net growth.
You can't stand to admit it, but there is no difference in growth. Both rates post 93 hike and post 03 cut are equally good.
You may be willing to let the government borrow $600 billion a year, but fiscal conservatives should be appalled by these financial habits. (Btw, spending after the Clinton hikes was contained MUCH better than it has been post Bush II cuts)...
BTW, business executives prefer someone who is well dressed (wearing a suit and shined shoes), no piercings, or tattoos.
How many quarters of more than 3% GDP growth did Bush have before the cut? Zero for nine. How many quarters of more than 3% GDP growth did he have after the cut? Ten out of eleven. You're right. No better growth after than before.
You may be willing to let the government borrow $600 billion a year, but fiscal conservatives should be appalled by these financial habits.
I'll ask again, do you really think the government would hold spending steady after a tax hike? Have they ever? Did they after the Bush I tax hike? Did they give Reagan the $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes they promised? Or would they increase spending even faster?
(Btw, spending after the Clinton hikes was contained MUCH better than it has been post Bush II cuts)...
Yes, initially the Republican Congress limited Clinton's spending. By 2000, the Republicans in Congress were already spending like Democrats.
For the FINAL time....
If you have, over several quarters (here several years) a net annualized growth rate that is identical post tax-hike and post tax-cut, there is NO evidence that the growth post tax cut is the result of the cut itself. Post hike and post cut you see 3.8% growth. You see spikes up and down in both cases. But you see NO evidence that the cuts have caused gdp growth and increased revenues that go along with growth.
If you can't comprehend that, its time for you to go back and take Algebra I.
The problem with all the analysis on this thread is that it doesn't take Fed actions into account.
The growth rate the 4 quarters before the Bush tax cut was 1.63%. The 11 quarters following the cut, 3.8%.
I'm curious, when did Bush I increase taxes? October 1990? I don't suppose GDP slowed after that hike?
The reason I'm curious is because he made such a big deal about me being off by a year in the first place.
I know it;s Wikipedia, but.....
Jennifer Mulhern Granholm (born February 5, 1959) is the current Governor of the U.S. state of Michigan. Granholm became Michigan's first female governor on January 1, 2003, when she succeeded Governor John Engler. Granholm is a member of the Democratic Party.
That's what I thought. After being found to be incorrect, I'm being corrected by the incorrect.
There's a thing called a fiscal year. The FY02-03 budget that started the string of $1B+ deficits was passed by Engler.
And so for the fourth time, I'll ask you . . . what happened to shift the budget from an Engler surplus to an Engler deficit?
Oh, and you were off by 2 years. If you take the 2000-2001 budget as Engler's last, he certainly does look better. But that ignores two more budgets he passed.
I've found that eraser2005 has some interesting ideas. For instance, he claims that tax hikes and tax cuts impact the economy in the same way. I guess that's why during a recession, Congress debates whether they should pass a tax cut or a tax hike to stimulate the economy. LOL!
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.