Krugman

Superfreak said:
1) When the cuts were signed into law, the unemployment rate was at 4.5% (which is actually below the full employment level of 5%). Now, did the tax cuts magically appear the next day in people's pockets Darla? Because that is what Dung wants you to believe.

2) Yeah, I tossed Clinton in just as a jab at those that continue to pretend that it was Bush that caused everything bad in the past four years.

3) That said, the internet/telecom/tech bubble bursting was the primary cause of the rise in unemployment. It was the primary cause for the recession. 9/11 then exacerbated the situation and prolonged the downturn. But again, do tell me... which of those tax situations allows for more money in the hands of consumers? Consumer spending drives the economy. While people like Dung and Krugman would rather take that money from the people and let the idiots in Washington spend it frivolously... the reality of the matter is that you and I will spend our money far more efficiently than either Bush or Obama or any other dolt in DC.
Click to expand...

You have to factor in two unpaid wars into this equation somewhere. I think that was frivolous spending in the worst way.
 
Rana said:
You do only remember the parts you like, I have noticed. It was called compromise. He wanted the tax cuts or the lower incomes, but the Republicans wouldn't give those unless he also cut taxes for the very rich. Remember...
Click to expand...

The points were:

1) Obviously the Bush tax cuts were not just for the rich as the left loves to pretend
2) Obviously Obama realizes that lower tax rates are a benefit to people. Which is why he wanted to keep them low for all but those evil rich people.
 
Rana said:
You have to factor in two unpaid wars into this equation somewhere. I think that was frivolous spending in the worst way.
Click to expand...

Bush was horrid fiscally (and in many other ways)... I don't think anyone is arguing that. The point is that the unemployment situation was not a result of the tax cuts as Dung wants to pretend.
 
Superfreak said:
Bush was horrid fiscally (and in many other ways)... I don't think anyone is arguing that. The point is that the unemployment situation was not a result of the tax cuts as Dung wants to pretend.
Click to expand...


. . . as you pretend that I want to pretend.

I never asserted or implied causation. Basically, Darla asked where all the jobs were following the Bush tax cuts. You replied that the Bush tax cuts were enacted at a time of peak unemployment. Then I pointed out that unemployment increased in the wake of the tax cuts and didn't get back down to pre-tax cut levels until five years later. You took this to mean that I was asserting that the tax cuts caused the unemployment, but I never said that. I was simply pointing out that there isn't much in the way of facts to support the argument that the tax cuts created jobs.

Of course, the obvious counter is that the Bush tax cuts increased jobs relative to where the number of jobs there would have been in the absence of the tax cuts, but I've had enough discussion with you over the stimulus bill to know that you think that's a bullshit argument.
 
Rana said:
You have to factor in two unpaid wars into this equation somewhere. I think that was frivolous spending in the worst way.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the Afghans war was unnecessary though, it should have been the overwhelming priority instead of being a sidebar to Iraq.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I don't believe that the Afghans war was unnecessary though, it should have been the overwhelming priority instead of being a sidebar to Iraq.
Click to expand...

bush wanted the man that tried to kill poppy more than he wanted to solve afghanistan

so we got two poorly managed wars
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
. . . as you pretend that I want to pretend.

I never asserted or implied causation. Basically, Darla asked where all the jobs were following the Bush tax cuts. You replied that the Bush tax cuts were enacted at a time of peak unemployment. Then I pointed out that unemployment increased in the wake of the tax cuts and didn't get back down to pre-tax cut levels until five years later. You took this to mean that I was asserting that the tax cuts caused the unemployment, but I never said that. I was simply pointing out that there isn't much in the way of facts to support the argument that the tax cuts created jobs.

Of course, the obvious counter is that the Bush tax cuts increased jobs relative to where the number of jobs there would have been in the absence of the tax cuts, but I've had enough discussion with you over the stimulus bill to know that you think that's a bullshit argument.
Click to expand...

to dung's credit, he has admitted tax cuts do work and do result in more jobs, not all the time, but like he said, correlation or causation is not always attributable to tax cuts or tax raises.

i have no problem lowering middle class taxes and raising taxes on those who make over 500K a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top