The Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2003...where are the jobs?

[Guns Guns Guns]

​

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The American economy was not especially healthy even before the financial crisis began in late 2007.


By 2007, remarkably, the economy was already on pace for its slowest decade of growth since World War II.


The mediocre economic growth, in turn, brought mediocre job and income growth...


The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts.


George W. Bush and Congress, including Paul Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003, and predicted that prosperity would follow.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You have posted this stuff before. My guess is you don't even understand the graph, otherwise you wouldn't post it. How do you explain the drop in economic growth from 1995 to 2000?

Ready? Set! GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster.


Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s.


Then, came the younger Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.


Today, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are promising another cut in tax rates and again predicting that good times will follow.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html

I think you need to go back and re-read your graph. From 1995 to 2000 your graph shows that economic growth declined. I mean if you are trying to make a point, you should use a different picture. At least one you understand

 

[Crashk]

psssst.... 'it's a lie used to enrich domestic and international conservative political donors.' dont tell anybody!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

​

 

[canceled.2021.1]

​

Wanna know what is funny about your little graph puddin? The budget surplus was right after Clinton lowered taxes on the rich. Yeah, go look it up.

FUCKING BOOM!!!!!!!

Another one of your bullshit threads blows up in your pock marked face. You gotta stop using graphs when you don't understand what they mean.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Wanna know what is funny about your little graph puddin? The budget surplus was right after Clinton lowered taxes on the rich. Yeah, go look it up. FUCKING BOOM!!!!!!! Another one of your bullshit threads blows up in your pock marked face. You gotta stop using graphs when you don't understand what they mean.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history."

It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

 

[Crashk]

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’...

...far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush."

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’......far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush."

The right lied then, and they're lying now.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You are too stupid to realize that your charts don't back up your argument

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Are you too stupid to cite some evidence that tax cuts have created jobs?

What did you do with your original graph you dishonest fuck? I see you realized that your graph trashed your argument so you removed it. How fucking dishonest is that?

Talk about an epic beat down you just took. You have to remove a chart that you obviously didn't understand after it was pointed out that it refutes your argument. You are dismissed you shitbag loser

 

[canceled.2021.1]

If the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush are the shining beacon of policy to be used when making the case that reducing taxes leads to increased jobs numbers, tax hawks are going to have to go back to the drawing board or hope that the dishonestly of their political pitch can survive the truth come election day because the facts just don’t back up the assertion.



The GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny.



Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy may create a few jobs for the foreign bankers who get to count the extra money funneled into into the off-shore accounts of the rich, but there is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work.





http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/07/17/the-truth-about-the-bush-tax-cuts-and-job-growth/2/

Why did you remove your chart from the OP? Did you think I wouldn't notice?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The Tax Foundation, a respected conservative-leaning group, has analyzed tax issues since 1937.


They publish reports showing the average income and average tax load for all 50 states.


Their analysis includes all state and local taxes.


Aside from a few outliers, the trend is obvious:


All but one of the states that enjoy higher incomes (greater than $50,000 per person) also impose higher total taxes (above 9 percent).


At the same time, all but one of the states that keep taxes low (less than 9 percent) have lower incomes.


There is no evidence to confirm that low taxes lead to prosperity.


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...wer-taxes-create-jobs-lets-look-at-the-states

Why did you remove your original chart?

 

[Don Quixote]

The main economic argument for tax cuts is simple enough. In the short term, they put money in people’s pockets.


Longer term, people will presumably work harder if they keep more of the next dollar they earn.


They will work more hours or expand their small business.


This argument dominates the political debate.


But tax cuts have other effects that receive less attention — and that can slow economic growth.


Somebody who cares about hitting a specific income target, like $1 million, might work less hard after receiving a tax cut.


All else equal, tax cuts increase the deficit...


Romney and Ryan would do voters a service by explaining why a cut in tax rates would work better this time than last time.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html

reagan's trickle down theory was disproved during his term

ghwb had to raise taxes because of them as did clinton

however, gwb went back to the same failed policy and mittens/ryan want to do the same again

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Tax cuts don't create jobs?

Are you saying that tax increases create jobs?

BTW, why did you remove your first chart? Are you that big of a pussy that you won't tell us?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

There are no guarantees when it comes to taxes and economic development.

Without abundant natural resources or heavy tourism or the generosity of a neighbor, no state in the United States has been able to sustain high prosperity without a robust tax base.

The data speaks clearly on this point. Let's trust it.




http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...wer-taxes-create-jobs-lets-look-at-the-states

OK, we agree on thing. There is a need for a robust tax base. Now the next question to ask is what is best for a robust tax base? Do you want fewer people paying more and more or do you want more people paying less? What will lead to a broader, robust tax base? The data does indeed speak clearly on this point. We should trust it.

You see you and your ilk are not interested in raising revenues. If you were, you would not be pursuing the same tired class warfare strategy that Marxists have been pursuing for years.

BTW, why did you remove your original chart from your OP?

 

[wiseones2cents]

Are you saying that tax increases create jobs?

BTW, why did you remove your first chart? Are you that big of a pussy that you won't tell us?

Of course tax increases can create jobs. Though it is clear that tax breaks HAVE NOT created jobs in the last few decades.

Yes, I also want to know why the first graph was removed. I wanted to analyze the data.

I read an article a few weeks ago about a state suing the government for tax cuts that were supposed to create jobs and failed to do so. Now tax payers want their money back from the corps and are suing them. I think this is a splendid idea. What are your thoughts?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Of course tax increases can create jobs. Though it is clear that tax breaks HAVE NOT created jobs in the last few decades.

Yes, I also want to know why the first graph was removed. I wanted to analyze the data.

I read an article a few weeks ago about a state suing the government for tax cuts that were supposed to create jobs and failed to do so. Now tax payers want their money back from the corps and are suing them. I think this is a splendid idea. What are your thoughts?

I have said before an I will say again, I do not believe that arguments over tax policy should be made on whether or not they create jobs. It is a faulty premise in my opinion. Taxation should be looked at from two standpoints.

1) it is a moral issue of property rights first an foremost. No individual should be able to use the government to lay claim on another individuals property

2) what tax policy creates the broadest tax base and generates the most revenue for the government.

As for people suing over false claims by government. That is nothing more than a stunt. I am sure it jazzes up a particular constituency, but from a legal standpoint it is a joke.

Does that mean I can sue because Obamacare will not bring down the deficit as was claimed?

 

[wiseones2cents]

I have said before an I will say again, I do not believe that arguments over tax policy should be made on whether or not they create jobs. It is a faulty premise in my opinion. Taxation should be looked at from two standpoints.

Even if the politician claims it is why the tax cuts are being issued?

1) it is a moral issue of property rights first an foremost. No individual should be able to use the government to lay claim on another individuals property

I'm not sure what you mean by this???? Moral right to pay property tax?lol

2) what tax policy creates the broadest tax base and generates the most revenue for the government.

I would imagine its income tax.

As for people suing over false claims by government. That is nothing more than a stunt. I am sure it jazzes up a particular constituency, but from a legal standpoint it is a joke.

Does that mean I can sue because Obamacare will not bring down the deficit as was claimed?

Legal standpoint its a joke? The courts are a joke! If the people rose up and held politicians accountable for the promises they made, this would be a much better place to live! Politician makes promises and doesn't fulfill them? OUT THEY GO! Quick boot!

Hmmmmm lets see. If Obamacare proves to be a failure? 1) You cant sue the Government, because you'd be suing yourself(tax money). You can't sue the Insurance companies or health care because they are following the Law(A law they(Insurance companies) probably lobbied for). After all, the people paying the premiums(even though over priced) are getting the services they paid for. All that can be done is that it can be appealed.

Though after studying the Obama plan? The only way it will fail in bringing down the deficit is that if millions of jobs continue to go over seas. The Obama plan SHOULD in theory allow medical coverage to come down if more jobs with health benefits are created.

But receiving money for providing a service(to create more jobs) and then failing to do so, should mean the tax payer should get his/her money back for a service they paid for that wasn't received. Basically you are comparing apples to oranges.