- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Kandahar;1059136292]American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The fact that you seem wholly oblivious to the policies that Obama has actually enacted (as opposed to political rhetoric) is not my fault.
If you had a list of taxes he cut, then why did you ask me whose taxes were cut?
I would assume that the Bush tax cuts affected the economy more, since they were larger. They also lasted for a much longer period of time than was necessary to stimulate the economy during a recession, and unnecessarily added to the deficit during good economic times.
The actual recession started before that. That's just when the financial institutions (the entity government is concerned with) started feeling it. Our production capabilities have slowly been dwindling for quite some time now. The reason we're at the state we are now is because of corporatism and government protections of the corporate elite.
Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Of course there are more unemployed people now than there were when the recession started. Or to rephrase that, of course there are more unemployed people following a period of layoffs and slow growth than there were following a period of job creation and fast growth.
Which did absolutely nothing to stimulate and grow the economy thus creating jobs. I pointed out the facts regarding both the Obama and the Bush tax cuts and people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts, at least those still working. Can you say the same thing about the Obama tax cuts?
Then since I am oblivious to the policies that Obama has actually enacted, please enlighten me and tell me what he has done to improve things. Results matter not rhetoric. Obama campaigned for the job, said he could fix it and hasn't so I anxiously await your list of Obama policies and accomplishments since the results don't show positive results.
To show you how foolish your argument is.
Right, and you if you are working are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts and want to know how you keeping more of what you earn is a cost to the Federal Govt? Can you explain to me how tax revenue went up after the Bush, Reagan, JFK tax cuts and still are going down after the Obama tax cuts?
Exactly. I would think, however, that the "real" unemployment number has been showing a lot more signs of progress than the official number, since we have had net job creation for many months now.
There is no point having a discussion with someone who only see's what they want. Tax revenue increases with population growth, inflation, and economic growth. Tax revenue has increased since Obama stepped into office, must have been a result of his policy:roll:
Which did absolutely nothing to stimulate and grow the economy thus creating jobs. I pointed out the facts regarding both the Obama and the Bush tax cuts and people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts, at least those still working. Can you say the same thing about the Obama tax cuts?
Conservative said:Then since I am oblivious to the policies that Obama has actually enacted, please enlighten me and tell me what he has done to improve things. Results matter not rhetoric. Obama campaigned for the job, said he could fix it and hasn't so I anxiously await your list of Obama policies and accomplishments since the results don't show positive results.
Conservative said:To show you how foolish your argument is.
Conservative said:Right, and you if you are working are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts and want to know how you keeping more of what you earn is a cost to the Federal Govt? Can you explain to me how tax revenue went up after the Bush, Reagan, JFK tax cuts and still are going down after the Obama tax cuts?
Kandahar;1059136336]I really don't understand what you're so pissed off about, if you acknowledge that people are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. I mean, you believe that low taxes encourage growth, right? Well, taxes are the same or lower under Obama as they were under Bush, so if it were that simple than the economy should be great.
Sorry, I'm more interested in discussing which economic policies work best, than the various facets of why Obama is a big sucky meanie liar-face.
You showed me how foolish my argument was by asking me for a list of whose taxes Obama cut as though that was an absurd idea...and then providing exactly such a list? Yeah, you sure showed me. :lol:
Bush tax cuts - Decreased tax revenue enormously, because Bush started from a relatively low base tax rate.
Reagan tax cuts - Also decreased tax revenue significantly, albeit not as much as Bush because Reagan was starting from a much higher base tax rate than Bush.
JFK tax cuts - Increased tax revenue slightly, because JFK was starting from a much higher base tax rate than either Bush or Reagan.
Obama tax cuts - Decreased tax revenue for the same reason as the Bush tax cuts, albeit not as much because the cuts themselves were smaller.
In any case, I'm more interested in getting the economy back on track than I am on balancing the budget. The US is not in any immediate danger of a debt crisis. There will be plenty of time to worry about the deficit once the economy recovers. In the mean time, the best policy is to encourage economic growth through high government spending and low taxes (i.e. a deficit).
The administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs.
After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year - up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.
The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.
Peter R. Orszag, Mr. Obama's budget director, also said more people have been hired to oversee outside contracts.
"Over the past eight or nine years, those contracts have doubled in size. The acquisition work force has stayed constant. It's not too hard to figure out that oversight of those contracts has not kept pace with what it should be," Mr. Orszag said.
Since 2008, the private work force hemorrhaged more than 8 million jobs, but Washington added more than 200,000 positions, taking the federal head count (excluding the military and Post Office workers) to more than 2 million.
Federal pay has likewise been shielded from the recession. The average federal employee makes $123,000, including benefits worth $41,800 -- more than twice what average private-sector workers earn.
Read more: First, roll back Bam's spending hikes - NYPOST.com
Right... and during the Great Depression unemployment hit about 25% before it started to go down -- 37% if you want to talk about non-farm payroll. And I think the average for the whole decade is still over 18%.750k x 24= 18 million; 18 million + 8.5 million = 26.5 million; 26.5 million/ 154 million = 17.2% The last time we had the unemployment rate over 11% was prior to 1939.
Ah, but wait, Mr. Whovian...
With an increasing unemployment rate, you say stimulus spending has incented private sector job growth?Stimulus spending, low taxes, fiscal assistance to the states, and (not really an Obama policy as much as a Fed policy) easy access to capital. Additionally, he has not seriously pursued any policies that would hinder the labor market like card check, as many feared he would.
Lower tax rates always encourage growth but business always is forward thinking not live for today like liberals. Forward looking there are uncertainties and rightly so.
Conservative said:Right, you made a big deal about the Obama tax cuts as being a big part of the stimulus when the reality is it was a tax cut with strings attached along with a rebate check that once spent was gone. I then gave you the Bush tax cuts and rightly told you that you are still benefiting from that tax cut thus because of having more spendable income need less of that so called govt. help.
Conservative said:Really? Have you told that to the checkbook of the U.S. the U.S. Treasury site?
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
Year Total Rev Income tax
2000 3,132 2202.8
2001 3,118 2163.7
2002 2,987 2002.1
2003 3,043 2047.9
2004 3,265 2213.2
2005 3,659 2546.8
2006 3,996 2807.4
2007 4,197 2951.2
2008 4,072 2790.3
Conservative said:So not sure where you get your information but I prefer Treasury data which show your claims to be bogus if not downright lies.
Conservative said:Obama tax revenue is down because we have 4 million more unemployed paying less in taxes. He has done nothing to create an atmosphere to create jobs.
Conservative said:It may take the 2012 elections to do that. Nothing Obama is doing is going to put the economy on track. If he does what Clinton did then maybe things will get better. We have and continue to try the high govt. spending but our economy isn't built on govt. spending,it is built on the private sector growth. Provide the private sector incentives to grow jobs and they will.
But lookie here:Ah, but wait, Mr. Whovian. You left off important pieces of info from the portions of the article you quoted (your post #39). Allow me to correct you and then put some things into perspective:
So, again, I say to all those who have this "Obama = BIG GOVERNMENT", I think you need to think again because clearly the government had it's largest increase under none other than....
....former President GEORGE W. BUSH!!! ............
More federal workers' pay tops $150,000
The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
More federal workers' pay tops $150,000 - USATODAY.com
How many times does he need to repeat his point on uncertainty?Again, if you acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and that taxes are the same or lower under Obama, I'm really not clear on what you're so pissed off about if you think that low taxes are all that's necessary to have a booming economy.
No, for the most part, the tax cuts were implemented in 2003.Yep, that looks like a pretty substantial decrease to me. The tax cuts were implemented in 2001. It took three years to get back to the SAME revenue as we had in 2001.
With an increasing unemployment rate, you say stimulus spending has incented private sector job growth?
Whovian said:Can you please link to something showing the fiscal assistance given to various states, and there corresponding job growth?
Whovian said:Because he did not pursue something like 'card check', that equates to a policy that incented private sector job growth in your mind?
Kandahar;1059136414]I'm in favor of resolving the debate on the extension of the Bush tax cuts too, but it really defies logic to think that the uncertainty over a POSSIBLE modest increase in taxes is responsible for such a huge differential in unemployment.
If that isn't what you're talking about, you're going to need to be more specific what "uncertainties" you're talking about.
Again, if you acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and that taxes are the same or lower under Obama, I'm really not clear on what you're so pissed off about if you think that low taxes are all that's necessary to have a booming economy.
Yep, that looks like a pretty substantial decrease to me. The tax cuts were implemented in 2001. It took three years to get back to the SAME revenue as we had in 2001. It took four years to get back to the same revenue and repay the revenue lost in the years between, assuming that the tax revenue would not have increased at ALL without the Bush tax cuts. Assuming a fairly realistic 3% increase without the tax cuts, it took EIGHT years. If you assume much more than 3%, it still hasn't happened and probably won't anytime soon.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't hold Bush entirely responsible for that. Some of it was caused by the 2001 recession, to which the tax cuts were partially a RESPONSE. Yet you're going to hold Obama responsible for not generating revenue in the 21 months since the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. Makes perfect sense. :roll:
Only if you assume that the tax revenue would not have increased at all on its own without the Bush tax cuts over the span of eight years, which is quite a dubious assumption.
Your brilliant and not at all simplistic economic theory:
Low taxes = Good.
Taxes under Bush: Low. Therefore, good.
Taxes under Obama: Equally low, or even lower. Therefore, bad. He must be destroying jobs.
What's the difference? Obama is a Democrat. :roll:
I really don't know what you're talking about, and you have quite an odd view of history if you think that Clinton reduced government spending.
Recession was over in 2009, didn't you get the memo?I wasn't aware that we were not still in a recession. The high unemployment would suggest that we are. Also, no one actually expected things to change overnight, not even the most staunch supporters of Obama. Hope and change are pretty good. If anything, we want more hope and more change. The main criticism by Obama's supporters is that he's not doing enough, not that the things he's doing are wrong.
So yes, hope and change are infinitely preferable to repression and fear.
Recession was over in 2009, didn't you get the memo?
Let's be realistic, things that would create jobs are fostering invention and creativity, reducing the desire for businesses to move overseas (yep, probably cutting some taxes), and focus on changing the short term viewpoints of corporate leaders. Instead of just trying to jack up the stock price this quarter, a focus on steady growth over the long term would actually create more jobs. This would require a massive re-thinking of the market system and would probably call for a lot more regulation in what businesses are allowed to do. Corporate American has proven that it causes mischief when we aren't watching.
NBER says we are out of the recession and economic growth indicates that we are out of the recession but it is a jobless recovery and that jobless recovery is due to Obama economic policies that do not promote private sector growth.
Thanks for confirming that rhetoric trumps results in your world. Take that rhetoric to the grocery store with you to buy for the family? How has that message affected world and economic results? Why is it in your world that actual results are ignored and you continue to buy the rhetoric?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?