Why did Unemployment DECREASE........AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts?

[Badmutha]

I don't disagree that tax cuts are a good thing.

And yet you vote for a party that exists to invent different ways to tax and take from We The People......

I don't disagree that raising taxes right now is a bad idea. However, if taxes were the only thing affecting employment numbers, then a raise in unemployment would have followed a major tax hike. There was no corresponding tax hike, so logically, you'd have to think there's something else at play.

I never said Tax rates were the only factor in job creation, but clearly they play a major role. To completely eviscerate your theory with one question, I would ask.......Would Unemployment rise if tax rates were raised to 60%?

To take it a step further, Would Unemployment fall if tax rates were lowered to 10%?

Your honest answers depict the complete fraud and utter lie that is Liberalism.

I do disagree that the Republican party has all the answers. I do find it interesting that the graph for Bush conveniently ends when the numbers started going south for him, while the graph for Johnson ends with the end of his Presidency. I do find it interesting that apparently the Democrats can screw everything up in 2 weeks (still with a Republican President) while a Republican Congress can't fix everything in 4 months. I know there's a Democrat standing in their way, but there was a Republican in the Democrats way in '07.

Do you agree, that all the Democrat blowhards that run around claiming Tax Cuts dont create jobs, that Unemployment Checks create jobs, are the brain dead boxes of hair that they are?



.....a collection of morons--The Democrat Party.

As far as Fannie and Freddie go, you can't lay that all on the lap of the Democrats. Plenty of Republicans supported them over the years, including high profile ones like both Bushes and Jack Kemp.

Every attempt to reign in Government Mortgage Inc over the years has been opposed by the Democrat Party............


.
.
.
.

 

[rocket88]

And yet you vote for a party that exists to invent different ways to tax and take from We The People......

Actually, I voted for a Republican for Congress in the last election. FAIL. If there had been a candidate from the Independence Party on the ballot, I might have voted for him or her.

Your honest answers depict the complete fraud and utter lie that is Liberalism.

You really should press charges on the GOP for stealing your brain.

Do you agree, that all the Democrat blowhards that run around claiming Tax Cuts dont create jobs, that Unemployment Checks create jobs, are the brain dead boxes of hair that they are?

They are brain dead boxes of hair, not unlike the Republican blowhards that run around claiming that tax cuts will solve all of our problems. I think "brain dead box of hair" is the definition of a politician

]

/QUOTE].....a collection of morons--The United States Congress. [/QUOTE]

Fixed that for you

Every attempt to reign in Government Mortgage Inc over the years has been opposed by the Democrat Party............

There was a Republican Senator from Utah who was described as "The Senator from Freddie Mac." I'm going back to see if I can find his name again, I forget what it was. Historically some of their biggest supporters were Republicans. Jack Kemp, George Bush, Reagan...I'd say Fannie and Freddie enjoyed wide bi-partisan support over the years.

 

[haymarket]

from rocket88

You really should press charges on the GOP for stealing your brain.

That is a really good line. Maybe that is why Republicans all over the nation are trying to cut back on government employees since less prosecutors will mean less charges against them in the long run?

 

[Badmutha]

Actually, I voted for a Republican for Congress in the last election. FAIL. If there had been a candidate from the Independence Party on the ballot, I might have voted for him or her.

The Independence Party lol............

..........so you voted for a Republican......and yet your run around defending liberalism and attacking conservatism.

You really should press charges on the GOP for stealing your brain.

.....from someone who defends the Failure that is Liberalism and the Democrat Party.......where no brains are required.

They are brain dead boxes of hair, not unlike the Republican blowhards that run around claiming that tax cuts will solve all of our problems. I think "brain dead box of hair" is the definition of a politician

Tax cuts create jobs.........not unemployment checks........

.....a collection of morons--The United States Congress.

......God Help Us Never Vote Democrat Again........

There was a Republican Senator from Utah who was described as "The Senator from Freddie Mac." I'm going back to see if I can find his name again, I forget what it was. Historically some of their biggest supporters were Republicans. Jack Kemp, George Bush, Reagan...I'd say Fannie and Freddie enjoyed wide bi-partisan support over the years.

You take willfull ignorance to a whole new level........
.
.
.

 

[rocket88]

You take willfull ignorance to a whole new level........
.
.
.

So no Republican ever supported Fannie Mae. Have fun changing facts to fit your reallity.

 

[rocket88]

and yet your run around defending liberalism and attacking conservatism.

And actually what I attacked was your graph, which conveniently ended when things started looking bad for Bush. What was your source, the Republican party? Because I expect brainwashed idiocy from one of the two major parties. Anybody with half a brain knows that unemployment started to rise before Bush left office. I know someone's going to drag out the "blaming Bush" thing, but it is a historical fact that he was still President when the economy started going south. Something that graph wants to ignore.

Willful ignorance is when you decide that you'd rather live in your fantasy world than confront facts. Your graph ignores the fact that unemployment did indeed go up under Bush, and you want to ignore the fact that Republicans did support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the past. There's willful ignorance for you.

 

[rocket88]

Here you go, Bob Bennett was a Republican Senator from Utah until January. BIG supporter of Fannie and Freddie (and opposed reform of them):

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sen. Bob Bennett

 

[MaggieD]

Unemployment Rate After the Bush Tax Cuts

........a question that has been baffling liberal mind numb minds since the Reagan Tax Cuts.

Unemployment Rate After the Reagan Tax Cuts

......and since the JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts.

Unemployment Rate After the JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts

.....tax rates were cut....We the People were permitted to keep a little more in our allowance and profits......yielding a booming economy, a MASSIVE INCREASE in Government Revenues, and a MASSIVE DECREASE in Unemployment.....a win win win.
Defying each and every liberal economic theory/lie that suggests Government creates jobs......that tax increases yield economic growth......that stealing from evil rich employers somehow benefits job growth.

Liberalism is a complete fraud and utter lie.........

In Memory Of......​

The Willfully Ignorant Democrat Voter​

.
.
.
.

Crap!!!!! I was doing the 2,000-post count-up with glee!!! And then you hadta' go an' start a new thread!!! Brat!!

 

[Badmutha]

And actually what I attacked was your graph, which conveniently ended when things started looking bad for Bush. What was your source, the Republican party? Because I expect brainwashed idiocy from one of the two major parties. Anybody with half a brain knows that unemployment started to rise before Bush left office. I know someone's going to drag out the "blaming Bush" thing, but it is a historical fact that he was still President when the economy started going south. Something that graph wants to ignore.

Willful ignorance is when you decide that you'd rather live in your fantasy world than confront facts. Your graph ignores the fact that unemployment did indeed go up under Bush, and you want to ignore the fact that Republicans did support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the past. There's willful ignorance for you.

And you want to ignore the fact that three of the largest tax cuts in US History.........did yield a massive drop in unemployment.

......but yes.....unemployment did go up 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, so lets focus on that and that alone, and ignore the glaring realities that have been presented.
.
.
.
.

 

[Badmutha]

Here you go, Bob Bennett was a Republican Senator from Utah until January. BIG supporter of Fannie and Freddie (and opposed reform of them):

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sen. Bob Bennett

A Rino that was just tossed out on his ass..............

The Fix - Utah Sen. Bob Bennett loses convention fight
..

.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Bush had a Recrod 53 months continual job growth...........

Seriously, Badmutha, do you ever tell the truth?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 281 317 287 182 11 80 202 185 156 -8 205 180
2007 203 88 218 79 141 67 -49 -26 69 91 127 84
2008 13 -83 -72 -185 -233 -178 -231 -267 -434 -509 -802 -619
2009 -820

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These are the numbers posted on the Bureau of Labir Statistics' website. You show me where the country enjoyed 53 consecutive months of employment growth during Bush's presidency ...

 

[Badmutha]

Seriously, Badmutha, do you ever tell the truth?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 281 317 287 182 11 80 202 185 156 -8 205 180
2007 203 88 218 79 141 67 -49 -26 69 91 127 84
2008 13 -83 -72 -185 -233 -178 -231 -267 -434 -509 -802 -619
2009 -820

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These are the numbers posted on the Bureau of Labir Statistics' website. You show me where the country enjoyed 53 consecutive months of employment growth during Bush's presidency ...

September 2003 to December 2007.........

From your link.........

.....the one data set you provided represents net monthly change........a novice mistake but expected.

Here is the employment level during the same period........

......better known as The Record 53 Months continual Job Growth that took place after The Bush Tax Cuts.
.
.
.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

And you want to ignore the fact that three of the largest tax cuts in US History.........did yield a massive drop in unemployment.

WTF???

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 ... unemployment increased from August 1981, when the tax cuts went into effect, till the end of the year from 8,036,000 to 9,267,000.

Reagan cut taxes again in 1982 ... unemployment increased from 9,267,000 to 12,051,000. How's that possible given your fallacious claim that tax cuts cut unemployment?

Bush cut taxes in 2001 ... unemployment increased from June 2001 when the tax cuts went into effect till the end of the year from 6,484,000 to 8,258,000.

Bush cut taxes again in 2002 ... unemployment increased from 8,258,000 to 8,640,000.

Bush cut taxes again in 2003 and unemployment did begin dropping, but never to the pre-2001 tax levels.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look, I understand you're a rightwing sycophant ... I get that. But do you ever stop lying?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

September 2003 to December 2007.........

From your link.........

.....the one data set you provided represents net monthly change........a novice mistake but expected.

Here is the employment level during the same period........

......better known as The Record 53 Months continual Job Growth that took place after The Bush Tax Cuts.

Fair enough, I did assume you meant 53 consecutive months of growth and you didn't, you meant merely that employment grew over that time. However, that being the case, it is hardly a record ... by that measure, employment grew continually for all 96 months while Clinton was president:

 

[Awesome!]

So how is that nation building going in Iraq oh and Afghanistan too?

I think its going good but due to our parasite fed we have to write iou's to pay for it. Stop the entitlements, secure our borders and nation build. Money well spent...

If we cut entitlements we could pay for all of these things that matter and give tax cuts to everyone which would create jobs...

 

[CensoredBacon]

Let me find my graph on carters tax cuts....

Oh wait, Carter didn't have any tax cuts.

Regardless, the bush tax cuts IMHO never worked and should be allowed to expire, and the fact that they didn't is a true showing that Obama is willing to compromise and get things done for the good of the American people.

 

[StillBallin75]

Well hell's bells why did unemployment go to hell after Bush's tax cuts of 2008? :roll:

 

[Badmutha]

WTF???

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 ... unemployment increased from August 1981, when the tax cuts went into effect, till the end of the year from 8,036,000 to 9,267,000.

Reagan cut taxes again in 1982 ... unemployment increased from 9,267,000 to 12,051,000. How's that possible given your fallacious claim that tax cuts cut unemployment?

Bush cut taxes in 2001 ... unemployment increased from June 2001 when the tax cuts went into effect till the end of the year from 6,484,000 to 8,258,000.

Bush cut taxes again in 2002 ... unemployment increased from 8,258,000 to 8,640,000.

Bush cut taxes again in 2003 and unemployment did begin dropping, but never to the pre-2001 tax levels.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Look, I understand you're a rightwing sycophant ... I get that. But do you ever stop lying?

Its fricking hilarious.........

........watching you deny the existance of the forest.......because you only look at one tree......and only one tree..........


]Unemployment Rate After the Bush Tax Cuts

Unemployment Rate After the Reagan Tax Cuts

Unemployment Rate After the JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts

.
.
.
.

 

[washunut]

Well hell's bells why did unemployment go to hell after Bush's tax cuts of 2008? :roll:

What major tax cut occured in 2008?

 

[StillBallin75]

What major tax cut occured in 2008?

I didn't say anything about "major," but you can count Bush's tax rebate checks which were part of his stimulus.

Regardless, that wasn't my real point. My real point is, can we start educating people on the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? Not to mention the issue of varying time-scales?

 

[washunut]

I didn't say anything about "major," but you can count Bush's tax rebate checks which were part of his stimulus.

Regardless, that wasn't my real point. My real point is, can we start educating people on the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? Not to mention the issue of varying time-scales?

So essentially you made it up. That's fine. No clue what your chat is supposed to show or why you censored out years past 2004. Your comments on this thread seem to be getting a bit weak in my view.

If you have something substantive to say great, but making stuff up or charts cut to try and fit an answer are not really worthy of a response.

 

[StillBallin75]

So essentially you made it up. That's fine. No clue what your chat is supposed to show or why you censored out years past 2004. Your comments on this thread seem to be getting a bit weak in my view.

If you have something substantive to say great, but making stuff up or charts cut to try and fit an answer are not really worthy of a response.

I didn't leave anything out. I didn't make up the chart; it's my fault if they leave out 2005 and after.

Back to my real point which you failed to address:

My real point is, can we start educating people on the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? Not to mention the issue of varying time-scales?

Badmutha's charts show decreasing unemployment for a few MONTHS after the fact. If you look at the bigger picture and change the time-scale, you'll likely reach a different conclusion.

 

[washunut]

I didn't leave anything out. I didn't make up the chart; it's my fault if they leave out 2005 and after.

Back to my real point which you failed to address:



Badmutha's charts show decreasing unemployment for a few MONTHS after the fact. If you look at the bigger picture and change the time-scale, you'll likely reach a different conclusion.

Yes it is your fault the chart you choose to use.

On to your second point, we live an a huge complex economy. Many things impact employment. For a site like this people, these simplictic attempts to show a cause and effect are fine. But do I take this seriously,no. So it is fun to parry back and forth, but if anyone understands the economy, the root causes of why it collaped, understands the many facets of unemployment and why large segments of the unemployed are for lack of a better phrase screwed for a long time. No stimulus, tax increase or decrease will get construction workers back to work until the overhand of housing gets burnt off. Look at the segments of unemployment not just the headline 8.8% and then say how government policy is working to fix it.

 

[StillBallin75]

Yes it is your fault the chart you choose to use.

On to your second point, we live an a huge complex economy. Many things impact employment. For a site like this people, these simplictic attempts to show a cause and effect are fine. But do I take this seriously,no. So it is fun to parry back and forth, but if anyone understands the economy, the root causes of why it collaped, understands the many facets of unemployment and why large segments of the unemployed are for lack of a better phrase screwed for a long time. No stimulus, tax increase or decrease will get construction workers back to work until the overhand of housing gets burnt off. Look at the segments of unemployment not just the headline 8.8% and then say how government policy is working to fix it.

And I totally agree.

 

[rocket88]

A Rino that was just tossed out on his ass..............

.

That's alright, keep tossing out the "Rinos." Then when your party is all right wing kooks like Bachmann and Palin, good luck winning anything.

Where in the world did Republicans get the idea that they needed to get rid of the moderates that appealed to independent voters?