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

[Boo Radley]

No......07 saw Government Mortgage INC as in F&F come to fruition......



Well I can grow the graph if you like..........

Unemployment Rate Since Democrats Took Over Congress

.
.
.
.

You do realize the tax cuts were in place as this increase happened, right?

 

[Badmutha]

You do realize the tax cuts were in place as this increase happened, right?

I realize any uptick in unemployment 1-100 years after the tax cuts........

........would leave the libtarded claiming tax cuts dont create jobs........unemployment checks do!
.
.
..

 

[Badmutha]

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?

Because Moderates dont ever win.......my mind numb friend......

The appeal in your imagination........is what turns off every conservative in this country. Conservatives dont win by spending all their time on the Libtarded side of the aisle.
.
.
.

 

[Boo Radley]

I realize any uptick in unemployment 1-100 years after the tax cuts........

........would leave the libtarded claiming tax cuts dont create jobs........unemployment checks do!
.
.
..

Again, they are in place, and they did not keep people employed. Just try to answer the point if you can.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

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

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

There is no consistency in your position. That's why it's so easy to poke holes in it.

In cases where unemployment grew during tax cuts but fell years later, you attribute the drop in unemployment to the tax cuts. Even though unemployment grew while taxes are cut. But then in cases where unemployment grew years after a tax cut, you claim it's unrelated to the tax cut.

What you're trying (and failing) to do, is to attribute any drop in unemployment to the most recent tax cut prior to that period. While at the same time, you claim increases to unemployment following a tax cut are unrelated.

And the killer point which drives a wooden stake through your cold, dead, Conservative heart, is that in no case, do you even attempt to show a cause/effect relationship between tax cuts and unemployment. Regrettably, all you're armed to the teeth with is rightwing rhetoric. When it comes to drawing facts, you're shooting blanks.

You're trying to eat your cake and have it too, but sadly, all you ended up with is cake on your face.

 

[Conservative]

There is no consistency in your position. That's why it's so easy to poke holes in it.

In cases where unemployment grew during tax cuts but fell years later, you attribute the drop in unemployment to the tax cuts. Even though unemployment grew while taxes are cut. But then in cases where unemployment grew years after a tax cut, you claim it's unrelated to the tax cut.

What you're trying (and failing) to do, is to attribute any drop in unemployment to the most recent tax cut prior to that period. While at the same time, you claim increases to unemployment following a tax cut are unrelated.

And the killer point which drives a wooden stake through your cold, dead, Conservative heart, is that in no case, do you even attempt to show a cause/effect relationship between tax cuts and unemployment. Regrettably, all you're armed to the teeth with is rightwing rhetoric. When it comes to drawing facts, you're shooting blanks.

You're trying to eat your cake and have it too, but sadly, all you ended up with is cake on your face.

You really don't understand human behavior or how tax cuts work, do you? it always takes time for tax cuts to work because of withholding tables and the affects of those cuts on your take home pay. I keep wondering however why it is that you have such disdain for keeping more of your own money and why you believe that so called govt. help comes from sending more to them?

Liberals always want to make the argument cause and affect but never answer the question, what do you do when you get more money in your paycheck? Cause and effect? Human behavior doesn't have a place in your world and the question is do you even understand your own behavior? Do you understand the four components of GDP and what affects those components? Do you understand the biggest component and the affect in govt. revenue?

I find you to be very naive when it comes to even basic economics and personal behavior. You always claim it is right wing rhetoric that drives conservatives but the reality is that it is really nothing more than common sense.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

You really don't understand human behavior or how tax cuts work, do you? it always takes time for tax cuts to work because of withholding tables and the affects of those cuts on your take home pay.

Ok, so now you're saying the 2003 tax cuts were NOT responsible for the decrease in unemployment because unemployment began dropping just 1 month after the tax cuts went into effect and it takes more time to have an impact??

You're all over the board as this is a new position you're taking on the matter.

 

[Conservative]

Ok, so now you're saying the 2003 tax cuts were NOT responsible for the decrease in unemployment because unemployment began dropping just 1 month after the tax cuts went into effect and it takes more time to have an impact??

You're all over the board as this is a new position you're taking on the matter.

Tax cuts put more money into your hands and that drives the biggest component of GDP which creates demand for new jobs. That is exactly what happened. I don't understand the fear you have for keeping more of your own money. If it that hard for you, send more of it to the govt. to manage for you.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Tax cuts put more money into your hands and that drives the biggest component of GDP which creates demand for new jobs. That is exactly what happened. I don't understand the fear you have for keeping more of your own money. If it that hard for you, send more of it to the govt. to manage for you.

Unemployment began dropping only 1 month after the 2003 tax cuts went into effect.

You just said "it always takes time" for tax cuts to have an effect. So according to you, Bush's tax cuts in 2003 were not the catalyst for bringing down unemployment because it occurred immediately following the tax cut.

As far as your notion that I "fear" keeping more of my own money, the reason you don't understand that is because it's a figment of your imagination. I don't "fear" that. It's about responsibility. I think everyone's taxes should go up to help pay down the massive debt we've accumulated.

 

[Conservative]

Unemployment began dropping only 1 month after the 2003 tax cuts went into effect.

You just said "it always takes time" for tax cuts to have an effect. So according to you, Bush's tax cuts in 2003 were not the catalyst for bringing down unemployment because it occurred immediately following the tax cut.

As far as your notion that I "fear" keeping more of my own money, the reason you don't understand that is because it's a figment of your imagination. I don't "fear" that. It's about responsibility. I think everyone's taxes should go up to help pay down the massive debt we've accumulated.

Keep running from the question, what do you do when you have more money in your paycheck and why does that bother you? You think everyone's taxes should go up to pay down the debt? Is that what liberals are proposing? Why hasn't the Obama Administration proposed cutting spending to a level that will cause deficits to be reduced? If you think your money can be better spent by the govt. and will be used to pay down the deficit and debt then send more to the Govt. See what happens to it. The deficit has never been eliminated by higher taxes as govt. spending continues to grow.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Keep running from the question, what do you do when you have more money in your paycheck and why does that bother you?

Some I save, some I spend, and some I invest. It doesn't bother me to have more, that too is a figment of your imagination.

You think everyone's taxes should go up to pay down the debt? Is that what liberals are proposing?

Many are. Many wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Why hasn't the Obama Administration proposed cutting spending to a level that will cause deficits to be reduced?

He has proposed spending cuts, as have many other politicians on both sides of the aisle. Cutting spending is not enough to bring down the deficit, tax increases are needed also. The closest we've come to a balanced budget came after Clinton raised taxes.

The deficit has never been eliminated by higher taxes as govt. spending continues to grow.

Then explain the trend while Clinton was president, which occurred during a time of increased taxes and increased government spending...

 

[Conservative]

Some I save, some I spend, and some I invest. It doesn't bother me to have more, that too is a figment of your imagination.


Many are. Many wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire.



He has proposed spending cuts, as have many other politicians on both sides of the aisle. Cutting spending is not enough to bring down the deficit, tax increases are needed also. The closest we've come to a balanced budget came after Clinton raised taxes.


Then explain the trend while Clinton was president, which occurred during a time of increased taxes and increased government spending...

Great, now does each of your actions affect the economy?

As for many wanting the Bush tax cuts to expire, why would anyone want to give the govt. more money and how do you get the 15 million unemployed back to work with more tax dollars going to the govt? Noticed your chart always leaves out Obama. Bush is out of office, get over it. I will take the Bush deficits today vs. Obama's any time. Guess posting the Obama deficits would require you to use a legal style graph paper since the deficits exceed a trillion dollars, not the 400+ deficits of Bush? By the way you do know that the costs of 9/11 and Katrina are in those deficits, right? Doubt it

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Great, now does each of your actions affect the economy?

Whoaa, you keep asking me questions, which is ok, but you're not answering mine ...

How did Bush's 2003 tax cut bring down unemployment since according to you, "it always takes time," and unemployment began falling only 1 month after the tax cuts?

Explain how the budget deficits decreased every year under Clinton, which occurred during a period of increased taxes and increased spending, given you don't think that happens?

As for many wanting the Bush tax cuts to expire, why would anyone want to give the govt. more money and how do you get the 15 million unemployed back to work with more tax dollars going to the govt?

Increased taxes is about reducing deficit and debt. There will be far more people unemployed if our country goes bankrupt.

Noticed your chart always leaves out Obama. Bush is out of office, get over it.

Can you pay attention? I posted that graph in response to your claim that increasing taxes, along with increasing spending, doesn't eliminate the deficit. I proceeded to highlight the Clinton years which reduced the deficit every year during his two terms even though taxes were raised and spending increased. Neither Obama nor Bush have anything to do with that point I made.

But I do note you ignored that point entirely as you deflected about Obama and Bush.

I will take the Bush deficits today vs. Obama's any time. Guess posting the Obama deficits would require you to use a legal style graph paper since the deficits exceed a trillion dollars, not the 400+ deficits of Bush?

It started with Bush since the deficit before Obama even spent a dime was expected to be at least $1.2 trillion.

By the way you do know that the costs of 9/11 and Katrina are in those deficits, right? Doubt it

Far less than the cost Bush passed onto Obama with his Great Recession.

 

[Conservative]

Sheik Yerbuti;1059443900]Whoaa, you keep asking me questions, which is ok, but you're not answering mine ...

How did Bush's 2003 tax cut bring down unemployment since according to you, "it always takes time," and unemployment began falling only 1 month after the tax cuts?

If you answered the question you would have the answer to yours. There were three tax cuts under Bush, 2001-2002-2003. The first two were rebates and the third was July 2003. Now answer the question because it has a lot to do with you spending, saving, or investing your money.

Explain how the budget deficits decreased every year under Clinton, which occurred during a period of increased taxes and increased spending, given you don't think that happens?

I realize how young you are when you make statements like this one. The GOP Took Congress in 1994 and repealed most of the Clinton tax increases in 1997. I suggest you do better research and find out why the economy grew as did govt. revenue. Tax cuts create incentive and incentive drives demand and demand creates jobs.

Increased taxes is about reducing deficit and debt. There will be far more people unemployed if our country goes bankrupt.

Increased taxes have never reduced the deficit because any additional revenue if there is any is spent

Can you pay attention? I posted that graph in response to your claim that increasing taxes, along with increasing spending, doesn't eliminate the deficit. I proceeded to highlight the Clinton years which reduced the deficit every year during his two terms even though taxes were raised and spending increased. Neither Obama nor Bush have anything to do with that point I made.

I really don't know what Bush did to create this fixation you have with him, but it really is a sickness. Bush is out of office and so is Clinton. All you are doing is ignoring history and trying to re-write it in your favor. Cannot be done.

But I do note you ignored that point entirely as you deflected about Obama and Bush.

This is now, that is then, we have 15 million unemployed Americans today, you don't put them back to work by raising taxes.

It started with Bush since the deficit before Obama even spent a dime was expected to be at least $1.2 trillion.

Included in that PROJECTED Deficit was TARP which Obama supported, voted for, and was left 350 billion to spend. Had Obama applied the repayment of TARP to the deficit as well as not spend the 350 billion he was left the deficit wouldn't have come close to the 1.2 trillion PROJECTED. Your problem is you ignore the 350 billion left to Obama, the lack of crediting repayment, the 800 billion dollar stimulus, and the war supplemental to fund the Afghanistan surge which was ALL Obamas

Far less than the cost Bush passed onto Obama with his Great Recession.

That is your opinion which has been proven false. You are looking foolish here as you ignore just how much Obama added to the 2009 deficit and thus the debt. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit it right here and right now. How much did Obama add to the 2009 deficit?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

If you answered the question you would have the answer to yours. There were three tax cuts under Bush, 2001-2002-2003. The first two were rebates and the third was July 2003.

How do $300 tax rebates to individuals lower unemployment?

Now answer the question because it has a lot to do with you spending, saving, or investing your money.

It cycles money through the economy.

Explain how the budget deficits decreased every year under Clinton, which occurred during a period of increased taxes and increased spending, given you don't think that happens?

I realize how young you are when you make statements like this one. The GOP Took Congress in 1994 and repealed most of the Clinton tax increases in 1997. I suggest you do better research and find out why the economy grew as did govt. revenue. Tax cuts create incentive and incentive drives demand and demand creates jobs.

If what I said is a sign of youth, what you said is a sign of senility. If you were capable of understanding the chart above, you'd see that the deficit was reduced every year under clinton, including the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. That trend continued until 2000. So despite you throwing in a non-sequitur about a tax cut in 1997, my point remains standing -- during a tax increase and increased spending, the deficit dropped every year under Clinton.

Increased taxes have never reduced the deficit because any additional revenue if there is any is spent

And yet, they did during Clinton's terms. Your denials of reality do not alter.

Can you pay attention? I posted that graph in response to your claim that increasing taxes, along with increasing spending, doesn't eliminate the deficit. I proceeded to highlight the Clinton years which reduced the deficit every year during his two terms even though taxes were raised and spending increased. Neither Obama nor Bush have anything to do with that point I made.

I really don't know what Bush did to create this fixation you have with him, but it really is a sickness. Bush is out of office and so is Clinton. All you are doing is ignoring history and trying to re-write it in your favor. Cannot be done.

Another non-sequitur -- I said nothing about Bush. I was pointing the the deficit during Clinton's presidency to prove you wrong when you made the fallacious claim that tax increases and increased spending don't reduce the deficit.

Included in that PROJECTED Deficit was TARP which Obama supported, voted for, and was left 350 billion to spend.

Sorry, Gramps, but the deficit for FY2009, which was operating under George Bush's budget, was $1.2 trillion before Bush passed the second half of the TARP onto Obama. Obama hadn't spent a dime and the deficit was already expected to surpass a trillion dollars.

By the way you do know that the costs of 9/11 and Katrina are in those deficits, right? Doubt it

Far less than the cost Bush passed onto Obama with his Great Recession.

That is your opinion which has been proven false. You are looking foolish here as you ignore just how much Obama added to the 2009 deficit and thus the debt. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit it right here and right now.

Hey, I'm really impressed. Without actually proving me wrong, you claim you've proven me wrong. That's a neat trick, how do ya do it?

Your delusions of grandeur aside, 9.11 cost about $600 billion, Katrina cost about $100 billion ... Bush's Great Recession is well into the trillions.

How much did Obama add to the 2009 deficit?

Asked and answered. You didn't understand last time I answered that, why would I expect you can understand dow?

 

[Conservative]

Sheik Yerbuti;1059445653]How do $300 tax rebates to individuals lower unemployment?

Does it really matter, now? Bush is out of office and has been for over two years. You really need to get over it and focus on the mess "your" President is. How is Obama going to put 15 Million Americans back to work, tax increases?

It cycles money through the economy.

People keeping more of their money cycles money through the economy

If what I said is a sign of youth, what you said is a sign of senility. If you were capable of understanding the chart above, you'd see that the deficit was reduced every year under clinton, including the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. That trend continued until 2000. So despite you throwing in a non-sequitur about a tax cut in 1997, my point remains standing -- during a tax increase and increased spending, the deficit dropped every year under Clinton.

congratulations, now tell me what Obama is going to do to put 15 million Americans back to work and grow the economy above the current 1.8%. Liberalism is a failure and the leader of that faillure today is Barack Obama.

And yet, they did during Clinton's terms. Your denials of reality do not alter.

Clinton isn't in office either.

Another non-sequitur -- I said nothing about Bush. I was pointing the the deficit during Clinton's presidency to prove you wrong when you made the fallacious claim that tax increases and increased spending don't reduce the deficit.

15 million unemployed Americans today NOT paying full income taxes and 3.5 trillion added to the debt in 2 years, that is "your" President.

[

COLOR="blue"]Sorry, Gramps, but the deficit for FY2009, which was operating under George Bush's budget, was $1.2 trillion before Bush passed the second half of the TARP onto Obama. Obama hadn't spent a dime and the deficit was already expected to surpass a trillion dollars.[/COLOR]

That is your opinion but you cannot explain what affect the 350 billion TARP money, 800 billion Obama stimulus, and 100 billion Afghanistan War supplemental for the surge had on the 2009 deficit. How convenient to blame Bush for that spending. Bush didn't have a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit but that doesn't prevent you from making the statement. It was projected at 1.2 trillion including the 700 billion TARP fund. Without that it would ahve been 500 billion, not 1.2 trillion. I had hoped you were smart enough to understand the errors of your way but guess not.

[

COLOR="blue"]Hey, I'm really impressed. Without actually proving me wrong, you claim you've proven me wrong. That's a neat trick, how do ya do it?

Your delusions of grandeur aside, 9.11 cost about $600 billion, Katrina cost about $100 billion ... Bush's Great Recession is well into the trillions.[/COLOR]

GAO disagrees with you and that is the General Accounting Office of the United States. Guess they got it wrong and your sources got it right. GAO and the Treasury Dept have nothing on you, you are right and they are wrong.

Asked and answered. You didn't understand last time I answered that, why would I expect you can understand dow?

[/QUOTE]

No, you didn't answer it as you ignored what Obama spent outside the actual 2009 budget. Specifically how much of the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit did Obama contribute?

 

[winston53660]

Does it really matter, now? Bush is out of office and has been for over two years. You really need to get over it and focus on the mess "your" President is. How is Obama going to put 15 Million Americans back to work, tax increases?

Have tax cuts worked?

 

[Conservative]

Have tax cuts worked?

Yep, tax cuts always work, puts more money into the hands of the taxpayers and means less dependence on the govt. Ever wonder why liberals are so passionate against tax cuts? think about it?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Sheik Yerbuti: How did Bush's 2003 tax cut bring down unemployment since according to you, "it always takes time," and unemployment began falling only 1 month after the tax cuts?

Conservative: There were three tax cuts under Bush, 2001-2002-2003. The first two were rebates and the third was July 2003.

Sheik Yerbuti: How do $300 tax rebates to individuals lower unemployment?

Conservative: Does it really matter, now?

It only mattered if you could make your point, obviously you can't.

You claim tax cuts lowered unemployment. According to you, it couldn't have been the 2003 tax cut because you said "it takes time" to take effect. It couldn't be the 2001/2002 tax cuts because you said those were just $300 rebate checks. It's not my job to prove your claims right when you are incapable of doing so yourself.

You made the claim that Bush's tax cuts lowered unemployment ... prove it. Which of his tax cuts lowered unemployment and how?

People keeping more of their money cycles money through the economy

It also reduces the government's ability to pay for services.

congratulations, now tell me what Obama is going to do to put 15 million Americans back to work and grow the economy above the current 1.8%.

What do you care? He's already saved and created 3.5 million jobs and you won't pat him on the back for that.

Liberalism is a failure and the leader of that faillure today is Barack Obama.

Liberalism saved you from the Great Depression.

Clinton isn't in office either.

What a lame deflection -- I'm emarrassed for you. You make the ridiculous claim that deficits aren't reduced when taxes and spending are increased ... I prove that you are wrong by pointing to the Clinton years when that happened ... and the best you can muster is that?? How sad.

15 million unemployed Americans today NOT paying full income taxes and 3.5 trillion added to the debt in 2 years, that is "your" President.

You're not at all ashamed of your unabashed hypocrisy, are you? In 26 months, there are 1.7 million more people out of work than when Obama started -- after 26 months of Bush in office, there were 2.7 million additional people out of work. You thanked him by giving him 4 more years -- which he used to thoroughly wreck our economy. For some reason, even though Obama is doing better than George Bush, you think he doesn't deserve another 4 years.

Bush loses 2.7 million jobs -- 4 more years
Obama loses 1.7 million jobs amidst one of the worst economies in our history and you've got your rope out.

Go figger? :roll:

Sorry, Gramps, but the deficit for FY2009, which was operating under George Bush's budget, was $1.2 trillion before Bush passed the second half of the TARP onto Obama. Obama hadn't spent a dime and the deficit was already expected to surpass a trillion dollars.

That is your opinion but you cannot explain what affect the 350 billion TARP money, 800 billion Obama stimulus, and 100 billion Afghanistan War supplemental for the surge had on the 2009 deficit.

Nope, not my opinion, historical fact. From January 7th, 2009 -- before Bush pushed the second half of the TARP onto Obama and before Obama spent a dime...

$1.2 trillion deficit looms

Housing collapse and financial turmoil leads to steep rise in estimated U.S. shortfall for '09, Congressional Budget Office says.

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

... that is all Bush baby.

 

[winston53660]

Yep, tax cuts always work, puts more money into the hands of the taxpayers and means less dependence on the govt. Ever wonder why liberals are so passionate against tax cuts? think about it?

So why haven't tax cuts put 15 million people back to work then?

 

[whysoserious]

Yep, tax cuts always work, puts more money into the hands of the taxpayers and means less dependence on the govt. Ever wonder why liberals are so passionate against tax cuts? think about it?

Define: Blanket Statement

A statement that takes a multifaceted issue and simplifies it into one statement that is not even close to a correct assessment. Or, better put, read the quote by conservative.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Yep, tax cuts always work, puts more money into the hands of the taxpayers and means less dependence on the govt.

And yet, following Reagan's tax cuts, we had 11% unemployment and decreased revenue until Reagan raised taxes and turned the economy around.

Then we had Bush cut taxes in 2001, 2002, and 2003 ... revenue dropped all three years and unemployment rose the first two and never returned to the levels we enjoyed under Clinton's tax rates.

 

[danarhea]

It only mattered if you could make your point, obviously you can't.

You claim tax cuts lowered unemployment. According to you, it couldn't have been the 2003 tax cut because you said "it takes time" to take effect. It couldn't be the 2001/2002 tax cuts because you said those were just $300 rebate checks. It's not my job to prove your claims right when you are incapable of doing so yourself.

You made the claim that Bush's tax cuts lowered unemployment ... prove it. Which of his tax cuts lowered unemployment and how?


It also reduces the government's ability to pay for services.



What do you care? He's already saved and created 3.5 million jobs and you won't pat him on the back for that.


Liberalism saved you from the Great Depression.


What a lame deflection -- I'm emarrassed for you. You make the ridiculous claim that deficits aren't reduced when taxes and spending are increased ... I prove that you are wrong by pointing to the Clinton years when that happened ... and the best you can muster is that?? How sad.


You're not at all ashamed of your unabashed hypocrisy, are you? In 26 months, there are 1.7 million more people out of work than when Obama started -- after 26 months of Bush in office, there were 2.7 million additional people out of work. You thanked him by giving him 4 more years -- which he used to thoroughly wreck our economy. For some reason, even though Obama is doing better than George Bush, you think he doesn't deserve another 4 years.

Bush loses 2.7 million jobs -- 4 more years
Obama loses 1.7 million jobs amidst one of the worst economies in our history and you've got your rope out.

Go figger? :roll:


Nope, not my opinion, historical fact. From January 7th, 2009 -- before Bush pushed the second half of the TARP onto Obama and before Obama spent a dime...

$1.2 trillion deficit looms

Housing collapse and financial turmoil leads to steep rise in estimated U.S. shortfall for '09, Congressional Budget Office says.

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

... that is all Bush baby.

Bush baby? Did you mean this one?

Or this one?

:mrgreen:

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

 

[pbrauer]

Bush wasn't joking....