Funny, I swear I saw the same cartoon a couple of months ago with Paulson and Bernake instead. And then another just last week with Bush and the big three's CEOs.
That assumes they're going in opposite directions. Really, its a relay race straight off a cliff. I predict we'll have the economy of Argentina circa 1990 by the end of Obama's first term if we keep this crap up. Its a testament to the strength of the American economy, infrastructure and workers that we won't have Zimbabwe circa 2006.
Let's see... President Bush gets Congress to throw nearly a trillion dollars at the same millionaires and institutions that caused economic collapse with no strings attached or oversight. No cartoons posted by the usual conservative members here. President-elect Obama proposes billions of dollars in targeted stimulus and infrastructure spending in an attempt to reverse said economic collapse. Lots of cartoons posted.
You mean the same economic stimulus plan that Pelosi and Reid and Obama pushed for? And if you think the Obama stimulus package will do anything or will just be billions of dollars you need to stop folling yourself.
Since when has "targeted stimulus and infrastructure spending" every solved an economic crisis? And no, the New Deal most certainly does not count as the Great Depression remained at the same strength until World War II.
Since when has "targeted stimulus and infrastructure spending" every solved an economic crisis? And no, the New Deal most certainly does not count as the Great Depression remained at the same strength until World War II.
It never has. That's why I'm against all types of stimulus packages from TARP to the Auto deal to anything nobama wants.
Actually, if you listen to some of the experts, it won't do anything in the short-term (because, compared to trillions of lost $$, $750billion is potato chips), but it will help in the long run. Y'know, infrastructure? Did that bridge in Minnesota ring a bell?
I was challenging blueduck's implication that said infrastructure spending would help the U.S. out of its current slump, not on the more obvious benefits of infrastructure.
Nethertheless, all that proposed spending will almost certainly push the deficit up from an already record high. How will that be dealt with in the long term? The government cannot treat a trillion dollars as "potato chips" forever.
Yeah, those Reagan tax cuts did nothing to spur the economy and create jobs. We need more government control of means of production so that we can have a wonderful economy like Cuba or North Korea, or Iran, ...
So, how many lower class people have their own businesses and have a payroll?
But let's take a closer look:
In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax increases, which included the following: • An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent. • Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993. • A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes. • An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits. • A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses. • Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.
And the results:
In the four years following the Clinton tax hike (from 1993 through 1996): • The economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms; • Employment rose by 11.6 million jobs; • Average real hourly wages rose a total of five cents per hour; and • Total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose 78 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. These statistics indicate a solid but not spectacular performance in the overall economy. Job growth was strong, as one would expect coming out of recession. Real wage growth remained almost nonexistent, and the stock market performed well.
However let's look at teh tax cuts on 1997.
In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 2007 bill: • Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent; • Created a new $500 child tax credit; • Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education; • Extended the air transportation excise taxes; • Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million; • Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs; • Established education IRAs; • Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and • Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.
By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a threefold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.
The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.
The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000—a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike. Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period. Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.
im not nesserly aginst repluicans. hell, im not even amarican. i have a great deal of respect for john mccain. i think a demcrat can be as bad as a repubcan, a libral as bad as a conservtive. the only item on that list you showed me i dont agree with nesserly is the rise on estate tax (it seems to me 300,000 pounds, witch is roufly how much it is in pounds, is alot of money already)
otherwise, appart from the stuff i (admitly) didnt understand (mostly the ira stuff, ill be honste) thats a well made case. i still dont think trickle down economics works, witch is regan economics. i think tax cuts for the bottem are more effective then tax cuts for the top.
but, what you presented isnt that, and, your right. the repiblcans (who, like i said, i have nothing aginst, per say) were resposble for a good budget.
im afrid bush has kinda runed the fiscal responsblty image for you tho.
Let's see... President Bush gets Congress to throw nearly a trillion dollars at the same millionaires and institutions that caused economic collapse with no strings attached or oversight. No cartoons posted by the usual conservative members here.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Not that I disagree...
Date: 2009-01-06 07:05 am (UTC)It must be some sort of coincidence...
Re: Not that I disagree...
Date: 2009-01-06 07:24 am (UTC)Re: Not that I disagree...
Date: 2009-01-06 07:27 am (UTC)Re: Not that I disagree...
Date: 2009-01-06 07:30 am (UTC)Re: Not that I disagree...
Date: 2009-01-06 09:21 am (UTC)Re: Not that I disagree...
Date: 2009-01-06 03:40 pm (UTC)saved just in time
Date: 2009-01-06 10:58 pm (UTC)Re: Not that I disagree...
Date: 2009-01-07 06:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 01:47 pm (UTC)Yes, this seems about right to me.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 04:01 pm (UTC)It hasn't? But but but, berserk government spending is supposed to be good for the economy!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 03:50 pm (UTC)It never has. That's why I'm against all types of stimulus packages from TARP to the Auto deal to anything nobama wants.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 08:23 pm (UTC)Nethertheless, all that proposed spending will almost certainly push the deficit up from an already record high. How will that be dealt with in the long term? The government cannot treat a trillion dollars as "potato chips" forever.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 11:01 pm (UTC)I'm the last one to defend those things, but they sure have made life cheap and easy here.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 05:02 pm (UTC)The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 03:26 pm (UTC)B) Trickle-down economics works always. ALWAYS. Reagan said so.
C) The Liberals are to blame for any hiccups.
D) Jesus will fix the rest.
Re: The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 03:41 pm (UTC)Re: The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 03:57 pm (UTC)Re: The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 04:03 pm (UTC)Re: The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 04:22 pm (UTC)Re: The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 04:50 pm (UTC)But let's take a closer look:
In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax
increases, which included the following:
• An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.
• Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social
Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.
• A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
• An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.
• A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.
• Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.
And the results:
In the four
years following the Clinton tax hike (from 1993 through 1996):
• The economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms;
• Employment rose by 11.6 million jobs;
• Average real hourly wages rose a total of five cents per hour; and
• Total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose 78 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.
These statistics indicate a solid but not spectacular performance in the overall economy. Job growth was strong, as one would expect coming out of
recession. Real wage growth remained almost nonexistent, and the stock market performed well.
However let's look at teh tax cuts on 1997.
In
1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 2007 bill:
• Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
• Created a new $500 child tax credit;
• Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
• Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
• Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
• Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
• Established education IRAs;
• Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
• Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.
By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a threefold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.
The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.
The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000—a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the
1993 tax hike. Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is
roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period. Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period
from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.
Re: The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 06:08 pm (UTC)fair point.
im not nesserly aginst repluicans. hell, im not even amarican. i have a great deal of respect for john mccain. i think a demcrat can be as bad as a repubcan, a libral as bad as a conservtive. the only item on that list you showed me i dont agree with nesserly is the rise on estate tax (it seems to me 300,000 pounds, witch is roufly how much it is in pounds, is alot of money already)
otherwise, appart from the stuff i (admitly) didnt understand (mostly the ira stuff, ill be honste) thats a well made case. i still dont think trickle down economics works, witch is regan economics. i think tax cuts for the bottem are more effective then tax cuts for the top.
but, what you presented isnt that, and, your right. the repiblcans (who, like i said, i have nothing aginst, per say) were resposble for a good budget.
im afrid bush has kinda runed the fiscal responsblty image for you tho.
Re: The procedural programming behind a Conservative's economic thinking.
Date: 2009-01-06 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 06:33 am (UTC)I wasn't a member of this community at that time.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 11:09 pm (UTC)If I ran up my debts like this, they'd have me going to cash-n-hock for my water bill.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 07:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 02:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 02:51 am (UTC)Obama Tax Cuts and Spending = Organic home cooked meals.
Big difference.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:02 am (UTC);-)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 02:04 pm (UTC)