parados
 
  3  
Fri 12 Feb, 2010 09:57 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
The passage of George Bush's Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 lowered the the maximum tax rate paid by large and small businesses and entrpreneurs. The result was unemployment was reduced from 6.3% to 4.7%.

wow.. That doesn't even make sense..

Unemployment was 4.2% in January of 2001. You would have to argue that Bush RAISED unemployment to 6.3% so he could cut it to not as low as it was when he took office.
parados
 
  2  
Fri 12 Feb, 2010 09:59 pm
@parados,
Let's watch ican's head spin around..
He blames Obama for the current unemployment when Obama has been in office for 1 year.
Bush in his first year had unemployment go from 4.2% to 5.7%.

So is Bush to blame for the increase in unemployment ican?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 12:10 pm
@parados,
Good, parados, I'm glad you caught my error. I unfortunately used an alternate source without first checking it out.
Quote:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1920 TO 2009
YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE |
1920……… 5.2….|1928….…. 4.2…...|1930….…. 8.7…...|1932…… 23.6 ….|1934…... 21.7…...|
1936……… 16.9 |1938….…. 19.0....|1940….…. 14.6....|1942….…. 4.7…..|1944….…. 1.2.…..|
1946……… 3.9….|1948….…. 3.8…...|1950….…. 5.3…...|1952….…. 3.0…..|1954….…. 5.5…..|
1956……… 4.1….|1958….…. 6.8…...|1960….…. 5.5…...|1962.……. 5.5…..|1964….…. 5.2…..|
1966……… 3.8….|1968….…. 3.6…...|1970….…. 4.9…...|1972….…. 5.6…..|1974….…. 5.6…..|
1976……… 7.7….|1978….…. 6.1…...|1980….…. 7.1…...|1982….…. 9.7…..|1984….…. 7.5…..|
1986……… 7.0….|1987….…. 6.2…...|1988….…. 5.5…...|1989….…. 5.3…..|1990….…. 5.6…..|

1991……… 6.8….|1992….…. 7.5…...|1993….…. 6.9…...|1994….…. 6.1…..|1995….…. 5.6…..|
1996……… 5.4….|1997….…. 4.9…...|1998….…. 4.5…...|1999….…. 4.2…..|2000….…. 4.0…..|
2001……… 4.7….|2002….…. 5.8…...|2003….…. 6.0…...|2004….…. 5.5…..|2005….…. 5.1…..|
2006……… 4.6….|2007….…. 4.6…...|2008….…. 5.8…...|2009…….. 9.0(estimate)….|2010……... ???…..|

ican711nm
 
  -1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 12:41 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year USA Total Civil Employed
1980...............99,302,000 [CARTER 1977 TO 1980]
1981...............100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981TO-1988]
1982...............99,526,000
1983...............100,834,000
1984...............105,005,000
1985………........107,150,000
1986...............109,597,000
1987...............112,440,000
1988...............114,968,000

1989...............117,342,000 [BUSH41 1989 TO 1993]
1990...............118,793,000
1991...............117,718,000
1992…….….......118,492,000
1993...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993 TO 2000]
1994...............123,060,000
1995………….....124,900,000
1996...............126,708,000
1997………….....129,558,000
1998...............131,463,000
1999...............133,488,000
2000...............136,891,000
2001………………136,933,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]
2002...............136,485,000
2003...............137,730,006
2004...............139,252,000
2005………….....141,730,000
2006……..........144,427,000
2007...............146,047,000
2008...............145,362,000
2009...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]


1980 to 1988: US Civil Employment grew from 99,302,000 to 114,968,000.
The ratio of increase is 114,968,000 / 99,302,000 = 1.1578, or 15.78%
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 05:27 pm
It is interesting to try and figure out what may be Obama's strategy now, following the demise of both cap & trade and his health care legilation (after nearly a year dedicated to the latter) and indications in various recent special elections of a Republican resurgence (or Democrat demise if you prefer).

He has thrown out some contradictory signals. Requests for bipartisan talks on health care and sops to nuclear power advocates on one hand: threats of a recess appointment of a Union toadie to the NLRB and suggestions he just might try the reconciliation process to get his health care legislation through the senate on the other.

He does face threats on both sides - the always indignant far left of the Democrat establishment and the growing activist & rejectionist sentiment of independent voters on the other. As we all know he talks a good game, though the evidence is decidedly lacking for his real play. Does he really mean it when he says he would rather be a one term president than waffle on his principles? If so, just what are the principles he will stick with?

Bill Clinton and many other politicians have shamelessly adapted to clear expressions of the public will as evidenced in legislative elections. In a Democracy that is arguably a virtue, not a fault. Obama seems unwilling to admit to doing that, but his actions so far don't demonstrate any clear resolve either way.
parados
 
  3  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:05 pm
@ican711nm,
Your argument is still WRONG ican.

You will notice that unemployment was higher every year of Bush compared to the last 3 years of Clinton. Lowering taxes didnt' do a damn thing to help unemployment.

But you will notice the Clinton RAISED taxes and unemployment went from 6.9% down to 4%. What do you think that says about your argument ican?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:06 pm
@georgeob1,
George, one thing is clear, Obama wants to redistribute the wealth of Americans any way he can.

His stimulus bill does that.
His huge borrowing does that.
His health care bill wouuld do that.
His cap and trade bill would do that.
His extension of TARP would do that.
His promise to increase federal taxes on the wealthy would do that.
His continuation and expansion of Fannie and Freddy would do that.

Obama's slanders and libels of those who disagree with him are a sure indication that he will do whatever it takes to accomplish his objectives, including but no limited to, bribery or intimidation of members of congress to vote the way he wants them to vote.

Some allege Obama has good intentions and we should be patient while he works out how to rescue our economy and our jobless. But he is following the tactic of previous presidents that failed: havingthe federal government give away wealth to rescue those losing or in danger of losing their wealth.

It did not work when Hoover tried that tactic.
It did not work when Roosevelt tried that tactic
It did not work when Carter tried that tactic.
It did not work when Bush tried that tactic.

The tactic that did work for Roosevelt starting in 1941 was purchasing services, products, and commodities from the private sector that the government required to help win WWII and secure our liberty.

The tactic that did work for Reagan was reducing federal taxes on the wealthy as well as on those less than wealthy.
parados
 
  3  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:15 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
1980 to 1988: US Civil Employment grew from 99,302,000 to 114,968,000.
The ratio of increase is 114,968,000 / 99,302,000 = 1.1578, or 15.78%


And then we can look at Clinton

136,891/118,492= 1.1553 or a 15.53% increase in employment

AND Clinton started with a much lower unemployment rate but still almost equaled the job growth % as Reagan. In fact, it is little more than a rounding error if you want to use the yearly numbers instead of the monthly numbers
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:19 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

The tactic that did work for Roosevelt starting in 1941 was purchasing services, products, and commodities from the private sector that the government required to help win WWII and secure our liberty.

You might want to check and see what kind of deficits that required ican. When the government spends 25-40% or more of GDP without the revenues to support it, it will pump a lot of growth into an economy. It worked for Roosevelt but now you don't think Obama should do it?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:22 pm
@georgeob1,
Good evening. I hope you finally made it back to CA from DC, Georgeob.
There is no question that President Obama invested a lot of political capital into the health care issue. It went for naught. I doubt seriously that he will try to get around the Republican maneuver requiring 60 vote approval in the Senate. I suspect that he will try to work out a scaled down plan that doesn't lose too many liberal Dem votes while picking up some Repub votes.
The general public wants health care "reform" I think, however that is defined in their minds. The moderate Repubs don't want to go into the November elections branded as total obstructionists on the issue.
Cap and trade? That issue has never registered very high with the public and will, I think, get punted away.
I think Mr Obama will make a few recess appointments.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:46 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Your argument is still WRONG ican.

You will notice that unemployment was higher every year of Bush compared to the last 3 years of Clinton. Lowering taxes didnt' do a damn thing to help unemployment.

But you will notice the Clinton RAISED taxes and unemployment went from 6.9% down to 4%. What do you think that says about your argument ican?


I think it is in fact a reminder that many things influence trends in economic activity. The top marginal tax rate is very clearly one of them, but not the only, or in any given situation, necessarily the dominant one. In addition the top marginal tax rate, like many other influencing factors on economic activity, is not instant in its effect. Time is required for the changes in economic behavior stimulated by this and other factors to have their effect. Moreover the phase delay itself is a variable which in turn depends on other factors.

These frankly simple-minded attempts to correlate this or that policy with shifts in economic outcome, while making no allowances for other significant factors and the time delays involved strike me as rather stupid. It is too often merely a "gotcha" game involving no real attempt to find the truth,
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 07:43 pm
@parados,
Parados, the annual unemployment rate is equal to the annual percentage of: the average total number of people who are looking for jobs versus the annual average total number of people who have jobs plus the annual average total number of people looking for jobs. I think the annual average total number who have jobs is a much more realistic indicator of the health of the economy.

I think Clinton's annual job gains are due more to Reagan reducing the maximum income tax rate from 70% to below 40% than they are to Clinton's tax increase to 39.6%.

I think Bush's job loss in 2008 was due to huge increases in federal borrowing from the private economy in 2007 and 2008. I think Obama's job loss in 2009 was due to Bush's huge increases in borrowing from the private economy in 2007 and 2008, and to Obama's even greater huge increases in federal borrowing from the private economy in 2009.

But, suit yourself. Both the unemployment rate trend and the total job trend are quoted below.
Quote:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1920 TO 2008
YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE |
1920……… 5.2….|1928….…. 4.2…...|1930….…. 8.7…...|1932…… 23.6 ….|1934…... 21.7…...|
1936……… 16.9 |1938….…. 19.0....|1940….…. 14.6....|1942….…. 4.7…..|1944….…. 1.2.…..|
1946……… 3.9….|1948….…. 3.8…...|1950….…. 5.3…...|1952….…. 3.0…..|1954….…. 5.5…..|
1956……… 4.1….|1958….…. 6.8…...|1960….…. 5.5…...|1962.……. 5.5…..|1964….…. 5.2…..|
1966……… 3.8….|1968….…. 3.6…...|1970….…. 4.9…...|1972….…. 5.6…..|1974….…. 5.6…..|
1976……… 7.7….|1978….…. 6.1…...|1980….…. 7.1…...|1982….…. 9.7…..|1984….…. 7.5…..|
1986……… 7.0….|1987….…. 6.2…...|1988….…. 5.5…...|1989….…. 5.3…..|1990….…. 5.6…..|
1991……… 6.8….|1992….…. 7.5…...|1993….…. 6.9…...|1994….…. 6.1…..|1995….…. 5.6…..|
1996……… 5.4….|1997….…. 4.9…...|1998….…. 4.5…...|1999….…. 4.2…..|2000….…. 4.0…..|
2001……… 4.7….|2002….…. 5.8…...|2003….…. 6.0…...|2004….…. 5.5…..|2005….…. 5.1…..|
2006……… 4.6….|2007….…. 4.6…...|2008….…. 5.8…...|2009…….. 9.0 (ican's estimate)….|2010……... ???…..|

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year USA Total Civil Employed
1980...............99,302,000 [CARTER 1977 TO 1980]
1981...............100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981TO-1988]
1982...............99,526,000
1983...............100,834,000
1984...............105,005,000
1985………........107,150,000
1986...............109,597,000
1987...............112,440,000
1988...............114,968,000
1989...............117,342,000 [BUSH41 1989 TO 1993]
1990...............118,793,000
1991...............117,718,000
1992…….….......118,492,000
1993...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993 TO 2000]
1994...............123,060,000
1995………….....124,900,000
1996...............126,708,000
1997………….....129,558,000
1998...............131,463,000
1999...............133,488,000
2000...............136,891,000
2001………………136,933,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]
2002...............136,485,000
2003...............137,730,006
2004...............139,252,000
2005………….....141,730,000
2006……..........144,427,000
2007...............146,047,000
2008...............145,362,000
2009...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 13 Feb, 2010 10:21 pm
Quote:

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 budget, released this month, bears the title “A New Era of Responsibility.”

“Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt,” the president said in his State of the Union address. “Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here.”

Noble aspirations, indeed. But do the numbers inside the document support the rhetoric surrounding it?
.
.
.

YET despite its efficiency compared with other taxes, a VAT does not offer a free lunch. It would raise consumer prices, lower real wages, discourage work and depress economic growth. It would also break President Obama’s pledge not to raises taxes on the middle class.

But unless the president revises his spending plans substantially, he will have no choice but to find some major source of government revenue. Ms. Pelosi’s suggestion of a VAT may be the best of a bunch of bad alternatives. Unfortunately, in this new era of responsibility, the president is not ready to face up to the long-term fiscal challenge.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President George W. Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/economy/14view.html?hpw

Financial reality can be a bitch sometimes.....
parados
 
  3  
Sun 14 Feb, 2010 08:01 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I think it is in fact a reminder that many things influence trends in economic activity. The top marginal tax rate is very clearly one of them, but not the only, or in any given situation, necessarily the dominant one.

The top rate is clearly not dominant and there is some question as to it even being an influence at all since it ignores the effective tax rate. Ican's argument about the cut from 70% to 35% under Reagan ignores the reduction in write offs which made the effective rate about the same.

Quote:
In addition the top marginal tax rate, like many other influencing factors on economic activity, is not instant in its effect. Time is required for the changes in economic behavior stimulated by this and other factors to have their effect. Moreover the phase delay itself is a variable which in turn depends on other factors.
Right.... That's why people will change their behavior based on the NEXT year's tax. If taxes are going up, they will move income to the present year. If taxes are going down, they will put off income until the lower taxes. To argue like ican does that it takes 12 years for tax cuts to take effect while tax increases are instantaneous, unless something good happens then it is the result of the 15 year old tax cut, is ridiculous in its basis and you seem to want to support him.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Sun 14 Feb, 2010 08:05 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
I think the annual average total number who have jobs is a much more realistic indicator of the health of the economy.


That's an interesting argument ican..
Quote:
1988...............114,968,000

Quote:
2009...............139,959,000


139,959,000/114,968,000 = 1.2174
SO.. does that mean Obama's economy is 21.74% BETTER than Reagan's best economy?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Sun 14 Feb, 2010 09:48 am
@ican711nm,
What is wrong with redistributing wealth when a tiny percent of the people have a hugely disparate ownership of it? At one time, 32 % of the wealth was controlled by old man Rockefeller. Teddy Roosevelt correctly busted the monopolies.
Irishk
 
  2  
Sun 14 Feb, 2010 10:32 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
It would also break President Obama’s pledge not to raises taxes on the middle class.


He now appears to be 'agnostic' on raising taxes on the middle class. Not a word he used in his campaign promises, as I recall.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 14 Feb, 2010 10:34 am
@Advocate,
How much wealth do you think they should own?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Sun 14 Feb, 2010 08:27 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

What is wrong with redistributing wealth when a tiny percent of the people have a hugely disparate ownership of it? At one time, 32 % of the wealth was controlled by old man Rockefeller. Teddy Roosevelt correctly busted the monopolies.

So it took a Republican to fix the problem?
Advocate
 
  1  
Mon 15 Feb, 2010 10:24 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

What is wrong with redistributing wealth when a tiny percent of the people have a hugely disparate ownership of it? At one time, 32 % of the wealth was controlled by old man Rockefeller. Teddy Roosevelt correctly busted the monopolies.

So it took a Republican to fix the problem?


He was the exception who proved the rule.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1577
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 03:30:53