Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
Studies don't make the payroll, pay for the mortgage, create shareholder value. What is more likely to be true are the actual results of businesses and their actions like moving to TX or offshoring.

But they do tell us what is actually happening. Any one individual cannot know the whole based on their limited experience. To understand the larger picture, you have to beyond personal experience.

Oh, just for your information:

In the four years between July 2007 and July 2011, Texas employment grew 2 percent while the US employment fell 4.7 percent. But most of that was due to Texas, not Perry.

His policies accounted for less than 0.1 percent of Texas’ job growth, calculates Harvard economist Edward Glaeser in a Boston Globe column Thursday. “While Perry can claim to be a faithful representative of the Texas model, he hasn’t outperformed his state’s history,” Mr. Glaeser writes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/n...ernors-don-t-create-many-jobs.-Can-presidents

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
But they do tell us what is actually happening. Any one individual cannot know the whole based on their limited experience. To understand the larger picture, you have to beyond personal experience.

Oh, just for your information:

In the four years between July 2007 and July 2011, Texas employment grew 2 percent while the US employment fell 4.7 percent. But most of that was due to Texas, not Perry.

His policies accounted for less than 0.1 percent of Texas’ job growth, calculates Harvard economist Edward Glaeser in a Boston Globe column Thursday. “While Perry can claim to be a faithful representative of the Texas model, he hasn’t outperformed his state’s history,” Mr. Glaeser writes.

Governors don't create many jobs. Can presidents? - CSMonitor.com

They tell what people think is happening and your opinion as to what is happening but the real process of making decisions is almost soley based upon economic policies, taxes, regulations, work environment. Business is in business to make money and you don't make money in a liberal economic environment of high taxes, high regulations, policies like ACA, and govt. social engineering. You really have no idea what you are talking about and posting mindless studies don't prove anything except someone else's opinion.

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
They tell what people think is happening and your opinion as to what is happening but the real process of making decisions is almost soley based upon economic policies, taxes, regulations, work environment. Business is in business to make money and you don't make money in a liberal economic environment of high taxes, high regulations, policies like ACA, and govt. social engineering. You really have no idea what you are talking about and posting mindless studies don't prove anything except someone else's opinion.

I'm telling you it's a near universal opinion based on research and logic:

All of these governmental actors in total may help set conditions, but they can't make a market economy boom on their own — especially in an era of global finance. While presidential fortunes may rise and fall with the economy, expectations that a president can create jobs or make the economy grow are generally overblown.

"That expectation, that presidents have the wherewithal to manage the economy, has led the economy to control any number of presidents, Republicans and Democrats," says Connelly, the Washington and Lee political scientist. "The economy goes down, and we blame presidents. It sets presidents up for failure."

Why Obama (And Any President) Fails To Meet Expectations : It's All Politics : NPR

You merely rant. Try supporting your rants.

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
I'm telling you it's a near universal opinion based on research and logic:

All of these governmental actors in total may help set conditions, but they can't make a market economy boom on their own — especially in an era of global finance. While presidential fortunes may rise and fall with the economy, expectations that a president can create jobs or make the economy grow are generally overblown.

"That expectation, that presidents have the wherewithal to manage the economy, has led the economy to control any number of presidents, Republicans and Democrats," says Connelly, the Washington and Lee political scientist. "The economy goes down, and we blame presidents. It sets presidents up for failure."

Why Obama (And Any President) Fails To Meet Expectations : It's All Politics : NPR

You merely rant. Try supporting your rants.

Tell me where the logic is that says any increases in expenses is a good thing for business and doesn't influence decision making process? You think money grows on trees or that a private business can print cash? I have lived and worked in the corporate world and been in the board room, you simply post someone else's opinions as fact

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
Tell me where the logic is that says any increases in expenses is a good thing for business and doesn't influence decision making process? You think money grows on trees or that a private business can print cash? I have lived and worked in the corporate world and been in the board room, you simply post someone else's opinions as fact

There are always increases in expenses. Nothing stays constant. But these things have minor effect. As long as people are buying, people will sell. It's how it works. Now I won't response to nonsensical questions, so try to focus on what I'm actually saying. :coffeepap

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
There are always increases in expenses. Nothing stays constant. But these things have minor effect. As long as people are buying, people will sell. It's how it works. Now I won't response to nonsensical questions, so try to focus on what I'm actually saying. :coffeepap

Boo, sorry, but I have had my say with you and you simply cannot admit you are wrong. Anything that increases business costs have to be addressed by the company and higher taxes, more regulations, ACA drive up costs and will force a business to look elsewhere.

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
Boo, sorry, but I have had my say with you and you simply cannot admit you are wrong. Anything that increases business costs have to be addressed by the company and higher taxes, more regulations, ACA drive up costs and will force a business to look elsewhere.

So, you won't support your comments? color me shocked.

Anyway, from the conservative magazine Forbes:

If you think a change in marginal tax rates is going to change the mind of an entrepreneur, you simply don’t understand the mind of an entrepreneur. We are driven by far more elemental desires.

Tax Cuts Don't Create Jobs - Forbes

So tax cuts have not spurred big companies to create jobs. But what about start ups? Based on my October 2010 interviews with 17 start up CEOs, my conclusion is that not a single one of them would create a job based on tax cuts. All of them told me that their decision to create a new job would be based on whether the long-term cost of that new job would be offset by higher revenues and profits.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs? - Forbes

And then there's this:

"The notion that reducing the taxes corporations pay on their profits will create new jobs in the U.S. is just not borne out by the evidence we examined," said Katherine McFate, President and CEO of the Center for Effective Government and one of the co-authors of the report.

The report, The Corporate Tax Rate Debate: Lower Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Linked to Job Creation, examined the tax rates paid and jobs created by 60 large, profitable corporations. The analysis found that the 30 companies that paid the highest tax rates added nearly 200,000 jobs over a five-year period. Those companies that paid little or no taxes (and in many cases received large refunds) shed about 51,000 jobs during that same period.

Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Tied to Job Creation, New Study Finds | Center for Effective Government

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
So, you won't support your comments? color me shocked.

Anyway, from the conservative magazine Forbes:

If you think a change in marginal tax rates is going to change the mind of an entrepreneur, you simply don’t understand the mind of an entrepreneur. We are driven by far more elemental desires.

Tax Cuts Don't Create Jobs - Forbes

So tax cuts have not spurred big companies to create jobs. But what about start ups? Based on my October 2010 interviews with 17 start up CEOs, my conclusion is that not a single one of them would create a job based on tax cuts. All of them told me that their decision to create a new job would be based on whether the long-term cost of that new job would be offset by higher revenues and profits.

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs? - Forbes

And then there's this:

"The notion that reducing the taxes corporations pay on their profits will create new jobs in the U.S. is just not borne out by the evidence we examined," said Katherine McFate, President and CEO of the Center for Effective Government and one of the co-authors of the report.

The report, The Corporate Tax Rate Debate: Lower Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Linked to Job Creation, examined the tax rates paid and jobs created by 60 large, profitable corporations. The analysis found that the 30 companies that paid the highest tax rates added nearly 200,000 jobs over a five-year period. Those companies that paid little or no taxes (and in many cases received large refunds) shed about 51,000 jobs during that same period.

Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Tied to Job Creation, New Study Finds | Center for Effective Government

As usual you miss the point and ignore reality, The Bush tax cuts went mostly to individuals giving them more money to spend and that drove corporate economic activity just like it did during the Reagan term and that is what creates the atmosphere for economic activity. Everytime there is a tax cut economic growth goes up and that creates demand for more jobs. You simply are nothing more than a big govt. liberal who doesn't seem to understand business activity. The engine that drives our economy are the small businesses not the major corporations so the study is made on the wrong entity.

My question remains, why exactly would you support sending more money to a Federal Govt. that has generated a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and is riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse vs giving it to the economic engine that drives the economy, the small businesses and the consumer?

Again, we aren't talking about large businesses, we are talking about small businesses that drive the economy however both small and large businesses are going to locate in lower tax states, why?

What is it about big govt. that generates your kind of passion and support? What benefit do you get out of businesses paying a higher tax?

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
As usual you miss the point and ignore reality, The Bush tax cuts went mostly to individuals giving them more money to spend and that drove corporate economic activity just like it did during the Reagan term and that is what creates the atmosphere for economic activity. Everytime there is a tax cut economic growth goes up and that creates demand for more jobs. You simply are nothing more than a big govt. liberal who doesn't seem to understand business activity. The engine that drives our economy are the small businesses not the major corporations so the study is made on the wrong entity.

My question remains, why exactly would you support sending more money to a Federal Govt. that has generated a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and is riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse vs giving it to the economic engine that drives the economy, the small businesses and the consumer?

Again, we aren't talking about large businesses, we are talking about small businesses that drive the economy however both small and large businesses are going to locate in lower tax states, why?

What is it about big govt. that generates your kind of passion and support? What benefit do you get out of businesses paying a higher tax?

I've missed nothing. Pick your taxes, and there is no evidence to support your claim. Here is the Bush taxes specifically:

The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003 and predicted that prosperity would follow.

The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
I've missed nothing. Pick your taxes, and there is no evidence to support your claim. Here is the Bush taxes specifically:

The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003 and predicted that prosperity would follow.

The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.

View attachment 67164766

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html

You really are something, a true liberal ideologue, Bush tax cuts were in two parts, the first was in 2001 and the second was in 2003, the first one happened before 9/11 and of course 9/11 hurt badly, then the real growth hit after July 2003 when the rest of the tax cut was implemented but of course that fact escapes you. You seem to have a serious problem with people keeping more of what they earn and a business doing the same thing. I wonder why?

Your chart is typical leftwing propaganda that ignores context. Republicans took control of the entire Congress in January 2003 and from 2003-2006 we had strong economic growth and job creation. Bush lost because of the war, not the economy and the short thinking American public ignored the successes in Iraq in 2005-2006 and turned the govt. over to the Democrats

From BEA.gov

Line * 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1 Gross domestic product 10625.3 10980.2 11512.2 12277 13095.4 13857.9 14480.3

Taking the GDP from 10.9 to 14.5 is strong economic growth

Taking employment from 137 million to 146 million is something Obama can only dream about

2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
You really are something, a true liberal ideologue, Bush tax cuts were in two parts, the first was in 2001 and the second was in 2003, the first one happened before 9/11 and of course 9/11 hurt badly, then the real growth hit after July 2003 when the rest of the tax cut was implemented but of course that fact escapes you. You seem to have a serious problem with people keeping more of what they earn and a business doing the same thing. I wonder why?

Your chart is typical leftwing propaganda that ignores context. Republicans took control of the entire Congress in January 2003 and from 2003-2006 we had strong economic growth and job creation. Bush lost because of the war, not the economy and the short thinking American public ignored the successes in Iraq in 2005-2006 and turned the govt. over to the Democrats

Taking the GDP from 10.9 to 14.5 is strong economic growth

Taking employment from 137 million to 146 million is something Obama can only dream about

Like I keep telling you, you can't interpret your own numbers. And remember, those tax cuts stayed in place with Obama. Have you ever looked at anything else?

For starters, given that all of these two-term presidents experienced better job growth without the assistance of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy provided by President George W. Bush, it certainly seems fair to note that a certain amount of job growth would have come during the years George W. was president—whether he had given us the tax cuts or not.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Like I keep telling you, you can't interpret your own numbers. And remember, those tax cuts stayed in place with Obama. Have you ever looked at anything else?

For starters, given that all of these two-term presidents experienced better job growth without the assistance of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy provided by President George W. Bush, it certainly seems fair to note that a certain amount of job growth would have come during the years George W. was president—whether he had given us the tax cuts or not.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

I posted the official govt. numbers from BEA.gov and BLS.gov, and you counter with a Forbes article. You don't even know what the Forbes Article addresses. I know what BEA and BLS address, economic growth and job creation

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
I posted the official govt. numbers from BEA.gov and BLS.gov, and you counter with a Forbes article. You don't even know what the Forbes Article addresses. I know what BEA and BLS address, economic growth and job creation

I know what they are, but you don't know what they mean. You make a connection that isn't there.

The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized.

Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

Read more: Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed | The Fiscal Times

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
I know what they are, but you don't know what they mean. You make a connection that isn't there.

The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized.

Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

Read more: Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed | The Fiscal Times

I can see how much you love Forbes Articles from your previous post, wonder how you will like Forbes when it disagrees with you. Note how tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and how that so called "tax cut for the wealthy" actually caused the wealthy to pay more in taxes. The Treasury confirms that Forbes Article but apparently you can more about the govt. getting more money and the people getting less. Now answer the question, did low income earners who paid taxes get a tax cut under Bush's tax cut?

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
I can see how much you love Forbes Articles from your previous post, wonder how you will like Forbes when it disagrees with you. Note how tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and how that so called "tax cut for the wealthy" actually caused the wealthy to pay more in taxes. The Treasury confirms that Forbes Article but apparently you can more about the govt. getting more money and the people getting less. Now answer the question, did low income earners who paid taxes get a tax cut under Bush's tax cut?

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

Once again you misread. This isn't about creating jobs, but that the wealthy actually paid more taxes.

So, if the top 0.1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 1,887 times more than the top 25-50% of earners (the income bracket that includes the average household income) and almost 14,000 times more than the bottom 50% of earners and if the top 1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 58 times more than the top 25-50% of earners and 414 times more than the bottom 50% of earners, where is the evidence that the wealthy were preferentially favored by the Bush tax policy changes?

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

I highlighted the key part for you/

And I have linked them 3 times I think, with on point articles, showing they agree with me. As does Business insider.

Thus, there is little evidence to support that the Bush tax cuts had a significant effect on growth. In addition, contrary to the argument that the tax cuts would pay for themselves being made at the time the tax cuts were enacted, the deficit ballooned as a result of the tax cuts.

Did the Bush Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth? - CBS News

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Once again you misread. This isn't about creating jobs, but that the wealthy actually paid more taxes.

So, if the top 0.1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 1,887 times more than the top 25-50% of earners (the income bracket that includes the average household income) and almost 14,000 times more than the bottom 50% of earners and if the top 1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 58 times more than the top 25-50% of earners and 414 times more than the bottom 50% of earners, where is the evidence that the wealthy were preferentially favored by the Bush tax policy changes?

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

I highlighted the key part for you/

And I have linked them 3 times I think, with on point articles, showing they agree with me. As does Business insider.

Thus, there is little evidence to support that the Bush tax cuts had a significant effect on growth. In addition, contrary to the argument that the tax cuts would pay for themselves being made at the time the tax cuts were enacted, the deficit ballooned as a result of the tax cuts.

Did the Bush Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth? - CBS News

You are the one that said it was a tax cut for the wealthy and I just showed how the wealthy paid more in taxes and that tax revenue from income taxes went up. Apparently you don't understand that economic growth is what creates the atmosphere to create more jobs and more workers pay more in taxes but just like a liberal anything that allows the people to keep more of what they earn has to be stopped. Big govt good, people dependent good in the liberal world.

I know this is hard for you to understand but the more you pay in taxes the more you are going to get in a tax cut but of course you seem to expect people who don't pay much in taxes deserve to make more from a tax cut, that would be welfare not a tax cut.

sangha · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
I can see how much you love Forbes Articles from your previous post, wonder how you will like Forbes when it disagrees with you. Note how tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and how that so called "tax cut for the wealthy" actually caused the wealthy to pay more in taxes. The Treasury confirms that Forbes Article but apparently you can more about the govt. getting more money and the people getting less. Now answer the question, did low income earners who paid taxes get a tax cut under Bush's tax cut?

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased - Forbes

So now you think increasing tax revenues is A Good Thing!!

You must love tax increases that result in increased tax revenues

Oh wait!!

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

sangha said:
So now you think increasing tax revenues is A Good Thing!!

You must love tax increases that result in increased tax revenues

Oh wait!!

Yep, increasing tax revenue without raising taxes is always a good thing because it means more people are working and we have a vibrant economy. Thanks for your support.

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
You are the one that said it was a tax cut for the wealthy and I just showed how the wealthy paid more in taxes and that tax revenue from income taxes went up. Apparently you don't understand that economic growth is what creates the atmosphere to create more jobs and more workers pay more in taxes but just like a liberal anything that allows the people to keep more of what they earn has to be stopped. Big govt good, people dependent good in the liberal world.

I know this is hard for you to understand but the more you pay in taxes the more you are going to get in a tax cut but of course you seem to expect people who don't pay much in taxes deserve to make more from a tax cut, that would be welfare not a tax cut.

Focus on the actual point being made. I said pick your tax cut, it made little difference to the economy. And I keep supporting that with different sources. Conservative sources. business sources.

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

Screen Shot 2012-09-16 at 11.15.58 AM-thumb-340x466-98936.jpg

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

sangha · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
Yep, increasing tax revenue without raising taxes is always a good thing because it means more people are working and we have a vibrant economy. Thanks for your support.

Then you must have loved Clinton and his tax increases which led to increased govt revenues, more people working, and a vibrant economy. A trifecta!!

Thanks for your support

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Focus on the actual point being made. I said pick your tax cut, it made little difference to the economy. And I keep supporting that with different sources. Conservative sources. business sources.

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

Wrong, in a consumer driven economy people having more spendable income always creates the atmosphere for creating jobs. You are so hell bent on giving the govt. more money how much more than required are you giving? You don't seem to understand human behavior at all. There have only been three modern Presidents that have cut tax rates, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and all three saw significant job creation and economic growth.

Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and I can see how a big govt. liberal like you doesn't like that. You don't understand economic atmosphere at all either.

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

sangha said:
Then you must have loved Clinton and his tax increases which led to increased govt revenues, more people working, and a vibrant economy. A trifecta!!

Thanks for your support

I loved the Clinton tax increase, it gave us a Republican Congress who reduced most of them. You don't understand it or even your own economy. Does it always make you happy to have higher taxes and less spendable income? What do you do when you get more money in your paycheck if you even work?

Boo Radley · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
Wrong, in a consumer driven economy people having more spendable income always creates the atmosphere for creating jobs. You are so hell bent on giving the govt. more money how much more than required are you giving? You don't seem to understand human behavior at all. There have only been three modern Presidents that have cut tax rates, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and all three saw significant job creation and economic growth.

Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and I can see how a big govt. liberal like you doesn't like that. You don't understand economic atmosphere at all either.

The evidence just doesn't support you, which is why you offer so little of it I suspect.

The hard, empirical facts:

The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.

Economist's View: "So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?"

There is no evidence that the tax cut had any such effect. The unemployment rate remained above 5.7 percent all year, rising to 5.9 percent in November and 6 percent in December. The real GDP growth rate fell each quarter of 2002, and by the fourth quarter growth was at a standstill. Hence the need for yet another big tax cut.

The Bush Tax-Cut Failure | Blog, Perspectives | BillMoyers.com

sangha · Apr 12, 2014

Conservative said:
I loved the Clinton tax increase, it gave us a Republican Congress who reduced most of them. You don't understand it or even your own economy. Does it always make you happy to have higher taxes and less spendable income? What do you do when you get more money in your paycheck if you even work?

The republicans didn't reduce taxes lower than they had been before Clinton. Taxes were increased, and revenues, jobs and the economy increased

Conservative · Apr 12, 2014

Boo Radley said:
The evidence just doesn't support you, which is why you offer so little of it I suspect.

The hard, empirical facts:

The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.

Economist's View: "So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?"

There is no evidence that the tax cut had any such effect. The unemployment rate remained above 5.7 percent all year, rising to 5.9 percent in November and 6 percent in December. The real GDP growth rate fell each quarter of 2002, and by the fourth quarter growth was at a standstill. Hence the need for yet another big tax cut.

The Bush Tax-Cut Failure | Blog, Perspectives | BillMoyers.com

The only evidence that matters to the people is having more spendable income and more jobs. No study is going to change reality. Your problem is you are a big govt. liberal who doesn't even understand how having more take home pay affects you. Only three times in modern history have the tax rates been cut, JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush so any study outside the terms of those Presidents is irrelevant as are all your studies.