• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

FilmFestGuy said:
So Reagan took credit for the fact that the unemployment rate went from 6.7% when he entered office to 10.8% by November, 2012?

Some quotes from The Gipper himself:



Source
Click to expand...

The Reagan Results speak for themselves, 17 million jobs created, double the GDP, double revenue to the federal govt. with a 25% tax cut. that led to the biggest landslide in American political history. Reagan implemented a pro growth, pro business, pro American consumer economic policy. Obama has done the exact opposite. We shall see if Obama can generate the same results in the next two years and it appears he will have to do it with a GOP Majority in the House and maybe the Senate. It does seem that the American voters are not as enthralled with Obama as some here seem to be.
 
Conservative said:
The Reagan Results speak for themselves, 17 million jobs created, double the GDP, double revenue to the federal govt. with a 25% tax cut. that led to the biggest landslide in American political history. Reagan implemented a pro growth, pro business, pro American consumer economic policy. Obama has done the exact opposite. We shall see if Obama can generate the same results in the next two years and it appears he will have to do it with a GOP Majority in the House and maybe the Senate. It does seem that the American voters are not as enthralled with Obama as some here seem to be.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is liberals refuse to recognize this because they pay attention to the negative aspects of his policies.

"Reagan's tax policies pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure. Advocates of the Laffer curve problematically contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990)[37], so that the deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending. However, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts." Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.[38] In 1982, during Reagan's second year in office, the U.S. economy fell into a recession. An accurate accounting indicates that receipts increased from $599 billion in 1981 to $1.032 trillion in 1990, an increase of 72% (hardly a doubling of receipts). In 2005 dollars, the receipts decreased from $1.25 trillion in 1981 to $1.13 trillion in 1983 and did not return to $1.25 trillion until 1985. The receipts in 1990 were $1.5 trillion in 2005 dollars, an increase of only 20%.[39]In contrast, from 1991 to 2000, receipts increased by 90% in current dollars, or 60% in 2005 dollars."

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Conservative said:
The Reagan Results speak for themselves, 17 million jobs created, double the GDP, double revenue to the federal govt. with a 25% tax cut. that led to the biggest landslide in American political history. Reagan implemented a pro growth, pro business, pro American consumer economic policy. Obama has done the exact opposite. We shall see if Obama can generate the same results in the next two years and it appears he will have to do it with a GOP Majority in the House and maybe the Senate. It does seem that the American voters are not as enthralled with Obama as some here seem to be.
Click to expand...

Reagan created 2 million jobs per year, however Carter created 2.6 million job per year and Clinton created 2.9 million jobs per year. see details at link in my sig.
 
pbrauer said:
Reagan created 2 million jobs per year, however Carter created 2.6 million job per year and Clinton created 2.9 million jobs per year. see details at link in my sig.
Click to expand...

Carter didn't inherit a 20+ misery index. "Your" President has lost 4 million jobs in two years.
 
JakeFromWI said:
A MUST READ. Don't even read the opinions. Look at the empirical facts. Look at the numbers and tell me Pelosi did all this....

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Here's a short paragraph to give you an idea what economist/professor/pulitzer prize winner David Cay Johnston concludes of the Bush tax cuts.

"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."

Obama's fault what?
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, this is all irrelevant. It's not a question of how well they worked, but whether the government has a right to the money. It is our money, we earned it. The assumption that the govt is giving us our money is ludicrous to begin with, and is key to understanding the perspective of the left. The left see money as belonging to the govt, to be given out amongst the peasants as it sees fit.
 
American said:
Quite frankly, this is all irrelevant. It's not a question of how well they worked, but whether the government has a right to the money. It is our money, we earned it. The assumption that the govt is giving us our money is ludicrous to begin with, and is key to understanding the perspective of the left. The left see money as belonging to the govt, to be given out amongst the peasants as it sees fit.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't care if this country goes to hell in a hand basket, or if the economy turns into Greece, the government doesn't have a right to my money. And don't give me that crap about cutting military spending, we need to cut welfare. I actually think military spending should be increased so we can go to Iran and North Korea and restore our combat mission in Iraq. Our tax dollars should go to setting these people free from their tyrannical regimes, not to providing housing and health care for Americans.
 
McCain2012 said:
Exactly. I don't care if this country goes to hell in a hand basket, or if the economy turns into Greece, the government doesn't have a right to my money. And don't give me that crap about cutting military spending, we need to cut welfare. I actually think military spending should be increased so we can go to Iran and North Korea and restore our combat mission in Iraq. Our tax dollars should go to setting these people free from their tyrannical regimes, not to providing housing and health care for Americans.
Click to expand...

Who sent you? CC?
 
McCain2012 said:
Exactly. I don't care if this country goes to hell in a hand basket, or if the economy turns into Greece, the government doesn't have a right to my money. And don't give me that crap about cutting military spending, we need to cut welfare. I actually think military spending should be increased so we can go to Iran and North Korea and restore our combat mission in Iraq. Our tax dollars should go to setting these people free from their tyrannical regimes, not to providing housing and health care for Americans.
Click to expand...

Take care of your own, then worry about everyone else.
 
McCain2012 said:
Exactly. I don't care if this country goes to hell in a hand basket, or if the economy turns into Greece, the government doesn't have a right to my money. And don't give me that crap about cutting military spending, we need to cut welfare. I actually think military spending should be increased so we can go to Iran and North Korea and restore our combat mission in Iraq. Our tax dollars should go to setting these people free from their tyrannical regimes, not to providing housing and health care for Americans.
Click to expand...
The heart and soul of a conservative Republican. Pretty sad. :(
 
Whovian said:
Take care of your own, then worry about everyone else.
Click to expand...

That's liberal talk. Cut housing and health insurance for poor Americans and increase defense spending so we can give foreigners democratic governments, thats what I say.
 
Conservative said:
Carter didn't inherit a 20+ misery index. "Your" President has lost 4 million jobs in two years.
Click to expand...
The misery actually started with Gerald Ford and got worse during Carter. The economy was so bad, that Ford gave us a 5% rebate on the purchase of our first home in 1975.
 
pbrauer said:
The misery actually started with Gerald Ford and got worse during Carter. The economy was so bad, that Ford gave us a 5% rebate on the purchase of our first home in 1975.
Click to expand...

"Your" President lost 4 million jobs in 2 years!!
 
Conservative said:
You really are naive if you buy McCain2012 is a Conservative. He is a liberal plant here.
Click to expand...
Well I've been in and out here all day, I think he plays the part very well.:mrgreen:
 
Conservative said:
What exactly is allowing the tax cuts on the wealthy going to do? All raising taxes on the rich is going to do is force the rich to change their behavior. Some will pay it, some will move to more friendly tax states and take their business with them just like Caterpillar did with a divison that just moved to TX from Illinois. What affect does that have on state tax revenue?

Progressives promoting raising taxes on anyone speaks volumes and that is the question, why? Is there any evidence that you can show that tax increases positively impact deficit reduction and put people back to work?
Click to expand...

The rich aren't "forced" to do anything just because their taxes go back to pre-Bush days. You make it sound like the rich will suffer. How will that be? Caterpillar moved to Texas most likely for a better labor conditions, as Texas is a right to work state, and Illinois is not. That means no union to deal with. See, there is not always a single cause and effect. Tax cuts don't always lead to a better economy.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Oddly, I'm defending Conservative. But he is right and you are wrong. Period.

Reagan's recession ended in November, 1982 (with an unemployment rate of 10.8%, by the way) - and his unemployment rate didn't recover until April, 1987. AND his recession was caused by bad monetary policy as opposed to a collapsed housing market.

So, do you suggest that Reagan is WORSE than Obama because it took him five years for jobs to recover and Obama has already come down from his peak unemployment number?

Obviously, I know that's not what you're suggesting - but a little history helps.

Source: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html
Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
Click to expand...

You aren't defending a conservative
 
UtahBill said:
The rich aren't "forced" to do anything just because their taxes go back to pre-Bush days. You make it sound like the rich will suffer. How will that be? Caterpillar moved to Texas most likely for a better labor conditions, as Texas is a right to work state, and Illinois is not. That means no union to deal with. See, there is not always a single cause and effect. Tax cuts don't always lead to a better economy.
Click to expand...

are you willing to pay the same tax rates as the rich

if you aren't in their shoes where do you get off claiming none of them will suffer? that is an ignorant comment because you have no idea what expenses they have.

Tax hikes almost never lead to anything good unless you are a parasitic politician or envious of those who are more industrious than you are
 
Conservative said:
"Your" President lost 4 million jobs in 2 years!!
Click to expand...

They were lost due to the great recession during the Bush presidency when he failed to rein in Wall Street and the large lending instutions.
 
UtahBill said:
The rich aren't "forced" to do anything just because their taxes go back to pre-Bush days. You make it sound like the rich will suffer. How will that be? Caterpillar moved to Texas most likely for a better labor conditions, as Texas is a right to work state, and Illinois is not. That means no union to deal with. See, there is not always a single cause and effect. Tax cuts don't always lead to a better economy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the point remains, it is their money first and why the passion to take it especially when none of any increase in taxes is going to pay down the deficit? Caterpillar did move to TX because of lower taxes and better labor conditions. One of these days the high tax states are going to get it, or maybe not. the people in those states deserve what they get.
 
pbrauer said:
They were lost due to the great recession during the Bush presidency when he failed to rein in Wall Street and the large lending instutions.
Click to expand...

The Republicans attempted to rein in the large lending insitutions, but Barney Frank and Chris Dodd told us that there was nothing to worry about that Fannie and Freddie were in good shape. So in your mind, it was Bush who failed, not Barney and Dodd that did. Interesting....
 
Conservative said:
You really are naive if you buy McCain2012 is a Conservative. He is a liberal plant here.
Click to expand...

I'm a liberal? You have made several statements with anti-Bush implications. One of these was when you said that a president's approval rating is a reflection of his job. Well, Bush had one of the lowest approval ratings in history and he was a great president so I take offense to that statement. Secondly, you said that 1.5 years into a recession a president must take responsibility for the economy. Well the economy wasn't good 1.5 years into Bush's term and I don't believe he should have to take responsibility for that because he inherited a recession. Thirdly, you implied that signing bailouts was fiscally irresponsible, but Bush signed one in 2008 and Bush is very intelligent when it comes to finance and what is best for the economy. Fourth, you said that increasing deficit reflects bad on a president, but Reagan increased the deficit astronomically and Bush increased it more than any other president before him, and any true conservative knows that those two implemented the best economic policies this country has seen in a century. Then you top it all off by saying Obama ended the recession in June 2009 when I try to say he should be taking all responsibilty for the way the economy is right now. I think its you who is the closet liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom