George W. Bush: Not the Worst

[Joe Steel]

I guess I owe Bush an apology. He's not the worst president as far as economic policy is concerned; his father is.


Average GDP Growth for US Presidents Since 1960

Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2%
Clinton -- 3.6%
Reagan -- 3.4%
Carter -- 3.4%
Nixon-Ford -- 2.7%
Bush II --2.6%
Bush I --1.9%

Why Would Presidents Envy Bad Growth? (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=why_would_presidents_envy_bad)

One thing I find very interesting is the identical results posted by Reagan and Carter. Imagine that. Reagan, the god of the right, is no better than the worst Democrat.

[Classact]

One thing I find very interesting is the identical results posted by Reagan and Carter. Imagine that. Reagan, the god of the right, is no better than the worst Democrat.Reagan's influence on the economy came after he left office equally to the fall of the USSR...

[Joe Steel]

Reagan's influence on the economy came after he left office ...

Maybe that's why his successor's performance is worst of all.

[gabosaurus]

How can Bush I be worse than Carter? In terms of economic disaster, Carter is the worst of the 20th Century.

[Yurt]

How can Bush I be worse than Carter? In terms of economic disaster, Carter is the worst of the 20th Century.

holy craaaap....

[bullypulpit]

How can Bush I be worse than Carter? In terms of economic disaster, Carter is the worst of the 20th Century.

I think Hoover has Carter beat by a pretty large margin. Since Bush came to power in the 21st century, we have nothing this century to compare him to. So, we must look back to the previous century. At least Carter didn't borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign powers to finance a war of aggression, thus leaving America vulnerable to economic blackmail, which puts national security at risk.

[Joe Steel]

How can Bush I be worse than Carter? In terms of economic disaster, Carter is the worst of the 20th Century.

Did you look at the numbers I posted? By the most common measure of economic performance, GDP, Carter is as good a Reagan and better than Bush, both of them.

[gabosaurus]

Those numbers are pretty skewered. Carter brought on double-digit inflation.

[Joe Steel]

Those numbers are pretty skewered. Carter brought on double-digit inflation.

GDP is the most common and most widely-accepted measure of performance.

[Psychoblues]

Seriously, the shrub is the worst.

[red states rule]

Seriously, the shrub is the worst.

Lets see....

President Peanut Carter gave the US double digit inflation, double digit interest rates (home mortgages going for about 15%) and near double digit unemployment

The top tax rate was 70%

Gas prioces did double overnight, and all Peanut did was wear a sweater and tell Americans to do the same and turn down the thermostat

Things were so bad, the Misery Index was created to track the Carter economy

[Joe Steel]

Lets see....

President Peanut Carter gave the US double digit inflation, double digit interest rates (home mortgages going for about 15%) and near double digit unemployment

The top tax rate was 70%

Gas prioces did double overnight, and all Peanut did was wear a sweater and tell Americans to do the same and turn down the thermostat

Things were so bad, the Misery Index was created to track the Carter economy

GDP is the standard.

[red states rule]

GDP is the standard.

You should have told Pres Peanut that as the economy slid into the toilet - and Pres Reagan cleaned up his mess

Are you trying to say Pres Peanut's economy is better then the one we have now?

[jimnyc]

GDP is the standard.

Only if you're someone who can't take the full scale into perspective and can't see the overall picture. GDP also doesn't properly attribute who was responsible for the increases and decreases if they happen to have been triggered by decisions years prior.

[Joe Steel]

Only if you're someone who can't take the full scale into perspective and can't see the overall picture. GDP also doesn't properly attribute who was responsible for the increases and decreases if they happen to have been triggered by decisions years prior.

Hmmm...

Taking the full scale into perspective and seeing the overall picture...

Like demanding four outs and five downs?

GDP is the standard. Focusing on anything else is a juvenile attempt to avoid responsibility for conservative economic bungling. It's just spin.

[red states rule]

Hmmm...

Taking the full scale into perspective and seeing the overall picture...

Like demanding four outs and five downs?

GDP is the standard. Focusing on anything else is a juvenile attempt to avoid responsibility for conservative economic bungling. It's just spin.

Please tell us about conservative economic bungling

Pres Reagan came in, cleaned up the mess Carter left, and was re-elected in 1984 with a 49 state win

[jimnyc]

Hmmm...

Taking the full scale into perspective and seeing the overall picture...

Like demanding four outs and five downs?

GDP is the standard. Focusing on anything else is a juvenile attempt to avoid responsibility for conservative economic bungling. It's just spin.

GDP is the standard for gauging the current economy, but does not account wholly for how those numbers were achieved, and anyone who argues this is naive. Changes in our economy sometimes aren't realized for years after implementation, meaning a good or bad economy can be a result of decisions made years prior to the tabulation of the current GDP. YOU would just prefer to concentrate on one set of numbers you can find to your liking and leave it at that, while others who are a little more brighter prefer to look at the overall picture and how the GDP got to where it's at.

[Psychoblues]

You are certainly a wise one, jimnyc.



GDP is the standard for gauging the current economy, but does not account wholly for how those numbers were achieved, and anyone who argues this is naive. Changes in our economy sometimes aren't realized for years after implementation, meaning a good or bad economy can be a result of decisions made years prior to the tabulation of the current GDP. YOU would just prefer to concentrate on one set of numbers you can find to your liking and leave it at that, while others who are a little more brighter prefer to look at the overall picture and how the GDP got to where it's at.

But, there are some that would rather lay the blame on one who never had a card to play in that gambling environment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[red states rule]

You are certainly a wise one, jimnyc.




But, there are some that would rather lay the blame on one who never had a card to play in that gambling environment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and some try to paint a doom and gloom picture when they know full well the economy is doing fine

[Joe Steel]

Please tell us about conservative economic bungling

Pres Reagan came in, cleaned up the mess Carter left, and was re-elected in 1984 with a 49 state win

Look at the stats. Reagan and Carter have identical records.

[red states rule]

Look at the stats. Reagan and Carter have identical records.

Such a bold face lie

Look at the misery index numbers from the Carter years thru the Reagan years

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp?StartYear=1977&EndYear=1989

Pres Reagan took us out of the hell created by liberals

[Joe Steel]

GDP is the standard for gauging the current economy, but does not account wholly for how those numbers were achieved, and anyone who argues this is naive. Changes in our economy sometimes aren't realized for years after implementation, meaning a good or bad economy can be a result of decisions made years prior to the tabulation of the current GDP. YOU would just prefer to concentrate on one set of numbers you can find to your liking and leave it at that, while others who are a little more brighter prefer to look at the overall picture and how the GDP got to where it's at.

Sure, a lot of things go into the GDP number. That's why it's the standard for economic performance. It's a good way to roll-up all those things into one easy-to-compare number.

[Joe Steel]

Such a bold face lie

Look at the misery index numbers from the Carter years thru the Reagan years

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp?StartYear=1977&EndYear=1989

Pres Reagan took us out of the hell created by liberals

Average GDP Growth for US Presidents Since 1960

Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2%
Clinton -- 3.6%
Reagan -- 3.4%
Carter -- 3.4%
Nixon-Ford -- 2.7%
Bush II --2.6%
Bush I --1.9%

[red states rule]

Average GDP Growth for US Presidents Since 1960

Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2%
Clinton -- 3.6%
Reagan -- 3.4%
Carter -- 3.4%
Nixon-Ford -- 2.7%
Bush II --2.6%
Bush I --1.9%

So are you saying the Carter economy was better then the Reagan economy?

Or are you just ignoring the facts that show Carter was a total disaster?

[Joe Steel]

So are you saying the Carter economy was better then the Reagan economy?


Reagan -- 3.4%
Carter -- 3.4%

There it is.

Read it and weep.

I'll admit Carter did some bad things. He began the deregulation trend and that probably contributed to his poor performance. On the other hand he inherited the Nixon-Ford disaster and had to deal with the economic effects of Baby Boomers coming of age.

Nevertheless, "there ain't no footnotes on the scoreboard."

[red states rule]

Reagan -- 3.4%
Carter -- 3.4%

There it is.

Read it and weep.

I'll admit Carter did some bad things. He began the deregulation trend and that probably contributed to his poor performance. On the other hand he inherited the Nixon-Ford disaster and had to deal with the economic effects of Baby Boomers coming of age.

Nevertheless, "there ain't no footnotes on the scoreboard."



So Pres Peanut was so damn great, he was the first sitting President to lose reelection

Reagan won with 489 of the electoral votes while Carter took only 49.

Yea, Pres Peanut had a great economy, and the voters were to damn stupid to see it :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Sure, a lot of things go into the GDP number. That's why it's the standard for economic performance. It's a good way to roll-up all those things into one easy-to-compare number.

Yes, easy for those who aren't fully capable of taking the full economic picture into perspective.

Simply put, it's a standard for "current" economic performance, and gives no explanation or "asterisks" as to how it might have gotten to that point. Many economic initiatives take years to fully hit our economy and see significant change as a result. Many indirect policies also effect our economy, and also take time to show their strength/weakness.

Why don't you do a little research and see what reputable historians have to say about who impacted our economy the best/worst?

[bullypulpit]

and some try to paint a doom and gloom picture when they know full well the economy is doing fine

What kind of medication do they have you to control these delusions of yours? Whatever it is, it isn't working.

[red states rule]

What kind of medication do they have you to control these delusions of yours? Whatever it is, it isn't working.

I see it everyday - the mortgage business is booming with re-fi's. Folks are lowering their payments, having more disposable income, dumping their ARM's, and with lower rates more people will be able to buy their first home

Bad news for the libs who are hoping for a bad economy

[avatar4321]

repeating "Carter's economy was good" again and again wont make it so. You can pretend all you want but when you look at the inflation, job losses, etc. You know, things that actually tell you something about the economy, you realize how bad it was.

[red states rule]

repeating "Carter's economy was good" again and again wont make it so. You can pretend all you want but when you look at the inflation, job losses, etc. You know, things that actually tell you something about the economy, you realize how bad it was.

Liberals have a long history of trying to rewrite history

[manu1959]

Hmmm...

Taking the full scale into perspective and seeing the overall picture...

Like demanding four outs and five downs?

GDP is the standard. Focusing on anything else is a juvenile attempt to avoid responsibility for conservative economic bungling. It's just spin.

only taking the gdp into account is like demanding one out and one down.....

you should look at all the stats......not just one.....when evaluating the prefomance of people......

for example if i only looked at this thread of your posts one would think you are a few rocks short of a full box......but i am sure your box is full....

[avatar4321]

only taking the gdp into account is like demanding one out and one down.....

you should look at all the stats......not just one.....when evaluating the prefomance of people......

for example if i only looked at this thread of your posts one would think you are a few rocks short of a full box......but i am sure your box is full....

yeah but i hope no one reaches in to see what his box is full of...

[Psychoblues]

Conservatives have been rewriting history for years. According to some the Iran-Contra affair was international excellence exercised by Ronald Reagan.




Liberals have a long history of trying to rewrite history

I know different and so do you.

[red states rule]

Conservatives have been rewriting history for years. According to some the Iran-Contra affair was international excellence exercised by Ronald Reagan.





I know different and so do you.

and what does that have to do with the thread topic?

Oh, the libs are losing as usual, and now it is time to change the subject

[DrJohn]

I guess I owe Bush an apology. He's not the worst president as far as economic policy is concerned; his father is.



One thing I find very interesting is the identical results posted by Reagan and Carter. Imagine that. Reagan, the god of the right, is no better than the worst Democrat.


Hmmm.. who is that in second place on your chart and who are the bottom two???
The bush family record speaks for itself.

Thanks Joe for the info. It's funny how the repubs are ignoring what Cinton did. isn't it?

[Joe Steel]

So Pres Peanut was so damn great, he was the first sitting President to lose reelection

Reagan won with 489 of the electoral votes while Carter took only 49.

Yea, Pres Peanut had a great economy, and the voters were to damn stupid to see it :laugh2:

Are you on drugs?

I never said Carter "was so damn great." In fact, I said he "did some bad things."

[red states rule]

Are you on drugs?

I never said Carter "was so damn great." In fact, I said he "did some bad things."

He did a lot of bad things - that was why he lost so badly in 1980

The same things Hilary and Obama want to do

[Joe Steel]

He did a lot of bad things - that was why he lost so badly in 1980

The same things Hilary and Obama want to do

Exactly. Like Carter, Clinton and Obama have very conservative economic policy proposals.

History shows, conservative economic policy has been a disaster. Electing any of the four possible choices (Clinton, Oama, Huckabee, McCain) very likely would destroy the American economy.

[red states rule]

Exactly. Like Carter, Clinton and Obama have very conservative economic policy proposals.

History shows, conservative economic policy has been a disaster. Electing any of the four possible choices (Clinton, Oama, Huckabee, McCain) very likely would destroy the American economy.

Conserative economic principals?

They are for higher taxes, more social spending (handouts), more government regualtions, and now they want to take over the health care industry

The Bush tax cuts have proven once aagin, lower taxes increase revenue to the government

[Joe Steel]

Conserative economic principals?

They are for higher taxes, more social spending (handouts), more government regualtions, and now they want to take over the health care industry

The Bush tax cuts have proven once aagin, lower taxes increase revenue to the government

Both Clinton and Obama support free trade. Obama would tolerate privatized Social Security. Clinton's advisors and inner circle probably would cause her to tolerate some form of privatized Social Security.

Tax cuts failed for Reagan. Tax cuts failed for Bush. Tax cuts do not enhance government revenue. Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

[red states rule]

Both Clinton and Obama support free trade. Obama would tolerate privatized Social Security. Clinton's advisors and inner circle probably would cause her to tolerate some form of privatized Social Security.

Tax cuts failed for Reagan. Tax cuts failed for Bush. Tax cuts do not enhance government revenue. Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Revenues doulbled over the 8 years of Reagan. Fact

Revenues are at record levels under Pres Bush. Fact

Dems want over $2 trillion in tax increases, and about $800 billion in new spending. Fact

[Joe Steel]

Revenues doulbled over the 8 years of Reagan. Fact

Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."


Revenues are at record levels under Pres Bush. Fact

Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."


Dems want over $2 trillion in tax increases, and about $800 billion in new spending. Fact

So?

[red states rule]

Sorry to bust your bubble Joe

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

On the Bush tax cuts increaseing revenues to the government:

Meanwhile, tax revenues continue to roll into the Treasury and state coffers. Federal receipts rose by 14.6% in fiscal 2005, another 11.8% in 2006, and kept rising by 9% in this year's first two months despite slower GDP growth. The budget deficit, in turn, has fallen by $165 billion in two years, and including state surpluses is now down to about 1% of GDP, which as an economic matter is negligible. Tax revenues as a share of the economy are also back above 18.5%, which is their modern historical norm.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009489

On the increase in revenue from the capital gains tax cut:

Capital Gains Tax Cut Generated More Revenue to Federal Government

WASHINGTON — Despite claims by opponents of capital gains tax cuts, the 2003 reduction on capital gains fully paid for itself and more. A new analysis released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (pdf ) (CBO) shows capital gains increased 51.1 percent from calendar year 2002 through 2004, far surpassing the forecast by an astonishing $45 billion over three years. This should come as no surprise since history has repeatedly demonstrated a capital gains tax cut is one of the few tax cuts which produce more tax revenue following a rate cut.

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2006/jan/013006pr-asa-capgains.pdf

[Joe Steel]

Sorry to bust your bubble Joe

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

On the Bush tax cuts increaseing revenues to the government:

Meanwhile, tax revenues continue to roll into the Treasury and state coffers. Federal receipts rose by 14.6% in fiscal 2005, another 11.8% in 2006, and kept rising by 9% in this year's first two months despite slower GDP growth. The budget deficit, in turn, has fallen by $165 billion in two years, and including state surpluses is now down to about 1% of GDP, which as an economic matter is negligible. Tax revenues as a share of the economy are also back above 18.5%, which is their modern historical norm.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009489

On the increase in revenue from the capital gains tax cut:

Capital Gains Tax Cut Generated More Revenue to Federal Government

WASHINGTON — Despite claims by opponents of capital gains tax cuts, the 2003 reduction on capital gains fully paid for itself and more. A new analysis released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (pdf ) (CBO) shows capital gains increased 51.1 percent from calendar year 2002 through 2004, far surpassing the forecast by an astonishing $45 billion over three years. This should come as no surprise since history has repeatedly demonstrated a capital gains tax cut is one of the few tax cuts which produce more tax revenue following a rate cut.

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2006/jan/013006pr-asa-capgains.pdf

Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

[red states rule]

Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Nice way to duck the facts Joe.

Are you tired of losing this debate yet?

[Joe Steel]

Nice way to duck the facts Joe.

Are you tired of losing this debate yet?

That hasn't happened so I wouldn't know.

Now run-along and do some research. Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

[red states rule]

That hasn't happened so I wouldn't know.

Now run-along and do some research. Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Like with Iraq, when the facts go against you, you just ignore them, and act like you nerver saw them

[Joe Steel]

Like with Iraq, when the facts go against you, you just ignore them, and act like you nerver saw them

The fact is, you're afraid to face the facts.

Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

[red states rule]

The fact is, you're afraid to face the facts.

Look-up "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

I did - more liberal dribble

I posted how tax cuts increased revenues, and grew the economy. The same thing happened for JFK and Ronald Reagan

You continue to live in your fantasy world where it is all doom and gloom all the time

[Joe Steel]

I did - more liberal dribble

I posted how tax cuts increased revenues, and grew the economy. The same thing happened for JFK and Ronald Reagan

You continue to live in your fantasy world where it is all doom and gloom all the time

Just because revenue increased doesn't mean the tax cuts caused the increase.

Can you prove they did?

Remember, it's not enough to show the revenue increased. You have to present a series of unambiguous assertions leading to an undeniable conclusion.

[red states rule]

Just because revenue increased doesn't mean the tax cuts caused the increase.

Can you prove they did?

Remember, it's not enough to show the revenue increased. You have to present a series of unambiguous assertions leading to an undeniable conclusion.

The links are there Joe which show the tax cuts did increase the revenues

Again, revenues increased when JFK cut taxes

Revenues increased when Pres Reagan cut taxes

and revenues increased when pres Bush cut taxes

When you cut taxes you increase economic activity. More people are working, business expands, and more taxes are collected

[Joe Steel]

The links are there Joe which show the tax cuts did increase the revenues

Do they prove the tax cuts caused the increase?

How?



Again, revenues increased when JFK cut taxes

Revenues increased when Pres Reagan cut taxes

and revenues increased when pres Bush cut taxes

When you cut taxes you increase economic activity. More people are working, business expands, and more taxes are collected

Supply-side is bunk. Lower taxes do not necessarily cause more economic activity. For one, thing most tax revenue comes from individual taxpayers and most individual taxpayers are employed for salaries and wages. Their work schedules are fixed and they can't change their income by working more. Secondly, surveys show as many taxpayers would work less if marginal tax rates decreased as would work more.

[red states rule]

Do they prove the tax cuts caused the increase?

How?




Supply-side is bunk. Lower taxes do not necessarily cause more economic activity. For one, thing most tax revenue comes from individual taxpayers and most individual taxpayers are employed for salaries and wages. Their work schedules are fixed and they can't change their income by working more. Secondly, surveys show as many taxpayers would work less if marginal tax rates decreased as would work more.

Your liberal dribble is bunk. The numbers are there for all to see


That growth was underscored again with yesterday's buoyant jobs and income report for December. Job growth exceeding expectations at 167,000 and the jobless rate held at a very low 4.5%, despite a slowdown in manufacturing and construction. Since the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains passed in mid-2003, the economy has created 7.2 million new jobs according to the survey of business establishments, and an additional 1.2 million in the more variable household survey.

As for the inevitable political complaints that these new jobs are all lousy, average hourly non-supervisory wages have now climbed 4.2% over the past 12 months, or twice the official rate of inflation. With flat or falling energy prices, and a tight labor market, real wages are also starting to show impressive gains.

Meanwhile, tax revenues continue to roll into the Treasury and state coffers. Federal receipts rose by 14.6% in fiscal 2005, another 11.8% in 2006, and kept rising by 9% in this year's first two months despite slower GDP growth. The budget deficit, in turn, has fallen by $165 billion in two years, and including state surpluses is now down to about 1% of GDP, which as an economic matter is negligible. Tax revenues as a share of the economy are also back above 18.5%, which is their modern historical norm.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009489

[retiredman]

Your liberal dribble is bunk. The numbers are there for all to see


That growth was underscored again with yesterday's buoyant jobs and income report for December. Job growth exceeding expectations at 167,000 and the jobless rate held at a very low 4.5%, despite a slowdown in manufacturing and construction. Since the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains passed in mid-2003, the economy has created 7.2 million new jobs according to the survey of business establishments, and an additional 1.2 million in the more variable household survey.

As for the inevitable political complaints that these new jobs are all lousy, average hourly non-supervisory wages have now climbed 4.2% over the past 12 months, or twice the official rate of inflation. With flat or falling energy prices, and a tight labor market, real wages are also starting to show impressive gains.

Meanwhile, tax revenues continue to roll into the Treasury and state coffers. Federal receipts rose by 14.6% in fiscal 2005, another 11.8% in 2006, and kept rising by 9% in this year's first two months despite slower GDP growth. The budget deficit, in turn, has fallen by $165 billion in two years, and including state surpluses is now down to about 1% of GDP, which as an economic matter is negligible. Tax revenues as a share of the economy are also back above 18.5%, which is their modern historical norm.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009489


your link about the "current" economy is over a year old!

[red states rule]

your link about the "current" economy is over a year old!

That is the last year tax returns are available. Lame attempt at trying to dimiss the facts MM

I am showing how lower taxes have increased revenues

[retiredman]

That is the last year tax returns are available. Lame attempt at trying to dimiss the facts MM

I am showing how lower taxes have increased revenues

I would suggest that increased jobs increases government revenues as well... and that is what the bulk of your oped piece talked about.... jobs...and the news is a year old.

[red states rule]

I would suggest that increased jobs increases government revenues as well... and that is what the bulk of your oped piece talked about.... jobs...and the news is a year old.

and when do companies hire folks - when they are expanding and investing

Tax increases kill the incentive to expand since they know more of their profit will be taken in taxes

Again, you can try and dismiss the facts (it is a habit with you) but the numbers speak loud and clear

Do you have a link to 2007 tax return numbers? It would be hard since the returns have not been filed yet

[retiredman]

and when do companies hire folks - when they are expanding and investing

Tax increases kill the incentive to expand since they know more of their profit will be taken in taxes

Again, you can try and dismiss the facts (it is a habit with you) but the numbers speak loud and clear

Do you have a link to 2007 tax return numbers? It would be hard since the returns have not been filed yet

so no new jobs are created when marginal tax rates increase? Is that your position?

and I certainly do have much more current JOBS data than year old stuff!

I wonder, by the way, how business was able to create 22 million jobs during the Clinton years before the Bush tax cut?

[red states rule]

so no new jobs are created when marginal tax rates increase? Is that your position?

and I certainly do have much more current JOBS data than year old stuff!

I wonder, by the way, how business was able to create 22 million jobs during the Clinton years before the Bush tax cut?

and the Clinton economy was based on lower government thanks to a Republican Congress

Pres Bush did have to deal with the Clinton rescession and 9-11. Yet his tax cuts have worked out very well

[retiredman]

and the Clinton economy was based on lower government thanks to a Republican Congress

Pres Bush did have to deal with the Clinton rescession and 9-11. Yet his tax cuts have worked out very well

the tax rates were higher under Clinton..and jobs were created. how did that work?

[red states rule]

the tax rates were higher under Clinton..and jobs were created. how did that work?

Spending was in control an welfare reform for starters

No thanks to Bill

[retiredman]

Spending was in control an welfare reform for starters

No thanks to Bill

so has welfare reform gone away? and who has controlled spending for six of the last seven years? who has failed to veto a single spending measure of any significance during the last seven?


but again...you claim that if we go back to the tax rates of Clinton, that all business expansion and investment will cease. That does not make any sense.

[red states rule]

so has welfare reform gone away? and who has controlled spending for six of the last seven years? who has failed to veto a single spending measure of any significance during the last seven?


but again...you claim that if we go back to the tax rates of Clinton, that all business expansion and investment will cease. That does not make any sense.

At one time Republicans did hold the line on spending, and people had to go out and find work instead of relying on the government for their money

Dems want even higher taxes then they were under Clinton, and huge increases in government spending

[retiredman]

At one time Republicans did hold the line on spending, and people had to go out and find work instead of relying on the government for their money

Dems want even higher taxes then they were under Clinton, and huge increases in government spending

at no time during the last seven years, however.... which is one reason you're gonna be getting the boot in November!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

at no time during the last seven years, however.... which is one reason you're gonna be getting the boot in November!:laugh2:

I would not be so cocky MM. If the Clintons use their usual tactics, your party may be ripped apart

The only way McCain can win is if the Clintons try to steal the nomination away from Obama.

You are giddy over the fact many conservatives may stay home in Novemeber. How will you feel if 70% to 90% of blacks stay home because the Clintons fucked Obama over and stole the nomination?