Hilary also had a book published per year from 1996 to 1998, which made them the money to purchase those homes. I'm certain that purchasing those homes were the reason she perceived a "struggle" and I also recognize that the remarks are a bit tone deaf, but compared to their contemporaries and peers, the Clintons were in relative struggle mode after leaving the WH.
I have, you're avoiding the point, which is that lower taxes haven't contributed in any way to better economic performance.
You're comparing the US in the 80s to different eras. I'm saying compare the US of the 80s to Europe of the 80s. Which grew faster and why?
I'm comparing the US with relatively high top marginal tax rates to the US with relatively low top marginal tax rates. That is a far more apples to apples comparison than what you propose, particularly since my point is that lower tax rates in the United States are not correlated in any way with better economic performance, to say nothing of causation. Your belief requires at least correlation to hold up, thus your belief is wrong.
You are going back to eras when the economy was very different. It is more relevant to compare countries in the same decade.
This thread needs at least 2-3 more comics posted and we still haven't seen "pathetic attempt" or brah/brahs yet. (I didn't read it though it probably already happened ) Try harder.
Countries with vastly different economies, tax rates, and methods of taxation? You have a strange definition of the word "relevant."
That's what were comparing, different tax rates and which are better. So, yes, very relevant. It can't possibly be more relevant.
It couldn't possibly be less relevant. It might be if the other countries you are referencing all used an income tax as their primary method of taxation, but Europeans are more likely to have VAT and other forms of taxes either in addition to or instead of income tax. Please, feel free to do the analysis you are talking about and present the results for us. I have done so on tax rates and growth in the United States, and the results are clear and compelling: There is no correlation between income tax top rates, effective rates, capital gains/dividend rates, or corporate rates and economic growth. In fact, if there IS a relationship, my analysis shows that it is in the opposite direction (though only at lags of between three and six years). Please, present your analysis of growth and tax rates of European countries compared with that of the United States in the '80s. I will look forward to reading your results.
So you wrote a 12+ page abstract with a grand total of 3 sources of reference. That is way too few to be considered a comprehensive study that encompasses evidence and analysis; one could argue a source minimum per page is necessary. I believe 20-25 sources are necessary for a paper of that length. How can I trust your analysis if you use so few sources to back it up?
The "abstract" was less than 250 words. I didn't need more sources because it is a data analysis paper, I wasn't going over other people's research, I was doing my own, original research.
US versus other countries since 1980: Country 1980 1994 2008 USA 1.000 1.000 1.000 Australia .841 .770 .837 Canada .905 .818 .843 Britain .688 .705 .765 France .780 .730 .713 Germany .803 .812 .763 Italy .756 .754 .675 Sweden .868 .777 .794 Switz. 1.146 .987 .915 Asia HK .547 .845 .948 Japan .732 .815 .736 Singapore .577 .899 1.064 Latin America Argentina .395 .300 .309 Chile .210 .251 .311 What is important is that the neoliberal reforms in America have helped arrest our relative decline. The few countries that continued to gain on us were either more aggressive reformers (Chile and Britain), or were developing countries that adopted the world’s most capitalist model. (According to every survey I have seen HK and Singapore are the top two in economic freedom.) http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=5164 ^Really interesting post.
"Stock portfolio empty as hell, another failed foreign policy to sell. but they don't know about the stress filled days worrying about bill fathering a baby out of wedlock every day struggle." yeah, it feels a little like when drayton used to tell us he was losing money. but HRC is a politician, all of them, from all parties, are a little out of touch with reality.
I can sort of understand some of the minimum wage and low wage workers that conservatives and libertarians begrudge more money to looking askance at Hillary's statements. However many of the above posters also supported the perfect for central casting out of touch rich guy Mitt Romney. Just more petty partisanship.
I can sort of understand some of the minimum wage and low wage workers that conservatives and libertarians begrudge giving more money to looking askance at Hillary's statements. However many of the above posters also supported the perfect for central casting out of touch rich guy Mitt Romney. Just more petty partisanship.
