It's not statistical gymnastics, it's basic arithmetic - you seem to be arguing that 8 years is not statistically significiant - the research indicates otherwise. Bartels paper from 2004 (which has since only been validated by the data of 2004-2008):
You should move to New York state. The state is currently trying to strip Indian tribes of their tax exempt status. Welcome to the **** hole of America where Injuns' name on a contract is worthless! :grin: You want to buy a six-pack of Sam Adams in Texas: $8. New York: $10 plus $.05 per bottle deposit. That's right, you have to pay through out your trash. Marlboro Lights in Texas: $6. New York: $10. Brisket/lb in Texas: $2.50. New York: $6. This place is the tax hole wellfare slum of America. Rural areas are defined by gambling and the state's number one industry is being bailed out by the tax payer. The state is running one giant ponzi scheme to keep its nose above water, and most residents I talk to don't care much for tax cuts and vote Democrat. WHY!>!!>!??
I'm not familiar with Bartel's paper -- so I'll defer to you. I wasn't arguing that Clinton's 8 yrs were statistically insignificant. I was observing that the trends did not change (and in fact worsened) under his reign. It seems to me it's the same gang influencing economic, taxation and banking policy under Obama, as it was under Bush and Clinton. So...we'll see.
That's not really what the data says. Your using your "top 10%" chart and making a high level correlation/judgment, when you drill down you get a different set of results.
These items are taxes for the less wealthy, it has nothing to do with Bush tax cuts. Since I was a smoker and drink, I agree that those items you listed are over taxed. But, somehow I'm inclined to think Republicans would do the same or worse, especially with "Sin" items.
more... The "Sin" taxes are back door taxes, that's why I'm inclined to think Republicans are more for them. When you lower property taxes and the government is in debt, there is these are the things you can tax without the public getting into a moral or constitutional argument. Things like lottery, cigarette, alcohol... etc. No one's every ran on a successful platform on lowering Sin taxes.
President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office. His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office. Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office. Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ Trickle down does not and has not worked. Tax cuts do not create more tax revenues nor do tax cuts for the rich create more jobs. All it does is continue to concentrate more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands while the other 95% watches inflation outpace wages and wonder why with all of our fantastic innovation and efficiency are we working more hours than ever with less purchasing power. The only economist who still buys the supply side crap is Laffer. Even Reagan's and Bush's former economic advisors like Volcker, Rubin, Stockman, Greenspan and Samwick have all stepped up and admitted it doesn't work and the cuts shold be rolled back as intended. On January 3, 2007, George W. Bush wrote an article claiming "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues." Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004 responded to the claim: "You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one." http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html RAZ: Now, Republicans - David Stockman in the Senate, led by, obviously, the Minority leader, Mitch McConnell - they say they're simply following, you know, the Reagan philosophy of supply-side economics, a policy that you pushed. Do you think they're being disingenuous? Mr. STOCKMAN: Utterly disingenuous. I find it unconscionable that the Republican leadership, faced with a 1.5 trillion deficit, could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2 percent of the population who, after all, have benefited enormously from this phony boom we've had over the last 10 years as a result of the casino on Wall Street. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425 WASHINGTON, March 12 — A bipartisan group opposed to budget deficits enlisted the support of two big names in economics, Robert E. Rubin and Paul A. Volcker, to attack President Bush's $1.6 trillion 10-year tax cut plan today, saying that it is too large and risky for the nation's economy. "This tax cut can only be described as fiscally unsound," Mr. Rubin said at a news conference sponsored by the group, the Concord Coalition. "This is an issue of enormous seriousness, and people need to understand that what we do this year is going to affect us for years and years to come." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/13/politics/13BUDG.html Wow that link was from 2001 spot on guys too bad it fell on deaf ears. NEW YORK (Reuters) – Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan said on Wednesday all Bush-era tax cuts should be allowed to expire at the end of the year in order to rein in the budget deficit and stop it from crowding out private investment. Reversing a long-standing aversion to tax increases, Greenspan warned of "very grave problems ahead" if the budget deficit, swollen to around $1 trillion by massive amounts of stimulus spending, is not tackled soon. "I am in favor for the first time in my memory of raising taxes," Greenspan told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100915/ts_nm/us_greenspan You can of course find plenty of quotes from Galbraith, Krugman, Mankiw, and just about every other economist who decry the cuts as an abomination. All the cuts did was exacerbate the biggest problem in our economy which is the wealth disparity. You got a decade of zero growth in the stock market, worst job creation EVER, skyrocketing debt/GDP, and yet all you will hear from the GOP and teabaggers is how tax cuts are the answer to everything.
Do you think the people who reply to that will know who Volcker, Rubin, David Stockman, Greenspan, Andrew Samwick, Galbraith, Krugman, Mankiw, etc... are? Your fatal mistake was not mentioning Rand, buddy. Rand groupies don't count.
some more empirical evidence Clinton raised taxes. unemployment at the beginning of his admins was about high 5/low 6% range, at the end it decreased to the 5.5%. Reagan first cut taxes and then raised taxes twice; unemployment decreased during his tenure.
Presidents don't have a direct and immediate influence in economies and they definitely can't control business cycles.
I think Regan was right when he cut taxes from 80% to 50% for the top earning bracket. It did lead to economic growth because it made it worthwhile to actually make big money. But the incremental percentage isn't going to drive investment. Any hoser can tell you that the difference between keeping 1 cent of every dollar you earn versus 2 cents is quite a bit - it's double in fact. But the difference between 70 cents and 71 cents is not that much at all. It's less than 2%. And that's what Bush has done, he's just giving more to the rich at the expense of massive budget deficits. No one in their right mind thinks that taxes lower than 35% for the top income bracket drives economic growth. There is no evidence for it. None at all. Which is why I say the Conservatives that beat the whole lower taxes and more war strategy really are just capitalizing on the stupidity and fears of Americans who really don't know what's going on. Those Tea Party idiots are the best case in point. If survival dependent on being smart, those guys would be extinct pretty quickly.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ScMvZinMb6E?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ScMvZinMb6E?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Come on man, the highest tax bracket was 91% when Kennedy was president. A tax cut was a no brainer back then. It's a bit different when the highest rate is 30% now.
totally agree, these small incremental cuts only increase the deficit. they aren't significant enough to spur growth.
I'm glad to see you advocate for the Laffer Curve, but what makes you think the current rate is not still causing negative returns. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, you don't think that has an effect on the economy?
What makes you think the opposite? No, we don't. We have the 2nd highest *nominal* rates in the developed world. But as far as net rates go - the actual amount companies pay - we're nowhere close. Dems have offered many times to lower rates in exchange for closing the loopholes, but the GOP has shown no interest thus far. Try again.
