A Simple Lesson in Economics

[Longhorn_Platinum]

"Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson in Economics

Dr. David R Karmerschen (PhD)

This is how the cookie crumbles. Read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh $7
The eighth $12
The ninth $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you're all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But, what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so...
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right!" exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much; attack them for being wealthy; and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon115.gif <font color="blue">This is beïng posted here, for future reference.</font>

[DeclinetoState]

I guess the Hall of Fame is as good as a sticky anywhere else.

[sunsettommy]

Pssst,

be quiet Carl might come back and lecture us on money.

:grin:

[nene]

I understood this even as kid when many criticized Reagan for his "trickle down" economics. For years after his presidency, "Reaganomics" was faulted for everything from the plight of the poor to the crack epidemic. He understood that excessively taxing financially successful people would hurt the poor in the long run.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Prof. Walter E. Williams has told this story several times when he was filling in for Rush. I suspect that he may be the original source.

[Johnnybegood]

That is the first time i have read that.Wow how the truth will set you free,Unless you are a liberal then all reason leaves your head.

[jayson]

I asked a good friend of mine who minored in economics about this and his response was this:

--------------

I hate to burst your bubble. Although this email chain may properly break down the tax percentage by 10th percentiles, it does not do any justice to the people who are most burdened by the tax code- the working/middle/upper middle classes.

First, the top 1% (the wealthiest of Americans) own approximately 80% of all the wealth in America. That means the other 99% (the poor, working-poor, working-class, middle-class, upper middle-classes) "share" 20% of the wealth in America.

By taking the numbers in your article you'll see that, 41% of all tax dollars are collected from the same people that collectively possess only 20% of the wealth in our nation.

Now I'm not a mathematician, but if I had my choice, I'd rather pay 59% of the total tax revenue if I owned 80% of all the wealth, than pay 41% of the total tax revenue if I owned 20% of the wealth.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it’s evil or bad or wrong to be rich. Or even that wanting to be rich is a bad thing- Quite the contrary. That is one of the things that make America an economic powerhouse; the possibility that one can increase their wealth, class, and quality of life or the life of their children.

But don’t think for one moment that the people who own the most wealth are ever going to pay “their fair share” of the taxes. These people write the tax legislation, and it will always favor them. And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system REALLY works.

[DesertFox]

That ain't what Rush Limbaugh shows on his site (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html).


...The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

...less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Jayson, you need to provide a link showing what you said here: 41% of all tax dollars are collected from the same people that collectively possess only 20% of the wealth in our nation.

[jayson]

Jayson, you need to provide a link showing what you said here:

That wasn't mine, it was my buddy's who, as I stated, minored in economics.

I am still looking for the time to find the numbers to crunch so I can prove or disprove what he is saying.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Of course, anyone who understands economics knows that it's good for the economy for the wealthy to get the lions share of tax cuts because the wealthy will invest that additional capital to expand the economy and create jobs. That's exactly what happened with the Kennedy tax rate cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax rate cuts in the 1980s, and the Bush tax rate cuts in the 2000s. All 3 of those presidents inherited either a sluggish economy or an economy in recession and created economic booms with their tax rate cuts.

[Borgia]

Of course, anyone who understands economics knows that it's good for the economy for the wealthy to get the lions share of tax cuts because the wealthy will invest that additional capital to expand the economy and create jobs. That's exactly what happened with the Kennedy tax rate cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax rate cuts in the 1980s, and the Bush tax rate cuts in the 2000s. All 3 of those presidents inherited either a sluggish economy or an economy in recession and created economic booms with their tax rate cuts.

Yet when Clinton RAISED the top marginal rate we also saw economic growth surge.

The problem with your analysis is you confuse correlation with causation. They are not the same.

Further, cutting taxes for the poor and middle class will put more money in their pockets which will be spent and thus DEMAND will cause the economy to grow as the corporations work to meet that demand.

Borgia

[Native American]

Yet when Clinton RAISED the top marginal rate we also saw economic growth surge.

Under Clinton, the Unemployment Rate averaged 5.8% during Clinton's first 5 years in office, whereas under Bush it has averaged on 5.4%.

And that's with the negative impact of 9/11.

Clinton's economic performance was dismal, compared to Bush's.

[Borgia]

Under Clinton, the Unemployment Rate averaged 5.8% during Clinton's first 5 years in office, whereas under Bush it has averaged on 5.4%.

And that's with the negative impact of 9/11.

Clinton's economic performance was dismal, compared to Bush's.

I am sorry my point eluded you, NA. The claim was made that lowering tax rates boosts the economy. My point was that raising the tax rates (as evidenced by Clinton's increase) also boosts the economy.

It puts to question the idea that tax rates have a direct impact on the economy.

Borgia

[Native American]

And I'm sorry my point eluded you, Borgia - President Bush's economic performance has been superior to that of Clinton, and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11.

[Borgia]

And I'm sorry my point eluded you, Borgia - President Bush's economic performance has been superior to that of Clinton, and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11.

I was not making any comaprisons of Clinton and Bush so your post is not germane to the thread.

To repeat, the claim was that lowering tax rates boosts the economy. Logically, the converse would have to be true - that raising tax rates would hurt the economy. We did not see that after Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate. Ergo, the claim is shown to be of questionable merit as causation is untenable, logically speaking.

[pinqy]

Desert fox, Rush was talking about wages and income. Jayson's friend was talking about wealth. Different critters so the numbers won't be close.

[Rhino]

Desert fox, Rush was talking about wages and income. Jayson's friend was talking about wealth. Different critters so the numbers won't be close.Stands to reason, since there are no accurate figures on wealth.

[Popperite]

Prof. Walter E. Williams has told this story several times when he was filling in for Rush. I suspect that he may be the original source.

I found this story here:

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

It seems it was attributed to some people who didn't write it. Including Karmerschen.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yet when Clinton RAISED the top marginal rate we also saw economic growth surge.

Borgia
As you have already admitted, based on the link I provided for you, that is absolutely FALSE! The Clinton tax increase actually reduced the rate of economic growth and it only started to increase after the Republican balanced budget bill went into effect. BTW, the largest increase in economic growth under BJ Clinton occurred after the Republicans reduced the capital gains tax rate in 1997. FYI, additional results of that cut in the capital gains tax rate were the balanced budgets in the late 1990s.

[Eagle1]

and with that borgia's argument has been throughly whipped:bdh:

[Borgia]

and with that borgia's argument has been throughly whipped:bdh:

Since you seem so well informed, what exactly was my argument, Eagle1?

Borgia

[Borgia]

As you have already admitted, based on the link I provided for you, that is absolutely FALSE! The Clinton tax increase actually reduced the rate of economic growth and it only started to increase after the Republican balanced budget bill went into effect. BTW, the largest increase in economic growth under BJ Clinton occurred after the Republicans reduced the capital gains tax rate in 1997. FYI, additional results of that cut in the capital gains tax rate were the balanced budgets in the late 1990s.

Let's look again, shall we. After Clinton raised taxes, we saw growth decline from 4.0% to 2.5%, a reduction in growth of 38%. After that, it continually rose.

Meanwhile, Reagan saw his GDP growth shrink 176% yet you make excuses for that.

Anyway, I don't think one year is more than a blip. Sure, GDP growth retreated a bit for one year. But then it continued to grow quite nicely. What happened from 1993-1997? That's right, it grew despite there being no changes in the capital gains rate that you mention above. What is your excuse for those years, NT?

Also, I find it intersting that in one post you attribute the Clinton good economy to Reagan yet here in this post you attribute it to the Republicans in Congress. At least try and stay consistent in your guesses.

[Rhino]

Since you seem so well informed, what exactly was my argument, Eagle1?One thing I've noticed about you is that you don't often espouse a singular argument, but rather tend to argue specific facts, references or underlying principles, almost like a devils advocate or food for thought kind of thing. That makes you hard to lock down accurately, which presumably is a primary purpose. I've also noticed that this practice seems to significantly irritate some of the other members. LOL!

Hope I haven't divulged a closely guarded secret.

[Borgia]

One thing I've noticed about you is that you don't often espouse a singular argument, but rather tend to argue specific facts, references or underlying principles, almost like a devils advocate or food for thought kind of thing. That makes you hard to lock down accurately, which presumably is a primary purpose. I've also noticed that this practice seems to significantly irritate some of the other members. LOL!

Hope I haven't divulged a closely guarded secret.

It is only after specific facts have been established that the larger argument can proceed. At least that is my opinion although I don't think I have convinced anyone of any facts despite all my cites. LOL! Anyway, if we just discuss positions and arguments, we really are just discussing opinions without checking the merits of such opinions. That is why evidence is so important to either bolster or degrade the merits of the argument. You see, it is easy to say, "Liberals are the cause of all that is bad in America." Clearly that is just a polemic unless evidence is brought forth. It is much more difficult to provide evidence for assertions but that is much more enlightening.

Unfortunately, many have a tendency to draw conclusions when you argue certain facts and try to fill in your argument for you.

[Jester21]

I think we can all agree that we'd like to pay less taxes, but there do need to be some taxes collected. Without them, the infrastructure that allows wealth to be created would break down.

Bush was correct to use tax cuts to stimulate a sluggish economy. Clinton was right to raise taxes to slow down an overheated economy.

[Borgia]

I think we can all agree that we'd like to pay less taxes, but there do need to be some taxes collected. Without them, the infrastructure that allows wealth to be created would break down.

Bush was correct to use tax cuts to stimulate a sluggish economy. Clinton was right to raise taxes to slow down an overheated economy.

To be honest, I would be willing go for a tax increase. My tax rate is about 1% due to kids, deductions, etc... That seems a tad low and I would be willing to pay a bit more into the kitty to help reduce the deficit if others did as well.

[Rhino]

My tax rate is about 1% ......So, according to the liberal mantra, that would mean you're filthy rich.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Borgia]

So, according to the liberal mantra, that would mean you're filthy rich.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

LOL! OK, it wasn't as funny as the icon at top suggests. :)

[Native American]

In yet another example of how the economy is booming under President Bush's leadership, retail sales grew another 0.6% in March, reaching a seasonally-adjusted monthly retail sales of $361.0 billion.

In March of 2005, seasonably-adjusted monthly retail sales stood at $335 billion, which means retail sales are growing at a 7.5% annual rate under President Bush.

So the Democrat Party was wrong on the economy, wrong on tax cuts, impotent on national defense, and has nothing but the Politics of Personal Destruction to rely on as it heads into the November elections.
<!-- / message -->

[DesertFox]

And Ted Kennedy ugly.

[Jester21]

In March of 2005, seasonably-adjusted monthly retail sales stood at $335 billion, which means retail sales are growing at a 7.5% annual rate under President Bush.<!-- / message -->

That's not entirely true....it means retail sales increased by 7.5% over last March. It doesn't forecast anything for this year. And according to my rough calculations, retail sales have increased in March by approx 8.5% annually over the past 14 years (1992 was earliest year I could find).

[DoctorDoom]

Some people see the silver lining, and some people see nothing but the cloud.

[DesertFox]

...and some leave in the 7th inning.

[Timberwolf]

Some see the glass as half-full, wheras some see it as half-empty...in reality, the glass is twice a large as it needs to be.

[DesertFox]

Some are right on, and some are full of shit.

[Borgia]

That's not entirely true....it means retail sales increased by 7.5% over last March. It doesn't forecast anything for this year. And according to my rough calculations, retail sales have increased in March by approx 8.5% annually over the past 14 years (1992 was earliest year I could find).

So what you are saying is that retail sales have averaged 8.5% growth over the last 14 years. Bush's retail sales growth is 7.5%.

So retail sales under Bush are underperforming versus the 14 year average.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Native American
In March of 2005, seasonably-adjusted monthly retail sales stood at $335 billion, which means retail sales are growing at a 7.5% annual rate under President Bush.


That's not entirely true....it means retail sales increased by 7.5% over last March. It doesn't forecast anything for this year.

I stand corrected. Instead of what I wrote above, I should have said:

"In March of 2005, seasonably-adjusted monthly retail sales stood at $335 billion, which means retail sales over the past year have grown at a 7.5% annual rate under President Bush."

[Borgia]

I stand corrected. Instead of what I wrote above, I should have said:

"In March of 2005, seasonably-adjusted monthly retail sales stood at $335 billion, which means retail sales over the past year have grown at a 7.5% annual rate under President Bush."

Thanks for the correction. So Bush's retail growth is still underperforming the average of 8.5% over the last 14 years.

Got it. Bush not as good as Clinton. Got it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm), 384,000 jobs were created in March 2006, bringing the total of jobs created under President Bush up to more than 7.6 million. More importantly, more than 10.1 million jobs have been created since the depths of the Clinton economic downturn.

[Borgia]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm), 384,000 jobs were created in March 2006, bringing the total of jobs created under President Bush up to more than 7.6 million. More importantly, more than 10.1 million jobs have been created since the depths of the Clinton economic downturn.

When were the depths of the Clinton downturn? Anyway, you cherry-pick your years to paint the picture you prefer.

I am glad that Bush has turned around his dismal negative job growth that we experienced in '01, '02, and '03. So I do applaud Bush for having positive job growth in '04, '05 and so far in '06.

[Native American]

I am glad that Bush has turned around his dismal negative job growth that we experienced in '01, '02, and '03.

I'm glad that Bush has turned around the dismal negative economic "growth" that occurred during the last 2 quarters of the Clinton Administration!

BTW, the economy grew, under President Bush's leadership, in '02 and '03, not declined, as you dishonestly claimed. And that was despite the negative impact on the economy of 9/11!

Go peddle your Socialist/Democrat lies somewhere else, Borgia. Maybe you can fool 'em over at the KOS website or some other discussion board where liberal Democrat vermin hang out. Here, we've all got your number.

[Borgia]

BTW, the economy grew, under President Bush's leadership, in '02 and '03, not declined, as you dishonestly claimed. And that was despite the negative impact on the economy of 9/11!

Why do you lie about what I said? I was talking job growth, not the economy. Do you acknowledge they are two different items?

[Borgia]

Native_American:

Here is the GDP growth by year over the previosu year. Yes, Bush ahd GDP growth

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 96pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=128 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=2 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 height=17 x:num>1993</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 x:num="5.4166666666666669E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1994</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.8680449984797808E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1995</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.1838024124066628E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1996</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.0784982935153586E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1997</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="6.3531245939976611E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1998</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.3750305399462496E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1999</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.8080222582888939E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2000</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="6.3438150542346888E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2001</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="3.4411704100556356E-2">3%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2002</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="3.0179282868525895E-2">3%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2003</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="4.6891617519095041E-2">5%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Native American]

Amusingly, Borgia is obviously unaware that GDP growth during the Glorious Clinton Years only averaged 3.5%, whereas (if Borgia's own numbers posted above are to be trusted) GDP growth rate during even just the first 3 Bush years averaged 3.67%, (and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11!) and the GDP growth rate under President Bush during '04 and '05 has been even higher!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

President Bush continues to economically outpace Clinton, and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11!

Wake up, Borgia!

[Borgia]

Amusingly, Borgia is obviously unaware that GDP growth during the Glorious Clinton Years only averaged 3.5%, whereas (if Borgia's own numbers posted above are to be trusted) GDP growth rate during even just the first 3 Bush years averaged 3.67%, (and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11!) and the GDP growth rate under President Bush during '04 and '05 has been even higher!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

President Bush continues to economically outpace Clinton, and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11!

Wake up, Borgia!

I looked at the article you quoted and the headline put Clinton at the top economically of post-WWII presidents. Do you agree with that? LOL!

Anyway, the devil is in the details. I looked at their table for GDP numbers and they did not jibe with the ones I had from the OMB. So I looked up their sources and they listed US Bureau of Economic Analysis and the OMB.

I also looked at their methodolgy and they divided by 9 for Clinton yet Clinton was only in office for 8 years. An error right there. Anyway, we'll follow their methodology to maintain consistency.

Here are the GDP numbers they used for the article you quoted:

'93 7460
'01 9882

Here are the OMB numbers and as you can see they are different from the ones in the article

'93 6578
'01 10040

Here are the BEA numbers and as you can see they are different as well:

'93 6657
'01 10128

So I submit that the numbers they used are in error for Clinton since their two sources each use numbers quite different than the ones they used.

If I use their methodolgy on the actual numbers provided by the OMB and BEA I arrive at:

OMB numbers: +5.8%
BEA numbers: +5.8%

Hmmm?

[Native American]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Native American
Amusingly, Borgia is obviously unaware that GDP growth during the Glorious Clinton Years only averaged 3.5%, whereas (if Borgia's own numbers posted above are to be trusted) GDP growth rate during even just the first 3 Bush years averaged 3.67%, (and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11!) and the GDP growth rate under President Bush during '04 and '05 has been even higher!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

President Bush continues to economically outpace Clinton, and that's despite the negative impact of 9/11!

Wake up, Borgia!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I looked at the article you quoted and the headline put Clinton at the top economically of post-WWII presidents. Do you agree with that? LOL!

Yet the very numbers that the friend-of-Democrats MSNBC provided showed that Bush's economic numbers are even higher than Clinton's! LOL!

(BTW Borgia - President Bush is a "post-WWII president" also.)

Anyway, the devil is in the details. I looked at their table for GDP numbers and they did not jibe with the ones I had from the OMB.

Oh but wait! Despite what you just claimed, you wanted to believe their headline, right? LOL at you, Borgia!

I also looked at their methodolgy and they divided by 9 for Clinton yet Clinton was only in office for 8 years. An error right there.

Nope, they divided by 8. Even friend-of-Democrats MSNBC isn't that stupid, Borgia. You might be, but they're not.

[Borgia]

Yet the very numbers that the friend-of-Democrats MSNBC provided showed that Bush's economic numbers are even higher than Clinton's! LOL!

(BTW Borgia - President Bush is a "post-WWII president" also.)
So now you trust MSNBC? Anyway, your point about Bush is silly since they only looked at president at the beginning and end of their terms to judge them. You may not be aware of this but Bush's term has not ended yet, so therfore he was not included in the table.



Oh but wait! Despite what you just claimed, you wanted to believe their headline, right? LOL at you, Borgia!
No, I just found it odd that you conveniently skipped over that. Personally, having looked at the numebrs, their whole premise is flawed since the numbers they used do not exist.



Nope, they divided by 8. Even friend-of-Democrats MSNBC isn't that stupid, Borgia. You might be, but they're not.

No, they divided by 9. They went from 1993 to 2001. If you run the math, you will see they divided by 9 as the ONLY way to get the growth they quoted. Here, let me show you:

DIVIDE BY 9
(9882-7460) / 7460 / 9 = 3.6% per year

DIVIDE BY 8
(9882-7460) / 7460 / 8 = 4.1% per year

Now, which was it they quoted for Clinton in the article? Oh yeah, 3.6% so they had to divide by 9, not 8 as you just stated.

[Naturalized-Texan]

When were the depths of the Clinton downturn?
January 2002.

Between January 2001 and January 2002, 2.5 million jobs were lost due mainly to the Clinton downturn and partially due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

BTW, the 9/11 terrorist attacks would never have occurred if BJ Clinton had performed his Constitutional duties as Commander-in-Chief instead of being so pre-occupied with getting oral sex in the Oval Office.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Native_American:

Here is the GDP growth by year over the previosu year. Yes, Bush ahd GDP growth

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 96pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=128 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=2 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 height=17 x:num>1993</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 x:num="5.4166666666666669E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1994</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.8680449984797808E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1995</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.1838024124066628E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1996</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.0784982935153586E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1997</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="6.3531245939976611E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1998</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.3750305399462496E-2">5%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>1999</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="5.8080222582888939E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2000</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="6.3438150542346888E-2">6%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2001</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="3.4411704100556356E-2">3%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2002</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="3.0179282868525895E-2">3%</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=17 x:num>2003</TD><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="4.6891617519095041E-2">5%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I see that you are still using those false GDP growth numbers even after I proved that they were false. Why can't you libs ever tell the truth?

Here are the correct numbers from the BEA (http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y):

1993: 2.7
1994: 4.0
1995: 2.5
1996: 3.7
1997: 4.5
1998: 4.2
1999: 4.5
2000: 3.7
2001: 0.8
2002: 1.6
2003: 2.7
2004: 4.2
2005: 3.5

[Borgia]

I see that you are still using those false GDP growth numbers even after I proved that they were false. Why can't you libs ever tell the truth?

Here are the correct numbers from the BEA (http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y):

1993: 2.7
1994: 4.0
1995: 2.5
1996: 3.7
1997: 4.5
1998: 4.2
1999: 4.5
2000: 3.7
2001: 0.8
2002: 1.6
2003: 2.7
2004: 4.2
2005: 3.5

Um, they aren't false, they are just unadjusted for inflation. Your are adjusted for inflation. But let's use yours for kicks and giggles.

Avergae for 1993-200 under Clinton we have:

29.8 / 8 = 3.725%

Average for 2001-2005 under Bush:

12.8 / 5 = 2.56%

Clinton wins again. Under actual GDP numbers or under adjusted GDP numbers Clinton looks better. Either way you slice it, Clinton wins versus Bush.

[Borgia]

January 2002.

Between January 2001 and January 2002, 2.5 million jobs were lost due mainly to the Clinton downturn and partially due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Hmm, Bush was in office then, wasn't he?

Anyway, please cite the source and show where the numbers come from please.

[Native American]

1999: 4.5
2000: 3.7
2001: 0.8

Which highlights nicely the profound economic collapse that began well before the end of the Glorious Clinton Years. An economic collapse which President Bush inherited, but which he successfully turned around.

[Native American]

Anyway, please cite the source and show where the numbers come from please.

He already did. But you haven't. When are you going to get around to citing your source, Borgia??

[Naturalized-Texan]

Hmm, Bush was in office then, wasn't he?

Anyway, please cite the source and show where the numbers come from please.
As you very well know, I already did - many times. If you're too lazy to look, then it's your problem, not mine.

FYI, employment in January 2001 was 136.0 million. As a result of the Clinton downturn and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, both of which President Bush inherited, employment in January 2002 had dropped to 133.5 million. By March 2006, thanks to the Bush tax rate cuts, employment jumped to 143.641 million.

[Borgia]

As you very well know, I already did - many times. If you're too lazy to look, then it's your problem, not mine.

FYI, employment in January 2001 was 136.0 million. As a result of the Clinton downturn and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, both of which President Bush inherited, employment in January 2002 had dropped to 133.5 million. By March 2006, thanks to the Bush tax rate cuts, employment jumped to 143.641 million.

I am terribly sorry, my memory is not what it used to be. Please show me what table you are getting your data from.

Thanks!

[Borgia]

Using Native_Texan's numbers

Average for 1993-2000 under Clinton we have:

29.8 / 8 = 3.725%

Average for 2001-2005 under Bush:

12.8 / 5 = 2.56%

Clinton wins again. Under actual GDP numbers or under adjusted GDP numbers Clinton looks better. Either way you slice it, Clinton wins versus Bush.

[Native American]

Using Native_Texan's numbers

Average for 1993-2000 under Clinton we have:

29.8 / 8 = 3.725%

Average for 2001-2005 under Bush:

12.8 / 5 = 2.56%

Clinton wins again. Under actual GDP numbers or under adjusted GDP numbers Clinton looks better. Either way you slice it, Clinton wins versus Bush.

Except 12.8/4 = 3.2%, not "2.56%" as you erroneously calculated. Plus the really bad year (2000-2001) was a reflection of the utter collapse of the "dot.coms" under the horrific Clinton Administration, so you can stop trying to saddle Bush with that one, Borgia.

For a more honest appraisal, you need to look at a different set of 8 years for Clinton and a different set of 4 years than you have. But we all realize you are hoping to make Bush look bad and Clinton look good.

Looking at it more honestly, Clinton only averaged 3.4875% for four years, whereas Bush averaged 3.0%, and that includes the tremendous negative impact of 9/11. Using NT's numbers, that is.

[Borgia]

Except 12.8/4 = 3.2%, not "2.56%" as you erroneously calculated.

Boy, this one is hard for me to respond to since I really don't want to embarrass you further.

The reason why I divided by 5, and not 4, is because we have 5 data points. We have a data point for year 2001, another for year 2002, another for year 2003, another for year 2004, and another for year 2005. Now, I may not be an expert in math like you are, NA, but I count FIVE data points.

To take an average of FIVE data points, you divide by FIVE, not four.

I don't know if your problem is you had trouble counting to five or if you don't know how to calculate an average. Either way, I am less than impressed with your skill at math.

[Borgia]

NA:

So you don't want to apply 2001 numbers to Bush and instead apply it to Clinton? Fair enough since Bush was just entering his Presidency. Of course, that means we also throw out 1993 as that was when CLinton was just entering his presidency. Your argument being that both Presidents had little impact in their first year and were merely acting under the budgets of the predecessors.

I'll go with that if you like. Do you want me to run the revised numbers for Clinton and Bush and we can agree on the results?

Clinton would then be 1994-2001
Bush would then be 2002-2005

Sound good?

[Native American]

NA:

So you don't want to apply 2001 number sot Bush adn instead apply it to Clinton? Fair enough since Bush was just entering his Presidency. Of course, that means we also throw out 1993 as that was when CLinton was just entering his presidency.

Exactly, which is what my calculations above are based on.

[Borgia]

That's funny. Sum up the years and we shall see.

Sum for 1994-2001 is 27.9
Divide by 8 and you get: 3.49% for Clinton

Sum for 2002-2005 is 12
Divide by 4 and you get: 3% for Bush

Sorry, NA, you lose again. We used the numbers from Naturalized_Texan and they STILL show Clinton doing better. Next time, show your work and I might take you seriously.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Boy, this one is hard for me to respond to since I really don't want to embarrass you further.

The reason why I divided by 5, and not 4, is because we have 5 data points. We have a data point for year 2001, another for year 2002, another for year 2003, another for year 2004, and another for year 2005. Now, I may not be an expert in math like you are, NA, but I count FIVE data points.
But the economy in 2001 was still operating under the Clinton economic program and hadn't yet recovered from the Clinton economic downturn (not technically the Clinton Recession with 3 negative quarters out of 5, starting with the 3rd Quarter of 2000) and the Clinton stock market crash. Moreover, the 9/11 terrorist attacks virtually kiled the economy for the last 3 1/2 months of 2001. The Bush economic program didn't take effect until 2002.

We must always remember that BJ Clinton inherited a booming economy, but President Bush inherited a weak economy trending downward.

[Borgia]

But the economy in 2001 was still operating under the Clinton economic program and hadn't yet recovered from the Clinton economic downturn (not technically the Clinton Recession with 3 negative quarters out of 5, starting with the 3rd Quarter of 2000) and the Clinton stock market crash. Moreover, the 9/11 terrorist attacks virtually kiled the economy for the last 3 1/2 months of 2001. The Bush economic program didn't take effect until 2002.

All right, so you are saying Bush's economy only started in 2002 and 9/11 effects were done by then. All right. I ran the exact same analysis adjusting the years as per your request here and Clinton STILL came out better. Here it is again cause I think you missed it:


Sum for 1994-2001 is 27.9
Divide by 8 and you get: 3.49% for Clinton

Sum for 2002-2005 is 12
Divide by 4 and you get: 3% for Bush

Your numbers, NaturalizedTexan. Now, I fully expect another dodge and moving of goalposts. Or do you just want to accept the numbers this time?

[Native American]

We must always remember that BJ Clinton inherited a booming economy, but President Bush inherited a weak economy trending downward.

Yes, and an excellent point.

[Borgia]

NT:

Remember, YOU said the effects of 9/11 were over by 2002. You even said this:

The Bush economic program didn't take effect until 2002.

So I used your limitations and your source for numbers and this is what I calculated:

Sum for 1994-2001 is 27.9
Divide by 8 and you get: 3.49% for Clinton

Sum for 2002-2005 is 12
Divide by 4 and you get: 3% for Bush


Now, I am no rocket scientists but as far as I know 3.49% > 3.0%. Thus, real GDP growth averaged higher under Clinton than under Bush (thus far).

[Native American]

NT:

Remember, YOU said the effects of 9/11 were over by 2002.

Thankfully, NT never said that. Which means this post of yours is another excellent example of what a liar you are.

[Borgia]

Thankfully, NT never said that. Which means this post of yours is another excellent example of what a liar you are.

Moreover, the 9/11 terrorist attacks virtually kiled the economy for the last 3 1/2 months of 2001.

You are correct, NA. I read more into what NT may have meant. My apologies, NT.

Still, my analysis stands and Clinton had more real GDP growth (on average) than Bush has had so far, and that includes throwing out 2001 and giving it to Clinton.

[Naturalized-Texan]

NT:
Remember, YOU said the effects of 9/11 were over by 2002.
Where did I say that? You know very well that I said no such thing. You are using a typical left-wing tactic - misquoting us or quoting us out of context. That is intellectually dishonest and you have been doing that ever since you've been here. Of course, that's no surprise. I have never come across an honest liberal yet.

[Borgia]

So, how long did 9/11 effect the economy? My guess is you will say all the bad years under Bush. LOL

Even if we take 2002 out of the equation, we get this:

Clinton '94-'01
+3.49% / year average

Bush '03-05
+3.47% / year average

Again, Clinton beats Bush. Do you want to continue to cherry-pick your data?

Let me reiterate,, this calculation uses YOUR numbers, NT.

[Wyatt_Junker]

So, how long did 9/11 effect the economy? My guess is you will say all the bad years under Bush. LOL

And you're suggesting it had no impact? Or little to moderate impact?


Even if we take 2002 out of the equation, we get this:

Clinton '94-'01
+3.49% / year average


1994-2001 was the pinaccle apex of fraudulent e-ponzi. It was a total falsity. Think of the early stock market boom when Model A's were rolling off the assembly line. Now, take that momentum, and right before the next president comes in to inherit that economy, cars didn't exist. They were theoretical nonsense. Or better yet, they just vanish from the national conscience. Tech stocks were 'not real'.


Bush '03-05
+3.47% / year average


This is real. A real economy using real nuts and bolts. Its not quick rich fairy dust.


Again, Clinton beats Bush. Do you want to continue to cherry-pick your data?



And, again, who is cherry-picking their data?

[Borgia]

And you're suggesting it had no impact? Or little to moderate impact?

I am presuming it had some immediate impact but I don't really know how long it lasted.



1994-2001 was the pinaccle apex of fraudulent e-ponzi. It was a total falsity. Think of the early stock market boom when Model A's were rolling off the assembly line. Now, take that momentum, and right before the next president comes in to inherit that economy, cars didn't exist. They were theoretical nonsense. Or better yet, they just vanish from the national conscience. Tech stocks were 'not real'.

I'm not disagreeing with that. So, was the economy good or bad under Clinton? Are you saying it was good but was all a mirage? Yet Naturalized_Texan says the good economy under Clinton was because of Reagan's economic policies finally taking root. And then I have Native_American telling me the economy was terrible under Clinton.

You folks need to get your story straight whether the economy was good, bad, real, imaginary, or whatever under Clinton. I mean, the story keeps changing depending on which one of you conservatives I talk to. :)


And, again, who is cherry-picking their data?

I used Naturalized_Texan's data. Are you saying he cherry-picked? He told me that we should include '01 under Clinton and I was happy to oblige and ran the nimbers again. Clinton STILL looked better. So Naturalized_Texan and Native_American said that 9/11 effected the economy so I took out the '02 year off the records so as to get rid of the 9/11 effect. I ran the numbers yet again and STILL Clinton looked better.

If anyone is cherry-picking, it is them as they are theones telling me which years to ignore. I am merely doing the math for them (since they seem incapable of doing such).

Bottom line, you are just disappointed that the numbers do not support Bush over Clinton. Hey, I did not make the numbers up, Native_Texan swore they are the true numbers.

[Borgia]

And by the way, Wyatt, thanks for proving me to be psychic when I predicted a dodge from the latest numbers. LOL

Why do you folks just never own up to numbers and instead just make excuse after excuse after excuse? I'm waiting for NA or NT to now tell the excuse, oops I mean reason, why '03 data should also not be counted against Bush.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I'm not disagreeing with that. So, was the economy good or bad under Clinton? Are you saying it was good but was all a mirage?


Look to the stock market correction to answer that. It began during the final leg of Clinton's tenure. I remember it distinctly. I should. I, with a lot of other fools, lost a lot of money. The Nasdaq was more than cut in half and the DOW was retrofitted with a pair of new concrete shoes.


Yet Naturalized_Texan says the good economy under Clinton was because of Reagan's economic policies finally taking root. And then I have Native_American telling me the economy was terrible under Clinton.


I think the Gingrich-led CWA that Clinton adopted like the whorish lapdog he was helped get the economy out of the rut it was in, however, what Clinton later inherited in '95 to '01 was dot com dope. We all smoked it. At the time, it was good and got us all real high. Clinton was not the architect of it, he was the dumbshit lucky enough to sit on a stool while it was happening.


You folks need to get your story straight whether the economy was good, bad, real, imaginary, or whatever under Clinton. I mean, the story keeps changing depending on which one of you conservatives I talk to. :)


The economy was what it was. Presidents don't have a whole lot of effect on it. Tax cuts are about the only thing that can spark economies, but even then there are so many other factors involved. The consumer spending indicators and the GDP were off the hook in the latter '90s because everyone thought they were going to retire with their beefy tech stock portfolios. It was funny money. It was ridiculous. If anything, Clinton put the brakes on the economy(not out of a good intention) by playing the antitrust card on Microsoft. He had no idea(which was most of the time) that it was the beginning of the avalanche and that it would be like setting bars of TNT along the snowy ledge of top heavy economical cornice.


I used Naturalized_Texan's data. Are you saying he cherry-picked? He told me that we should include '01 under Clinton and I was happy to oblige and ran the nimbers again. Clinton STILL looked better.


Of course, Clinton's tenure would look better in that time frame! Qualcomm stock went from 100 to 9,000 in that window of time.


Bottom line, you are just disappointed that the numbers do not support Bush over Clinton.

Not really. Presidents don't have the power over the economy we think they do(except tax cuts). Interest rates do.

[Telit laikitiz]

So Clinton did not "cook the books"? If I remember right, they said there was a surplus in the last Clinton year, then suddenly there was a deficit in the 1st Bush year. And obviously a lot of money was lost after 911.

[Borgia]

So Clinton did not "cook the books"? If I remember right, they said there was a surplus in the last Clinton year, then suddenly there was a deficit in the 1st Bush year. And obviously a lot of money was lost after 911.

The problem is revenues fell under Bush in '01, '02, '03 and '04. Nobody predicted that would happen. Bush had a triple whammy which contributed to the reduced revenues;

1. Tech stock bubble burst just before he came into office
2. 9/11
3. Tax cuts

Nobody predicted these things to happen.

[Naturalized-Texan]

BJ Clinton must get down on his knees every day to give thanks to the Republicans for the booming economy he inherited from the first President Bush and for the Republican Congress that enacted programs that sustained the boom that he inherited.

Unfortunately, BJ Clinton frittered away that booming economy and handed over a failing economy and a stock market in free-fall to the second President Bush.

So Borgia's ridiculous claims about the economies under BJ Clinton and President Bush are totally meaningless.

[Borgia]

BJ Clinton must get down on his knees every day to give thanks to the Republicans for the booming economy he inherited from the first President Bush and for the Republican Congress that enacted programs that sustained the boom that he inherited.

Unfortunately, BJ Clinton frittered away that booming economy and handed over a failing economy and a stock market in free-fall to the second President Bush.

So Borgia's ridiculous claims about the economies under BJ Clinton and President Bush are totally meaningless.

Good dodge. You dance better than anyone I know.

[Borgia]

Naturalized_Texan, maybe you should debate Wyatt. He seems to think that Presidents have little to no effect on the economy.

Meanwhile, you think Clinton managed to destroy the economy.

I detect a contradiction here.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Naturalized_Texan, maybe you should debate Wyatt. He seems to think that Presidents have little to no effect on the economy.

Meanwhile, you think Clinton managed to destroy the economy.
Yep. No question about it.


I think that it's time for a little history lesson for those who are too young to remember, since it is not being taught in their schools (Please note especially the part in bold):

President Bush (41) raised taxes in what was then the largest tax increase in history. That tax increase immediately drove us into a recession. Fortunately, the momentum built up by the Reagan Boom made it one of the briefest and mildest recessions on record and by the time of the 1992 elections, the economy was growing at a 4.5% rate.

One of BJ Clinton's first acts as president was to raise taxes on the middle class, particularly on middle-class elderly receiving Social Security (SS) benefits (Many middle-class elderly were saddled with a 70% increase in the taxes they paid on their SS benefits.) An immediate result of the Clinton tax increase (the largest in the history of the world according to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY)) was to cut the rate of growth almost in half (from 4.5% to 2.3%). Once again, the Reagan Boom overcame the negative effects of a tax increase.

Another fallout of the Clinton tax increase was that several million highly productive spouses of taxpayers in the highest tax bracket (the 39.6% bracket (43% including the Alternative Minimum Tax) for those earning over about $80,000, Clinton's idea of the rich), dropped out of the workforce. The reason: With that confiscatory federal rate and with state taxes, most of those spouses were paying as much as 60% of their income in taxes. It just wasn't worth the effort. Consequently, with those spouses out of the workforce, Clinton's unemployment rates were artificially low.

In 1997, the Republican Congress passed and BJ Clinton reluctantly signed a capital gains tax cut. The stock market immediately skyrocketed producing huge capital gains tax revenues to the government. The surpluses of the late 1990s were the direct result of the Republican capital gains tax cuts.

There were at least 3 Clinton actions that led to the recession that President Bush inherited:

1) The huge drag on the economy caused by Clinton's consfiscatory tax rates finally overcame the momentum of the Reagan Boom.

2) The huge surpluses that were generated by the Republican capital gains tax cut were kept in Washington instead of being returned to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts to be invested to sustain the Reagan Boom.

3) The Clinton Justice Dept. filed a frivolous anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. That frivolity popped the dot-com bubble and caused the stock market to tailspin out of control.

The result of those Clinton actions was a very sluggish economy beginning in the last 6 months of 2000: -0.5% growth in the 3rd Quarter, only 2.1% growth in the 4th Quarter, -0.5% growth in 1st Quarter of 2001, only 1.2% growth in the 2nd Quarter, and -1.4% growth in the 3rd Quarter.

Fortunately, the first round of the Bush tax cuts stopped the Clinton Recession cold, made it one of the shortest and mildest slowdowns on record. We have had steady economic growth since then, starting with the 4th Quarter of 2001.


I detect a contradiction here.
Not at all.

[Borgia]

Dude,

I like how REagan effected things 10 year after he left office. Essentially all your post is speculation.

You should read about the difference between correlation and causation. Frankly, I don't think you even have proven correlation, much less causation.

I am sure you are ware that REagan raised taxes too during his tenure. And his tax increases effected what exactly?

NT, you are very adept at picking and choosing the data that matches your preconceived notions.

So, are we STILL in the Reagan Boom, NT? Now that almost 20 years have passed?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Dude,

I like how REagan effected things 10 year after he left office. Essentially all your post is speculation.
Any boom has momentum and will continue until acted upon by a counter force. If that force is great enough, a recession could occur. The Bush 1 tax increase caused a short mild recession, but the momentum of the Reagan Boom overcame the effects of that tax increase. BJ Clinton's tax increase almost derailed the Reagan Boom, but once again the momentum of the Reagan Boom overcame the effects of BJ's tax increase. In other words, the Reagan Boom was so powerful that it overcame the effects of the two largest tax increases in history.

You should read about the difference between correlation and causation. Frankly, I don't think you even have proven correlation, much less causation.
The Reagan Boom was the result of the Reagan tax rate cuts of 1982 and 1986 that reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, freeing up billions of dollars in capital to expand the economy. Even the Bush 1 and BJ Clinton tax increases had top marginal rates considerably lower than the 70% rate that Reagan inherited, so there was still plenty of additional capital to continue the economic expansion. The Reagan Boom continued until at least the 2nd Quarter of 2000.

I am sure you are ware that REagan raised taxes too during his tenure. And his tax increases effected what exactly?
However, the top marginal income tax rate did not increase and the additional capital for investment to expand the economy was still available. BTW, President Reagan didn't raise taxes. He agreed with Congress to allow it to increase taxes in an agreement with the Democrat leaders in the House whereby they would make major reductions in spending. As usual, the Democrats reneged on their promise and continued to increase spending. BTW, President Reagan shut down the government several times (I think it was 8 times) to force reductions in spending.

NT, you are very adept at picking and choosing the data that matches your preconceived notions.
I just post the truth and the truth is on our side.

So, are we STILL in the Reagan Boom, NT? Now that almost 20 years have passed?
One could easily argue that we are since the current top marginal tax rates are still below the rates that President Reagan inherited. However, most economists agree that we are in a new boom - the Bush Boom - that resulted from the Bush tax rate cuts that released additional capital for expanding the economy.

I should also point out that President Kennedy's tax rate cuts, that were enacted after his death, also released huge amounts of capital to expand the economy. His tax rate cuts reduced the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70%. JFK had inherited a stagnant economy from President Eisenhower. President Reagan readily admitted that he got his idea for cutting tax rates to expand the economy from President Kennedy.

I find it interesting that, since the 1960s, every 20 years a new president inherits a stagnant or declining economy and that new president reduces the tax rates to free up capital to expand the economy.

FYI, I have on my hard disk excerpts from the text of President Kennedy's speech before the Economic Club of New York in which he provided justification for cutting tax rates and also excerpts from the text of his budget message to Congress proposing the tax rate cuts. If you are interested, I could either post them or send them to you in a PM.

[Borgia]

However, the top marginal income tax rate did not increase and the additional capital for investment to expand the economy was still available. BTW, President Reagan didn't raise taxes. He agreed with Congress to allow it to increase taxes in an agreement with the Democrat leaders in the House whereby they would make major reductions in spending. As usual, the Democrats reneged on their promise and continued to increase spending.

ARe you aware that out of every budget Reagan submitted to Congress, not ONE actually cut spending? HEre are Reagan's budget proposals (in billions):

1982: $695
1983: $773
1984: $862
1985: $940
1986: $973
1987: $994
1988: $1024
1989: $1094

Help me out, NT, all I see are increasing budgets. Where are the cuts that Reagan proposed?


FYI, I have on my hard disk excerpts from the text of President Kennedy's speech before the Economic Club of New York in which he provided justification for cutting tax rates and also excerpts from the text of his budget message to Congress proposing the tax rate cuts. If you are interested, I could either post them or send them to you in a PM.

I'm always interested in educating myself.

As an aside, what do YOU think the top marginal rate should be in order to maximize revenues?

[Naturalized-Texan]

ARe you aware that out of every budget Reagan submitted to Congress, not ONE actually cut spending? HEre are Reagan's budget proposals (in billions):

1982: $695 - $746
1983: $773 - $808
1984: $862 - $852
1985: $940 - $946
1986: $973 - $990
1987: $994 - $1004
1988: $1024 - $1064
1989: $1094 - $1143
President Reagan never proposed cuts in spending. Of course, with the entitlements enacted under FDR and LBJ increasing every year, there was no way that President Reagan could have cut spending. Couple that with the fact that Carter decimated our military and helped the Soviet Union to build up their's to the point that the Soviet Union had military superiority over the U.S., President Reagan had no choice but to greatly increase defense spending. I have appended the actual numbers enacted by Congress to your numbers above. Note that except for one year, the enacted spending exceeded President Reagan's requests.

I'm always interested in educating myself.
I think that I'll post Kennedy's proposals in another forum, maybe as an op-ed. (We will be babysitting our grandkids this weekend, so I may not have time to post Kennedy's speech and budget message until Monday.)

As an aside, what do YOU think the top marginal rate should be in order to maximize revenues?
The 28% rate enacted in 1986 seems to have been optimal.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The sources for the following information are the Historical Tables from the Budget of the United States for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, available in pdf format from the Government Printing Office (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/).

President Bush’s tax rate cuts were finally enacted in 2003, so it behooves us to look at the revenue records since then.

Let’s start with the total receipts (in trillions of dollars):

FY 2003: 1.783
FY 2004: 1.880
FY 2005: 2.154
FY 2006: 2.285 (estimate)

So it’s easy to see that since the Bush tax rate cuts went into effect, tax receipts have increased significantly. That certainly makes sense since the Bush tax rate cuts stimulated economic growth and created more jobs, producing higher tax revenues.


Now, let’s look at the revenue and deficit projections made prior to the Bush tax rate cuts and compare them with the actual numbers:

FY 2004: projected deficit: $521 B; actual deficit: $413 B; projected revenue: $1,798 B; actual revenue: $1,880 B.

FY 2005: projected deficit: $427 B; actual deficit: $318 B; projected revenue: $2.053 B; actual revenue: $2.154 B.

Again, it’s easy to see that, mainly due to the increased revenues from the Bush tax rate cuts, the deficits in those two years were reduced by more than $100 B. The final FY 2006 numbers are not yet available, but we can expect to see similar results.


There have been a lot of complaints about spending under President Bush, so let’s look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP:

Between 1975 and 1996, spending as a percentage of GDP was consistently greater than 20%, with a high of 23.5% in 1983. After the Republican Congress reduced the rate of growth of spending in the FY 1996 Budget, spending as a percentage of GDP dropped below 20% to a low of 18.4% in 2000. Here are the percentages since then:

FY 2001: 18.5%
FY 2002: 19.4%
FY 2003: 20.0%
FY 2004: 19.9%
FY 2005: 20.1%

Again, it’s easy to see that spending as a percentage of GDP under President Bush is at or below such spending for most of the past 30 years – even lower than under President Reagan.

[Borgia]

Originally Posted by Borgia
ARe you aware that out of every budget Reagan submitted to Congress, not ONE actually cut spending? HEre are Reagan's budget proposals (in billions):

1982: $695 - $696 - $746
1983: $773 - $770 - $808
1984: $862 - $859 - $852
1985: $940 - $932 - $946
1986: $973 - $968 - $990
1987: $994 - $995 - $1004
1988: $1024 - $1041 - $1064
1989: $1094 - $1100 - $1143

I have appended the actual numbers enacted by Congress to your numbers above. Note that except for one year, the enacted spending exceeded President Reagan's requests.

No, you did not append the numbers enacted by Congress, you appended the actual budgets for each year. I will append the ACTUAL numbers authorized by Congress in between them for you to see.

So as we look at the numbers above, the first column is the year, the second is Reagan's proposed budget, the third is the approved Congressional budget, and the fourth is the actual budget.

"Wait! What is hte difference between the passed budget and actual budget?" Good question.You see, once a budget is passed by Congress what is actually spent can vary depending on economic conditions. non-budgetary policy changes, and estimation errors. This variance in spending cannot be entirely blamed on Congress or the White House.


I think that I'll post Kennedy's proposals in another forum, maybe as an op-ed. (We will be babysitting our grandkids this weekend, so I may not have time to post Kennedy's speech and budget message until Monday.)
I look forward to it.

[quote]
The 28% rate enacted in 1986 seems to have been optimal.

And how do you arrive at this conclusion? And when you define optimal, what is your standard of measure? Revenue? Growth?

[Borgia]

The sources for the following information are the Historical Tables from the Budget of the United States for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, available in pdf format from the Government Printing Office (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/).

President Bush’s tax rate cuts were finally enacted in 2003, so it behooves us to look at the revenue records since then.
You think Bush's tax cuts were finally enacted in 2003? You do realize he made some of his cuts retroactive to Jan 1, 2001 right?

Let’s start with the total receipts (in trillions of dollars):

FY 2003: 1.783
FY 2004: 1.880
FY 2005: 2.154
FY 2006: 2.285 (estimate)

Just a real quick note here, NT. You do realize these numbers are the OMB numbers I used earlier on this very thread which you ridiculed and mocked endlessly?

Now, I have no problem using actual GDP numbers but you seemed to prefer the real GDP numbers before. Why the switch and when can I expect my apology for your mocking my stats considering you are now using them? :)

[Naturalized-Texan]

You think Bush's tax cuts were finally enacted in 2003? You do realize he made some of his cuts retroactive to Jan 1, 2001 right?
There was no retroactivity.

Just a real quick note here, NT. You do realize these numbers are the OMB numbers I used earlier on this very thread which you ridiculed and mocked endlessly?
No. The first time I saw those numbers was wnen I looked them up last night. However, I do remember you claiming that receipts have declined every year under President Bush. I did not respond to that until my post this morning.

Now, I have no problem using actual GDP numbers but you seemed to prefer the real GDP numbers before. Why the switch and when can I expect my apology for your mocking my stats considering you are now using them? :)
Those are the GDP numbers contained in the Historical Tables I used as my source. The GDP numbers MUST be in current dollars to be consistent with the spending numbers that are also in current dollars. It would be like comparing apples and oranges if the GDP numbers were in real dollars and the spending numbers were in current dollars. C'mon! Think! Use your head for something other than a hat rack. :evilgrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

I decided that this was as good a place as any to post excerpts from President Kennedy's speech to the Economic Club of New York where he laid out the justification for cutting taxes to stimulate a stagnant economy. President Reagan openly admitted that he got his idea for his supply-side, pro-growth tax rate cuts from JFK.


Excerpts from President John F. Kennedy's speech at the Economic Club of New York, December, 14, 1962:

(Note: When Rush Limbaugh played the tape of this speech on his show in 1993, I taped it. I then typed this transcript from my tape.):

"There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth. But the most direct and significant kind of federal action, aiding economic growth, is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand, to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past this could be done, in part, by the increased use of credit and monetary tools. But our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary. But such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency."

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrent to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. When this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963, I'm not talking about a quickie or temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent, nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, in World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures."

"But that after tax income could and should be greater providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability, and to stimulate the modernization, replacement and expansion of our productive plant and equipment."

"When any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests: first it should reduce the net taxes by sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required..."

"For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lighten the tax load of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others."

"...economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."

" Those are the three tests which the right kind of bill must meet. I'm confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut, profit margins will be improved, and both the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased. There will be new interest in taking risks, increasing productivity, and creating new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth."




Excerpts from President Kennedy's Budget Message to Congress for Fiscal Year 1964:

"The checkrein of taxes on private spending and productive incentives must be loosened if our economy is to perform at maximum efficiency. To that end - as I pledged last year - the 1964 budget incorporates a major program of tax reduction and reform, designed to help speed the economy toward full employment and a higher rate of growth with price stability.

"Although, with the passage of time, the economic expansion induced by reduction in tax rates may be expected to yield a higher level of government revenues than the present tax system affords, the initial effect of the proposed tax program will be a revenue loss. In this setting, I have felt obliged to limit severely my 1964 expenditure proposals. In national defense and space programs - where false economy would seriously jeopardize our national interest or even our national survival - I have proposed expenditure increases. Fixed interest on the debt will also rise. But total 1964 expenditures for all other programs in the administrative budget, taken together, have been held to this years level, and even reduced somewhat. Within this total, increases have been confined to those areas most important to the nation's current welfare and future growth, and these will be offset - indeed slightly more than offset - by the reductions I am recommending in expenditures under other programs."

"Unless we release the tax brake which is holding back our economy, it is likely to continue to operate below its potential, federal receipts are likely to remain disappointingly low, and budget deficits are likely to persist. Adoption of the tax program I am proposing will strengthen our nation's economic vitality, and by so doing, will provide the basis for sharply increased budget revenues in future years.

"Nevertheless, the prospect of expanding economic activity and rising federal revenues in the years ahead does not mean that federal outlays should rise in proportion to such revenue increases. As the tax cut becomes fully effective and the economy climbs toward full employment, a substantial part of the revenue increases must go toward eliminating the transitional deficit. Although it will be necessary to increase certain expenditures, we shall continue, and indeed intensify, our effort to include in our fiscal program only those expenditures which meet strict criteria of fulfilling important national needs. Federal outlays must be incurred only where the resulting benefits to the security and well-being of the American people are clearly worth the costs."

"My tax proposals include substantial permanent reductions in individual and corporate income tax rates as well as a number of important structural changes designed to encourage economic growth, increase the equity of our tax system, and simplify our tax laws and administration."

"There is no discount price on defense. The free world must be prepared at all times to face the perils of global nuclear war, limited conventional conflict, and covert guerrilla activities."

"High levels of effort will continue on developing a defense against missiles..."

"...More powerful and flexible conventional forces - ground, sea, and air - to increase the range of non-nuclear response to aggression."

[Borgia]

There was no retroactivity.

Oh really? http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2001/03/30/WorldNation/House.Passes.Tax.Cut.For.Married.Couples.Increases .Child.Credit-699494.shtml?norewrite200604240705&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com

The bill would also raise the $500 child credit to $600 retroactive to 2001 and then gradually increase it to $1,000.

I know it was a $600 credit. There were also other tax cuts in 2001.


No. The first time I saw those numbers was wnen I looked them up last night. However, I do remember you claiming that receipts have declined every year under President Bush. I did not respond to that until my post this morning.

Those are the GDP numbers contained in the Historical Tables I used as my source. The GDP numbers MUST be in current dollars to be consistent with the spending numbers that are also in current dollars.

I think we are confusing real/current dollars. The numbers you used HAVE NOT been adjusted in any way so you are using raw receipt numbers. Was that your intent? You are using http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf and the data is on page 22. You need to scroll down a bit more if you want adjusted receipt numbers.

Anyway, you are using the EXACT same source and numbers that I used earlier. Why are they valid now but not when I used them?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Borgia: If you want to compare apples and oranges, even if it makes no sense, be my guest. It makes no sense to compare spending numbers in current dollars with GDP in real dollars. To make sense, both numbers MUST be in the same units - e.g., current dollars.

[Borgia]

Borgia: If you want to compare apples and oranges, even if it makes no sense, be my guest. It makes no sense to compare spending numbers in current dollars with GDP in real dollars. To make sense, both numbers MUST be in the same units - e.g., current dollars.

So you now accept the numbers and source I was quoting before? I am not mixing, I fully agree we need to be consistent.

By the way, do you agree that Bush made some tax cuts in 2001?

[Naturalized-Texan]

So you now accept the numbers and source I was quoting before? I am not mixing, I fully agree we need to be consistent.
Official figures are official figures, no matter how you wabt to spin the numbers. When the government publishes GDP growth statistics, the ONLY correct way is to report real GDP growth.

When computing spending or revenue as a percentage of GDP, the ONLY correct way is to be consistent in the units being compared - current dollars to current dollars. BTW, I looked at the table you referenced and it has exactly the same percentage numbers that I posted, so both tables compare like units as they should.

By the way, do you agree that Bush made some tax cuts in 2001?
Yes, there were rebates mailed out in the Summer of 2001, based on the inclusion of a new 10% bracket for single taxpayers earning less than $6,000, that resulted in an almost immediate end to the Clinton economic downturn, that at the time was considered to be a recession. As usual, there are revised statistics based on additional information and those revisions did not show the 2 consecutive quarters of decline that the preliminary data showed. So as you correctly noted, there was no Clinton Recession, just a Clinton downturn, or slowdown, that President Bush inherited.

BTW, that 10% bracket didn't actually enter into the Tax Rate Schedules until the 2002 tax year. In 2001, it was just a rebate.

However, the full Bush tax rate cuts did not go into effect until 2003 when the top marginal rate was dropped to 35%. Those tax rate cuts need to be made permanent. In addition, since dividends are taxed twice - once at the corporate level and again at the recipients' level - the tax on dividends to the recipients needs to be eliminated.

The sources for the above tax information are the IRS Package Xs for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

[Borgia]

Official figures are official figures, no matter how you wabt to spin the numbers. When the government publishes GDP growth statistics, the ONLY correct way is to report real GDP growth.

I very distinctly recall you not saying I was using my numbers incorrectly but you questioned the numbers themselves. That you are now using those numbers is satisfying enough for me.

Frankly, I think correcting for revenue via GDP is not a very good basis of comparison. I would rather use inflation adjustments myself. The reason I feel this way is this:

Imagine I run a business and and it being a liberal business I only bring in $10 of revenue (a joke for the conservative audience). Next year I bring in $11 in revenue. Meanwhile, let us say GDP has remained flat. According to the GDP corrected method I increased 10% in revenue. Yet inflation has not been considered and I think that is a much more direct means to compare one data point to another distinct in time data point. If inflation has increased by 10%, my $11 profit of today is the same as my $10 profit of yesteryear.


When computing spending or revenue as a percentage of GDP, the ONLY correct way is to be consistent in the units being compared - current dollars to current dollars. BTW, I looked at the table you referenced and it has exactly the same percentage numbers that I posted, so both tables compare like units as they should.

Cool, we agree that the best way to compare year to year is to adjust for the time in some way (Yr200 dollars or GDP)


Yes, there were rebates mailed out in the Summer of 2001, based on the inclusion of a new 10% bracket for single taxpayers earning less than $6,000, that resulted in an almost immediate end to the Clinton economic downturn, that at the time was considered to be a recession. As usual, there are revised statistics based on additional information and those revisions did not show the 2 consecutive quarters of decline that the preliminary data showed. So as you correctly noted, there was no Clinton Recession, just a Clinton downturn, or slowdown, that President Bush inherited.

BTW, that 10% bracket didn't actually enter into the Tax Rate Schedules until the 2002 tax year. In 2001, it was just a rebate.

A rebate will have the same economic impact as a tax break. It was a rebate because it was retroactive.


However, the full Bush tax rate cuts did not go into effect until 2003 when the top marginal rate was dropped to 35%. Those tax rate cuts need to be made permanent. In addition, since dividends are taxed twice - once at the corporate level and again at the recipients' level - the tax on dividends to the recipients needs to be eliminated.

Actually, much of Bush's tax cuts that are weighted to the upper classes are slated to go into effect from now until 2010. The middle class and lower class got almost all their tax cuts already form what I have read.

Your note on the dividends is true, but I have no problem with it being taxed twice (corporate and individual). To the individual it is income and therefore taxable IMO.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I very distinctly recall you not saying I was using my numbers incorrectly but you questioned the numbers themselves. That you are now using those numbers is satisfying enough for me.
Typical liberal tactic - misrepresenting my position. GDP growth statistics MUST be REAL as they are in the Bureau of Economic Analysis tables. You are again being intellectually dishonest.

Frankly, I think correcting for revenue via GDP is not a very good basis of comparison. I would rather use inflation adjustments myself. The reason I feel this way is this:

Imagine I run a business and and it being a liberal business I only bring in $10 of revenue (a joke for the conservative audience). Next year I bring in $11 in revenue. Meanwhile, let us say GDP has remained flat. According to the GDP corrected method I increased 10% in revenue. Yet inflation has not been considered and I think that is a much more direct means to compare one data point to another distinct in time data point. If inflation has increased by 10%, my $11 profit of today is the same as my $10 profit of yesteryear.
Revenue, spending, and the deficit have always been stated in current dollars, so it's only correct that the comparison for percentage of GDP growth MUST be in current dollars.

Cool, we agree that the best way to compare year to year is to adjust for the time in some way (Yr200 dollars or GDP)
Typical liberal. Once again you are being intellectually dishonest. You know damn well that I never agreed to any such thing.

A rebate will have the same economic impact as a tax break. It was a rebate because it was retroactive.
Yeah, it did stop cold what was then thought to be the Clinton Recession.

Actually, much of Bush's tax cuts that are weighted to the upper classes are slated to go into effect from now until 2010. The middle class and lower class got almost all their tax cuts already form what I have read.
If Bush's tax rate cuts are weighted to the upper classes, why are the upper classes carrying a larger share of the tax burden? The claim that Bush's tax rate cuts are weighted to the upper classes is nothing more than liberal Big Lie Propaganda. The top 50% of all taxpayers are paying 96.54% of all taxes (2003, the latest year available), the highest percentage since the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html) started keeping records in 1980.

Your note on the dividends is true, but I have no problem with it being taxed twice (corporate and individual). To the individual it is income and therefore taxable IMO.
I think that double taxation is unconstitutional. Then, I take it that you would support allowing the corporations to issue dividends without paying taxes on the amount of those dividends.

[Borgia]

Typical liberal tactic - misrepresenting my position. GDP growth statistics MUST be REAL as they are in the Bureau of Economic Analysis tables. You are again being intellectually dishonest.

Ok, we agree that REAL (adjusted) dollars should be used. I have no problem with that.


Revenue, spending, and the deficit have always been stated in current dollars, so it's only correct that the comparison for percentage of GDP growth MUST be in current dollars.

No disagreement that ideally GDP growth would account for inflation in some way.


Yeah, it did stop cold what was then thought to be the Clinton Recession.
OK, you agree you were wrong in saying that Bush had no retroactive tax cuts in 2001. So how did those cust effect the economy in 2001 and 2002?


If Bush's tax rate cuts are weighted to the upper classes, why are the upper classes carrying a larger share of the tax burden? The claim that Bush's tax rate cuts are weighted to the upper classes is nothing more than liberal Big Lie Propaganda. The top 50% of all taxpayers are paying 96.54% of all taxes (2003, the latest year available), the highest percentage since the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html) started keeping records in 1980.

Alas, the statistic you quote is meaningless. You need to include what percent of the income is being earned by the top 50%. Here, let me show you with a simple example.

Fred earns $100
George earns $10
Frank earns $0

Fred pays $20 in taxes
George pays $5 in taxes
Frank pays $0 in taxes

By the method you just stated, Fred is paying (20/25) 80% of the taxes while George pays 20%. Sounds bad, eh?

But note that Fred earns 91% of the income so logically he should be paying at least 91% of the taxes.

That is why your statistic is meaningless. You need to account for the amount of income each percentile group earns.


I think that double taxation is unconstitutional. Then, I take it that you would support allowing the corporations to issue dividends without paying taxes on the amount of those dividends.

The corporations don't pay taxes on the dividends. The person receiving them does as it is income to them. This whole double taxation issue is invalid IMO.

[The_Elucidator]

NA & NT, this thread will reach 500 and numb nuts will still be chasing his tail like a longhaired Dachshund with a dingle berry. You can't carry on a debate with a liberal who is hell-bent on paying in the 50% tax bracket and thinks that Clinton actually accomplished something positive. The only reason Clinton had any positive growth is because of the IT industry. A chimp could have been in the Whitehouse and had positive growth. He did nothing more than be in the right place at the right time. Had it not been for IT, he would have gone down as even a bigger disgrace than Carter. At least Carter didn't bang his employees.

[Borgia]

NA & NT, this thread will reach 500 and numb nuts will still be chasing his tail like a longhaired Dachshund with a dingle berry. You can't carry on a debate with a liberal who is hell-bent on paying in the 50% tax bracket and thinks that Clinton actually accomplished something positive. The only reason Clinton had any positive growth is because of the IT industry. A chimp could have been in the Whitehouse and had positive growth. He did nothing more than be in the right place at the right time. Had it not been for IT, he would have gone down as even a bigger disgrace than Carter. At least Carter didn't bang his employees.

LOL! But according to NT, it was not the IT that gave Clinton prosperity, it was Reagan's economic plans.

So NT says it was Reagan that provided Clinton's economic success and The Elucidator says it was IT.

NT says the Clinton years were good economically while NA says the Clinton years were disaster.

I wish you conservatives would get your stories consistent. WERe teh Clinton years good or bad? If good, were they due to Reagan or IT? :)

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ok, we agree that REAL (adjusted) dollars should be used. I have no problem with that.

No disagreement that ideally GDP growth would account for inflation in some way.
I wish that you would make up your mind. It's impossible to hold a meaningful discussion when you keep changing your mind.

First you posted GDP growth based on current dollars. When I pointed out that the official BEA GDP growth tables contained REAL GDP growth, you looked it up and agreed. In the last couple of days, you claimed that using real GDP growth was wrong and that I should accept your original GDP growth figures based on current dollars. Now you you say that the REAL GDP growth used by the BEA is correct. You must have learned how to flip-flop, flip-flop, over and over again from the master flip-flopper himself, John Kerry.

When I posted spending as a percent of GDP taken directly from the FY 2007 Budget Historical Tables where current dollars were used for both GDP and spending, as well as for revenue and the deficit, you objected, claiming that I should be comparing spending in current dollars with GDP in real dollars - equivalent to comparing apples to oranges. Now you have even flip-flopped on that and are agreeing that current dollars, as used in the Historical Tables, are correct.

The Historical Tables correctly computed the ratio between spending, revenue, and the deficit, in current dollars, with GDP in current dollars. Since current dollars have always been used for spending, revenue, and the deficit, it would make no sense change to real dollars (adjusted for inflation).

The corporations don't pay taxes on the dividends.
Yes they do. Corporations distribute their dividends out of their net after tax income. Therefore, dividends are double-taxed. Dividends should be made exempt from taxes either at the corporate level or at the recipient's level.

[Borgia]

I wish that you would make up your mind. It's impossible to hold a meaningful discussion when you keep changing your mind.

First you posted GDP growth based on current dollars. When I pointed out that the official BEA GDP growth tables contained REAL GDP growth, you looked it up and agreed. In the last couple of days, you claimed that using real GDP growth was wrong and that I should accept your original GDP growth figures based on current dollars.

Yeah, I got the terms REAL and CURRENT mixed up for a second there. Sorry about that. The best measure of comparison would account for inflation so REAL is better than CURRENT IMO.




Yes they do. Corporations distribute their dividends out of their net after tax income. Therefore, dividends are double-taxed. Dividends should be made exempt from taxes either at the corporate level or at the recipient's level.

I meant for one entity they are not taxed twice. The corporation is not taxed twice but the dividends are. I have no problem with that.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Borgia:
Your frequent flip-flops described in my previous post are further examples of your intellectual dishonesty. Please stop trying to get me to join you in being intellectually dishonest. If you want to fudge the numbers in the official BEA GDP growth tables and in the Budget Historical Tables, feel free to do so, but stop trying yo get me to cheat along with you. I've worked hard all my life building and maintaining a reputation for honesty and I'm not going to compromise my integrity to help you in your futile attempts to rehabilitate the most dishonest, the most corrupt, the most immoral, and the most incompetent president ever, that scumbag-in-chief, BJ Clinton.

I'm going to take The_Elucidator's advice and stop my discussion with numb-nuts Borgia.

[Borgia]

NT:

Now that we have established that you need to account for inflation when comparing year to year data let's run the numbers. So I am using YR 2000 dollars where all data is inflation adjusted to the YR 2000 dollars.

We both agreed that the first year of the Presidency should be thrown out due to the President acting under the budget of the previosu president. That leaves us CLinton ('94-'01) and Bush ('02-'05)

You further requested that since 9/11 was a singular event and had a great impact on the economy we should throw out '02 data as well. I agreed to that as well.

So, the raw numbers (adjusted for inflation) that we will deal with are:

YR / Revenue
'93 / 1283
'94 / 1414
'95 / 1482
'96 / 1558
'97 / 1661
'98 / 1783
'99 / 1875
'00 / 2025

'02 / 1777
'03 / 1667
'04 / 1713
'05 / 1898

Now, you will note I included '93 data and '02 data but that is only to calculate the % increase for the next years ('94 and '03).

We now run this through a spreadsheet to figure out what the percent increase per year was and we get this:

'94 / 6.9%
'95 / 4.8%
'96 / 5.1%
'97 / 6.6%
'98 / 7.9%
'99 / 4.6%
'00 / 8.0%

'03 / -6.2%
'04 / 3.0%
'05 / 10.5%

If we take the average of these for each PResident we arrive at:

Clinton: 5.0%
Bush: 2.6%

So, we can conclude from the numbers that Clinton's average revenue (inflation adjusted) growth rate was almost twice as high as Bush's.

[Native American]

Using Borgia's figures above (which he says are inflation adjusted) and excluding Clinton's worst year (1993) and Bush's first year (2002, which wasn't even his worst year) we see that even then Bush's economic performance has easily outpaced Clinton's!!

Clinton's average yearly revenue was only $1685 versus Bush's far superior $1759, which is over 4% higher than what Clinton was able to achieve!

Thanks for playing, Borgia.

[Borgia]

NT, where did you go? I'm using YOUR numbers and even throwing out a bad year for Bush due to 9/11.

Still Clinton looks better on average than Bush.