Barack - What Are His Positions?

hedo · March 12, 2008, 11:35am

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

You haven’t offered a debate or given much of a discussion yet. I’m right and you are trying to deflect the point and making yourself seem silly in the process. Please continue.

Begin again. High taxes are good for the economy and stimulate growth how?

good.
freaking.
lord.

You made up the negative effects of taxes and democratic performance. Now go f–ing look and see how untrue it is (I even provided you with suggestions so as to not embarrass you here)
This isn’t a debate, as I already said, Dems crush Reps on economic performance(by any measure,but for the sake of this argument, GDP), and yes tax percentages are higher under dems.

This is the EXACT opposite of what you are claiming.

And for the millionth time I’m not arguing causation, only that NO, taxes have not hurt economic performance, but yes lower taxes coincide with the decreased performance of republican economies. (recently 2001 and 2003 tax cuts followed by a. recession, and b. the most anemic recovery from a recession in history and since then only Poppa Bush has been worse)

You are just dead wrong on this, hilariously so.

Damn you are stupid.

[/quote]

You are funny. In a pathetic sort of way. Like watching Hillary and Obama debate, it’s just a train wreck to watch.

You are entertaining though. You always make me laugh shithead. If it wasm’t fo weenie Dems like you it wouldn’t bne any fun.

Raise taxes, weaken the military, raise entitlements woo-hoo just the change we need. Too funny.

Liberal policies are a disaster for this and any other economy. Put that in your blog son.

hedo · March 12, 2008, 11:35am

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?[/quote]

It doesn’t appear he has one.

100meters · March 12, 2008, 5:44pm

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?[/quote]

Ask Hedo.

I mean really that’s my whole point there’s nothing to show that increasing taxes causes a negative anymore than tax cuts create a positive, the data obviously suggests the opposite, but there’s only a dozen other factors at work…

100meters · March 12, 2008, 5:47pm

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

You haven’t offered a debate or given much of a discussion yet. I’m right and you are trying to deflect the point and making yourself seem silly in the process. Please continue.

Begin again. High taxes are good for the economy and stimulate growth how?

good.
freaking.
lord.

You made up the negative effects of taxes and democratic performance. Now go f–ing look and see how untrue it is (I even provided you with suggestions so as to not embarrass you here)
This isn’t a debate, as I already said, Dems crush Reps on economic performance(by any measure,but for the sake of this argument, GDP), and yes tax percentages are higher under dems.

This is the EXACT opposite of what you are claiming.

And for the millionth time I’m not arguing causation, only that NO, taxes have not hurt economic performance, but yes lower taxes coincide with the decreased performance of republican economies. (recently 2001 and 2003 tax cuts followed by a. recession, and b. the most anemic recovery from a recession in history and since then only Poppa Bush has been worse)

You are just dead wrong on this, hilariously so.

Damn you are stupid.

You are funny. In a pathetic sort of way. Like watching Hillary and Obama debate, it’s just a train wreck to watch.

You are entertaining though. You always make me laugh shithead. If it wasm’t fo weenie Dems like you it wouldn’t bne any fun.

Raise taxes, weaken the military, raise entitlements woo-hoo just the change we need. Too funny.

Liberal policies are a disaster for this and any other economy. Put that in your blog son.

[/quote]

You really are stupid.
You were dead wrong, man up and admit it.

100meters · March 12, 2008, 5:50pm

[quote]hedo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?

It doesn’t appear he has one.

[/quote]

Other than you have no clue about economics, as I’ve demonstrated.

100meters · March 13, 2008, 1:13am

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?[/quote]

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

DrSkeptix · March 13, 2008, 2:04am

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

1
I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

[/quote]

Now I am confused.
Do not these files support Hedo’s and BB’s points?:

Tax cuts increased business actiivity, GDP and tax revenues? (This is particularly the case with the JFK-LBJ data: the “JFK” tax-cut, enacted by LBJ, is often cited as an example of the direct benefits of the tax cut. The economy was plowed under because of it, arguably, during RMN and Ford’s years.)
Tax cuts are enacted in apprehension of a business slow-down (Ike, GHWB) and are not causative.
It is best to be inaugurated after a recession (WJC, JFK) or have one early in your term (RR). This has made Democrats look better than Republicans, but may have nothing to do with specific “Democratic” policies.

The argument that tax-cuts are the single cause of anything is open to fallacy: “post-hoc, ergo propter hoc.”

Sloth · March 13, 2008, 2:12am

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

[/quote]

I don’t for one minute think that tax cuts alone just “boom!” solve all our economic woes, but this seems rather simplistic. What policies were carried out under each President? What kind of congress did he face? What was spending like? What was trade like? How did war and the after effects skew this? How long did the effects of each President’s (and congress) economic policies take to alter the current (at the time) economy? What kind of economically wide-reaching industries were taking off (if any) at the time?

When we see a tax cutting/massive budget cutting government in place, then I’ll be paying attention. At the very most you’ve demonstrated that Republicans have failed to deliver on the other side of the fiscally conservative coin.

pittbulll · March 13, 2008, 2:36am

I think if you could get 5 notable people to say the same thing, everyone would think it has to be true. Like the Earth is flat or man is responsible for Global warming, or Marijuana is a gate way drug. I am sure others can think of something that was thought to be common knowledge, but turned out to be common bullshit.

Why does not business, use a similar program. Business does competitively price their goods, but never has a sane business man priced his goods below his cost

100meters · March 13, 2008, 2:43am

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

1
I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

Now I am confused.
Do not these files support Hedo’s and BB’s points?:

Tax cuts increased business actiivity, GDP and tax revenues? (This is particularly the case with the JFK-LBJ data: the “JFK” tax-cut, enacted by LBJ, is often cited as an example of the direct benefits of the tax cut. The economy was plowed under because of it, arguably, during RMN and Ford’s years.)
Tax cuts are enacted in apprehension of a business slow-down (Ike, GHWB) and are not causative.
It is best to be inaugurated after a recession (WJC, JFK) or have one early in your term (RR). This has made Democrats look better than Republicans, but may have nothing to do with specific “Democratic” policies.

The argument that tax-cuts are the single cause of anything is open to fallacy: “post-hoc, ergo propter hoc.”
[/quote]

that’s exactly what I’m saying.

In short:
It’s stupid say that:

a. tax cuts/raises “cause” the effects Hedo claims.
b. republican policies are better than democratic ones.

also as to the LBJ/“Kennedy” tax cut, I’ll point you to the chart again on annual changes in taxes as a percent of personal income which did indeed raise under LBJ (I am absolutely not arguing however that those demand side cut type tax cuts did not stimulate the economy, but they (and other stimuli) eventually led to suppressed economic performance (real GDP 2.5 in 1967) thanks to inflation…)

Also, this may be obvious to some but as angry bear likes to point out, taxes can be raised by actually changing the rate and/or by increasing enforcement. One can cut the rate and increase enforcement and collect more taxes.

100meters · March 13, 2008, 3:42am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

I don’t for one minute think that tax cuts alone just “boom!” solve all our economic woes, but this seems rather simplistic. What policies were carried out under each President? What kind of congress did he face? What was spending like? What was trade like? How did war and the after effects skew this? How long did the effects of each President’s (and congress) economic policies take to alter the current (at the time) economy? What kind of economically wide-reaching industries were taking off (if any) at the time?

When we see a tax cutting/massive budget cutting government in place, then I’ll be paying attention. At the very most you’ve demonstrated that Republicans have failed to deliver on the other side of the fiscally conservative coin. [/quote]

Look, I totally agree, many factors play into this, but to say Obama(random democrat) is going to raise taxes AND destroy the economy, is just

stupid
stupid
stupid.

but that’s hedo for you, for whom up is often down.

Petedacook · March 13, 2008, 11:03am

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
After listening to one of his speeches, I can articulate exactly what his positions are on a whole host of topics…

Uhhh…give me a minute…uhh…let me think…

uhhh… here you go:

[/quote]

Real classy.

hedo · March 13, 2008, 2:41pm

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

I don’t for one minute think that tax cuts alone just “boom!” solve all our economic woes, but this seems rather simplistic. What policies were carried out under each President? What kind of congress did he face? What was spending like? What was trade like? How did war and the after effects skew this? How long did the effects of each President’s (and congress) economic policies take to alter the current (at the time) economy? What kind of economically wide-reaching industries were taking off (if any) at the time?

When we see a tax cutting/massive budget cutting government in place, then I’ll be paying attention. At the very most you’ve demonstrated that Republicans have failed to deliver on the other side of the fiscally conservative coin.

Look, I totally agree, many factors play into this, but to say Obama(random democrat) is going to raise taxes AND destroy the economy, is just

stupid
stupid
stupid.

but that’s hedo for you, for whom up is often down.
[/quote]

Higher taxes lead to less investment in the economy because less capital is available to invest. Common sense. Most of the other points you have been trying to make are simply red herrings or a tangent to deflect youe ignorance of economics.

Trying to make the case that the economy and growth have been better under Democratic administrations and liberal economic policies simply isn’t tru and you haven’t made anything approaching an argument to that point. Again common sense is lost on you. In general the less government involvement in business the better and this had been proved time and time again both in the US and abroad. What planet are you on?

Evidence that you offered, makes my point, more then the one you think you are trying to make, which has been pointed out to you. That’s what is making this so funny for everyone dipshit. You just don’t realize it. Projecting your shortcomings and failings on me is also getting quite tiresome since you are whining like a teenage girl on her period.

Trying to school you is like trying to teach a cat to bark. You just don’t have the ability and the excercise is pointless. So at this point you are merely boring and tiresome so it’s time for you to go away.

You have however done Barack a service. The point of the thread was supposed to be about his positions. Much like Barack you don’t seem able to discuss sunstantial issues and prefer to go off on meaningless rants. That seems to be the extent of Barack’s positions also.

100meters · March 13, 2008, 6:10pm

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

I don’t for one minute think that tax cuts alone just “boom!” solve all our economic woes, but this seems rather simplistic. What policies were carried out under each President? What kind of congress did he face? What was spending like? What was trade like? How did war and the after effects skew this? How long did the effects of each President’s (and congress) economic policies take to alter the current (at the time) economy? What kind of economically wide-reaching industries were taking off (if any) at the time?

When we see a tax cutting/massive budget cutting government in place, then I’ll be paying attention. At the very most you’ve demonstrated that Republicans have failed to deliver on the other side of the fiscally conservative coin.

Look, I totally agree, many factors play into this, but to say Obama(random democrat) is going to raise taxes AND destroy the economy, is just

stupid
stupid
stupid.

but that’s hedo for you, for whom up is often down.

Higher taxes lead to less investment in the economy because less capital is available to invest. Common sense. Most of the other points you have been trying to make are simply red herrings or a tangent to deflect youe ignorance of economics.

Trying to make the case that the economy and growth have been better under Democratic administrations and liberal economic policies simply isn’t tru and you haven’t made anything approaching an argument to that point. Again common sense is lost on you. In general the less government involvement in business the better and this had been proved time and time again both in the US and abroad. What planet are you on?

Evidence that you offered, makes my point, more then the one you think you are trying to make, which has been pointed out to you. That’s what is making this so funny for everyone dipshit. You just don’t realize it. Projecting your shortcomings and failings on me is also getting quite tiresome since you are whining like a teenage girl on her period.

Trying to school you is like trying to teach a cat to bark. You just don’t have the ability and the excercise is pointless. So at this point you are merely boring and tiresome so it’s time for you to go away.

You have however done Barack a service. The point of the thread was supposed to be about his positions. Much like Barack you don’t seem able to discuss sunstantial issues and prefer to go off on meaningless rants. That seems to be the extent of Barack’s positions also.

[/quote]

Except factually, if facts matter, you’re dead wrong.
In almost every measure, even with concessions, Dems beat Republicans (I’ve only used real GDP, but it could be almost anything), eventhough yes, they’ve been taxing more than republicans.

This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of your premise.

You can read charts, right?

BostonBarrister · March 13, 2008, 9:58pm

[quote]100meters wrote:

here’s some insight on the “business cycle” with graphs and their references.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

here’s removing best and worst years, to help republicans a bit more (more recessions obviously)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html

this one highlights some of the perceived paradoxes in tax rates and growth…

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/09/tax-rates-over-time-gdp-growth-rates.html

now, I understand this stuff will go right over Hedo’s head, but still…factually he’s totally wrong on the tax thing, and second how stupid can you be to critique democratic economic policies when their results far exceed those of republicans? I mean good freaking lord.

[/quote]

These don’t help - removing the best and worst years is a random adjustment that one would undertake to smooth variability, but doesn’t make sense in this case, and doesn’t address the business cycle at all, and nothing really addressed the lag effect of the policies that were enacted - but my concern is more about causation.

Particularly, neither of Nixon or Ford was a tax cutter - their economic plans were more command-and-control than anything Bill Clinton did. Bill Clinton had the Republican Congress enact a greatly stimulative tax-cut package as well.

Reagan and Paul Volcker forced a recession on purpose in order to kill the stagflation that traced itself back to LBJ-induced inflation, those afore-mentioned command-and-control policies, Carter’s version of the same, the Oil Shock and a Fed that bumbled and stumbled along until Volkcer hooked up with Reagan and got the political support he needed.

If one were a Keynesian, one would agree that tax cuts were a way to inject money into the economy - and would probably be enacted during times in which you were concerned about economic growth - i.e., the economic growth was slow or slowing, or you were in a recession. Conversely, from a political standpoint, tax increases are more likely to be put in place when the electorate isn’t concerned about the added expense.

Marginal tax rates are going to affect behavior in that they increase or decrease the cost of making that next dollar - you could look at it as if they affected the desirability of taking a risk on an investment. This obviously won’t turn off all investment - and it’s only one factor in figuring out the return (e.g., in a bull stock market you’d likely still have more investors than in a bear stock even if the bear market had a slightly lower marginal tax rate).

All tax cuts aren’t created equal - some are much more stimulative than others. Cuts to marginal income tax rates, capital gains and derivatives are stimulative. Child tax credits, education credits, and other social-engineering tax credits or cuts aren’t.

BostonBarrister · March 13, 2008, 9:59pm

Here’s an interesting post on Hillary’s and Obama’s proposed tax plans:

100meters · March 13, 2008, 11:05pm

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

These don’t help - removing the best and worst years is a random adjustment that one would undertake to smooth variability, but doesn’t make sense in this case, and doesn’t address the business cycle at all, and nothing really addressed the lag effect of the policies that were enacted - but my concern is more about causation.

Particularly, neither of Nixon or Ford was a tax cutter - their economic plans were more command-and-control than anything Bill Clinton did. Bill Clinton had the Republican Congress enact a greatly stimulative tax-cut package as well.

Reagan and Paul Volcker forced a recession on purpose in order to kill the stagflation that traced itself back to LBJ-induced inflation, those afore-mentioned command-and-control policies, Carter’s version of the same, the Oil Shock and a Fed that bumbled and stumbled along until Volkcer hooked up with Reagan and got the political support he needed.

If one were a Keynesian, one would agree that tax cuts were a way to inject money into the economy - and would probably be enacted during times in which you were concerned about economic growth - i.e., the economic growth was slow or slowing, or you were in a recession. Conversely, from a political standpoint, tax increases are more likely to be put in place when the electorate isn’t concerned about the added expense.

Marginal tax rates are going to affect behavior in that they increase or decrease the cost of making that next dollar - you could look at it as if they affected the desirability of taking a risk on an investment. This obviously won’t turn off all investment - and it’s only one factor in figuring out the return (e.g., in a bull stock market you’d likely still have more investors than in a bear stock even if the bear market had a slightly lower marginal tax rate).

All tax cuts aren’t created equal - some are much more stimulative than others. Cuts to marginal income tax rates, capital gains and derivatives are stimulative. Child tax credits, education credits, and other social-engineering tax credits or cuts aren’t.[/quote]

Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

BostonBarrister · March 13, 2008, 11:27pm

[quote]100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

[/quote]

And my point was different - that your correlations weren’t informative.

Let’s refocus: What sort of effect would you expect raising of marginal income tax rates to have, ceteris parabus, on the production of income? Same question, but with regard to raising the investment tax rates (cap gains and dividends) on investing?

100meters · March 13, 2008, 11:36pm

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

And my point was different - that your correlations weren’t informative.

Let’s refocus: What sort of effect would you expect raising of marginal income tax rates to have, ceteris parabus, on the production of income? Same question, but with regard to raising the investment tax rates (cap gains and dividends) on investing?
[/quote]

hmmm…for me, to refute higher taxes destroy the economy, the 2 charts I linked to (real gdp/per admin and change in personal tax%—because as is obvious to most, your marginal rate is not actually the percentage of your income you pay in taxes) make the basic point.

You could (or anyone) of course point us to charts or data that show how yes, the higher tax rates of democratic presidents have sunk their respective economies compared to the economies of republican presidents.

and yes I understand the CW of taxes.
Of course the government can increase personal income by cutting taxes/and/or spending. The question is how effective is it when those cuts are actually deferrals, well not that effective because at some point the costs have to be paid for…

So can the gov. borrow a boatload of cash and boost GDP, hell yeah! It just comes at a cost later, the GHWB to RR if you will.

DrSkeptix · March 14, 2008, 4:44am

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?