The ‘magic button’ of economics doesn’t work
Growing up in the ’60s, William Beach knew it was a good idea to show up to caddy at the local country club on Thursdays. The future economist knew that on Thursdays, most of the rich men in town skipped work and met at the course to play golf, and they would usually be good for healthy tips.
Today, Beach works as head of data analysis at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. Looking back, he told a Georgia Public Policy Foundation conference last week, he believes that those high-earning men worked just four days a week because at the time, high marginal tax rates of 90 percent to 70 percent didn’t make it worth their time to work a full schedule.
In other words, marginal tax rates drive the availability of country club tee times.
Beach didn’t seem to be joking in those remarks, and his audience certainly didn’t take it that way. His story offers a wonderful example of what I call “magic-button economics,” the tendency to explain almost anything that happens in economics and human life through the factor of tax rates on the wealthy.
Christine Ries, an economics professor at Georgia Tech who served on a state tax-reform commission last year, also subscribes to magic-button economics. In her own presentation at the GPPF conference, Ries bemoaned the Legislature’s failure to adopt the commission’s recommendations earlier this year, but predicted the setback would be temporary.
The commission’s recommendations, she reminded her listeners, would have reduced the tax burden on the wealthiest of Georgians — the “job creators,” she called them — by cutting the state income tax rate in half. To her credit, Ries also acknowledged that cutting taxes on the wealthy would mean putting more of the tax burden on the lower and middle classes, mainly by broadening the sales tax to apply to items such as food. But that’s a burden they should be willing to bear, she said.
“If you’re going to put a good tax reform proposal together, it’s going to be regressive,” she said. “People are going to have to accept that.”
Georgia already has a very low tax burden on business, she acknowledged. But it’s essential to Georgia’s future that taxes on the wealthy be made lower still, especially since the state is trying to compete with states such as Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee, with even lower taxes on job creators.
If Georgia enacts such reform, she predicted “growth beyond what any of us imagine, in a shorter time than any of us imagine.”
In other words, magic-button economics.
Unfortunately, the magic button hasn’t seemed to work for Florida, with a 10.7 percent unemployment rate; or for Tennessee, with a 9.7 percent unemployment rate; or for South Carolina, which has an unemployment rate of 11.1 percent, all well above the national average of 9.1 percent.
It also hasn’t worked at the national level. President Bush hit the magic button hard, enacting major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Yet even before the recession hit, gross domestic product and the number of jobs had both grown more slowly in the 2000s than they had since World War II.
In their comments, Ries and Beach talked about computerized economic models that Heritage Foundation is creating to help legislators and citizens project the impact of tax reform in Georgia. Those models will assume that tax reform inspires considerable growth, Ries confirmed in emails after the conference.
In other words, those models will project “magic-button” economic growth that is likely to be much too optimistic, putting the state budget at great risk. In fact, such models are so notoriously inaccurate that the Congressional Budget Office refuses to use them to project revenue.
Earlier this year, for example, Heritage used such assumptions to model the impact of a GOP proposal to cut a variety of taxes at the national level, with most again accruing to the wealthy. According to the model, the proposal would lower unemployment to 6.4 percent by next year, and to an unheard-of 2.8 percent by 2021.
After howls of disbelief from other economists, Heritage was forced to withdraw those projections as unrealistic. But that same approach is now coming to Georgia.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
752 comments Add your comment
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
October 5th, 2011
10:29 am
Paul,
Challenges on semantics doesn’t win your argument. When one action extinguishes life while another only extracts intelligence, while allowing life to continue presents a considerable difference.
Gator Joe
October 5th, 2011
10:30 am
Jay:
Two problems with your 10:19 AM post, first your intellectually challenged Right Wing readers will ignore what you’ve posted because it didn’t originate from Fox, and second, it contains factual information.
By the way, I don’t believe the wealthy and Big Business are opposed to higher taxes or spending for essential services, that is, so long as others in economic strata below them are doing the paying and not them.
ragnar danneskjold
October 5th, 2011
10:30 am
Dear Jay @ 10:19, three errors in your analysis. (1) Use monthly figures, the trends are easier to spot. (2) Consider private market employment as a benchmark, rather than using bureaucrats to pad your numbers. (3) As to the Clinton era, you confuse coincidence and causation. The Clinton era growth is more attributable to NAFTA and welfare reform than tax rate increases. Surely even you would concede that there is no rational reason that a tax rate increase would stimulate economic growth?
Don't Forget
October 5th, 2011
10:31 am
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
10:05 am
My point is that in response to this Obama’s policies are making things worse, not better and that due to decreasing revenues he should also gradually begin to decrease the reckless spending. Bush deserves credit too for the debt situation but the Bush card is all played out and when you bring W into the conversation it just sounds like the old Dem talking points.
Thulsa, which Obama policies are making this worse? I have seen estimates that Obama has increased spending by about 167 billion a year with his policies but that doesn’t come close to explaining the rise in the deficit. I also don’t see how you can say the Bush policies are “all played out” when they continue to add to the deficit by more and more every year. The R’s want to repeal health care reform despite the CBO estimates that it will reduce the deficit, but they have no intention to repeal those deficit producing cuts. I’ll admit that the dems could have done something about part D and that part D has worked out much better than Bush’s own estimates. The problem I had with part D is that the government is prohibited from negotiating prices with the drug companies. This would do a lot to control those drug costs in the same way that Wal Mart negotiates prices to keep their costs down.
AmVet
October 5th, 2011
10:33 am
Last night, something very interesting happened here.
A couple of the self-destructive neo-cons – Stevie ray and kayaker 71 – admitted that they have no problem at all with the fact that wages for the vast percentage of American households have flat-lined over the past forty years. Or that the first decade of this century was a “lost decade” – the typical American household made LESS money than they did ten years earlier.
I salute them for their honesty. Even if it is insane.
I now think it is time for the rest of you in the right wing to do the same. And acknowledge that the destruction of the middle class is part and parcel of your economic vision as forwarded by your representatives in Washington and Atlanta.
As is the case with alcoholism or drug-abuse, admitting you have a serious problem is the first step in recovering.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
October 5th, 2011
10:34 am
Joe Mama,
There are three branches of government. The Executive Branch, the two chambers that comprise Congress and the Supreme Court. Now from that bit of information you can hopefully, do your homework on how our government works so you can make informed posts.
Jay
October 5th, 2011
10:34 am
And Recon, the rules of war going back centuries, not to mention common sense, recognize a clear distinction between how you treat an enemy on the field of battle, where he is armed and capable of doing you real harm, and how you treat that same enemy once he is disarmed, under your control and incapable of harm.
The guy in Yemen was leading and organizing attacks against us, and needed to be taken out. You can’t compare that to a guy shackled and blindfolded and naked in Guantanamo.
Paul
October 5th, 2011
10:34 am
Recon
Using words improperly (assassinate) doesn’t win yours.
Unless you’re asserting Marines are nothing but a bunch of paid assassins?
Butch Cassidy
October 5th, 2011
10:35 am
Gator Joe – “Big Business are opposed to higher taxes or spending for essential services, that is, so long as others in economic strata below them are doing the paying and not them.”
For those that still want to play the Wealth Envy card, please read and re-read this:
“that cutting taxes on the wealthy would mean putting more of the tax burden on the lower and middle classes, mainly by broadening the sales tax to apply to items such as food. But that’s a burden they should be willing to bear”
By asking anyone in the middle or lower class to continue feeding them,the upper elite must be met with a resounding F#CK YOU! But that’s a burden they should be willing to bear.
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
10:35 am
Recon — “There are three branches of government. The Executive Branch, the two chambers that comprise Congress and the Supreme Court. Now from that bit of information you can hopefully, do your homework on how our government works so you can make informed posts.”
If you have some specific and substantive complaint or objection to any of my posts, then I heartily exhort you to strap on a pair and post such complaints or objections here.
Otherwise, you can go jump in a lake. Hugz! (laughing)
mike "hussein" smith
October 5th, 2011
10:36 am
Back to the original topic: How did Georgia get so drunk on the TP so fast? Some doctors’ offices still close on Thursdays. Some even open on Saturdays. Wonder how Master Beach would explain those away. And Ries has gone from nowhere to total stupidity within just a few years of her foray into the public affairs of Georgia. If she knew anything about economics, she’d realize that the first two mega-doses of corporate tax relief in the past decade didn’t do one dime’s bit of good for our economy and more. And didn’t stop the right’s whining about having to pay too much in taxes.
Paul
October 5th, 2011
10:36 am
Recon
And what on earth does ‘allowing another life to continue’ have to do with whether or not someone was assassinated?!!? Did I miss another part of yourcreative definition?
Trotsky Foxtrot
October 5th, 2011
10:37 am
RB from Gwinnett: “Let’s do a simple math exercise and see if you can keep up. If Lowwageearner currently pays $0.00 in taxes”
A little slow with the wakey wakey this morning?
Pays $0.00 in taxes? What the hell does that mean?
There is no such thing.
Oh, unless it’s the growing class of high earners who pay zero income tax on incomes over $200,000 according to that left wing rag Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/high-income-no-tax-returns-almost-doubled-in-2008-irs-says.html).
ragnar danneskjold
October 5th, 2011
10:37 am
Dear Jay @ 10:34, if you want to kill one guy that is easy to do. If you want to extract information to dismantle a network of terrorism, you better not kill the guy. Your advocacy of free range killing reflects a desire to take out only a single guy rather than to cure the problem. It is inverse of the “teach a man to fish” postulate.
professional skeptic
October 5th, 2011
10:37 am
Butch Cassidy
October 5th, 2011
10:26 am
I’m a CPA who deals in facts and evidence. If others can convince me with facts that a “job” is a product of ONLY the capitalist and not also the laborer and the consumer, and that the capitalist is the ONLY vital part of our economy and that the laborer and consumer don’t matter, then I’ll take what they say seriously.
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
10:39 am
First of all, you can’t blithely pretend the ‘01 cuts didn’t occur. The magic button was pushed and pushed hard, it didn’t work. The ‘01 Bush tax cuts were very large, estimated at $1.35 trillion over a 10-year period,- Jay
Jay,
First of all thank you for making my point for me. Lets start first with your misleading info on the tax cuts. As I pointed out economic growth accelerated once the cuts were fully realized.
In June 2001, President Bush signed into law the first wave of tax cuts. The relief included reductions of marginal income tax rates and tax relief for families, for example, doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. To reduce the budgetary impact, Congress phased in the tax cuts over several years.
Since the tax cuts were slow to go into effect, they were slow to help the economy. In fact, the economy continued to lose jobs after the tax cuts even though the recession officially ended in November 2001.
Realizing the error of its ways, in May 2003 Congress accelerated the tax cuts to make them effective immediately. In addition to reducing marginal income tax rates, Congress also lowered the tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
It was, as clearly pointed out after the 2nd round of tax cuts that growth finally took off. I’ll hang you with your own data. Your own numbers show that for the next several years that economic growth took off after the Bush tax cuts were fully realized. Just the facts sir.
2001: 1.1
2002: 1.8
2003: 2.5
2004: 3.5
2005: 3.1
2006: 2.7
Jay, Now before you say I’m “cherrypicking” let me kindly point out that the growth rates were decent growth rates up until the recession hit in 2007. I’ll get to your other misleading points in a moment.
The Thin Guy
October 5th, 2011
10:39 am
To see Jay Bookman’s economic theories in action check out Illinois
http://illinoispolicy.org/blog/blog.asp?ArticleSource=4429
They have raised taxes on everything that can be taxed and their economy is in the tank and headed straight down.
What’s the solution? First, put an American in the White House who believes in capitalism. Second, round up all the illegal immigrants and send them packing. Third, drill for oil everywhere it’s found in the USA. Fourth, start building nuclear plants to replace all fossil fuel sources of electricity. Fifth, make the entire country a right to work environment.Sixth, repeal Marxist Medicine. Seventh, just sit back and relax and everything will be all right.
As the former presidential candidate Micheal Dukakis said: A fish rots from the head. And the stench coming from the White House would gag a maggot.
jms
October 5th, 2011
10:40 am
The federal government has more of a spending problem than a revenue problem. I’m no tea partier but they are correct that our run-away spending has to be curtailed.
I support modest tax increases to pay down our debt if we get spending under control. There is a big difference between 90% marginal rates and 40% marginal rates. The golfers were just acting rationally. The wealthy can absorb a 3 or 4% increase in taxes but saying the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share is off-putting. In all but a few cases (like Buffet), the wealthy pay more BOTH as percent of income and in dollars.
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
10:40 am
T. Foxtrot — “A little slow with the wakey wakey this morning?”
I *specifically* told him that I was talking about low-wage *taxpaying* earners and he blew right past it. I don’t think he reads things very closely before he posts.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
October 5th, 2011
10:41 am
Joe Mama
I was only trying to help you out as it was obvious that you were unaware as to which party controlled Congress during Bush’s second term.
Jay and Paul, I won’t waste any additional time to an argument you both lost.
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
10:41 am
Doom — “Now before you say I’m “cherrypicking” let me kindly point out that the growth rates were decent growth rates up until the recession hit in 2007.”
You’ve already admitted on another thread that it’s cherrypicking to stop your analysis of the Bush tax cuts in 2007.
Gator Joe
October 5th, 2011
10:41 am
Butch,
If you quote me at least keep it in context. My exact statement: “I don’t believe the wealthy and Big Business are opposed to higher taxes or spending for essential services, that is, so long as others in economic strata below them are doing the paying and not them.”
No wealth envy here, I just despise their monster self-interest, and greed at the expense of others, especially the poor.
Butch Cassidy
October 5th, 2011
10:42 am
Joe Mama – ” I don’t think he reads things very closely before he posts.”
I think you’re giving him too much credit in that you actually believe he reads.
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
10:42 am
Jay,
Great response regarding the statistics. I’d like to add that much of the tax revenue growth and GDP growth during Clinton era was result of Dot.com inflating bubble which popped 2001 I recall. Anyhow, it seems to me that it’s difficult to assign what caused GDP growth in any single year since this result is primarily attributed to changes that took place in the preceding 5 years or so.
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
10:44 am
“In your preferred five-year period after the ‘03 cuts again pushed the “magic button,” i.e. 2004-2008, real GDP growth averaged a paltry 2.3 percent (it would of course be much lower if we include 2009, but I’m cutting you yet another break here.)”
Jay,
You’re being misleading yet again. The tax cuts certainly worked up until the housing meltdown brought about economic recession. But then again I suppose you think that’s all Bush’s fault. If you look at economic growth rates when the tax rates were fully realized in May of 03 up until the recession of 07 growth rates were respectable. You chose to include 07 and 08 numbers which is fair enough but of course we both know that the recessionary numbers are going to skew the results of the numbers between May of 03 and 07.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
October 5th, 2011
10:44 am
Well my Conservative friends congratulations on another win against Jay’s blog topic. Things to do, so I’ll catch y’all later.
EJ Moosa
October 5th, 2011
10:44 am
There is a magic button for economics. It’s called profit.
For years the stated goal of the democrats has been that they were going to go after those profits.
Companies failing to grow profits do not hire.
It’s that simple.
To ignore that simple fact will not make it untrue.
Butch Cassidy
October 5th, 2011
10:44 am
Gator Joe – “No wealth envy here, I just despise their monster self-interest, and greed at the expense of others, especially the poor.
No wealth envy implied. I was speaking to the others on here that automatically assume wealth envy if you dare question why the upper incomes continue to grow at an accelerated rate while the middle and lower incomes do not.
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
10:45 am
Recon — “I was only trying to help you out as it was obvious that you were unaware as to which party controlled Congress during Bush’s second term.”
And you seem to be unaware as to *when* that happened. That’s why I said “2001-2007.” Bush took office in 2001. The Democrats were seated as the majority in 2007.
Perhaps you should pay greater attention to detail in your own posts rather than trying to find mistakes in the posts of others, Recon.
Paul
October 5th, 2011
10:45 am
Recon
Shhhh.. I’m reading a history of the Pacific in WWII.
It’s all about the thousands of Japanese our Marines assassinated.
Obozonomics
October 5th, 2011
10:46 am
Amazing how quickly the left defends the loser economics of Obozo…This administration acts like a teenager who found Mom’s purse on payday. But wait aren’t these the same crybabies that complained when Bush bought toilet paper for the White House, or maybe the same people who still blame Bush for everything that they do wrong?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 5th, 2011
10:46 am
Well my Conservative friends congratulations on another win against Jay’s blog topic. Things to do, so I’ll catch y’all later.
Here’s the judges review….2….1….2….2…1…3….and the Russian gives them a 10.
stands for decibels
October 5th, 2011
10:47 am
Isn’t it great how guys like Del conveniently choose to forget that we executed people for torturing our guys, back in the day?
I’m sorry, did I call it “torture?” I guess I should use Del’s PC term–”[alleged] intelligence extraction.”
stands for decibels
October 5th, 2011
10:48 am
Oh, and just so everyone knows, I won all my arguments this morning so there!
Butch Cassidy
October 5th, 2011
10:49 am
Obozonomics – “Amazing how quickly the left defends the loser economics of Obozo…”
Amazing how quickly somone like Obozonomics defends the position that as a middle class taxpayer, he should be appreciative of the upper class for allowing him to be financially raped.
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
10:50 am
AmVet, its’ nice to hear from you again and I’m flattered that you continue to draw attention to my comments. My mantra for 10 years or so is (sans the god reference) that I have the wisdom to know the difference between things I can and cannot control. I’m only a victim of my own doings and have to remember that I lurk behind the rocks and shadows ready to make my life difficult. My point remains that carrying on like this “abused” middle class is a victim of others is insane and generates vehement arguments that the government can cure all ills. I’m ok with the alledged soaking of the “middle class” (now includes those making up to $250K….help me with that one) because many of those folks actually live within their means and are only victims of their own selves.
For the record, I’m not remotely a right winger as I consider each issue separately and feel that anyone who subscribes hook, line and sinker to the complete dogma of either nutty party is not worth debating….
md
October 5th, 2011
10:51 am
Well, seems in relation to taxes, Obama is painting some of his party into a corner with his job plan express……….”pass this bill” currently doesn’t have the votes to get through the Senate, and forcing his “side” to vote in favor of tax increases is not sitting well with some dems sitting on the re-election hot seat………………
Should be interesting to watch…………
Granny Godzilla
October 5th, 2011
10:51 am
“intelligence extraction”
now there’s a great punch line
yuzeyurbrane
October 5th, 2011
10:54 am
Heritage experts are simply members of the world’s oldest profession.
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
10:54 am
Typical government at work relative to killing the evil doers. First, these “successes” came at the expense of over 140,000 plus innocent lives. Second, as usual with government forays, if we calculate the costs of killing or otherwise detaining these wingnuts, the cost per wingnut will make us all puke….by my math, each one cost taxpayers several hundred million dollars. It seems we can do much domestic good if we kept that money here, and either never borrowed it or provided assistance to those in need here who are the subject of most of these debates….
Armed Liberal
October 5th, 2011
10:55 am
The stoopid is strong in here today.
TaxPayer
October 5th, 2011
10:55 am
I once thought that there could be only one black knight until Scout showed up with his rant on birth certificates. Then I was forced to concede that there were at two. Now along comes Doom and his incessant rant about how the glorious Bush tax cuts actually accomplished something other than further enriching the wealthiest at the expense of the poorest. Doom! Quit biting Jay’s ankles.
md
October 5th, 2011
10:56 am
“No wealth envy here, I just despise their monster self-interest, and greed at the expense of others, especially the poor.”
A valid sentiment as long as one can understand that self-interest and greed are not contained to one end of the spectrum………if not, it’s still more than likely envy.
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
10:58 am
In the five-year period after Clinton’s 1993 tax HIKE — allegedly the anti-magic button — GDP grew by an average of 3.8 percent.
To review:
– 3.8 percent average annual growth after a tax HIKE.
– 2.3 percent average annual growth after a tax cut (and allowing you to cherry pick the data).
I already see you trying to pull that “Clinton tech bubble” card out of your back pocket, so let me save you the trouble. Should you attempt it, I will pull the “Bush housing bubble” card, which as the data demonstrate was much much larger.
THOSE are the facts not in dispute.
Jay,
A couple things. First of all when Clinton came into office oil was at $11 a barrel and stayed between that and $20 a barrel throughout his presidency. Secondly we had historically low inflation, thirdly Clinton was beginning to benefit from the peace dividend from the fall of the USSR in the form of reduced military expenditures, and fourthly this thing called the internet opened up. Castro could have been potus and the economy would have grown with the opening up of the internet age- incredible economic conditions that would have made any president- even Obama, look good.
With these factors clearing the way, the economy should have displayed spectacular and accelerating growth in the years immediately after Clinton entered the White House, but growth of that magnitude did not materialize until later in the decade.
From 1993 until 1997, the economy grew at a pedestrian 3.3 percent per year.[4] While solid, this growth was certainly not exceptional. During that same time, real wages declined, despite the perception that the 1990s were an era of unmitigated abundance.[5]
It was not until after a 1997 tax cut, passed by the Republican-led Congress—a tax cut President Clinton resisted but ultimately signed—that the spectacular growth kicked in. While small in revenue impact, the 1997 cuts included a reduction of the capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. This opened the capital floodgates necessary for entrepreneurs to develop, harness, and bring to market the wonders of the new information technologies.
Business investment skyrocketed after the tax cut,[6] and the economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.4 percent (33 percent faster than after the Clinton tax hike) from 1997 through the end of the Clinton presidency. Real wages reversed their downward trend and grew 1.7 percent per year during the same time.
The economic reality Jay is that with incredible economic winds at his back the economy should have grown more substantially from 93 through 97 than it did. It did not and the primary reason is the tax hike. And as I understand it and will research it later on the CBO estimated that the Clinton tax hike accounted for all of 1% of federal tax revenues the next year. I’ll look that up later but if that is true then we have further evidence that the Clinton tax hike was more bad than good.
Last the fact of the matter is that the best Clinton growth occurred after the Republican led 97 tax cut. Yet again the facts are simply not in dispute sir.
AmVet
October 5th, 2011
11:00 am
“…are only victims of their own selves.”
The obvious problem, Stevie is that you never have the first fact to back up your slogans.
Here are a couple for you to
consideronce again irrationally and completely disregard.We are talking about 80% of Americans.
EIGHTY PERCENT.
That is the number of we the working people, who built this country, that earn less income, in adjusted inflation dollars, than they did in the 1970s.
Even though their productivity has doubled.
And you think that a) this is the normal and proper evolution of American capitalism and b) that those millions and millions and millions of Americans all did it to themselves.
I would like to see more of such honesty among you far right wingers,
Don't Forget
October 5th, 2011
11:00 am
TD – And perhaps you fail to grasp the simple economics concept that unemployment is an indicator of economic performance albeit a lagging indicator. Did you have a point or is there perhaps a reason as to why you didn’t think I or anyone on here wouldn’t understand what unemployment is?
By itself the unemployment rate tells you very little without noting the direction and rate of change. Citing the unemployment shortly after the stock market crash is like checking the level of a creek right afte a hurricane starts and concluding that the rain isn’t all that bad. A much more accurate measure is the growth in GDP. As Jay’s figures above illustrate, 2010 had better growth than all but 2 of W’s years but Obama is saddled with an unemployment rate that was the result of all those job losses of 2007-2009.
Jay
October 5th, 2011
11:00 am
Dear Jay @ 10:19, three errors in your analysis. (1) Use monthly figures, the trends are easier to spot. (2) Consider private market employment as a benchmark, rather than using bureaucrats to pad your numbers. (3) As to the Clinton era, you confuse coincidence and causation. The Clinton era growth is more attributable to NAFTA and welfare reform than tax rate increases. Surely even you would concede that there is no rational reason that a tax rate increase would stimulate economic growth?
Really Ragnar? Monthly totals? Annual totals are the sum of monthly totals. The whole thesis behind the magic button theory is that lower taxes increase investment incentive, a long-term process, and you think that’s going to show up better in MONTHLY figures? Absurd. You’re just throwing out objections for the sake of doing so.
And you think welfare reform (which wasn’t passed until ‘96, BTW) explains GDP growth under Clinton? Also absurd. No economist in the country, right or left, would buy that one.
Finally, let’s deal with this:
“Surely even you would concede that there is no rational reason that a tax rate increase would stimulate economic growth?”
Hell no I won’t concede that.
Clinton pushed for the ‘93 tax hikes as a way to convince Wall Street that the then-soaring deficit ($290 billion in ‘92) would be addressed, thus restoring investor confidence. Not a single Republican voted for it, and in fact they uniformly predicted disaster. As Dick Armey said, “Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.”
But as we all know, it worked very well. The deficit fell by $35 billion in 93, another $52 billion in 94 and another $40 billion in ‘95, and the economy boomed.
Fact.
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
11:01 am
Armed Liberal, calling names and assuming your position is undisputable are not valid debate points. Can’t you offer something that is worthy of debate. I assure you, neither of us will ever be accused of being the smartest in the room/forum. Do you buy all the postions of the so called Liberals and read only the information that supports your predisposed postions or do you research each issue, separate the wheat from the chaff in your own mind?
stands for decibels
October 5th, 2011
11:05 am
As Dick Armey said, “Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.”
fortunately, Armey was run out of town on a rail and never heard from again!
oh, wait…
Steve - USA
October 5th, 2011
11:05 am
Stevie Ray@10:50 For the record, I’m not remotely a right winger as I consider each issue separately and feel that anyone who subscribes hook, line and sinker to the complete dogma of either nutty party is not worth debating….
Ditto
HDB
October 5th, 2011
11:06 am
kayaker 71
October 5th, 2011
9:58 am
“What makes you think that can dictate to any business in a free society what they pay their CEOs? It is none of your damned business….. you don’t have any right to dictate their payroll structure anymore than I do.”
Actually….we ALL do….with our purchasing power!! If a corporation produces a product that fills the public need….the public purchases said product….and said company is profitable, the CEO’s pay is based on that profit created by fulfilling the consumer need!!
Good little liberal
October 5th, 2011
11:06 am
Thulsa Doom
really well written and logical post at 10:58. Indisputable facts.
But just think about the whole argument. Jay is claiming that when businesses have to take money that could be used for expansion and capital growth and pay more taxes, the business will grow.
Isn’t it amazing that this is even a debate?
St. Louis
October 5th, 2011
11:07 am
I suggest enhanced interrogations’ for the job creator’s until they start creating jobs.
Armed Liberal
October 5th, 2011
11:08 am
Stevie Ray – That was an observation, not a debate point.
It’s a bit early for the “victim card” as y’all usually play that after lunchtime.
Man up please.
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
11:09 am
AmVet, so now you are stooping to name calling and the fun ceases. I’m not sure what your solution is to your less than credible position that the government can do anything to change your inflation adjusted fact. Did you include union members and overpaid government workers in your calculations? Did you include those whose inflation adjusted income are result of obsolesence of the service or product they produced? Do you include the fact that the wealth of this class so discriminated against (those who lived within their means that is…) actually increased dramatically due to 401K and pensions adjusted for inflation not to mention historic record of housing appreciation since the 1970’s? Point here is that you and all those complaining have a choice, due to capitalism, to change their situation instead of waiting on others, government in particular to change it for you…..it won’t happen. Take responsibility for yourself and don’t assume all of this “affected” class are in the same boat that you suggest.
Steve - USA
October 5th, 2011
11:11 am
The bottom line is that the USA has painted itself into a corner and no matter your view of the solution there is more pain to come.
Good little liberal
October 5th, 2011
11:11 am
St. Louis
“I suggest enhanced interrogations’ for the job creator’s until they start creating jobs.”
We don’t participate in that kind of barbaric behavior any more. Maybe Obama will do the democratic thing and launch thermal missiles from a drone and burn them and their families alive while they eat their dinner. it the more kind and just thing to do.
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
11:11 am
Thanks Armed Liberal….I reckon I read too much into your comments. I didn’t know there were timing rules to positioning on this forum. Can you let me know any others so I can be a good spoutinghead?
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
11:11 am
“I already see you trying to pull that “Clinton tech bubble” card out of your back pocket, so let me save you the trouble. Should you attempt it, I will pull the “Bush housing bubble” card, which as the data demonstrate was much much larger.”- JAY
JAY,
We can go that route and I can continue busting you up some more using your own data.
The economic defense of the Clinton tax hikes does not hold up against the historical facts. The economy did exhibit strong economic growth during the 1990s, but rapid growth did not occur soon after the tax hike—it came much later in the decade, when Congress cut taxes. After the 1993 tax hike, the economy actually slowed to a point below what one would expect, considering the once-in-a-generation favorable economic climate that existed at the time.
As for the overall economic recovery—that started well before President Clinton took office. In January 1993, the economy was in the 22nd month of expansion following the recession from July 1990 to March 1991.
Meanwhile, using data you provided a week or 2 ago the recession Bush inherited officially started in March of 2001- a mere 40 days after Bush came into office.
And if you want to talk about Obama we can use data you provided in that controversial graph you posted a couple of months ago regarding job losses. In that graph it showed precisely the Bush recession of 07 and it showed precisely where job losses bottomed out and when was that? Yep. Go back and look it up Jay. Job losses bottomed out in Jan of when Obama came into office meaning he came into office at the very bottom and about the only place to go was up. That’s some very fortuitous timing wouldn’t you say? So he caught the very bottom and less than 3 years later he still managed to muck everything up all over again.
So to recap Clinton inherited an economy that was in its 22nd month of expansion, Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into recession 40 days after he came into office, and Obama had the good fortune of inheriting a deep recession that began way back in mid 2007 I think and a recession which had already bottomed out, particularly in terms of job losses and the only way to go was up. Go ahead Jay. Look it up. I’m just using data you have provided.
getalife
October 5th, 2011
11:12 am
You will never get the lying cons to admit their ideology failed but you can show up at Occupy Wall Street protests to get real change for the people.
Let us never forget that without socialism to bail them out, there would be no capitalism.
Greed killed capitalism and socialism bailed them out.
Dirty Dawg
October 5th, 2011
11:13 am
Well it certainly seems that Ms. Ries has got her ‘conservative think tank’ talking points down pat. In fact if she’s yet another scion of the Al Ries clan of huckster/snake-oil salesmen(& women) then it’s patently obvious where she’s coming from. The sole role of The Heritage Foundation and their ilk, is to figure out ways for the ‘private sector’ to suck the money out of the ‘public sector’ and put it their ‘off-shore’ accounts, and they’ve managed to accomplish that very well.
I compare our current financial issue – the tax stuff that is – to tooth-paste. You squeeze it from the bottom and when the bottom has been squeezed out, then you have to get it from the only place that’s left with anything to use to brush your damned teeth with.
There are plenty of reasons why we got into this fix, but again I say the only way out, and the answer to the continuing question the ‘right’ keeps asking about what do these ‘Occupy Wall Streeters’ want, is one, final, Hail Mary – namely, complete overhaul of our political campaign system with dramatic reductions in both the length and depth of campaigns themselves, cost-based rates from the media for any political advertising, no ‘third party’ or special interest group political advocacy/political advertising…AND PUBLIC FINANCING of campaigns. combined with the most important element of the process, the complete elimination of all campaign contributions from any source – individual, PAC, corporation, foundations, anything – and if the Supreme Court tries to stop it claiming that it’s against the Constitutional right to free speech, then impeach their asses – just before we amend the Constitution. Fact is folks, so long as we allow ‘legalized bribery’ of our elected officials – right and left – this is the mess we’re gonna have to live, or die, with. It’s the only way to get, at least, the majority of the damn money out of the system and give us a shot at running a democracy that isn’t bought and paid for.
Whahema
October 5th, 2011
11:13 am
Jay does not want to talk about the Bush years when he reached for the Nazi compaison himself. He shouldn’t.
This column is more of the same li eral nonsense that everyone but the lefties are somehow crazy. It has realy gotten old.
Armed Liberal
October 5th, 2011
11:13 am
You’re welcome Stevie!!
Just remember: Bravado in the a.m. THEN Victimhood in the p.m.
St. Louis
October 5th, 2011
11:14 am
Commence atomic wedgie sequence.
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
11:14 am
GLL,
Heck I’m hanging Jay with his own data. When I showed him the pedestrian Clinton growth rates from 93 to 97 with incredibly favorite economic conditions at his back what can Jay really say? Especially when you compare the economic growth rates after the Republican led tax cut in 97 when the Clinton economy then realized its best growth years. The data is right there for all to see.This is too easy.
Jay
October 5th, 2011
11:14 am
Thulsa, if you’re going to steal Heritage Foundation stuff, you should at least attribute it.
I also love how a GDP growth of 3.3 percent under Clinton is described as “pedestrian,” while you were earlier bragging about how great that 2.3 percent growth under Bush had been.
Finally, your Heritage “borrowing” claims that the economy didn’t really pick up until AFTER this ‘97 tax cut. In the first place, the tax cuts in ‘97 were pretty small: $85 billion. Second, the bill was passed late in the year and didn’t take effect until ‘98-’00.
Yet in ‘97, long before the tax cut was implemented or even passed, GDP growth was 4.5 percent. In fact, the average GDP growth in the subsequent three years, ‘98-’00, was slightly LOWER than it had been in ‘97, pre-tax cut.
Overall, you prove my point quite well. Conservatives talk fervently about the single magic button, until you point out the repeated instances in which the magic button didn’t work. THEN they start talking about how complicated an economy is, and all the different factors, and oil prices and welfare reform and the knee bone is connected to the neck bone, etc.
Joe the Plutocrat
October 5th, 2011
11:15 am
ragnar, rational self interest and the adoloescent musings of Ayn Rand might apply to discussions of a financial/economic nature; but I fail to see the logic in your take on counterterrorism. 1 – there is no “cure” to terrorism, save killing ALL terrorists. ergo, “killing one guy” is most certainly judicious and prudent; especially is the “one guy” is OBL or the dirtbag we whacked in Yemen (the proverbial head of the snake). it has been documented that “enahnced interrogation” does not work (and who is to say the intel that led to the bin Laden raid, or the recent Predator strike in Yemen was not secured the old fashioned way; developing assets, pursuing leads, applying logic and reason to the mission at hand)? don’t get me wrong, I think terrorists should be tourtured as a punitive measure, not as part of interrogation (see: KSM). and again, there are more effective forms of interrogation, which produce far better results than water-boarding. the Predator strike in Yemen wasn’t a “free range” operation. the CIA knew who was in he vehicle, and they acted with lethal force. we can debate the Constitutionality of targeting an American citizen, but that’s another conversation, and as I noted a few days back, Troy Davis was “targeted” and last time I checked, he was an American.
md
October 5th, 2011
11:15 am
“And you think that a) this is the normal and proper evolution of American capitalism and b) that those millions and millions and millions of Americans all did it to themselves.”
And I’d throw out that an argument could be made along that line of thought……….it was/is those millions that do the bulk of the consuming………and a few years back, began to buy many many foreign products such as Infinity’s (for you) and Hondas, and numerous other products made overseas at a fraction of the cost…………
Think all those years of buying cheaper crap didn’t have an effect on salaries here??
Come on…………….we helped buy our selves out of more income………..
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
11:16 am
Thulsa, please bear in mind that I’m not blaming Clinton (who in retrospect I have great respect) for the Dot.com bubble burst…he had no impact or play in that which resulted from the same overspeculation seen in housing bubble (along with no small amount of Wall Street mischief…see The Big Short if you want a laugh at how a guy mentally ill with asbergers actually figured it all out before S&P et al). I don’t blame Bush for that either…the government has much control over market fluctuations and adjustments as they have creating jobs by cutting taxes or spending trillions. Good god man, think these things through!
JohnnyReb
October 5th, 2011
11:17 am
Whether a Wingnut or Moonbat, it is apparent both spending and taxing must be in the equation. Just taxing the rich more won’t fix the problem. Any reference to doing so is more political posturing than reality.
The tax system needs an overhaul, and no one has been keeping an eye on entitlement and other spending obligations.
As difficult as it may be to believe, it was not until sometime in the 80’s that accounting practices required pension obligations be included in the financial reporting for a company. Up until then, and Jay can correct me if wrong, a company did not have to show how they intended to pay pension obligations. Someone in the government then saw the light, too bad it did not illuminate for the feds the way it did for corporations. If the Feds had become do as I instead of do as I say, we might not be in this situation.
Adam
October 5th, 2011
11:18 am
Obama’s fault in the FIRST POST. That’s GOT to be a record.
The solution isn’t to necessarily RAISE taxes, but it damn sure isn’t to LOWER them. Lowering taxes has no worked for job creation EVER. So STOP LOWERING TAXES. Continuing to lower them is a GOP Long-Game-Agenda(TM) of making the tax rates so low that not only do we have to cut spending to deal with the shortfall, we also have to have reasonable people (usually the Democrats) propose raising taxes. It’s all about power – ousting Democrats for proposing such OUTLANDISH things as raising taxes, and keeping the Republicans in power by attacking only the government programs their base doesn’t like or can be made to not like through the efforts of the propaganda machine.
Everyone here, cons included, knows that Obama is only proposing tax revenue be drawn from either closing loopholes on top earners or on top earning businesses (these are also known as “special interests.”) But Karl Rove’s American Crossroads has released an ad that makes it look like Obama wants to raise taxes on middle class people, by cutting in pictures of middle class people and cutting OUT any aspects of a soundbite that would make people think it is about millionaires and billionaires and loopholes. Looks like he’s up to the same old misdirection tricks.
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
11:19 am
AmVet that’s just plan funny I don’t care who you are…I’m learning that the middle of the road is a crappy place to navigate, particularly in this forum…I’m getting hit and run by uninsured drivers left and right (no pun intended).
GT
October 5th, 2011
11:20 am
“Punish” is what rich citizens call supporting this country, that has supported their wealth making. If that is the case what do the people who have died for this country call their duty?
ragnar danneskjold
October 5th, 2011
11:21 am
Dear Jay, thanks for your thorough, if deficient, answer. Minor correction, your annual totals are not a sum, but merely an average. We agree that an annual average may give some long term gauge to eternal trends, but if you are looking for specific effects of specific policies, and monthly information is available, monthly information is the better source. Example, an annual average with numbers declining every month, followed by a year that is flat until a final quarter acceleration – as was the case in 20011 and 2002 – may cause policies to look ineffective based on annual numbers, but comes to life with you look at the monthly data. I realize you are not an economist, but I am trying to help you learn the basics.
I also remember the 1990s, and 1993 and 1994 were pretty flat. Until 90 days after Mr. Newt took control of the house in 1995, the stock market was lower than when Mr. Clinton took office. The economy responded to responsible congressional leadership and soared thereafter. I acknowledge the tax increase was a nonevent, coming at the end of the 1991 recession (which was triggered by a tax increase!), but – in the usual leftist fashion, you do not endeavor to explain why a tax increase “stimulated” the moribund economy. I stand by my logical argument, that the prospect of the massive NAFTA free-trade stimulated the economy, and that the later-welfare reform accelerated the growth.
Tax increases do not restore “investor confidence.” Note the levels of the stock market on Dec 1 1993 vs March 1 1995. There was no investor confidence created by the tax increase. No rational investor thinks more money going to bureaucrats makes an economy stronger, otherwise we would be outperforming Hong Kong, and Egypt would be outperforming us.
Heritage has a nice detailed and logical analysis of the debilitating effects of the Clinton tax hikes, at heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/09/Setting-the-Tax-Record-Straight-Clinton-Hikes-Slowed-Growth-Bush-Cuts-Promoted-Recovery
md
October 5th, 2011
11:21 am
“Actually….we ALL do….with our purchasing power!!”
And the Chinese people are quite grateful………….their wages went up a nickel.
Jay
October 5th, 2011
11:22 am
Obama’s fault in the FIRST POST. That’s GOT to be a record.
No, Adam, it merely TIES a longstanding record. Kinda like the thousands of baseball players who have tied the record for making the most putouts in an inning (3).
Stevie Ray
October 5th, 2011
11:23 am
Johnny Reb, good to see you are not still declaring the South the victors of that Civil War thingy. Good call on pension funding as corporations took a tactic from the Government accounting handbook and accrued for such liabilities which provided the option of wiggling out via bankruptcy. The government is not only not subject to audit (who can really account for trillions?) but operates on the premise that with respect to Medicare/caid, SS, and other such programs currently valued at over 100 trillion or so, will always be met by the latest workers. If a corporation operated in the same fashion, it wouldn’t last long at all….
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
11:25 am
Doom — “It was not until after a 1997 tax cut, passed by the Republican-led Congress—a tax cut President Clinton resisted but ultimately signed—that the spectacular growth kicked in. While small in revenue impact, the 1997 cuts included a reduction of the capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. This opened the capital floodgates necessary for entrepreneurs to develop, harness, and bring to market the wonders of the new information technologies.”
I love how Doom gets all excited about the internet’s potential impact on business and simultaneously ignores the dot-com earth-shattering kaboom of just a few years later.
Because it was all that “irrational exuberance” about those very internet technologies that *led* to the tech bust. (laughing)
Mick
October 5th, 2011
11:25 am
**Heritage has a nice detailed and logical analysis of the debilitating effects of the Clinton tax hikes**
Ragnar economics explains it all or welcome to fantasy island? Isn’t it funny how we see what we want to see and not what stares us right in the face?
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
11:33 am
Doom — “Go back and look it up Jay. Job losses bottomed out in Jan of when Obama came into office meaning he came into office at the very bottom and about the only place to go was up. That’s some very fortuitous timing wouldn’t you say?”
This is, without a doubt, one of the most pathetically straw-grasping constructions I have ever seen on any IBB or blog, anywhere at any time.
To posit that Obama somehow timed his assumption of the office of President to coincide with a turnaround in the overall national employment numbers is not only ludicrous but also outrageously laughable.
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
11:34 am
Jay,
Sorry but I’ve cited that heritage study numerous times. I kinda figured you and several others new where it was from.
“I also love how a GDP growth of 3.3 percent under Clinton is described as “pedestrian,” while you were earlier bragging about how great that 2.3 percent growth under Bush had been”– Jay
Jay,
As I pointed out both inherited dramatically different economic conditions- Bush inherited a recession 40 days into office and 9/11 8 months later. Clinton inherited an economy in its 22nd month of expansion and economic conditions that Bush or Obama could only dream of.
“Finally, your Heritage “borrowing” claims that the economy didn’t really pick up until AFTER this ‘97 tax cut. In the first place, the tax cuts in ‘97 were pretty small: $85 billion. Second, the bill was passed late in the year and didn’t take effect until ‘98-’00.”- Jay
Jay,
It doesn’t matter. Part of it is psychological. Even if the tax cuts don’t take effect until 98 its the message that it sends to business and the investor class and hence the positive ramp up going forward. They know that the tax cuts are coming. You conveniently ignore this point. Even if you take 97 out of the equation aren’t growth rates through the rest of the Clinton presidency superior than the preceding years of 93-97 when Clinton hiked taxes? Yes. They are and your own data proves it.
I’m out. Got to git to work. Ya’ll have fun the rest of the day.
Jefferson
October 5th, 2011
11:34 am
So the GOP policies of the 2000’s put the USA in the ditch. I can buy that.
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
11:35 am
R. Danneskjold — “totals are not a sum, but merely an average”
getalife
October 5th, 2011
11:36 am
The American spring has begun and they are not leaving.
Are they having Occupy Wall Street protests in Atlanta?
Arguing with dishonest cons changes nothing.
GT
October 5th, 2011
11:36 am
Taxing the rich is a headline that doesn’t cover the story. What America needs is full time citizens that have an interest in this country. If you are going to get out in front of traffic and move 20 mph clogging the road, you need to move aside and let more ambitious men and women take your place.
Thulsa Doom
October 5th, 2011
11:37 am
“To posit that Obama somehow timed his assumption of the office of President to coincide with a turnaround in the overall national employment numbers is not only ludicrous but also outrageously laughable”.- Joe Mama
Joe mama,
I’ve got to run but if you could please repost where I stated that “Obama himself timed his presidency” to coincide with the bottoming out of job losses. I said no such thing sir. I merely pointed out that through no fault of his own his timing coming into office was very fortuitous. That’s all. To say that a man can time job losses at all let alone when he is not even president is indeed ludicrous.
Jm
October 5th, 2011
11:38 am
Well, I guess liberals are no longer “tax and spend”
Now they are “spend then tax”
JohnnyReb
October 5th, 2011
11:38 am
Stevie Ray – sounds like you are up on the accounting requirements. Yes, as difficult as it may be to accept, the our Federal Government is in a situation like some families – more debt than can be paid. The Libs would like to mostly solve by higher taxes on those already shouldering the most tax burden. Repubs want to try and grow our way out of it. Neither would likely work. Instead, it will take drastic cuts to federal spending including the big three SS, Medicare and Caid, more taxes from All, not just the rich. And those completely dependent on government handouts must face the reality that will end and they will starve, or be in a soup line, if they don’t find a way to at least help support themselves.
Jay
October 5th, 2011
11:39 am
I also remember the 1990s, and 1993 and 1994 were pretty flat. Until 90 days after Mr. Newt took control of the house in 1995, the stock market was lower than when Mr. Clinton took office.
Ragnar, stop. Just stop. You’re inventing stuff out of thin air, to put it mildly.
On Jan. 15, 1993, about the time Clinton took office, the Dow was at 3270.
By Nov. 4, 1994 — right around Election Day — it had risen to 3807, an increase of more than 16 percent in less than two years.
Stop lying. If you have to lie to defend your position, change your damn position.
But just stop.
Kamchak
October 5th, 2011
11:40 am
(along with no small amount of Wall Street mischief…see The Big Short if you want a laugh at how a guy mentally ill with asbergers actually figured it all out before S&P et al)
No, Brooksley Born waned of the danger of the unregulated derivatives market a full decade before.
Jm
October 5th, 2011
11:41 am
I love how bipolar liberals want to spend almost a trillion saving banks
To turn around and then destroy them
After so much insanity, democrats are going todrice us back to Sep 2008 again
Brilliant
Steve - USA
October 5th, 2011
11:44 am
I really hope Occupy Wall Street comes to Atlanta, I will enjoy getting a hot chocolate and laughing at them when the temps drop.
Trotsky Foxtrot
October 5th, 2011
11:45 am
Jm: “Well, I guess liberals are no longer “tax and spend””
What’s a “liberal” ?
getalife
October 5th, 2011
11:48 am
Here is the info. on Occupy Atlanta:
http://occupyatlanta.org/
Jm
October 5th, 2011
11:48 am
Trotsky not you
You’re a commie
Joe Mama
October 5th, 2011
11:49 am
Doom — “I’ve got to run but if you could please repost where I stated that “Obama himself timed his presidency” to coincide with the bottoming out of job losses. I said no such thing sir.
I’m going to use your regular tactics, Mr. Doom, and point out that your intent is pretty clear. If you didn’t think it was something intentional on Obama’s part, then you could certainly have said so. By leaving that unsaid — especially given your previous announced antipathy toward the President — you give the clear impression that you think he somehow timed his assumption of the Presidency to coincide with a reversal in the unemployment trend.
If you didn’t think that, then why comment so pointedly on it?
And far from there being nowhere to go but up — as long as people are still employed in the US, unemployment could very well have continued to rise. For someone who makes his living with numbers, you certainly seem to have succumbed to an attack of innumeracy on this thread, Mr. Doom.
“I merely pointed out that through no fault of his own”
You didn’t say anything *remotely resembling* “through no fault of his own.” If that’s what you think, however, you could certainly clarify your position.
“his timing coming into office was very fortuitous. That’s all. To say that a man can time job losses at all let alone when he is not even president is indeed ludicrous.”
Which is why I didn’t *accuse* of you of saying that he timed job losses. I accused you of saying that he timed his assumption of the office of President. You even quoted what I said — and restated it in the first sentence of your post — and yet you still misrepresented it at the end of your post. Attention to detail, Mr. Doom.
AmVet
October 5th, 2011
11:50 am
I’m not sure what your solution is to your less than credible position that the government can do anything to change your inflation adjusted fact.
Of course, you are not. You still won’t even admit that the facts are the facts.
And as you never provide your own, it’s a very safe position to simply gainsay the reality of record income redistribution UP the economic ladder..
Did you include union members and overpaid government workers in your calculations? Did you include those whose inflation adjusted income are result of obsolesence of the service or product they produced?
Yes. Of course, the 80% fact that you won’t acknowledge is for ALL Americans.
Do you include the fact that the wealth of this class so discriminated against (those who lived within their means that is…) actually increased dramatically due to 401K and pensions adjusted for inflation…
Completely fabricated nonsense.
The wealth of the middle class has NOT increased dramatically. It has dropped dramatically. How many times must you try some bizarre back door to avoid admitting that obvious fact?
Point here is that you and all those complaining have a choice, due to capitalism, to change their situation instead of waiting on others, government in particular to change it for you…
Apparently your contention is that 80% of all American working class family members are all lazy slobs who made bad choices.
It borders on immoral.
Jm
October 5th, 2011
11:50 am
The libs already occupy Atlanta
City council
Marta
Fulton co commission
Etc
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 5th, 2011
11:50 am
To repeat a great line with a minor tweak
[T]o Donald Trump [and the other wingnuts], pushing an economically destructive agenda while dressed in colonial garb is “a great service.” But joining a movement aimed at holding the banking industry that plummeted the economy into recession accountable is laughable.
GT
October 5th, 2011
11:52 am
There is a saying that if the world went broke and everybody had to start at zero in the bank, the rich would soon be back being rich and the poor being poor in a matter of days. If that is true taxing these rich guys would create more activity from them as they recover their position, while taxing the poor and middle class changes nothing in activity.