 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO1003
Who do you think invests the most in infrastructure? It is private industry, not government.
"Economic expansion" = top 100% get JOBS! |
Yeah how many jobs did the 2001 tax cut create? or the Reagan cuts? oh yeah... those economic policies didn't create any jobs... in fact, the economy lost jobs...
How many jobs did the 1993 Clinton budget create? What did Clinton's economic policy do?
quote:
· Lower Deficits Mean Lower Interest and Mortgage Rates -- Saving Families Thousands. The government's share of total borrowing in U.S. credit markets has been eliminated from nearly 60 percent just six years ago -- which, according to the Wall Street Journal (5/7), has played a "major role" in keeping down interest rates. Since 1993, about 18 million families have refinanced their homes -- and according to the New York Times and Money magazine, these families have saved an average of $1,000-$2,000 per year in lower mortgage payments.
· Lower Mortgage Rates Mean Higher Homeownership. Lower mortgage rates -- along with higher family incomes, faster job growth, and the President's National Homeownership Strategy -- have helped raise the national homeownership rate to its highest level in American history.
· Lower Interest Rates Mean Faster Business Investment Growth. Under President Clinton, real business investment growth has averaged 12.5 percent -- the fastest since John Kennedy was President.
|
quote:
Faster Business Investment Growth Means Faster Economic Growth and More Jobs. Faster business investment growth helps expand capacity and has led to faster economic growth and more jobs under President Clinton. Since President Clinton took office, the private sector of the economy has grown 4.0 percent per year, the economy has added 17.7 million new jobs, and unemployment has fallen to 4.3 percent -- the peacetime lowest in 41 years. America has the longest peacetime economic expansion in history.
|
quote:
Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 2/20/96: The deficit reduction in the President's 1993 Economic Plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter."
|
Giving rich people money DOES NOT CREATE JOBS.... it DOES NOT EXPAND THE ECONOMY...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Economics Reporting Review
EVALUATING REAGAN'S ECONOMY
Week of February 3 - February 9
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Editor's Note: This is a summary of Mr. Baker's nationally respected column, which features weekly analyses of the business and economics reporting in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Click here to read his full report.
President Bush's tax cut proposal was biggest economic item in the news this week. The proposal of a large tax cut at the beginning of a presidential term prompted obvious comparisons to the Reagan tax cuts. Two different articles in the New York Times made this comparison. In both cases they asserted that it is essentially impossible to evaluate the success of the Reagan era tax cuts. This agnosticism is inappropriate. Economists have standard measures of economic performance, such as GDP growth, productivity growth, and investment growth, the last being a major goal of the Reagan supply-side tax cuts. By each of these measures the economy performed more poorly in the 1980s than in either the 1970s or 1990s. It is always possible to identify extenuating circumstances which can be used to explain why the Reagan tax cuts failed by these measures, but there are few economic policies on which the evidence provides as a clear a basis to make a judgement as this one. The Times has frequently been willing to pass judgements on policies where the evidence was far more ambiguous.
It has been widely asserted in news accounts that tax cuts cannot affect the economy quickly enough to prevent or limit an economic downturn. A Times article informed readers that a tax cut is not likely to be implemented until at least the end of the summer and, "history suggests that the economy is likely to be recovering by then." In the last three recessions, the economy was still experiencing high and rising unemployment well more than a year after the recession began. The lesson from this history is that if the economy entered a recession at the end of 2000, a tax cut in the late summer of 2001 could provide much-needed stimulus.
California's electricity problems were again an important news story. A Times "Week in Review" piece discussed California's electricity deregulation in the context of the world-wide movement towards deregulation and privatization. It described California's experiment in electricity deregulation as being possibly the first "serious real world failure" of this movement. There are many instances of deregulation and/or privatization that would generally be regarded as failures, both nationally and internationally. Topping the list nationally would be the deregulation of the savings and loan industry, which led to a bailout costing approximately $250 billion (in today's dollars). Internationally, privatization has led to massive corruption and theft in many nations, including Mexico, Brazil, and Russia. In the latter, it also led to an economic collapse.
Both papers included articles on the California situation in which they attributed the looming bankruptcy of its two major utilities to the retail price cap on electricity. The previous week, both papers had reported the findings of a state audit of the companies, which revealed that they had been stripped of most of their valuable assets and cash reserves by their parent companies. While the retail price cap clearly has contributed to the utilities' problems, the fact that these assets were taken away is the reason that they have no reserves to cover temporary loses. This fact is especially important in the political debate surrounding a state bailout, since many taxpayers will be reluctant to support a bailout of utilities that placed themselves at financial risk by transferring large amounts of assets and money to their parent corporations or shareholders.
Both papers featured an interview with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, which included a discussion of his unfavorable assessment of the IMF's role in the 1998 financial crisis in Russia. Both articles imply that IMF's effort failed because the ruble eventually collapsed. In fact, virtually all economists now agree that the collapse of the ruble proved a real boon to Russia's economy, since it made its goods more competitive in the world market. This history indicates that the IMF policies were actually counterproductive, since the Fund was trying to have Russia maintain an over-valued currency, and that Russia was fortunate that the IMF did not succeed in its goal.
Click here to read Mr. Baker's full report.
|
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4043
the contributing author is from http://www.cepr.net/ the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
key points from the article:
1. Reagan's policies failed to delivier (no sh1t!)
2. Any possible successes impossible to determine
the CEPR and the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) are both against these stupid policies... and they have more PhD's than you can shake a stick at...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Twenty years ago, in 1981, new President Ronald Reagan prodded Congress to pass a huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy. One of his aides slipped and said the plan's small cut for lower brackets was a "Trojan horse" to lure Congress members into supporting it.
Reagan promised that the reduction would jump-start America's economy through the "supply-side" principle: i.e., the investor class would have more money to spend on factory and business expansions, creating jobs and causing money to " trickle down" to the working class.
Reagan said his cut would unleash "the dynamics of the free market," spurring growth, producing more federal revenue and balancing the U.S. budget by 1983.
Since tax reductions are immensely popular, Congress jumped on the bandwagon, even though then-Vice President George Bush previously had called supply-side "voodoo economics." A feeding frenzy occurred, with cliques of Congress members giving special write-offs to their favorite industries.
The result was the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled.
Today, new President George W. Bush sounds like an echo of 1981 as he calls for a huge tax cut. Will his plan likewise lead to deficits and the need for follow-up increases? Writing in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, former House Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, commented: "Reagan's tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn't call these taxes.' They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, user fees' and revenue-enhancers.'
"Big business got the gravy, and the country got the business. The monumental errors of 1981's tax-cutting frenzy burdened our national budgets for the next 18 years.
"Now that we're finally in balance, and could pay off some of the debt we amassed, it does seem a lousy shame to start down that same temptatious road again."
Politicians rarely seem to learn lessons from history. They think only of the next election. But we hope some senators and representatives remember the 1980s disaster, and inject caution into the current Washington bandwagon.
|
from http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010410/taxcut.shtml courtesy of the Associate Press.
Reagan rose taxes. I wish you Republicans would learn more. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2003 09:00
I just was thinking of betwen $10,000 and $1,000,000 and $200,000 semmed like a nice comprmise. That is also what my family views as the border between middle and upper classes.
|