T Nation

Higher Taxes=Higher Economic Growth

Not sure if the author really understands what they are writing about, but there are a few good points smattered about in this piece.

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes?page=entire

Not sure if the author really understands what they are writing about, but there are a few good points smattered about in this piece.[/quote]

What an utter idiot. I think he is flat making shit up…He does not understand a damn thing about the economy or how government actually uses money. Further he does not understand that the government actually increases it’s own revenue when taxes are lower. I can’t believe this isn’t a spoof. It was so stupid I thought it was at first.
As well as we all know that alternet.org is all about fair and balanced reporting. No axe to grind there, nope.

horrible analysis from the author but the comments are golden…

My friends company already started layoffs from the fear of being excessively taxed in the near future. Announced it the day after the election.

Wow, it’s a good thing you guys know more about tax policy than this author. Why don’t they pay you guys to write columns?

/painfully thick sarcasm

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wow, it’s a good thing you guys know more about tax policy than this author. Why don’t they pay you guys to write columns?

/painfully thick sarcasm[/quote]

Welcome to T-Nation, where people blabber endlessly about gay marriage and racism, but brush aside legitimate criticism of far right economics because it’s, duh, stupid.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My friends company already started layoffs from the fear of being excessively taxed in the near future. Announced it the day after the election.[/quote]

In the 20th century, every period of Democratic presidency has ended in lower unemployment, and every period of republican presidency has resulted in higher unemployment. This is a rule that has NEVER been violated. It’s time for the right to admit they are wrong when it comes to job creation.

The American people, as private individuals create productive jobs. Not the left, not the right. And certainely not the government.

[quote]pat wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes?page=entire

Not sure if the author really understands what they are writing about, but there are a few good points smattered about in this piece.

What an utter idiot. I think he is flat making shit up…He does not understand a damn thing about the economy or how government actually uses money. Further he does not understand that the government actually increases it’s own revenue when taxes are lower.[/quote]

Given how much this line is regurgitated by the right, do you honestly think the author wrote the article without hearing it 50,000 times in its shallow rhetorical form? Revenue increased during the Bush years, not because of his tax cuts, but because the economy grew. Not as much as it normally does, but it did grow. Laffer himself has stated that he does not believe the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves.

Sounds like a spending problem to me. Gut government spending and cut taxes some more!

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The American people, as private individuals create productive jobs. Not the left, not the right. And certainely not the government.[/quote]

Government creates the circumstances in which job creation can flourish. If you do not believe this, try going to Somalia and set up shop with the brightest entrepreneurs you can find. But you probably won’t be able to convince any to go.

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The American people, as private individuals create productive jobs. Not the left, not the right. And certainely not the government.

Government creates the circumstances in which job creation can flourish. If you do not believe this, try going to Somalia and set up shop with the brightest entrepreneurs you can find. But you probably won’t be able to convince any to go.[/quote]

Give me actual courts, law enforcement, national defense, a culture of individual freedom and responsibility, and Somalia would prosper.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The American people, as private individuals create productive jobs. Not the left, not the right. And certainely not the government.

Government creates the circumstances in which job creation can flourish. If you do not believe this, try going to Somalia and set up shop with the brightest entrepreneurs you can find. But you probably won’t be able to convince any to go.

Give me actual courts, law enforcement, national defense, a culture of individual freedom and responsibility, and Somalia would prosper. [/quote]

So now you’re admitting that a certain flavor of government will help job creation, all except for that culture bit. Which gets us back to where we started with the question as to whether the right or the left fosters circumstances that lead to more job creation.

American history offers perfect testimony to the fact that the left does it better. So what if the right was never your pure textbook fiscal conservatism. If your model is best, than partially following your model should be better. But it was always worse.

Every red presidential period ended in higher unemployment, and every blue presidential period ended in lower unemployment.

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The American people, as private individuals create productive jobs. Not the left, not the right. And certainely not the government.

Government creates the circumstances in which job creation can flourish. If you do not believe this, try going to Somalia and set up shop with the brightest entrepreneurs you can find. But you probably won’t be able to convince any to go.

Give me actual courts, law enforcement, national defense, a culture of individual freedom and responsibility, and Somalia would prosper.

So now you’re admitting that a certain flavor of government will help job creation, all except for that culture bit. Which gets us back to where we started with the question as to whether the right or the left fosters circumstances that lead to more job creation.

American history offers perfect testimony to the fact that the left does it better. So what if the right was never your pure textbook fiscal conservatism. If your model is best, than partially following your model should be better. But it was always worse.

Every red presidential period ended in higher unemployment, and every blue presidential period ended in lower unemployment.
[/quote]

The right isn’t anarchism…We favor small government limited to the role of protecting our lives, property, and contracts. What we don’t favor is the leftist big government welfare/entitlement state. As for the left creating more jobs, please tell us how it does. Big mobilizations for war? Big expansions of goverment agencies needing employees? Bubbles in private sectors that can’t actually be attributed to the left? What is the left’s big secret?

[quote]Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
My friends company already started layoffs from the fear of being excessively taxed in the near future. Announced it the day after the election.

In the 20th century, every period of Democratic presidency has ended in lower unemployment, and every period of republican presidency has resulted in higher unemployment. This is a rule that has NEVER been violated. It’s time for the right to admit they are wrong when it comes to job creation.[/quote]

DO you have a source for this?

I can remember coming out of the Carter years, and the ensuing 12 years after that. I don’t think that Bush Senior’s economy and unemployment were anywhere close to what Carter had when he left in January of 1981.

For your statement to be true, we would have to have been in worse shape in 1992 than we were in 1980. We weren’t.

If high taxes are better for the economy, why should any of us get to keep anything we make? We should turn it all over to the government. More is better, especially if it is the government taking private money.

I bet you and the rest of the pro-tax left are fucking giddy over the notion of the government confiscating private tax deferred investments, aren’t you? I mean, 401K’s would be much better in the hands of the government, right?

Why is it that the motherfuckers who think they know so much are still in school, and have yet to make a fucking dime?

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081027150030.aspx

The author is a moron, and anyone who says we are not allowed to disagree with an author is a moron.

That would mean they would not be able to disagree with Bush. (But I think this logic will be lost on them.)

Now the author completely twisted the facts around. FDR in fact took a recession, (yes what they used to call a depression,) and turned it into the Great Depression. How? Giant tax increases.

He even tried to get a 99.9% tax rate on anyone making over $25K. Even Congress found this to go too far.

After his first giant tax increase, he was pissed off at the rich for investing in tax free bonds, and taking their money overseas instead of just paying the taxes. (Gee, who would have thought that would happen?)

Historically we have had recessions in:
1902
1907
1910
1913
1918
1920
1923
1926
1929
1937
1945
1948
1953
1957
1960
1969
1973
1980
1981
1990
2001

20 in the last century, so one ever 5 years. Recessions are a perfectly normal part of the business cycle.

It is a little more complex then this, but is obviously easy for somebody, like this author, who’s history of articles have an obvious political bent to them, to twist the facts around.

He forgets that the Bush (1) recession was after he reneged on his “No New Taxes” pledge. Also is forgotten is the recession ended before Clinton came into office, after which he raised taxes. While we did not go back into a recession, the economy did slow to a crawl until the Republican takeover of Congress. (I was there, I remember this.)

He states that 1932 tax increases caused a growing economy, he omits the following year record 25% unemployment, nor the recession that hit 4 years after that. Sound like an economic boom?

If you look at 1901 to 1980, recessions occurred on average every 4.44 years. Since the reduction in the tax rate, they have occurred every 7 years, and so far have not been very strong.

I fully admit this is not the full story, and obviously I have left tons out. But unlike the author of this article, I am attempting to put out facts, not political propaganda.

[quote]The Mage wrote:

20 in the last century, so one ever 5 years. Recessions are a perfectly normal part of the business cycle.

It is a little more complex then this, but is obviously easy for somebody, like this author, who’s history of articles have an obvious political bent to them, to twist the facts around.

He forgets that the Bush (1) recession was after he reneged on his “No New Taxes” pledge. Also is forgotten is the recession ended before Clinton came into office, after which he raised taxes. While we did not go back into a recession, the economy did slow to a crawl until the Republican takeover of Congress. (I was there, I remember this.)

He states that 1932 tax increases caused a growing economy, he omits the following year record 25% unemployment, nor the recession that hit 4 years after that. Sound like an economic boom?

If you look at 1901 to 1980, recessions occurred on average every 4.44 years. Since the reduction in the tax rate, they have occurred every 7 years, and so far have not been very strong.

I fully admit this is not the full story, and obviously I have left tons out. But unlike the author of this article, I am attempting to put out facts, not political propaganda.[/quote]

Nouriel Roubini: “So when you add it all up as you remember I?d estimated that the losses would be at least $1 trillion, and more likely close to $2 trillion, and at that time people thought I was exaggerating but of course a few weeks later IMF came with an estimate of $945 billion, then Goldman Sachs $1.1 trillion then John Paulson said $1.3 trillion, then IMF revised their estimate to $1.4 trillion. Most recently Bridgewater Associates said that the losses are going to be $1.6 trillion, so we don?t know how large they are going to be. What we do know is that the $1 trillion number at this point is not the ceiling, it?s just barely a floor, and the losses are going to be much more.”

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/254463/transcript_of_talk_at_aei_seminar_on_the_the_deflating_mortgage_and_housing_bubble_part_iv_where_is_the_bottom

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wow, it’s a good thing you guys know more about tax policy than this author. Why don’t they pay you guys to write columns?

/painfully thick sarcasm[/quote]

My dick knows more about tax policies and very basic elementary economics than this nimrod. I can’t get over how blatantly stupid this article is.

[quote]Gael wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wow, it’s a good thing you guys know more about tax policy than this author. Why don’t they pay you guys to write columns?

/painfully thick sarcasm

Welcome to T-Nation, where people blabber endlessly about gay marriage and racism, but brush aside legitimate criticism of far right economics because it’s, duh, stupid.[/quote]

Why don’t either one of you guys read a book on economics? If you are able to do this, you will quickly see the complete lack of logic and reason in this article.

There is no “far right” economics. There’s classic economics, Keynesian economics, fascism, socialism. Do you know the difference?