That's been obvious for years. When Clinton raised taxes in 1993 because of the Reagan/Bush deficits, many conservatives claimed that Clinton's tax increase would wreck the economy and destroy jobs. Instead we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, a record 23 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, real incomes rising for all classes, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus. Bush and the cons promised us his tax cuts would power a stronger economy. Heritage claimed the growth would be so strong that he debt would be *completely* paid off by 2013. Instead, we saw the worst average economic performance over an extended period since WWII. Bush's *best* year with his tax cuts would have been Clinton's *7th* best year with his tax increase. It's obvious that tax cuts have no significant positive impact on the economy, at least since the early 80s. But the have had a *huge* impace on the budget: Year - Tot. Deficit/surplus:GDP 1980 -2.6% 1981 -2.5% <-Reagan tax cut 1982 -3.8% 1983 -5.7% 1984 -4.6% 1985 -4.9% 1986 -4.8% 1987 -3.1% 1988 -3.0% 1989 -2.7% 1990 -3.7% 1991 -4.4% 1992 -4.4% 1993 -3.7% <- Clinton tax increase 1994 -2.8% 1995 -2.1% 1996 -1.3% 1997 -0.3% 1998 +0.8% 1999 +1.3% 2000 +2.3% 2001 +1.2% <- Bush tax cuts. 2002 -1.4% 2003 -3.3% 2004 -3.4% 2005 -2.4% 2006 -1.8% 2007 -1.1% 2008 -3.1% 2009 -9.8% <-Stimulus tax cuts 2010 -8.6% 2011 -8.4% 2012 -6.7% 2013 -4.1% <-tax increase 2014 -2.8%
Presidents who CUT SPENDING as a PERCENTAGE OF GDP over their TERM outperform those who don't. Every time. I will not click 'View Post' again for your trollish reply.
We can see that is completely false over just the past five years with Republican austerity. Spending was actually cut three times, was actually lower in 2014 than in 2009, and was cut from 24.4% of GDP to 20.1% of GDP from 2009-2014. Unprecedented spending cuts and austerity in modern history. And we've also see the most sluggish recovery in modern history.
Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan? How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters. Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/charts-what-if-obama-spent-like-reagan/
Oh right ALLOW the GOPes to blow up Gov't spending during their terms (which drives an economy) then cut it near the end to take "credit"???? lol AS THEY GUT REVENUES??? But Obama HAS cut spending, I guess your premise is false!
That has been the truth for years, proved in this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...74-obama-really-big-spender-facts-say-no.html Obama's first five years in office has seen unprecedented spending cuts. Not increases. And even if you include FY2009 as Obama's (even though 95% of spending that year was locked in before he stepped into the oval office) his spending increases have been *far* lower than the last three Republican president. But the RW propaganda repeats the lie over and over about what a big spender Obama is, and the gullible just believe it on rote. Seen it here a thousand times. I still get reactions of disbelief and shock and accusations of lying from our RW friends when I say that spending has actually been cut for several years while Obama was president.
Year - Spending:GDP 1980 20.6% 1981 21.1% 1982 22.3% 1983 22.2% 1984 21.1% 1985 21.8% 1986 21.6% 1987 20.6% 1988 20.3% 1989 20.2% Federal spending dramatically increased under Reagan in his first several years of office. It was cut in his last couple years, which was followed by the '90-91 recession.
My assertion was, and is, that presidents who cut spending as %GDP over their terms, grow the economy at a faster rate than those who do not. And that this phenomenon is demonstrable for every president, regardless of political party.
We shouldn't be surprised to see such a general correlation, because when the economy is booming, spending relatively decreases compared to GDP. When the economy constricts, spending relatively increases. But we saw spending increase from 17.0% in 1960 to 18.9% in 1968, with an average growth rate of +4.9%, which I believe bests any 8 year period since WWII.
Eisenhower II increased spending from 17.85%GDP to 18.62%GDP. The economy grew by 2.4% Kennedy-Johnson decreased spending from 17.62% to 15.9% The economy grew by 5.4% Carter increased spending from 19.47% to 21.12%. The economy grew by 3%. Reagan decreased spending by 22.29% to 21.77% (a tiny decrease, granted) The economy grew by 3.4% The larger the decrease, the faster the growth, and vice-versa. If you break all the presidents into 4 groups: - The Presidents in the top 25% of economic growth averaged 7.56%, they spent an average of 3.08% of GDP on the Federal Govt. - The second 25% averaged 4.42% of annual GDP growth and spent 4.34% on Federal Government. - The 3rd 25% averaged 3.28% economic growth and spent an average of 10.32% on Federal Government. - The bottom 25% of Presidents averaged 1.44% economic growth and spent an average of 19.55% on the Federal Government. Do you see the trend? As much as I'd like this to be a partisan argument... it's just not.
Not sure where you are getting your data, but it is simply false. Eisenhower: Year - Outlays - GDP - % 1952 67.7 367.7 18.4% 1953 76.1 389.7 19.5% 1954 70.9 391.1 18.1% 1955 68.4 426.2 16.1% 1956 70.6 450.1 15.7% 1957 76.6 474.9 16.1% 1958 82.4 482.0 17.1% 1959 92.1 522.5 17.6% 1960 92.2 543.3 17.0% Eisenhower decreased spending. Average GDP growthfrom 53-60 was 3.0%. Kennedy/Johnson Year - Outlays - GDP - % 1960 92.2 543.3 17.0% 1961 97.7 563.3 17.3% 1962 106.8 605.1 17.7% 1963 111.3 638.6 17.4% 1964 118.5 685.8 17.3% 1965 118.2 743.7 15.9% 1966 134.5 815.0 16.5% 1967 157.5 861.7 18.3% 1968 178.1 942.5 18.9% Source data: CBO.gov, BEA.gov. Spending as a percent of GDP increased from 17.0% in 1960 to 18.9% in 1968 during the Kennedy/Johnson administration. And had the best average GDP growth. As much as you're trying to pretend this is not a partisan argument, it just is. And just wrong.
That is not the logic of the OP at all. The OP didn't say that tax increases lead to faster growth. The OP said that tax cuts don't lead to faster growth. Demonstrating the RW propaganda lie that's been told over and over and over since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.
But he gets to leave out the first year where Ike/Reagan massively increased spending then spending decreased during their terms to "prove" his false posit. Neat trick, without honesty to back him up...
Tax cuts don't lead to faster growth; ergo, tax increases lead to faster growth. If that is not the case then the premiss is faulty and taxes have nothing to do with growth.
STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-30/markets/31259597_1_gdp-capital-gains-rates-taxes Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not) If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonard...l-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/ REPUBLICAN POLICY HAS ONE GOAL AND ONE GOAL ONLY Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory The conclusion? Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth. This paragraph from the report says it all— “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.” These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rvative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/
And he employed other little, shall we say, "nuances" like leaving off the last two years of the Kennedy/Johnson period. It's deceptive cherry picking to make a partisan claim. I posted the figures and the sources, anyone can verify the Outlay and GDP figures for themselves.
Yep, FINALLY hit it on the head. Tax rates have almost zero correlation to growth. BUT lowering top tax rates do have a correlation to current US debt AND inequality
Growth rates during since the Bush tax cuts have been substandard. We've gutted our middle classes to make the richest incredibly richer, and now the middle classes, the great engine of spending, don't have the purchasing power to drive a robust economy.
Class envy. Yes... Warren Buffet said it perfectly when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." And when he said "theres been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won." And when he said "if this is a war I wouldnt call it a war, Id call it a struggle but, if this is a war, my side has had the nuclear bomb. Weve got K-Street, weve got lobbyists, weve got money on our side". Warren Buffet is very smart and observant. James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."
That's exactly what it has been about. The richest using their political power to get class warfare policies against the middle classes that have allowed the richest to get more and more because for some, or many, more is never enough. - - - Updated - - - Which is what? I never said taxes had no effect on the economy.
