Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (531663)	11/22/2009 4:55:58 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

>> An examination of the data, however, shows that this forecast was totally wrong in every respect. Try to keep up. I just went through this with CJ a couple weeks ago and flatly proved him wrong. But I get tired of looking up the same damned numbers over and over again. I'm not going to spend much time on this time around -- only enough to convey the fact that you're obviously wrong. Real GDP by year: 1989 3.573 1990 1.877..... In June, Bush breaks his "Read My Lips" pledge 1991 (0.234).... So, what happens? 1992 3.393..... Very Strong Economic Recovery Begins 1993 2.852..... '93 tax hike kills it 1994 4.074 1995 2.515 1996 3.741 1997 4.457..... '97 tax cuts produce economic surge 1998 4.355 1999 4.826 This really leaves no doubt at all. Only one year is an outlier, and that is '94 -- but coming out of the recession in '91 you would have expected huge economic growth, yet it was dampened by the tax increases. Okay, I'm not arguing this further. There are the facts. You can argue with them all you want.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (531663)	11/23/2009 1:05:29 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574854

You do have the point that the claim or assumption that a tax increase would automatically and always lead to economic disaster was an inaccurate. But that doesn't mean tax increases benefit the economy, or even that they don't harm it. The marginal rates where still much lower than the pre-Reagan rates even after the Clinton increase. Also while the tax increase was itself harmful it was far from the only thing going on in the economy at the time. The restraint on spending (whether you credit Clinton, or like me give more credit to the new Republican congress at the time), lower oil prices, and investment and other decisions made in and by the private sector, where bigger factors on the economy than the tax increase.