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: i-node who wrote (707534)

4/5/2013 7:21:38 PM

From: combjelly

2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578020

As he took office he raised taxes. And at a time when growth should have been staggeringly high (after all, we were coming out of a recession), it was marginal.

Only after the tax cuts in his second term did growth really take off. As one would expect.

Per usual, the facts do not back your claims. Let's examine the facts.

From the World Bank

World Bank US GDP Growth

GDP is in percent change YoY.

1993	2.9
1994	4.1
1995	2.5
1996	3.8
1997	4.5
1998	4.4
1999	4.9
2000	4.2
2001	1.1
2002	1.8
2003	2.6
2004	3.5
2005	3.1
2006	2.7
2007	1.9
2008	-0.4

Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and cut them in 1997. Hard to spin it any other way that there seemed to be no real change for either one. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. Again, no real discernable change except that the economy did poorer under Bush than Clinton. Now if they were as important as you claim, the expected outcome would be for the economy to do better under Bush than Clinton, not the other way around. It is difficult to conclude anything other than the impact of small changes in the tax rates have minimal effects on the economy.

If any.