What is Keynesian Economics and why is it so destructive to America’s recovery?

This is simply not the truth.

 

Year - Revenue growth
1992 3.4%
1993 5.8% <- Tax increase passed.
1994 9.0%
1995 7.4%
1996 7.5%
1997 8.7%
1998 9.0%
1999 6.1%
2000 10.8%

Year - Revenues 2005$:

Reagan
1980 1197.6
1988 1421.1
% growth revenues: +18.6%

Clinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310..0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The question was: Where are these DNC talking points you idiotically claim I parrot?

 

Me>> Revenue growth went from 9% (on an upswing from 2% then 5% as the recovery was starting) down to 7% WITH his higher tax rates.

Thanks for proving my point once again. Revenues were ALREADY growing on track for double digit, his tax increase slowed the recovery. Even he admitted it as I have shown previously


September 11, 2010
The successful Clinton economy was based on tax cuts. No, really...

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

The Clinton tax policies of the early '90s were based on rate increases and luck -- the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_successful_clinton_economy.html

Categories
Archives
Blog Home

Next: Slashing Popular Programs Contest

Previous: Abolish Federal Job Training Programs
The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase Did Not Lead to the Budget Surpluses of the Late 1990s

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Proponents of higher taxes are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton&#8217;s 1993 tax increase was a big success because of budget surpluses that began in 1998.

That&#8217;s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I&#8217;m already on record arguing that Clinton&#8217;s economic record was much better than Bush&#8217;s performance.

But this specific assertion it is not supported by the data. In February of 1995, 18 months after the tax increase was signed into law, President Clinton&#8217;s Office of Management and Budget issued projections of deficits for the next five years if existing policy was maintained (a &#8220;baseline&#8221; forecast). As the chart illustrates, OMB estimated that future deficits would be about $200 billion and would slightly increase over the five-year period.

In other words, even the Clinton Administration, which presumably had a big incentive to claim that the tax increase would be successful, admitted 18 months after the law was approved that there was no expectation of a budget surplus. For what it&#8217;s worth, the Congressional Budget Office forecast, issued about the same time, showed very similar numbers.

Since the Clinton Administration&#8217;s own numbers reveal that the 1993 tax increase was a failure, we have to find a different reason to explain why the budget shifted to surplus in the late 1990s."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-...ad-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/

And why do you give Bush credit for the last two years where the budget was controlled by Democrats? His actual record is a 44% increase from the bottom of the recession he inherited to the 2007 budget, the last Republican budget which had a deficit of ponly $161 billion.

 

Well, gosh, if American Thinker and Cato say so.

23 million jobs created, real incomes rising for all income groups, the lowest poverty rates ever, the lowest unemployment rates in decades, booming stock markets, and a then record deficit changed to a surplus.

Yep. Clinton really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up the economy. Just like all the conservatives told us his tax cuts would.

 

Spam and trolling nonsense:

Originally Posted by FactChecker
You make an excellent point, James Cessna.

Check this out!

Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics
What if Obama isn't so smart?
Obama's Economic Package is out... $400 Billion in Stimulus
An example of why the wealth gap will continue to widen
What is Keynesian Economics and why is it so destructive to America’s recovery?
What is Keynesian Economics and why is it so destructive to America’s recovery?
Factcheck: Were the 2001/2003 Tax Cuts a Success?

I'm so glad it isn't considered spam or duplicate posting to post the same thing all over the site, repeatedly. It allows us to give this important information to people!

I especially liked this thread:

What is Keynesian Economics and why is it so destructive to America’s recovery?

 

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Where are these DNC talking points you idiotically claim I parrot?

There you go confusing Iriemon with the facts again; don't you know he has to avoid them in order to emotionally parrot those idiot DNC talking points?

 

Where are these DNC talking points you idiotically claim I parrot?

 

What in there is spam/trolling? Could you please explain it to me?

 

Bush came into office in 2001 revenues had dropped to $1,991. When he left office revenues were $2,524. That would be an increase of 26.7%. Using constant dollars because it appears to be convenient to your idiot claims that tax reductions cause revenue decreases it would be $2,215 in 2001 and $2,286 which amounts to a mere 3% increase in constant dollars not a negative.

Of course you also want to pretend that the increases in revenue at the end of Clinton's term were due to the tax increases which have been proven false on numerous occasions yet here you go again, lying, obfuscating and incorrectly interpreting the data to support your idiot premise that tax increases somehow lead to increased revenues and balanced budgets.

Clue for the clueless: If you did NOTHING to increase taxes, revenues would increase in a growing economy.

The problem is not with REVENUE but with SPENDING.

But in your mindless parroting of idiot DNC talking points you also wish to pretend that the events of 9-11 and hurricane Katrina had no effect on the economy.

A few things we do know; Democrats wanted to do NOTHING about the mortgage crises other than make it a race baiting event and unemployment during the Bush administration was half of what it is now under Obama.

I cannot say I look forward to more of your distortions, lies and obfuscations of the historic record in a vacuum of the facts.

In Iriemon world, ONLY tax increases lead to higher revenue which is a proven lie, and that we do not have a spending problem but a revenue problem. The Government took in record revenue of $2.5 trillion the last year Bush was in office, unfortunately for us, that was not enough to cover the spending spree Democrats were on since 2007 spending us into a record deficit of $1.6 trillion with even higher deficits around the corner.

Of course in Iriemon world, this is not a problem with Democrats or Obama, this is all because Bush had the audacity to allow Americans to keep more of what they earn!!

Of course also in Iriemon world, monstrous trillion dollar deficits are not a problem with Obama; it is all Bush's fault for not passing tax increases. Forget that Obama followed the same pattern and refused to end the Bush tax cuts. Forget that Democrats had both houses of Congress and the White House yet never discussed tax increases.

They all wait until Republicans get a small majority in the house and now make tax increases a Republican issue for purely partisan political purposes.

 

As opposed to you, you betcha.

Why do you keep posting that when no one denies the 90's were a great decade?

In spite of Clinton.

And then you have to engage in your hyperbole.

Your own numbers clearly show the effect of the tax rate increases, they slowed the recovery that was already underway. And it was the tax rate decreases that sent to economy soaring and produced the surpluses.

 

By simple mathematics one can prove that Government spending increases productivity. That is if you calculate productivity like every other economist.

 

You betcha Sarah.

 

False.

A pathetic number.

Yep. Real numbers are just idiotic in TD world.

Where was it proved false again?

You think?

What happened when the economy was growing in this time frame:

Year - Income tax revenues.
2000 1004.5
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0
2005 927.2

Revenues are relatively the lowest they've been in 60 years. That is a problem with revenues.

Where are these DNC talking points you claim I parrot?

Mr. Ownership Society, just a victim of race bait.

I know. The concept that increasing tax revenues increases tax revenues is just bizzare, isn't it?

 

Conservatives' predictions about the Clinton tax increase.


Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93: They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.


Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93:
believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 8/5/93: Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter...

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat...

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.

Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93: ...This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93: ...will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.

Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93: ...a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.

On jobs:

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 5/27/93: ...your economic program is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), 8/5/93: The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), 8/4/93: The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will no lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93: The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the American voter. [They] will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), GOP News Conference, Senate Gallery, 8/3/93: Come next year... we're going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we're going to find out whether we have a slower economy, we're going to find out what's going to happen to interest rates, and it's our bet that this is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93: It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.

Rep. Dick Armey, CNN, 2/18/93: I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy.

Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93: ...It will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit....

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93: ...It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs.


http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/15/92441/0913/399/636

What actually happened:

But this time when they say a tax increase will kill jobs, they really mean it, eh?

"There&#8217;s an old saying in Tennessee &#8212; I know it&#8217;s in Texas, probably in Tennessee &#8212; that says, fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can&#8217;t get fooled again.&#8221;

 

What happened in 2006 and 2007, did you think you could get away with your dishonest cutoff point at 2005?
But even with that dishonest posting you prove revenues were falling BEFORE Bush took office and by 2005 they had risen 17% from the bottom of the recession/slowdown he inherited.

So where were they in 2007, the last year of Republican budgets?

And again what economic theory taught you that the way to increase private employment is to raise taxes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
... no one denies the 90's were a great decade

Yes and as I showed that was primarily because Clinton was forced to sign on to the Republican tax cuts and spending restraints. NOT because of his tax increase, we lost on that deal.

 

What about it.

The economy was growing between 2001-2005, every year. Yet revenues were lower.

What in my post was dishonest? The numbers I posted were from government sourced data.

So what?

Where did I say it did?

That's bull(*)(*)(*)(*), but you proved that all the conservatives who claimed Clinton's tax increase in 1993 would kill jobs and destroy the economy were dead wrong then, and they're dead wrong now.

Thanks.

"There&#8217;s an old saying in Tennessee &#8212; I know it&#8217;s in Texas, probably in Tennessee &#8212; that says, fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can&#8217;t get fooled again.&#8221;

 

No you cannot; but feel free to attempt it so that we can see this liberal math.

 

liberals live in la la land...didn't you know that?

 

Recovering from the slowdown and recession Bush inherited, 2004 and 2005 saw growing revenues and what happened in 2006 and 2007? Try being a little honest with your post. Revenues were 35% higher than when he took office and 44% higher than from the bottom of the recession. Along with 52 months of full employment and falling deficits.

That just skip your mind?

Quote:
And again what economic theory taught you that the way to increase private employment is to raise taxes?

When you laid credit to job growth to Clinton's tax increase, did I read that wrong? Do you NOT subscribe to the theory that increasing taxes is the path to increasing employment?

 

So what? Do you deny the economy was growing from 2001-2005?

 

Yes, it declined 1st and 3rd quarters of 2001 just as Bush was entering office. Even the 3rd quarter of 2000 was just .3% growth as the economy slowed.

Do you deny that?

He came in on a slowdown that turned into a recession. Why do you keep arguing the facts?

 

Nope, but over all it grew in 2001. Do you deny that?

Because in fact the economy grew in 2001. Why do you keep arguing the facts?

And what about 2002-2005. Do you deny the economy grew in those years?

 

Yes the economy declined in the 1st and 3rd quarters of 2001, it barely held its breath the 3rd quarter of 2000. We went into recession in the March 2001 and it lasted to November 2001. Bush inherited a slowdown that turned into a recession. Are you denying it? Did the economy grow overall in 2001, slightly. Why do you assert that refutes there was a recession and 2 quarters of negative growth?

What is your point?

 

Just in case nobody has posted this yet



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc"]Keynes vs Hayek in the Fight of the Century Round II[/ame]

 

Thanks for sharing, kshRox01.

Have you seen this video? It is also very good!

Socialism vs Capitalism: Milton Friedman
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-o0kD9f6wo&feature=related"]Socialism vs Capitalism: Milton Friedman. - YouTube[/ame]