2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Remember back in the early 90's how all the GOP were screaming that the tax hike on the rich would stifle the economy and jobs would be lost. They were very wrong then and they are VERY wrong now.


Tax Increases to Reduce Deficit Will Help, Not Hurt, Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)


I love how politicans (both alike) like to pump fear into their constitutes all for the sake of gaining leverage.


I feel dirty for posting this, but here goes. It's a well thought out talking point and if anybody can find fault (or any biased slant) to it, I'll pull it.

Cagle Post » Republicans Were Wrong in 1993 On The Effect Of Upper-Income Tax Increases

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With

from the link: "Economic growth, measured as real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was a moderate 3.3 percent in the period from 1993 through 1996, and real wages actually fell for the entire period. In contrast, the 1997 tax cuts, which significantly lowered the capital gains tax rate, coincided with a period of strong business investment, strong real GDP growth at 4.4 percent, and strong real wage growth of 1.7 percent."

also: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...economy-1990s/

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With

from the link: "Economic growth, measured as real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was a moderate 3.3 percent in the period from 1993 through 1996, and real wages actually fell for the entire period. In contrast, the 1997 tax cuts, which significantly lowered the capital gains tax rate, coincided with a period of strong business investment, strong real GDP growth at 4.4 percent, and strong real wage growth of 1.7 percent."

also: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...economy-1990s/

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With? Wow...the absurdity of this graph and its claim are quite insulting, even to a 9th graders intelligence.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With

from the link: "Economic growth, measured as real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was a moderate 3.3 percent in the period from 1993 through 1996, and real wages actually fell for the entire period. In contrast, the 1997 tax cuts, which significantly lowered the capital gains tax rate, coincided with a period of strong business investment, strong real GDP growth at 4.4 percent, and strong real wage growth of 1.7 percent."

also: PolitiFact | Bill Clinton takes credit for "flowering" of economy in 1990s

Neither one of your links disprove the affects the tax cut bill had on the economy. Not that I remotely gave Clinton credit for it, but even in the politifact link. That first link is just LOL. Last time I checked, we were on the road to removing our deficit and having a surplus, which is exactly what the GOP is screaming for.

They don't want it, and it's obvious by their actions they don't.

Here are some of the key indicators we looked at:

• Gross domestic product. Between the third quarter of 1993 and the fourth quarter of 2000, the economy culumatively grew by just about one-third, or approximately 4.4 percent per year. By comparison, growth between the first quarter of 1991 and the third quarter of 1993 was just under 3 percent per year.

So growth was strong in both periods, but it was stronger after passage of the bill.

• Unemployment. Unemployment fell from 6.8 percent to 3.9 percent between passage of the bill and the end of Clinton's term, a period of seven and a half years. That continued a decrease that was already under way: Unemployment fell a full point between a peak of 7.8 percent in June 1992 and August 1993.

So, once unemployment turned a corner, it fell noticeably during both periods. But the period after passage of the bill was especially impressive. During those 90 months, there was only a single occasion when unemployment rose for two consecutive months -- and even that was an exceedingly modest gain, rising from 4.3 percent to 4.4 percent and then 4.5 percent between April 1998 and June 1998.

• Personal income. After the bill's passage, personal income increased by about 7.5 percent a year, compared to about 5.2 percent a year prior to passage. So income growth was strong in both periods, but it was stronger after the bill passed.

• Industrial production. Industrial production followed a similar pattern. It rose by about 5.6 percent per year after passage, compared to 3.2 percent per year before passage.

• House prices. The same goes for the real estate market. House prices rose about 4.7 percent a year after passage, compared to 2.4 percent per year prior to passage. (If you thought housing prices rose faster than 4.7 percent per year under Clinton, you may be mistaking his presidency for George W. Bush's; during the first seven years of the Bush administration, housing prices grew by almost 8 percent annually.)

• The stock market. From the passage of the bill until the end of Clinton's term, the Dow Jones Industrial average rose from 3,651 to 10,788 -- a stunning 26.7 percent per year. That dwarfs the historically healthy increase of 10 percent a year for the two and a half years prior to passage.

I don't think anybody is saying that raising the tax rates on the rich was solely responsible for the economy. However, it is (and was) apparent that the bill had a major affect on the economy and in a good way.


We've tried cutting taxes since 2001 (bush and obama) and it hasn't work. Why in the **** would you continue with such reckless behavior and decisions? Oh, I know what, let me continue doing exactly what's drove us into the ground!!

We have to raise taxes (especially the rich). It's about time those .0001% (not the 1%) pay their fair percentage of taxes that most of us had to pay over the past 15 years. For to long, they've dodged taxes through various loopholes and legislation that the normal people couldn't, so it's a fair play of turnabout. Too bad you can't buy that 6th home overseas or that 3rd yacht.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Neither one of your links disprove the affects the tax cut bill had on the economy. Not that I remotely gave Clinton credit for it, but even in the politifact link. That first link is just LOL. Last time I checked, we were on the road to removing our deficit and having a surplus, which is exactly what the GOP is screaming for.

They don't want it, and it's obvious by their actions they don't.






I don't think anybody is saying that raising the tax rates on the rich was solely responsible for the economy. However, it is (and was) apparent that the bill had a major affect on the economy and in a good way.


We've tried cutting taxes since 2001 (bush and obama) and it hasn't work. Why in the **** would you continue with such reckless behavior and decisions? Oh, I know what, let me continue doing exactly what's drove us into the ground!!

We have to raise taxes (especially the rich). It's about time those .0001% (not the 1%) pay their fair percentage of taxes that most of us had to pay over the past 15 years. For to long, they've dodged taxes through various loopholes and legislation that the normal people couldn't, so it's a fair play of turnabout. Too bad you can't buy that 6th home overseas or that 3rd yacht.

You intrepret what you want. If hard numbers and stats don't back up your point you demean the source as "biased". Of course Heritage is biased, but their research and numbers are accurate. I don't see how an impartial person would look at these numbers and blow them off.

Oh well, the links and responses aren't for you and others that aren't impartial anyway.

P.S. BTW, how do you explain away the improvement in economic numbers from '93-'96 to '97-'00.....after GOP driven tax cuts were put in place?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You intrepret what you want. If hard numbers and stats don't back up your point you demean the source as "biased". Of course Heritage is biased, but their research and numbers are accurate. I don't see how an impartial person would look at these numbers and blow them off.

Oh well, the links and responses aren't for you and others that aren't impartial anyway.

P.S. BTW, how do you explain away the improvement in economic numbers from '93-'96 to '97-'00.....after GOP driven tax cuts were put in place?

You're wielding water pistols and spewing water all over the board with your links to blog posts discussing serious matters and making lofty claims without any depth or analysis.



If you're going do something be good at it. Stop with the pew pew pew, and sounding off with pop pop pop.

[Giantone]

SS, ...this is from March but it's #'s are about negatives.



Romney’s negatives change the race - PostPartisan - The Washington Post


Cohen reports that while Obama is viewed favorably by 53 percent of Americans, Romney is viewed favorably by only 34 percent. Even more significantly, Obama is viewed unfavorably by only 43 percent of Americans, compared with 50 percent who view Romney unfavorably. Thus, Obama’s net favorable is plus-10, Romney’s is minus-16.
Cohen’s bottom line about Romney: “As he has become better known, his unfavorables shot up far more rapidly than his positive numbers. Negative impressions are up eight percentage points in the past week, nudging past the precious high….”

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Giantone

SS, ...this is from March but it's #'s are about negatives.

Romney’s negatives change the race - PostPartisan - The Washington Post


Cohen reports that while Obama is viewed favorably by 53 percent of Americans, Romney is viewed favorably by only 34 percent. Even more significantly, Obama is viewed unfavorably by only 43 percent of Americans, compared with 50 percent who view Romney unfavorably. Thus, Obama’s net favorable is plus-10, Romney’s is minus-16.
Cohen’s bottom line about Romney: “As he has become better known, his unfavorables shot up far more rapidly than his positive numbers. Negative impressions are up eight percentage points in the past week, nudging past the precious high….”

Since the GOP base has rallied around Romney his rating have improved, but he's till got work to do. Fundraising has gone quite well, particularly since the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, so Romney's got some positives to build on.

Poll: Romney favorability rating remains low - The Hill's Ballot Box

I think this will certainly be a close race, not Bush/Gore close, but close.
Here's some latest polling info:

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

[NC_Skins]

Now this isn't something you see everyday.

GOP governor calls on Romney to release more tax returns - Yahoo! News