Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson  You don't understand macro-economics AT ALL, do you? |
I believe I understand them well enough. The things you wrote do not make me think otherwise. Allow me to explain:
Quote:
|
The economy of today is a reflection of decisions & policies from 5-10 years ago - NOT decisions and policies from 5-6 months ago.
|
According to my post, it the economy today is a reflection of both the events of today, and the events of 5-10 years ago. Do I understand you correctly: you disagree that more recent events and policies affect today's economy?
Quote:
|
Clinton inherited the strongest economy America has (very possibly) ever known. He left office with the country in recession. There's a reason for both of those FACTS.
|
And according to you, the reason is higher taxes, right? If the problem were taxes, then we should expect the economy to slowly dwindle throughout Clinton's presidency, as people take home less money and the economy begins to falter. Instead, we saw little sign of economic weakness until late 2000, after which there was a sudden economic downturn. Doesn't this suggest that a sudden event had a drastic effect on our economy? What makes you think taxes instead of a shift in the market?
Quote:
|
It is a proven fact that tax cuts usually (though perhaps not always) stimulate economic growth. I could go into a list of all kinds of reasons, but you wouldn't read them anyway.
|
Is it a proven fact? I am pretty sure it is economic theory: not fact at all.
However, I do agree with this economic theory. It's a very sound theory. That's why I said tax cuts stimulate the economy. But there would have to be a massive tax change in order to cause a recession: that isn't what caused the recession in 2001.
Quote:
|
Reaganomics worked! No matter what the liberal media kept saying, or your Democrat friends. Taking the long view, and looking at the big picture, Reaganomics absolutely worked.
|
Yes, tax cuts can stimulate the economy. Like I said: Bush did a good job with the tax cuts, and he likely made the recession a little less severe and end a little earlier. I still had criticisms, but isn't it clear that I think Reaganomics is one part of a larger solution?
My criticism of Reagan is that he accumulated a huge debt, not that he cut taxes. Accumulating a huge debt is not part of Reaganomics.
Quote:
|
On the flip side of the coin, the Clinton era ushered in the biggest spending and tax increases in American history. The enormous tax increases initially brought in huge sums of money because the economy was so strong, due to Reaganomics. But Clinton's onerous tax increases eventually stifled the economy - leading to the slow-down and recession that were in full swing when he left office.
|
Clinton's tax increases may have been stifling the economy, but they would not have stifled it anywhere near enough to cause a recession. They were ultimately worth it to reduce the debt accumulated by Reagan and Bush Sr.
Quote:
Now... have you been paying any attention to what's going on with the American economy recently? I bet you haven't - and the reason you haven't is because you don't WANT to know what's going on.
But check it out. Despite the fact that there's a hated Republican in the White House, the economy is in a HUGE up-swing that is picking up power and momentum. Hopefully the newly-Democrat Congress won't force enormous new tax increases that stifle the growth.
|
The economy is doing much better today, as formerly-unemployed people are finding new jobs, with a bit of help from tax cuts. You may have noticed that I criticized Bush for not cutting enough taxes and for spending too much. So why are you acting like I don't think tax cuts were the right idea?
You claim that I wouldn't read your explanation about tax cuts, but when have I ever failed to read one of your posts? Don't I usually comb through every detail? Perhaps I could be even more thourough, but my posts are already long enough, I think.