Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson  The enormous tax increases Clinton ushered in TEMPORARILY padded the coffers. They brought in a lot of money SOLELY because the economy was so strong! But the Clinton tax increases also stifled the economy. That is why, several years later, we saw a RECESSION at the end of the Clinton years.
Clinton inherited, but taxed the life out of, an enormous economic boom - one that was brought about by the success of Reaganomics. He taxed the economy into a recession.
George W Bush instituted sweeping tax cuts. And guess what? Though it took a little time, it brought about an enormous boost to the economy! It IS happening, whether you and all the other liberals want to admit it, the American economy is currently VERY, VERY strong. |
I wouldn't call the American economy "VERY, VERY strong". It is certainly on an upswing, but there are still several states experiencing economic troubles: notably the one I live in.
Anyhow, regarding the 2001 recession...Simply through the natural course of the market, eventually there will be a recession, and eventually the recession will correct itself. It happens all of the time.
Hardcore Reaganomics people fail to take this into consideration. When Clinton cut taxes, the next recession would be blamed on him, regardless of when it occurred. When Bush cut taxes, he would be credited for the next economic upswing regardless of when that occurred. Nevermind that the economic upswing took place years after Reaganomics experts claimed it would take place. It still
must have been caused by Bush.
But don't you think it might have been the natural course of the market? To judge the true effect of Reaganomics, let's examine this article:
FairEconomy.org - Research Library - Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work
The graphs presented in that article clearly show no correlation between upper-class tax cuts and economic performance. This means either one of two things: Reaganomics is a bunch of nonsense, or Reaganomics doesn't affect the economy as much as conservatives claim it does.
Now let's look at how Reaganomics affects our national debt, a debt which both sides agree is bad for future economies:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Based on the facts and statistics, you might wonder why I give Reaganomics any credit at all. I give it a little credit, not because its effects are obvious, but because it is based on sound theory.
However, to suggest that tax policy caused the recession in 2001 is irrational. While theory suggests that higher taxes may have stifled our economy to some extent, there is no reason to believe that it would have stifled our economy enough to cause a recession, especially looking at our economy in the past, and looking at steady economic strength during the bulk of Clinton's administration.
And most importantly, there are very basic market-related reasons that a recession should have occurred after 2000, as I described in my first post.
Quote:
|
...and by the way, have you noticed how QUIET the liberal media is about the economy these days? 5 years ago, when the stock market plunged, they were all over it like stink on crap. Now, when the stock market continues to set record highs, nobody in the media is talking about it. Can you say "HYPOCRISY"? The economy is booming, and the media will NOT admit it.
|
Yeah, most media sources are horrible. It's not because they're liberally-biased, it's because most of the stories they cover don't matter, and when they finally do deal with an important issue, they're often wrong.
Blaming Bush for the failed economy is exactly what I'm talking about
: the media was wrong. Another example: when that sniper was shooting people in Washington DC, the news blamed video games, specifically one called Counter-Strike. Of course, when the killer was caught, it was clear that he played no video games at all, and the media never corrected themselves.
Anyhow, yeah, I'm not a big fan of news from media sources.