Denmark cuts unemployment benefits in half

[Magox]

Go back to a model that worked... the model that was under the Clinton administration and 22 million jobs were created.

Do you believe it was BECAUSE of the tax cuts that brought on those 22 million jobs?

 

I'm going to educate you, and show you why this 22 million jobs created number isn't represenative of the usual Clinton Tax cut defense talking points we commonly hear would have you believe.

 

1) We were in a recession in the early 90's (90-91). Which means that there were many jobs lost going into Clinton's presidency. So the baseline of jobs was at a much lower level. Considering that there was a typical V shaped recovery pretty much right at the beginning of his presidency, it was the natural business cycle to produce jobs.

 

2) The GDP growth from 93-97 was 3.2%. Average Hourly wages rose 5 cents an hour during that time period. By all general accounts, this is somewhat weak. However, the 11 Million jobs were created, this is a good number, however when Clinton came into office, the unemployment rate was at 7.3%. So just to go back to normal unemployment conditions which is around 5-5.5%, it would take millions of jobs to get it back down to that rate. The recession of 90-91 was a considered to be a mild recession, so it was natural to believe that there was going to be a V shaped recovery... Which means that the recovery was going to come back fast and with force pretty much regardless of fiscal policy. The unemployment number by 1997 reached 5.3% which is a good normalized number.

 

3) 1997 Tax cuts were enacted:

 

Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;

Created a new $500 child tax credit;

Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;

Extended the air transportation excise taxes;

Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;

Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;

Established education IRAs;

Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and

Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.

 

Beginning of Tech boom and bubble were forming

 

4) GDP growth from 97-00 was at 4.2%

 

Real wages, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth from 93-77

 

11.5 million jobs were created, unemployment rate fell to an ultra low 3.9%. Now this is an impressive number considering the baseline was much higher, unemployment beginning this period was already at a normalized rate of 5.3%.

 

In other words PBills, it is much easier to create more jobs with a higher unemployment rate as opposed to a lower unemployment rate, simply because there are more people to employ.

 

 

 

So the question is why was the unemployment rate and real wages much more impressive beginning in 1997?

 

Simply for two reasons:

 

1)Tech Boom and Bubble

 

2)Tax cuts

 

These are the facts PBILLS, so whenever you hear the 22 Million Jobs created because of the TAX CUTS, or the implication of the jobs due to the JOB CUTS, then you know that this argument is an intellectually dishonest one.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Magox

[Joe Miner]

excellent observation I'm all for it, no public money on defense, law enforcement, court system, trade negotiation, roads, trains, public education, R and D, water, sewage, waste management, no business subsidies, no public fire fighting, no contract law, no licensing requirements for any profession, no product safety, no food safety,no legally recognized marriage, no housing code, no property rights enforced by anything other than your ability to defend them- sounds like utopia to me.

 

You're an idiot.

 

That's not what I said.

 

I said why do they deserve to have their money taken from them.

 

If you can't figure out the difference, you're too stupid for this conversation.

[Peace]

I used to live in Niagara County, NY. One of the highest taxed areas in the state. I understand your feelings on this. Even Forbes magazine states that they are getting a great deal.

 

This is makes me mad...

 

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

 

You refer to the 2009 taxes that got your ilk all fired up. First, in 2008, Exxon overpaid and that helped offset 2009. Second, if any of the lefties looked, the 10-k shows Exxon paying $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S in 2009. Oh, and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties recorded overseas because, you know, that's where the oil is.

 

Populists unite!

Edited December 10, 2010 by Peace

[Chef Jim]

Fine. Let's remove the taxation of everyone.

 

 

 

 

That does not mean they should receive extra breaks over other people.

 

What breaks? How much can a "poor" person pass on to their heirs? 100%. Now let's think about this. Who is really getting a break here?

 

She lives near the strip mall off the traffic circle. Near the diner.

 

Say goodbye Fanny Freeloader.

[Alaska Darin]

Believe it.

Keep it up and you'll be taking your "genius" elsewhere.

[Peace]

Keep it up and you'll be taking your "genius" elsewhere.

 

That's foreplay.

[Nanker]

Wow. Just read this. Getting my popcorn ready now.

 

Maybe we could give the people who pay no income taxes on their earned wages, interest and dividend income a tax credit in proportion to that which the highest income bracket gets.

So, they'd end up say - with a tax credit of a few hundred or thousand dollars - which they can then use as an offset to taxable income when they get on their feet and are more productive in terms of the economy. Hell, we could securitize them like carbon credits. That way the individuals who give up and concede they'll never amount to a hill of **** would be able to sell them at a discount to the wealthy bastages that need a tax break in the current year.

[pBills]

What "they" receives "help with the estate tax"? The dead?

 

 

 

So would I, if accompanied by spending cuts (otherwise, I'd rather keep my money).

 

Doesn't make you less of a moron, though.

 

 

Of course I would like to see spending cuts, hell I would love to see the government actually keep projects on time and under budget.

 

And thank you for the moron comment, way to keep a post on the classy side. Something that normally doesn't happen here.

[OCinBuffalo]

The side that incessantly name calls is childishly idiotic.

Remember you are a relative newb here. Some of us have played the conner game for pages upon pages only to realize that should have skipped that with a simple:

"You are an idiot"

 

Let's see you invest the same amount of hours on trying to educate the blatantly ignorant, only to have it be forgotten by the time the next round of Huffington Post/Salon/MoveOn headlines are posted on the same subject. I once spent 4 days talking economics with conner, and thought he actually learned something, only to have it all washed away the next day by conner misinterpreting one more in a long line of Paul Krugam "non-denial denials" that the stimulus failed.

 

I will give you the fact that it seems odd, on a message board of all things, for posts to be so rapidly shut down....but in conner's case, 95% of the time it's justified. He is not the only perennial tool we have had, Molson_Golden comes to mind. Often I think conner is Molson_Golden. Molson was fond of creating sock puppets that would "agree" with him. Perhaps conner is just a puppet that stuck?

 

Conner saying he has an education, besides being hysterical, and ironic, is probably defined by Bachelor of Arts at best, more likely Juco.

Edited December 15, 2010 by OCinBuffalo