Gallup CEO Savages Obama’s “Economic Recovery” Lie

[jtssrx]

Gallup CEO Savages Obama’s “Economic Recovery” Lie

You are here: Home / US / Gallup CEO Savages Obama’s “Economic Recovery” Lie

President Obama has peddled the lie that the economy has recovered during his eight years in office by citing the 4.9 percent unemployment number farce. Gallup CEO John Clifton just obliterated this ridiculous claim by bringing light to the “invisible Americans” that Obama and the Left don’t care about and actively work to harm. 

Clifton penned an article titled “The Invisible American” where he eviscerated the lie spread by Obama and the liberal media that the economy is doing just fine.

Between 2000 and 2008, 61 percent of American’s considered themselves either middle or upper middle class whereas today, just 51 percent do.

 

That 10 percent represents 25 million adults in America who Clifton said are invisible to the 4.9 percent unemployment number.

Clifton wrote that the unemployment figure doesn’t take into account the fact that many Americans have seen their pay and benefits slashed.

The 4.9 percent number doesn’t reflect the fact that while someone is still classified as “full time,” their pay could have gone from a comfortable, middle-class salary of $65,000 a year to $14 per hour, which is about $28,000 a year.

“He has fallen out of the middle class and is invisible in current reporting,” Clifton wrote about the invisible American who Obama and the Left thumb their noses at.

The middle class has been eviscerated and people are suffering but according to Obama, everything’s just fine!

Take a look at these statistics cited by Clifton:

 

1. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of the total U.S. adult population that has a full-time job has been hovering around 48% since 2010 — this is the lowest full-time employment level since 1983.
2. The number of publicly listed companies trading on U.S. exchanges has been cut almost in half in the past 20 years — from about 7,300 to 3,700. Because firms can’t grow organically — that is, build more business from new and existing customers — they give up and pay high prices to acquire their competitors, thus drastically shrinking the number of U.S. public companies. This seriously contributes to the massive loss of U.S. middle-class jobs.
3. New business startups are at historical lows. Americans have stopped starting businesses. And the businesses that do start are growing at historically slow rates.

The future isn’t bleak, however — Clifton noted that small businesses can save the economy. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, 65 percent of all new jobs are being created by small businesses.

The problem is that, for the first time, small businesses are dying at a higher rate than they are being created according to the U.S. Census Bureau. For nearly 30 years prior to 2008, the U.S. had a surplus of small business creation — 120,000 more small businesses were birthed than those that were closed.

 

In contrast, from 2008 to 2011, an average of 420,000 small businesses were created annually but 450,000 were closed on average.

As Clifton pointed out, small businesses are the key to this country’s success: “The two most trusted institutions in the U.S. are the military and small business.”

He noted that while most people understand the importance of the military, they often don’t think about the critical role small businesses play in the economic and national security of this nation.

If America is to remain strong as the leader of the free world, we need to be economically secure. Our huge, strong middle class is a major part of what made our country great.

We need a leader who understands this and will put in place policies that strengthen small business and the middle class. This election is a turning point for this nation and if Hillary Clinton is elected, four to eight years from now may be too late to turn things around.

 

 

[SnowRider]

Yes...it's much worse now than 2008/2009.  There has been no economic recovery.....

 

 None......none at all......

[Highmark]

This is information the left's ignorance by bias simply will not let them comprehend.  Given a R in office they would suddenly be claiming the economy is not good.  

Edited September 21, 2016 by Highmark

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

Yes...it's much worse now than 2008/2009.  There has been no economic recovery.....

 

 None......none at all......

Its horrible. Gas is 4 bucks, car sales are down 20%. The UE rate is 16%

 

[Momorider]

13 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Its horrible. Gas is 4 bucks, car sales are down 20%. The UE rate is 16%

 

Household income is below 2000 levels and growth is 1.1%  

[Edmo]

1 minute ago, Momorider said:

Household income is below 2000 levels and growth is 1.1%  

The only way to polish that turd Obama is to cherry pick statistics. 

[Anler]

24 minutes ago, Highmark said:

This is information the left's ignorance by bias simply will not let them comprehend.  Given a R in office they would suddenly be claiming the economy is not good.  

Let's be honest, the Obama economy is no show piece but what Republican admins have left us has been completed disasters. The Republican platform is a fucking sick joke.

[Momorider]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

Let's be honest, the Obama economy is no show piece but what Republican admins have left us has been completed disasters. The Republican platform is a fucking sick joke.

from the Nazi Pig Dog 

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, Anler said:

Let's be honest, the Obama economy is no show piece but what Republican admins have left us has been completed disasters. The Republican platform is a fucking sick joke.

The GOP did not cause the housing bubble.   Its impossible to measure where the economy would have been in 2008-9 if it had been stopped years prior.   While the GOP did not do enough to prevent it there were plenty of times they tried to but got stopped by the dems and out of fear of political slandering that would have occurred.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?_r=0

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
•  

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Highmark

[Anler]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

The GOP did not cause the housing bubble.   Its impossible to measure where the economy would have been in 2008-9 if it had been stopped years prior.   While the GOP did not do enough to prevent it there were plenty of times they tried to but got stopped by the dems and out of fear of political slandering that would have occurred.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?_r=0

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
•  

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

 

 

 

Blah blah blah. How long are you going to ride that dick? 

1. How many stimulus's did bush implement?

2. The bush tax cuts cost us trillions and created shit for jobs

3. The Afghan and Iraq wars cost $4-6 trillion with billions more in long term veteran care obligations.

4. Gutted the regulatory oversight of the financial markets facilitated the banking meltdown. When was the cdo market first implemented and when did it get a huge steroid shot? It didn't take long for everything to blow up after that. 

Time to change your way of thinking brah. That dog don't hunt no mo

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

Blah blah blah. How long are you going to ride that dick? 

1. How many stimulus's did bush implement?

2. The bush tax cuts cost us trillions and created shit for jobs

3. The Afghan and Iraq wars cost $4-6 trillion with billions more in long term veteran care obligations.

4. Gutted the regulatory oversight of the financial markets facilitated the banking meltdown. When was the cdo market first implemented and when did it get a huge steroid shot? It didn't take long for everything to blow up after that. 

Time to change your way of thinking brah. That dog don't hunt no mo

Yes the wars were a costly mistake in both terms of lives, burden on our military families and costs however you are not accurate when refferring to the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/12/04/revenue-was-up-under-bush-tax-cuts.html

Its hilarious you bring out the "brah" when you think you are so smart and right and yet your ignorance of the facts are so clear.  

Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

One of the big advantages that President Barack Obama has, as he plays “chicken” with the Congressional Republicans along the “fiscal cliff,” is that Obama is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media — nor, apparently, by the Republicans.

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much lost revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

It sounds plausible, and repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics that show how wrong Obama is can be found in his own “Economic Report of the President” for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

For those who find that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” they need only see the graphs published in the Nov. 30 issue of Investor’s Business Daily.

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up — not down — after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, The New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

While The New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction. This has happened as recently as the Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

The bottom line is that Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government stimulus has done under either Bush or Obama.

Yet there is no need to assume that Obama is mistaken about the way to get the economy out of the doldrums. His top priority has always been increasing the size and scope of government. If that means sacrificing the economy or the truth, that is no deterrent to Obama. That is why he is willing to play chicken with Republicans along the fiscal cliff.

In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.  This legislation:

• Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
• Accelerated income tax rate reductions
• Accelerated the expansion of the 10 percent bracket
• Accelerated the increase of the child credit to $1,000
• Accelerated the reduction in the marriage penalty
• Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
• Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004

President Bush's Tax Relief Allowed Americans To Keep Trillions Of Dollars Of Their Own Money

Results of the President's tax relief were swift.  The economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters.  The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984.  The President's tax relief reduced the marginal effective tax rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-term, higher wages for workers.

• In 2007, a family of four earning $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 thanks to the President's tax relief.

The President's tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue.  From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy.  The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average.  Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent.  Growth in corporate income tax receipts was especially strong in the President's second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007 and contributing a full percentage point to the increase in the total federal receipts-to-GDP share.

The President's tax relief has shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher-income taxpayers.  With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President's tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005, the latest year of available data, while increasing the share paid by the top 10 percent from 46.0 to 46.4 percent.

[jtssrx]

12 minutes ago, Anler said:

Blah blah blah. How long are you going to ride that dick? 

1. How many stimulus's did bush implement?

2. The bush tax cuts cost us trillions and created shit for jobs

3. The Afghan and Iraq wars cost $4-6 trillion with billions more in long term veteran care obligations.

4. Gutted the regulatory oversight of the financial markets facilitated the banking meltdown. When was the cdo market first implemented and when did it get a huge steroid shot? It didn't take long for everything to blow up after that. 

Time to change your way of thinking brah. That dog don't hunt no mo

1. Stimulus didn't hurt anything

2. Tax cuts don't cost anything you dolt. Tax dollars belong to you and I. Tax cuts don't cost the federal government a dime 

3. Both wars are an outrage. But here's the problem both wars were almost unanimously supported by both sides of the isle. Mostly because we were lied to about 911

4. Bill Clinton caused the meltdown when he reversed glass stiegle. Non of the leveraging done by these banks was possible before that 

 

[Sleepr2]

Poor Analer.

 

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Yes the wars were a costly mistake in both terms of lives, burden on our military families and costs however you are not accurate when refferring to the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/12/04/revenue-was-up-under-bush-tax-cuts.html

Its hilarious you bring out the "brah" when you think you are so smart and right and yet your ignorance of the facts are so clear.  

Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

One of the big advantages that President Barack Obama has, as he plays “chicken” with the Congressional Republicans along the “fiscal cliff,” is that Obama is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media — nor, apparently, by the Republicans.

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much lost revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

It sounds plausible, and repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics that show how wrong Obama is can be found in his own “Economic Report of the President” for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

For those who find that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” they need only see the graphs published in the Nov. 30 issue of Investor’s Business Daily.

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up — not down — after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, The New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

While The New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction. This has happened as recently as the Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

The bottom line is that Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government stimulus has done under either Bush or Obama.

Yet there is no need to assume that Obama is mistaken about the way to get the economy out of the doldrums. His top priority has always been increasing the size and scope of government. If that means sacrificing the economy or the truth, that is no deterrent to Obama. That is why he is willing to play chicken with Republicans along the fiscal cliff.

In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.  This legislation:

• Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
• Accelerated income tax rate reductions
• Accelerated the expansion of the 10 percent bracket
• Accelerated the increase of the child credit to $1,000
• Accelerated the reduction in the marriage penalty
• Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
• Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004

President Bush's Tax Relief Allowed Americans To Keep Trillions Of Dollars Of Their Own Money

Results of the President's tax relief were swift.  The economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters.  The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984.  The President's tax relief reduced the marginal effective tax rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-term, higher wages for workers.

• In 2007, a family of four earning $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 thanks to the President's tax relief.

The President's tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue.  From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy.  The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average.  Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent.  Growth in corporate income tax receipts was especially strong in the President's second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007 and contributing a full percentage point to the increase in the total federal receipts-to-GDP share.

The President's tax relief has shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher-income taxpayers.  With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President's tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005, the latest year of available data, while increasing the share paid by the top 10 percent from 46.0 to 46.4 percent.

Oh well it must have been the 42% INCREASE in spending back in 2001 that sent our finances down the shitter... 42%!!!

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

Oh well it must have been the 42% INCREASE in spending back in 2001 that sent our finances down the shitter... 42%!!!

I've always been critical of that spending.   ALWAYS.  

I thought you guys like spending?   Doesn't spending stimulate economic growth?

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

1. Stimulus didn't hurt anything

2. Tax cuts don't cost anything you dolt. Tax dollars belong to you and I. Tax cuts don't cost the federal government a dime 

3. Both wars are an outrage. But here's the problem both wars were almost unanimously supported by both sides of the isle. Mostly because we were lied to about 911

4. Bill Clinton caused the meltdown when he reversed glass stiegle. Non of the leveraging done by these banks was possible before that 

 

CDOs began in the early 2000's and went full retard in 2006 and 2007. If glass steagal was so important why didn't dubya bring it back? You can play this finger pointing game all you want, I'm not voting for either of them. 

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

CDOs began in the early 2000's and went full retard in 2006 and 2007. If glass steagal was so important why didn't dubya bring it back? You can play this finger pointing game all you want, I'm not voting for either of them. 

Plenty of blame to go around for the housing bubble collapse and credit crisis however at least some of us are able to comprehend that it wasn't all just the GOP and more so Bush's fault.  

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

Plenty of blame to go around for the housing bubble collapse and credit crisis however at least some of us are able to comprehend that it wasn't all just the GOP and more so Bush's fault.  

But you have no problem blaming Obama?

[Capt.Storm]

all the crap comes back to one clinton or another..true story!

[Highmark]

18 minutes ago, Anler said:

But you have no problem blaming Obama?

Not for the housing bubble.   Obama and the dems have done very little to grow the economy.   Its proof in the worst ave gdp growth in basically the history of our country.  Even with interest rates basically at zero.   Yeah I know you will say but look at the stock market, yeah look at it without QE.   

[Anler]

25 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I've always been critical of that spending.   ALWAYS.  

I thought you guys like spending?   Doesn't spending stimulate economic growth?

That's what you say because I told eat the Republican turd sammich anymore. I am a fiscal conservative. I agree with spending that will have a return. 

[Anler]

4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

all the crap comes back to one clinton or another..true story!

Or a bush...

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

That's what you say because I told eat the Republican turd sammich anymore. I am a fiscal conservative. I agree with spending that will have a return. 

Ah yes, another person who know's what I think.   You guys crack me up with your Kreskin like abilities.  

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not for the housing bubble.   Obama and the dems have done very little to grow the economy.   Its proof in the worst ave gdp growth in basically the history of our country.  Even with interest rates basically at zero.   Yeah I know you will say but look at the stock market, yeah look at it without QE.   

Well you can't really blame Obama for that because the Republicans fought him tooth and nail on everything his whole first term. After he was re-elected they backed off and things have become substantially better. Everything is way up around here. They are building 900 new homes just to the south of me and Tennant space downtown is on fire. 

[Anler]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Ah yes, another person who know's what I think.   You guys crack me up with your Kreskin like abilities.  

Well what does "I thought YOU GUYS like spending" mean ?