since \\\troll/// claims people who ignore his posts and don't answer his questions have been PWNED, since he only responds to my posts to insult me and is too scared to answer the tough questions or discuss the tough issues i raise
i pwned the troll
From 2001-2005, President Bush oversaw the slowest five-year period of economic growth since World War II; the following five years, with help from the downturn, were even worse.
Bush also presided over the first decline in median household incomes since the 1960s.
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105100002
Probably because you stated "AFTER the Bush tax cuts from 2001 were passed..."The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001", passed June 7, 2001, unemployment went UP!"
How ever could I have thought you were trying to tie the two together?
Lower taxes is a stimulus effort that does indeed tend to create jobs. The unemployment rate did trend down after the second set of cuts. We remained at full employment until the financial crisis reared up. That said, tax cuts only work LONG term if there are corresponding spending cuts. Without them you end up with increased deficit spending. A point I have reiterated time and again on this site. So you can take YOUR partisan bullshit and shove it up your ass.Maybe because your just a partisan hack who refuses to admit that the RightWing mantra that lower taxes creates jobs is just plain bullshit?
Again... you clearly were trying to tie the tax cuts to the increases in unemployment, otherwise what was your point of posting.... ".BUT IF LOW TAXES CREATE JOBS, THEN WHY DID UNEMPLOYMENT GO UP?"Nope, you'd rather play word games and make up bullshit so you can taunt another poster...we understand.
Unemployment did NOT go up due to the tax cuts. PERIOD. It went up in 2001 due to 9/11. It went DOWN after the 2003 tax cuts.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Americans still blame President George W. Bush for the dismal state of the economy, according to a poll released Thursday, findings that help explain why President Obama's re-election hopes remain unchanged amid widespread economic turmoil.
The Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 51 percent of those surveyed said Bush should bear the brunt of the blame for the stagnant economy.
In comparison, 31 percent say Obama is most responsible.
If that attitude persists, it could bolster the president's chances for re-election…
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...#ixzz1XDAENnol
According to a report by the Center for American Progress, "from March 2001 to December 2007 the economy added 1.8 million jobs for workers aged 25 to 54, only 22,000 per month. That translates to an average annualized growth rate of only 0.3 percent per month-the slowest of any cycle on record since the end of World War II and one-fifth the growth rate during the 1990s."
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201011190001
It was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, according to Obama and Biden. It didn't.
It was supposed to create millions of "shovel ready jobs" promised Obama. It didn't.
...Jump start the economy? Ha! Didn't do that either!
It FAILED on every level to do what was promised it would do... Promised, while most of us were telling you, it wouldn't!
We've not seen 6.3% unemployment under Obama... that would be a blessing... Liberals would be lauding Obama as the greatest job-creating president of all time, if we could get back to 6.3%.... but Obama has been nowhere near that number, and he won't get anywhere close to it.
Obama inherited Bush's mess.
Bush tax cuts inefficient, didn't stimulate the economy
According to the Tax Policy Center's William Gale:
"Economic research over the past decade can explain why extending the original Bush tax cuts is not good stimulus policy. After the tax rebates in 2001, 2003, and 2008, households appear to have spent in relatively short order somewhere between 25 and 67 cents more for each dollar of tax cut. This makes tax cuts in general - even the parts of those tax bills that were intended to stimulate - a relatively weak way to help the economy compared to increases in government purchases, for which each dollar of increased deficit turns into an additional dollar of spending."
[Tax Policy Center, 9/30/10]
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201011190001
.
Bookmarks