Under Obama, Economic Stagnation Is the New Normal

Althea said:
Another broad generalization. I could return the favor by asking you if you think it wise to return to the 70% rate we saw under the Johnson tax cuts? How about the 48% corporate rate?

You ignore the fact that Johnson's cuts reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions.

It could be argued that it was a demand side cut, as opposed to a supply side cut. In essence, it's hard to make the case that it was the marginal rate cuts that boosted the economy.

It hasn't done so in the last 10 years, so why would you assume it worked in the 60's? Likewise, you have to study the corresponding spending increases in the same era.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a broad generalization. There are too many moving parts to the economy to say this specific tax act by itself had this specific effect without taking into account other factors. Thus Desh's comment that we raise taxes and the economy booms.
 
Althea said:
Another broad generalization. I could return the favor by asking you if you think it wise to return to the 70% rate we saw under the Johnson tax cuts? How about the 48% corporate rate?

You ignore the fact that Johnson's cuts reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions.

It could be argued that it was a demand side cut, as opposed to a supply side cut. In essence, it's hard to make the case that it was the marginal rate cuts that boosted the economy.

It hasn't done so in the last 10 years, so why would you assume it worked in the 60's? Likewise, you have to study the corresponding spending increases in the same era.
Click to expand...

What about the baby boom?
 
It is funny that righties never mention where the tax rate was when Kennedy cut taxes. It always makes me laugh.

Imagine if we had rates that high today, I can already hear the shrieking. I say tax them! Squeeze them! Squeeze them till they squeak like yurt!
 
Althea said:
Not sure what you're asking? The baby boom was technically over in '64. I think it started after WW2 ended, and the boys came back home.
Click to expand...

Right, the excess births ended in '64. I am asking if the effects of the baby boom played a part in the economic blossoming you are discussing. All those young families buying goods, etc.
 
cannabis said:
yet the left still blames bush for everything

:pke:
Click to expand...

Yes some do just as some on the right blame Owebama for everything.
Bush did not make the right moves to alleviate what was coming, on the contrary most of what he did made things worse for life under Owebama.
Basically doubled the debt, 2 unfunded wars, tax cuts, interest rates near zero going into a recession so that they could not be dropped to stimulate the economy.
He rode a dying horse down to the ground when he should have rested and fed it a bit.

then Bush III (aka Owebama) came along and continued most of the Bush economic traditions.
 
Rune said:
Right, the excess births ended in '64. I am asking if the effects of the baby boom played a part in the economic blossoming you are discussing. All those young families buying goods, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes....the post war era began an economic boom, in large part due to the govt. spending 13 billion on the GI Bill of Rights. It loaned money for housing, education, etc. As the population grew, the economy picked up even more. It did indeed carry through the 60's. although the Vietnam War probably weighed heavily on govt. spending.

It could probably be argued that when the boomers aged, the demand for jobs increased dramatically. I haven't really studied how that affected the economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top