Nine years of job growth wiped out

[mendeleev 68]

Now that I've read the rest of the thread, I see that Alien has provided expected resistance to facts. No surprises here.

[scandal 951]

Newsflash- Median income has dropped most years since 1974 so trying to pin income disparity on s sinlge president or party is silly. Corporations pay employees and the government doesn't set pay scales so if you're angry that someone made more money than you did you may seek a new career. The idea that simply punishing high salary income earners may somehow make poorer folks like me somehow feel better only works around election time.

I would generally agree with the thrust of your statements above. Namely, economic prosperity is mainly a function of the business cycle which operates on its own timeline (almost) entirely independently of the poltical/electoral cycles. It's largely a matter of chance who happens to be sitting in office to take the blame/credit for a particularly prosperous time, or hard times (as we are in now). The role of responsible political leadership and policymakers is to manage public funds responsibly, spending on public works that will generate long term economic growth and keeping an eye on deficit levels. A task Congress and Administrations, of both parties, have been piss-poor at in recent decades.

Economic growth went up from 2001-2005 and rate of growth declined in later years but still the tax cuts had a real effect faster than Obama's spending which has been so poorly carried out. My guess is Obama's numbers are going to be worse this year than any since 1982.

I'm wondering so many liberals now use Bush's spending policies as justification for Obamas?

I really wish the discussion could be elevated over the simplistic one dimensional liberal/conservative split. We're talking about a complex post-industrial economy measured in trillions of dollars with so many different stakeholders and decision makers that it's just ridiculous to paint it as a us vs. them, good vs. evil choice. It's not tax cuts good/evil any more than it is stimulus spending good/evil.

Keeping taxes low enough to spur investment and spending is of course a good thing. Keeping them high enough to generate sufficient revenue to cover the legitimate expenses that our society demands from its government is also a good thing, with long-term economic payback that makes it a very good investment. Finding the right balance of taxation levels is a goldilocks exercise - neither too high nor too low.

What surprises me is that someone who identifies himself as being among the "poorer folks" (your words, above) would be so in favor of Bush's tax policy which clearly elevated deficits dramatically during a period of economic expansion, and did so by shifting tax burden onto the middle class by giving breaks primarily to the investor class (capital gains, dividend tax breaks, etc.)

[mawilson 2,133]

Unemployment dropped during those "trickle down" years.

The BIGGEST tax cuts in history, targeted directly at the wealthy, produced an expansion that ranked LAST in average growth of GDP, investment, employment growth, and employee compensation.

Facts are stubborn things. Expect resistance.

What facts? Bush's tax cuts weren't the BIGGEST and produced an expansion that ranked LAST compared to what?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Bush's tax cuts weren't the BIGGEST and produced an expansion that ranked LAST compared to what?

Regarding size. If you combine all 3 Bush tax cuts into a single package, they're the biggest tax cut as a percentage of national income. Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

And the last expansion is being compared to all other post WW2 expansions. It's clear in the original article.

[DJ+Ten 0]

Alternative transport.

Rebuild the railways. Develop mass transit.

an english solution to an American problem. if America was england, it might be helpful. if Americans were englishmen, it might be accepted.

Besides, in most parts America just isn't densely populated enough to justify it. Mass transit works well where I live since Jersey is more densely populated than Belgium, but can you imagine commuter trains in upstate NY? It just wouldn't work. You'd have to drive miles to the station, you'd have to have parking, you'd need a rental or a taxi once you got off the train. It would be silly.

I dunno. I drove my car onto a ferry boat once. When we docked on the other side I still had the car. Wonder if that would work with a train? Just drive onto a drive-on rail car, then walk to the club car and relax, and drive away when you arrive at the destination. Might work equally well for a commute into town as it would travelling to a distant town.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I dunno. I drove my car onto a ferry boat once. When we docked on the other side I still had the car. Wonder if that would work with a train? Just drive onto a drive-on rail car, then walk to the club car and relax, and drive away when you arrive at the destination. Might work equally well for a commute into town as it would travelling to a distant town.

Those ferries cost a lot. Good for touristy situations or when transporting well-compensated ibankers to their jobs, but not for much else IMO.

[DJ+Ten 0]

I dunno. I drove my car onto a ferry boat once. When we docked on the other side I still had the car. Wonder if that would work with a train? Just drive onto a drive-on rail car, then walk to the club car and relax, and drive away when you arrive at the destination. Might work equally well for a commute into town as it would travelling to a distant town.

Those ferries cost a lot. Good for touristy situations or when transporting well-compensated ibankers to their jobs, but not for much else IMO.

In that case it was a ferry to the next island in the Philippines. It was either the 2 hour ferry boat or 3 hour drive to an airport where you could fly to that island. I gotta say that security on the ferry was a wee bit easier too.

My post was addressing the fact that we don't really have the tracks, the trains, the right-of-ways to provide good nationwide passenger rail. I can get to Chicago from KC but the train doesn't go back to KC directly. Gotta make a big loop. What's up with that?

[alienlovechild 75]

Exactly. The tax cuts being referred to are the Bush tax cuts... not Reagan.

Most people who use the term "trickle down economics" are referring to Reagan's policies not Bush.

What surprises me is that someone who identifies himself as being among the "poorer folks" (your words, above) would be so in favor of Bush's tax policy which clearly elevated deficits dramatically during a period of economic expansion, and did so by shifting tax burden onto the middle class by giving breaks primarily to the investor class (capital gains, dividend tax breaks, etc.)

Robbing someone else through higher taxes doesn't make me richer and is old political game of populists everywhere. Odd how you mention nothing about Bush's spending and solely blame lower taxes for the deficit. The wealthy have tax shelters. Also remember the wealthy pay a far greater share of taxes than the 50% of Americans who pay nothing, for example.

Taxing investors even more is a dumb way to raise revenue. You can kill the goose for laying the golden egg but you'll get hungry later.

It's too bad that class envy is driving policies instead of setting taxes aimed at growth regardless of who made money.

Reminds me of an old joke. A Soviet Communist looks at a rich man and his house and says, "No man should have so much." A capitalist retorts- "Every man should have so much."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Taxing investors even more is a dumb way to raise revenue. You can kill the goose for laying the golden egg but you'll get hungry later.

Then again, lowering the taxes on investors doesn't seem to have the expected effect of driving more investment. So you're still hungry later. And saddled with more debt. Not sure why that should be considered desirable. Not sure either why passive income should receive preferential treatment over earned income.

Despite tax changes that were promoted as incentives to increase investment, average growth in total investment over the latest expansion was less than half of the post-WWII average, and ranked last in this group.

[rebeccajo 14]

Alternative transport.

Rebuild the railways. Develop mass transit.

an english solution to an American problem. if America was england, it might be helpful. if Americans were englishmen, it might be accepted.

Besides, in most parts America just isn't densely populated enough to justify it. Mass transit works well where I live since Jersey is more densely populated than Belgium, but can you imagine commuter trains in upstate NY? It just wouldn't work. You'd have to drive miles to the station, you'd have to have parking, you'd need a rental or a taxi once you got off the train. It would be silly.

Single rural lines making a network from hubs, multiple urban ones to accommodate usage and reduce car traffic.

Oh gosh! Someone understands!

[rebeccajo 14]

Alternative transport.

Rebuild the railways. Develop mass transit.

an english solution to an American problem. if America was england, it might be helpful. if Americans were englishmen, it might be accepted.

Well damn.

Nobody else on the planet does anything else right except Americans.

How could I have possible forgotten?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Single rural lines making a network from hubs, multiple urban ones to accommodate usage and reduce car traffic.

Oh gosh! Someone understands!

How do we get around the fact that trains must be near-full to be feasible? That just won't happen if you put rail lines in sparsely populated rural areas.