The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed under 8000 today, a five year low, and 24% lower than it stood the day President Bush was inaugurated. But hey… that’s still better than Herbert Hoover.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
So much for Bush’s promise to “grow the economy”.
Those tax cuts worked out great!!!
Let’s have some more!
Gee, I wonder how much Gore would have won by in Nov. 2004 if voters then knew that:
* Bush would ignore warnings of a impending terrorist attack and 9/11 would have been the result;
* Bush would have pushed us into an unecessary war in Iraq which still continued five years later;
* Bush would have politicized the U.S. attorney general’s office, hiring and firing based upon partison affiliation, and using it for politically-motivated prosecutions and to hinder prosecutions of Republicans;
* Bush would have effectively dismantled the professional core of FEMA, appointing an incompetent political toady right before the biggest natural disaster which wiped out 70% of homes in one of our oldest cities;
* The budget would have ballooned from a surplus to a trillion-dollar deficit;
* The national debt would triple under his administration;
* the administration would have to shovel hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts to financial institutions and Wall Street financial firms, despite the collapse of several of them;
* Despite the bailouts and cuts in the Fed discount rate to 1%, the DJIA would suffer a 24% loss during seven years and ten months of his Presidency.
Surely, with such facts at their disposal, even the most adamant red-state Republican wingnut would have voted for Gore, wouldn’t he?????
From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003:
–Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
–Democrats created 75,820,000 new jobs, Republicans 36,440,000. Annual average: Democrats 1,825,200, Republicans 856,400.
–Republicans had 9 presidents during the period of whom 6 presided over a depression or recession.
–The Dow Average grew 52% more under Democrats.
–GDP grew 43% more under Democrats.
SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.gov)
Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org) – Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
The only things Bush’s tax cuts for the rich produced were deficits and inflation.
Hey, don’t knock Bush! They’re building a $3 billion subway system in Baghdad! Wonder where that money is coming from? So do I! I think it’s actually more expensive than Sound Transit.
http://thetransportpolitic.wor.....3-billion/
# 6: Great. Instead of forcing insurgents to dig their own holes and tunnels to plant their bombs, we will be doing it for them!
Where’s Mark the Welsher? Why isn’t he posting his bullshit about how Bush’s tax cuts increased federal revenues?
In case you’re new here, or don’t remember, Mark The Inbred Redneck Bet Welsher, who owes Goldy $100 for foolishly betting the gas tax repeal initiative would win by 10 points, claimed Bush’s tax cuts would increase federal revenue. This is demonstrably false; disregarding FICA revenues, which were not affected by Bush’s tax cuts, federal revenue has been as follows:*
2000 – $1,372,505,000,000 (baseline year)
2001 – $1,297,459,000,000
2002 – $1,152,635,000,000
2003 – $1,069,554,000,000
2004 – $1,146,872,000,000
2005 – $1,359,734,000,000
2006 – $1,669,443,000,000
* Combination of individual and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes (including inheritance tax)
Source of data: Tax Policy Center
As you can see, the Bush tax cuts resulted in 5 consecutive years of lower federal revenues.
It’s true, of course, that tax cuts can (in some circumstances) increase government revenue. This is easily demonstrated as follows:
If taxes are zero, government revenues will be zero. Government revenues also will be zero if the tax rate is 100%, because in that case there will be no economic activity. Obviously, there is a point somewhere between a 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate where government revenues are maximized.
But it’s not a given that cutting taxes will increase revenue. Logically, if the tax rate is below that point, cutting the rate will result in revenue loss. On the other hand, if the tax rate is above that point, a tax cut will stimulate more economic activity resulting in increased government revenue.
Raw data from the Reagan era is mixed, and more difficult to assess because Reagan raised taxes 6 times between 1982 and 1987, and the revenue growth during that period shown in raw data is due at least in part to Reagan’s tax hikes:
1980 – $359,309,000,000 (baseline)
1981 – $416,552,000,000
1982 – $416,268,000,000
1983 – $391,569,000,000
1984 – $427,109,000,000
1985 – $468,926,000,000
1986 – $486,313,000,000
1987 – $551,035,000,000
(same data source)
What you do see in these figures, though, is a clear trend toward lower revenues in Reagan’s early years (when he was cutting taxes) with revenues growing in his later years (when he was raising taxes).
Other factors, of course, influence government revenues – the most important of which is the economic cycle. But in general, federal taxation is below the revenue optimization point most (or all) of the time, so tax cuts usually will result in revenue losses, not the opposite. What certainly is NOT true is that cutting taxes always increases revenues, as argued by conservative tax-cutters; in Bush’s case, this argument is demonstrably false.
Mark the Gasbag was full of shit when he denied there is a link between cutting tax rates and subsequent decreases in federal revenue. A 0% tax rate produces no revenue. A 100% tax rate also produces no revenue, because there would be no economic activity. Somewhere between the 0% and 100% tax rates, there is a tax rate that maximizes federal revenue. If the existing tax rate is less than this figure, cutting the tax rate will decrease revenue. If it’s more, cutting the tax rate will increase revenue.
Speaking of whom, where is Gasbag the Trailer Park Redneck? We haven’t heard from him in quite a while! Did his dead crack whore wife kill him for trying to pay her child support with Confederate money? Is he looking for a job in South America? Did his mommy revoke his internet privileges? Who knows? Who cares?
You stinking old rabbit. Go clean up your rabbit hutch instead of spending so much time on the Horse’s butt blog.
Goldy, please ban the stinking rabbit from posting. He needs to spend time on rabbit housekeeping duties.
Signed,
The Frazzled Mrs. Rabbit
Shit. Busted again.
For Sale: 1 slightly used rabbit fur coat. Comes with original rabbit. Contact R. Rabbit for details.
I’m wondering where that foul-breathed cur is hiding myself. I wonder if Goldy’s recent “doofus” post was a tip to the cur’s true identity:
Michael Duncemire.
The cur claimed that the right wing would “kick ass” in 2008 and boasted that the Dems could never get more than 50 percent of the popular vote.
Eat shit cur!!!
Thanks. I wondered what bet he’d lost.
The pooper came back for his just desserts but another ugly troll, Surreal Mark, has stayed away.
Good thing. Was wrong about everything – again.
Called Obama a “pretty boy in a suit” and said McSame would win by linking Obama to Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and Jimmy Carter. Well, McSame sure tried on the first two but only gave lip service to the Carter jibe.
Shit. Carter was an FDR compared to the last 8 years.
Daily Kos said similar:
But if Sarah Palin had been president, surely things would be better, because she’s a real Republican, after all!
I predicted Obama: 369 EVs and McCain: 169. I was off by FOUR EVs.
I should win something; I’m just sayin’.
I’m still waiting for Obama in office. It’s gonna be GREAT! The Right is going o be steamrolled in a way that they have not experienced for seventy years, and it is going to be the funniest fucking thing we all have ever seen.
TEN QUESTIONS THAT SUPPORT GOLDYISM
1. Remember the celebrations under Ronald Mc Reagan of the death of Marxism?
2. Does anyone now believe that the private sector is competent to control the capital supply?
3. How great a contribution do you think hedge funds made to the capital needed to modernize GM?
4. Tax cuts for the rich have been great! They have invested their money where it is most productive .. in China! True or False?
5. Which American politician used the term “voodoo economics” to describe the supply side concept?
6. The ratio of exec salaries to worker salaries in the US is greater than 50:1. This is justified by the huge success of American management. True or False?
7. Toyota makes better cars than GM because GM’s autoworker unions design the cars GM tries to sell. True or False?
8. BMW makes the highest quality, highest price luxury sedans because German workers get 30 days vacation every year. True or False?
9. US productivity has been hurt because we pay less taxed than all but Turkey amongst the industrial nations. True or False?
10. The Iraq war while expensive has been great for economy because it has kep the price of oil low, encouraged investment in pet rocks, and created a massive demand for life long care for those who would be dead but for out high tech hospitals! True or False?
RR @ 8: Increases in federal revenue under the Reagan administration had more to do with Fed policy than tax policy. When carter was in office, the Fed kept raising interest rates to “tame” inflation, causing a rescession in the process. When it eventually lowered the interest rates, economic activity resumed, resulting in higher revenues. The Republicans liked to call it the “Reagan Economic Miracle”, but it wasn’t a miracle of any sort. It was basic Fed economics.
Reagan himself was stuck in the 1950’s, complaining endlessly to visitors about the “98% tax rate which discouraged labor and investment”. Of course, that tax rate hadn’t been in effect for many years, and the later 50% rate had been reduced to something in the low 40%, even before Reagan took office. But he kept repeating the story as if it were current events – perhaps an early sign the onset of Alzheimers (sp?), I’m afriad.
If you want the real story of the tax cuts and Reagan’s false promise in 1980 to “balance the budget in four years”, read the book by his first budget director, David Stockman. He shows how balancing the budget was never a goal of the Reagan administration, wheras the tax cuts were the first priority. He was ordered to create budgets using “rosy scenarios” of the great economic miracle which would result from the Reagan tax cuts.
At the end of the book is a table which shows that if Carter had been re-elected and his tax policies continued, the budget would have been balanced within a few years. But with Reagan and the Republicans in charge, it didn’t happen until the year 2000 – just in time for another Republican president to put us deeply in debt with another round of tax cuts.
@17 Daddy L
Is there a right left ?
Say, Pooper, any intention of paying off on our little bet. I believe you owe my charity of choice, Seattle Childrens Hospital, some money. You can send Goldy the receipt.
Why does Pooper hate the sick and injured children of Seattle?
I predicted Obama: 369 EVs and McCain: 169. I was off by FOUR EVs.
If you had registered that prediction at DailyKos you would be in the running for a MacBook.
The pooper will be spouting National Review talking points as he shakes the mortal coil.
He really is heavily infatuated with that discredited bilge.
There’s yet 61 more days for the full effect of the merde touch.
– The Dow, as Bush takes office: 10,587.59
– The Dow, eight years later: 7,997.28
re 19: I remember in the 80’s when news readers on the television machine were talking about how the president had “taken Mr. Stockman to the woodshed” for his frankness on Reagan’s economic policies.
Ouch!
http://www.motherjones.com/kev.....ogedy.html
May the Republicans pander to these culture warriors for a long, long time.
The perfect song for the outgoing monkey thief administration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNaxbUZGp9k