posted
Nope, don't buy it. After years of hearing conservatives complain about welfare queens buying iPods and nice cars -- and rightfully so -- I think if a corporation is accepting government cash than the government gets to limit executive compensation.
One of the arguments against it is that it stifles the free market and that companies won't accept the bailout with that kind of restriction. Well, fine. They'll go under, principles intact. That's as free market as you can get.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I;m with Chris. I don't think that CEO salaries are really market based they way other things are market based. Boards hire CEOs and boards are made up of other CEOs. I think that artificially puffs up CEO salaries.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I;m with Chris. I don't think that CEO salaries are really market based they way other things are market based. Boards hire CEOs and boards are made up of other CEOs. I think that artificially puffs up CEO salaries.
Agreed. I remember an article about this a few years ago. Boards try and deal with this by hiring a company specifically to determine the appropriate level of pay. Of course this just translates the problem as 1)that company is going to heavily draw on other CEO's pays which have similar problems, and 2)that company will seek to please the CEO to increase its chance of subsequent re-employment.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Nope, don't buy it. After years of hearing conservatives complain about welfare queens buying iPods and nice cars -- and rightfully so -- I think if a corporation is accepting government cash than the government gets to limit executive compensation.
One of the arguments against it is that it stifles the free market and that companies won't accept the bailout with that kind of restriction. Well, fine. They'll go under, principles intact. That's as free market as you can get.
Amen. My only fear is that once this happens, the next step will be to try and expand the limits to companies that aren't getting federal bailouts. But that hasn't happened yet, and if a company wants to feed off of the public teat, they can damn well take the limitations with it.
When you think about it, this is pretty much the same thing as workfare.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In her plan, the CEO's pay is going to get reduced - potentially even more than by the government capping.
Here's the parts on that:
quote: To strengthen accountability, all aspects of CEO compensation should be voted on by shareholders on an annual basis.
Ultimately, it is the owners of a company who must determine whether a CEO's rewards are justified by a CEO's performance. And because the American taxpayer is now a partial owner in many companies, the government can get a vote as well -- in some cases a very sizeable vote.
In addition, "clawback provisions," which require a CEO to return compensation to shareholders if promised results aren't delivered, should be standard fare.
She's proposing taking the CEO compensation decisions out from the board of directors and moving it to the shareholders, which in the case of many of the bailed out firms, means that the American public/government would have a very strong say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, someone needs to shake the members of Congress and keep shaking them until they get it. link
quote: Yes, while our representatives have been jumping up and down screaming about the excesses of Wall Street, condemning those corporate boondoggle trips to luxurious resorts, what do they do?
They all go away on retreat together to a luxurious resort.
quote: A fired-up Barack Obama ditched his TelePrompter to rally House Democrats and rip Republican opponents of his recovery package Thursday night – at one point openly mocking the GOP for failing to follow through on promises of bipartisanship.
So we must blindly follow President Obama and not ask questions? Isn't that what President Bush was constantly berated for?
quote: Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.
Who paid for this annual retreat at Kingsmill Resort and Spa? I am shocked anyone would be supporting a massive spending project of this size which has had no time at all to be planned. 1400 pages of spending and only a few days to review it? Most the money doesn't hit until 4 years from now. There is also no way to halt the spending if the economy turns around. Lyrhawn was right, this bill is everything environmentalists have wanted for years and have not been able to get. Now is not the time for that kind of massive spending. I heard Obama state today that replacing the government fleet with hybrids is a good move because we will save energy and help the auto industry. While that sounds nice replacing the entire fleet with hybrids makes no sense. In a few years we will be faced with having to replace the entire fleet again. The fleet should be replaced as it ages and not in one massive push. If he really wants to save energy then hybrids are not the best option. There are many cars that get better gas mileage than a hybrid and the 'carbon footprint' to make a hybrid is much worse than making a non hybrid car. Additionally, is he going to be a protectist and only buy American cars and shut out the Japanese or other foreign car manufacturers? Obama has bipartisanship with this bill, it is just bipartisanship against the bill and not for it.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Two weeks out from his historic inauguration and promises of a new, less partisan Washington, but with his stimulus plan taking a very public beating at the hands of minority Republicans on Capitol Hill, the president has been forced to transform.
And quickly.
The Great Diffuser of inclusion and charm first shifted to the Great Salesman of Stimulus. Over the past 24 hours, he has been forced to become the much more stern Man With the Mandate.
quote: Most dramatically, the president has been pointedly reminding Republicans, and some stimulus-skeptical Democrats, that he was the choice of the American people last November. Those voters, he asserts, rejected the GOP way of doing things.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In her plan, the CEO's pay is going to get reduced - potentially even more than by the government capping.
Here's the parts on that:
quote: To strengthen accountability, all aspects of CEO compensation should be voted on by shareholders on an annual basis.
Ultimately, it is the owners of a company who must determine whether a CEO's rewards are justified by a CEO's performance. And because the American taxpayer is now a partial owner in many companies, the government can get a vote as well -- in some cases a very sizeable vote.
In addition, "clawback provisions," which require a CEO to return compensation to shareholders if promised results aren't delivered, should be standard fare.
She's proposing taking the CEO compensation decisions out from the board of directors and moving it to the shareholders, which in the case of many of the bailed out firms, means that the American public/government would have a very strong say.
I didn't post on this immediately because I had to think about it. My gut reaction was, and still is, that companies accepting federal money can take it with whatever strings we attach to it. Now, should executive compensation be such a string? I think so. And yes, half a mil is an arbitrary number. Any number would be.
This idea that you quoted here, though, is what I had to think about. Here's the thing: I think the market is already too tied to the will of the shareholders. That's why we look towards next quarter's profit instead of making long-term plans for our companies' futures.
Also, the US government isn't a shareholder. They're not buying up shares of stocks, they're giving companies money.
Lisa -- I do not see capping executive salaries ever going beyond companies that accept government money. That's insane. There are times when I fear things because of what else they may lead to, such as small abridgments of freedom for the sake of national security, but that's a principled stand, if nothing else. I actually think this cap is a good idea and since I'm footing the bill...
Grumble, grumble...did I mention that I hate the idea of bailing out companies? They've made these stupid decisions, why shouldn't they live with them? Why is it ok to give welfare money to large companies but not to individuals? And in this case, it may not even help but we're stuck with the precedent of giving money to anyone who is "too important" to fall. I've been mad at the Republicans for 8 years for this kind of junk and I can't honestly say I'm pleased with the Democrats for it right now.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We wanted to know who’s picking up the tab—so NBC 4‘s Patrick Preston investigated to find out.
The Congressional Democrats are meeting at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, where members will pay between $119 and $400 each night for their rooms. But taxpayers pick up the rest of the cost.
Taxpayer dollars are being spent for transportation—a chartered Amtrak train—and security to protect members of Congress, as well as facility and speaker fees.
When Preston asked the spokesperson for the Democratic Caucus for the total taxpayer expense, he was told that no one had that answer.
Democratic Caucus spokeswoman Emily Barocas said they don’t have to report the costs until April, but The Hill newspaper in Washington reported that previous Democratic retreats have cost taxpayers more than $500,000 over the past five years.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: ... Also, the US government isn't a shareholder. They're not buying up shares of stocks, they're giving companies money.
Uh, they've been buying up shares for a while.
quote:The U.S. government is dramatically escalating its response to the financial crisis by planning to invest $250 billion in the country's banks, forcing nine of the largest to accept a Treasury stake in what amounts to a partial nationalization.
News that European governments also planned to take stakes in their banks and anticipation of new U.S. measures unleashed a tremendous surge in U.S. stock prices yesterday, with the Dow Jones industrial average soaring to the biggest percentage gain since the 1930s, up 11.1 percent. It ended 936.42 points higher, the largest point gain ever, just days after the Dow had its steepest weekly decline in history.
The Treasury Department's decision to take equity stakes in banks represents a significant reversal, coming just weeks after Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had opposed the idea. In a momentous meeting yesterday afternoon in Washington, Paulson, flanked by top financial regulators, told the executives of nine leading banks that they needed to participate in the program for the good of the national economy, two industry sources said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
The government's initiative, which was to be announced this morning before the markets open for New York trading, is part of a wider plan that goes beyond the $700 billion rescue package approved by Congress earlier this month. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is also set to announce today the launch of an insurance fund to guarantee new issues of bank debt. It will provide unlimited deposit insurance for non-interest-bearing accounts, which are widely used by small businesses for payroll and other purposes.
In pressing the bank executives to accept partial government ownership, Paulson's message was clear: Though officially the program was voluntary, the banks had little choice in the matter. In exchange for giving the Treasury minority stakes, the nine firms would jointly receive an investment worth $125 billion. The government would make another $125 billion available for the next 30 days to thousands of other banks and thrifts across the country.
Given that the next stage of TARP is larger than the whole market capitalization of the financial sector, these banks are all essentially (or on the verge of becoming) totally state owned. We would call then crown corporations in Canada or state owned enterprises (SOEs) in China but you guys can come up with your own names.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, for one, am tired of the republican minority trying to push their entire agenda. They were voted in as a MINORITY. The majority of the country wants what the democrats are offering, and it's not right for them to try to change the entire bill. Sure, they can ask for some things, but their demands are ridiculous.
I don't understand why a simple majority isn't enough to push through a bill in the Senate.
I was listening to the radio the other day and a republican was being interviewed. He was asked what it would mean if the stimulus bill wasn't passed because Republicans didn't support it. He turned it around and basically said it would be because Democrats didn't fall in line.
Republicans had the country for 8 years. They had their turn. If the situation was reversed, do you think the republican majority would give a damn about what the democrat minority wanted?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Republicans had the country for 8 years. They had their turn. If the situation was reversed, do you think the republican majority would give a damn about what the democrat minority wanted?"
Where you not paying attention for the past 8 years? Same deal sister...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I don't understand why a simple majority isn't enough to push through a bill in the Senate.
Depends on the rules:
quote: A party with a majority can usually pass whatever it likes in the House, but the same is not true in the Senate. Debates in the Senate are not rigidly time-limited as they are in the House, and in order to end discussion and move to a substantive vote, a motion of “clôture”, or closure, has to pass. The snag is that 60 votes are needed to pass such a motion; and the Democrats have only 58 senators. In theory, if the Republicans hang firm—and they held absolutely firm in the House—they could prevent the stimulus bill from ever being put to a full vote.
quote: "I reject those theories," Obama said, "and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change." His assertion had echoes of George W. Bush two days after his re-election in a 2004 squeaker over Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
Said President Bush, "The people made it clear what they wanted. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it."
Obama until recent days had avoided displays of triumphalism or any suggestions of Bush-like claims to a mandate, even with the Democrats in firm control of both the Senate and the House. But his charm offensive failed to produce even a single Republican vote in support of the House version of his stimulus measure that passed last week.
And when even moderate Senate Republicans —and up to a dozen Democrats — began expressing public squeamishness about the plan's price tag and some longer-term objectives that don't translate into immediate job creation, the president shifted gears.
Thursday's assertion of the voters' mandate marked the third time the president has invoked the November election results. He also plans to hold a prime-time news conference Monday to again bring his argument to the nation's living rooms.
posted
And did actually hinge on people being very fed up with the way things were being done and was accompanied by a decimation of the established Republicans across the board. It was a pretty clear rejection of the current Republican policies.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they are saying Obama's victory was a squeaker. I think they are saying Obama sounds like Bush did in 2004.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Obama's victory was hardly a squeaker.
Obama's percentage of votes is pretty middle of the road. Since 1900, there have been 28 presidential elections. Obama's victory (percentage of votes won) ranks 15th...
Less than Reagan '84 (5th) and Bush '88 (14th) but more than Bush '2004 (19th) or Clinton '96 (24th).
A little context is helpful. Obama is not nearly as popular as his supporters would have you believe...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but Bush didn't have a basis for saying what he did. Obama does. There's a big difference there.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure - you want to believe Obama and don't want to believe Bush.
Both sides do it. When people cheer their own side for doing and castigate the other, the hypocrisy makes me sick.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure - you want to believe Obama and don't want to believe Bush.
Both sides do it. When people cheer their own side for doing and castigate the other, the hypocrisy makes me sick.
And this is true. We do favor our own side.
And yeah, the "suck it, I won" thing is harsh. But I don't think it's comparable to Mr. Bush's statement. For one thing, there is a majority of Americans who agree that something must be done, and a great many of them do not think more tax cuts are the answer. Bush was still claiming a mandate even after the majority of Americans disagreed with his policies.
For another, Obama has reached out to the other side, numerous times, in ways that Mr. Bush simply did not do in 8 years. He has appointed Republicans to his cabinet, apparently in a bizarre-for-Washington belief that he wants people good at those jobs, regardless of their affiliation. And he is still talking to Republicans even after they swamped him with their shutout vote. He spent a half-hour talking to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) about her suggestions for the bill, some of which sound good (she didn't focus on the ubiquitous tax cuts, but did focus on cutting the price and getting the job-creation going a little faster, and that's exactly the input he needs).
In comparison, Mr. Bush talked a good bipartisan game but never actually followed through with it. His cabinet was all far-right. If you recall, his shunning of Democrats even contributed to the loss of the Senate when Jim Jeffords changed parties.
Bush did work with Dems when their goals matched his, such as AIDS help to Africa, the immigrant bill, and a few -- very few -- others. But mostly he just steamrolled right over them.
Obama's "I won" declaration does have echoes of Bush. But they're not equal.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
This campaign in the last two months was about nothing but the economy. McCain and Obama, as well as the respective Congressional candidates laid out their plans for how this very specific problem would be solved, and in large part, people voted in those plans as much as they did the people espousing them. That election was about the economy a hell of a lot more than it was about anything else.
So when Obama says that the people elected him and Democrats because of their ideas, I think he has a lot of real backing behind the idea, rather than just saying "I won so I get my way." That'd be a silly argument if he was trying to create a national celebratory week where every one gets the week off work to celebrate the importance of sand. Obviously no one elected him to extol the virtues of sand. But they DID elect him in very large part to fix the economy. People didn't reelect Bush in 2004 because they thought everything in Iraq was hunky dory and wanted to keep things going as much as possible exactly the same. I think by and large they actually voted him in as an anti-Kerry vote as much as it was a pro-Bush vote.
Like Katarain said, people voted in Democrats in even larger majorities than before, and voted in Barack Obama, a Democrat, over a very, very clear Republican opponent espousing a very different set of economic ideals.
Now, if Democrats were SMART, they'd come up with what they think is the best bill possible and bring it to a cloture vote, and force Republicans to ACTUALLY filibuster the damned thing. Then while Republicans are reading cookbooks, the Democrats can groundpound every cable news show from here to the moon talking about obstructionist Republicans getting in the way of the people's will, and about how they TRIED to work with Republicans, but how they refused to come to a compromise unless the bill was radically altered to meet Republican demands. (I'm not saying that 100% true, but I could sure as heck sell it).
But Harry Reid is an idiot, and he'll never do that. Obama is NOT an idiot, which makes me think that maybe there's a chance, I'm not sure. With Reid in charge, between 2006 when the Dems took Congress and 2008 when the legislative session ended, Republicans only had to threaten to filibuster to get a bill killed, but Reid never made them follow through on it. Obama is a much more savvy interpreter of the public mood however, and he might be willing to take the public will for a test drive to see how much backlash he can generate against Republicans, which might force them to back down. Polls show that people ARE leery of the size of the bill, but they also show that by and large, they trust Democrats to handle it, have a lower opinion of Republicans, and approve of most of what Obama has done in his first two and a half weeks in office.
Democrats need to learn how to actually use the high ground when they have it.
DK -
As far as environmental spending goes, yeah, a lot of that isn't going to be spent in the next month, but a great deal of it will be spent in the next year. Besides, a lot of it is exactly the kind of thing that Republicans say we need MORE of: Tax cuts for business. Why do tax cuts not count when they're for renewable energy? As far as hybrids go, if they limited themselves to buying American hybrids only, there's absolutely no way they could replace the government's fleet anyway, as American car companies, and for that matter Japanese car companies, simply don't produce enough of them in a given year to replace the entire fleet. And that's if they actually bought out the ENTIRE supply. What you're complaining about isn't even feasible, let alone likely, so I wouldn't worry about it. The environmental spending in the stimulus package IS going to create a lot of near, midterm, and long term jobs, to say nothing of the long term energy savings we'll get from it. You might not like it, but it IS stimulus. It'll put people to work and save other people money. Isn't that the point of the bill?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, I voted for Bush the second time. I was going to vote for him the first time, but I had never voted before and I went to the wrong place.
Even then I had enough of a grip on reality to realize that he hardly won by a margin that suggested a mandate. I don't know if Obama's margin could really be called a mandate either, but it sure as heck is closer to being one than what Bush had.
ETA: So, I wonder if that does anything to your hypothesis that I just want to believe Obama and disbelieve Bush. Am I still a hypocrite? Do I still make you sick?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
Really? What specific policy would that be?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn - This is tax cuts for specific Democrat approved businesses, not a tax cut for businesses at large. Green energy does not need a bailout at this moment and green energy did not cause this recession to occur. Shouldn't we work on helping the end the housing crisis rather than subsidizing the much more expensive green energy? Why is Obama talking about another spending spree to help homeowners? We should be taking care of mortgages with this package, not in another spending package. This is simply a Democrat wish list of spending that they do not want to put in a federal budget. Why try to place this in a federal budget when you can get a trillion plus dollars of Democrat spending in a spending spree package?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
President Obama doesn't want a blank check to spend....he and the Democrats want a trillion dollar plus check to spend
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.
quote: As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.
First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.
quote: Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?
posted
I think all the talk about mandates is nonsense and I did when Bush was in office too. He won. That means he (insert President's name here) has the power of the presidency, subject to the checks and balances set forth by the constitution. That's it.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Lyrhawn - This is tax cuts for specific Democrat approved businesses, not a tax cut for businesses at large. Green energy does not need a bailout at this moment and green energy did not cause this recession to occur. Shouldn't we work on helping the end the housing crisis rather than subsidizing the much more expensive green energy? Why is Obama talking about another spending spree to help homeowners? We should be taking care of mortgages with this package, not in another spending package. This is simply a Democrat wish list of spending that they do not want to put in a federal budget. Why try to place this in a federal budget when you can get a trillion plus dollars of Democrat spending in a spending spree package?
I believe that Obama wants to support green energy because he believes that it will provide jobs, something we need right now, and also because it will decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources, which is in our best interest for a lot of reasons.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So this is what the Senate seems to be coming down to: keeping bridges and throwing students out the window. The effort to prune the stimulus package to make it more palatable to Republicans is focused on slashing money for education.
...
Come on, senators, education is the best way to fight poverty, the best way to break the cycle of the underclass, the best way to ensure a broader distribution of opportunity in America, the best way to preserve our country’s economic competitiveness. And it’s just as good for stimulus purposes as repaving a road — and you still want to throw those school children out the window?
posted
Alcon, that is definitely the way the wind is blowing. As I said yesterday, if you are for the increase in Pell (and/or Stafford) contact your senator!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.
No, they really, really don't. The Bush tax cuts provided a slight and temporary boost, but that faded and the value of it was offset by the growth in the deficit. That's it.
quote:By now, most economists doubt that tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating the economy so much that revenues grow rapidly. A new Congressional Research Service report, for example, finds that the stimulus effects of the Bush tax cuts have faded, and the negative effect of added debt service has grown. In the first 10 years, those additional debt-service costs can add 25 percent in lost revenues to the original tax-cut revenue losses. So in the long term, tax cuts add to the deficit.
[ February 06, 2009, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Approval polls about the stimulus: even or trending down, but the wording on the questions has changed.
The Gallop poll, where the wording did not change from January to February, has almost identical results.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even Mankiw, the architect of a good chunk of the tax cuts, didn't think they'd pay for themselves when instituted and says the evidence is clear that they didn't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Even Mankiw, the architect of a good chunk of the tax cuts, didn't think they'd pay for themselves when instituted and says the evidence is clear that they didn't.
Yeah anyone who's pulling laffer-curvology on this one is a wee bit off the deep end.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
quote: No, they really, really don't. The Bush tax cuts provided a slight and temporary boost, but that faded and the value of it was offset by the growth in the deficit. That's it.
quote: Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low. Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.
Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:
18.4 percent of GDP in 1987, 18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and 18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3] While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a temporary stock market bubble.
quote: Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy. Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent. Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters. The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well. The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters. The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16] Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.
posted
Nobody who knows anything about tax history claims the tax cuts made taxes particularly low.
What people usually claim about the expansion is that GDP growth was low. Saying that people talk about tax revenue being historically low is deceptive. Whether or not that low GDP growth is in any part due to the tax cuts is another question, but the evidence is clear that we had one of the weakest recoveries ever.
The second bit only looks at a twelve quarter period. That's just three years, and one and a half of those years were before the tax cut. It isn't possible to use that information to refute the idea they had little effect after a short initial period because one and a half years is a short initial period!
Please read what you're about to quote from other sources before posting things that don't come remotely close to refuting what you're arguing against. The impact of the Bush tax cuts is extremely arguable, but you've put forward some of the weakest 'evidence' for their efficacy I've seen. There's even some better evidence in the parts of that report that you didn't quote.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darn it, you quoted me before I edited it out
(edit: and I'd like to emphasize I'm talking about the quoted sections, not BB).
(edit again: and now the post this was in response to is gone (thanks), but I'll leave this up as an important disclaimer)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, they really, really don't. The Bush tax cuts provided a slight and temporary boost, but that faded and the value of it was offset by the growth in the deficit. That's it.
I have noticed that any political essay entitled "Ten Myths about X", consists of ten straw men which barely resemble the real criticisms general followed by some very misleading and often statistically invalid refutation of the straw men. This article is no exception.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
As I said yesterday, if you are for the increase in Pell (and/or Stafford) contact your senator!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
