An extra two percent GDP per year is a Germany every ten years

nitro

nitro

It is all about an extra one, and preferably two percent GDP growth per year. On an economy the size of the US, that is an extra Germany's worth of growth every ten years.

Imo, the only thing that can take us back to 4% GDP like the early 90's is some unanticipated technological revolution, like the Internet did then.

People say it was Reagan's policies. Maybe. I claim it was the commercialization of the internet and Reagan or no Reagan, or Clinton for that matter, were irrelevant.

Otherwise, 2% GDP is the new normal:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
 
nitro said:
It is all about an extra one, and preferably two percent GDP growth per year. On an economy the size of the US, that is an extra Germany's worth of growth every ten years.

Imo, the only thing that can take us back to 4% GDP like the early 90's is some unanticipated technological revolution, like the Internet did then.

People say it was Reagan's policies. Maybe. I claim it was the commercialization of the internet and Reagan or no Reagan, or Clinton for that matter, were irrelevant.

Otherwise, 2% GDP is the new normal:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
More...
all Reagan ever did was say it is ok to be rich
And everything he did was to make you that way

Our only hope now is GDP growth. And the best we can hope for is someone who says,"Our only hope is GDP growth."
 
I think large tax cuts may have had something to do with govt tax revenues going up... plus this...

http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

Overall, between 1981 and 1989, real GDP per capita increased by nearly 23%; in the same span of time, the value of the stock market more than tripled.20

---

Why is it so hard for big govt loving leftists to believe that an economy unshackled form large taxes would boom? its basic common sense. People have more money to spend. And people invest more because your take home profits after taxes are larger. Have you ever tried to raise money for a business. People want to see the pro forma, people want to know profits after taxes so if they can see the business upside is worth the risk.

And it has been proven over and over. Even tax revenues have gone up after the last 4 tax cuts.
 
Last edited:
jem said:
I think large tax cuts may have had something to do with govt tax revenues going up... plus this...

http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

Overall, between 1981 and 1989, real GDP per capita increased by nearly 23%; in the same span of time, the value of the stock market more than tripled.20

---

Why is it so hard for big govt loving leftists to believe that an economy unshackled form large taxes would boom? its basic common sense. People have more money to spend. And people invest more because your take home profits after taxes are larger. Have you ever tried to raise money for a business. People want to see the pro forma, people want to know profits after taxes so if they can see the business upside is worth the risk.

And it has been proven over and over. Even tax revenues have gone up after the last 4 tax cuts.
More...
It's in the Bible. Look it up. When Solomon died the people hoped his son would lower taxes. He didn't. Now nobody even remembers (or wants to) his name.
 
jem said:
I think large tax cuts may have had something to do with govt tax revenues going up... plus this...

http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

Overall, between 1981 and 1989, real GDP per capita increased by nearly 23%; in the same span of time, the value of the stock market more than tripled.20

---

Why is it so hard for big govt loving leftists to believe that an economy unshackled form large taxes would boom? its basic common sense. People have more money to spend. And people invest more because your take home profits after taxes are larger. Have you ever tried to raise money for a business. People want to see the pro forma, people want to know profits after taxes so if they can see the business upside is worth the risk.

And it has been proven over and over. Even tax revenues have gone up after the last 4 tax cuts.
More...
You apply the "same wave your hands in the air" analysis here that you do in the climate change threads.

The data and the statistical analysis of that data doesn't necessarily support what you are saying. Do you really believe that Democrats are so stupid to believe, that if they could just wave the tax wand and lower the tax rate to some very low rate in order to have the effect you are suggesting, 4% GDP would magically happen?

If it were only so easy, EVERYONE (leaving alone the non-economic problems with Republicans) would be Republican.
 
Screw you and your wave the hands in the air bullshit. You have been asked repeatedly to link to peer reviewed science showing man made co2 produces warming. You have never met that burden because you can't... there is no science. So why would you take such a cheap shot.

Why even bring that up if you can't produce any science? you are dead ass wrong on that issue and I proved it... you have never produced peer reviewed science. Until your side has science there get off your high horse and just admit you think it better to err and the side of caution. As a true environmentalist who has volunteered his time in the past to clean ocean and bay causes I would agree with you.

But... now... lets go to the financial data and see who waves their hand in the air with b.s. stat work.

1. go to the link and see actual GDP numbers for reagan... ...They went up. They went up a lot. only statistical b.s. like that in your article can hide the massive gdp expansion.

In invite you to wipe away the leftist blinders and look at the actual GDP numbers for the USA. In 1982 they were negative... Starting with 1983... they were large.
4.6, 7.3, 4.2, 3.5, 3.5, 4.2

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=5


Regarding tax cuts and the subsequent increase in revenue...



2. many times i have shown that in the raw data after tax cuts the federal tax revenue went up within 2 years. Revenues have gone up after the Mellon, kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts...

for instance...
taxcuts2002.ashx






but... if you want statistics... here is the next level. its not as good as reading the data yourself... which you have apparently refused to do... but here it is... as easy as it gets...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepat...uts-increase-government-revenue/#541f63648a36


Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.




Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png




3. As far as what I am suggesting... I am suggesting that since I have historical proof that after all the Federal tax cuts in recent times revenues went up....why not try it again.

its good for the tax payers and its good for the govt. I say try and try again until you cut too far. Give it 2 years... then move it back up if you like.

Its not like the govt is afraid to run deficits. So why resist being nice to the tax payers?





nitro said:
You apply the "same wave your hands in the air" analysis here that you do in the climate change threads.

The data and the statistical analysis of that data doesn't necessarily support what you are saying. Do you really believe that Democrats are so stupid to believe, that if they could just wave the tax wand and lower the tax rate to some very low rate in order to have the effect you are suggesting, 4% GDP would magically happen?

If it were only so easy, EVERYONE (leaving alone the non-economic problems with Republicans) would be Republican.
More...
 
Last edited:
nitro said:
It is all about an extra one, and preferably two percent GDP growth per year. On an economy the size of the US, that is an extra Germany's worth of growth every ten years.

Imo, the only thing that can take us back to 4% GDP like the early 90's is some unanticipated technological revolution, like the Internet did then.

People say it was Reagan's policies. Maybe. I claim it was the commercialization of the internet and Reagan or no Reagan, or Clinton for that matter, were irrelevant.

Otherwise, 2% GDP is the new normal:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
More...
Ya bro. That's how the West built China.

200 billion > 9 Trillion.

We gave it to em.
 


Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve

Bush tax cuts

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001–2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion over the following decade.[36] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/18437?index=7878
UQ



Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
Debate over effect of cuts

The New York Times stated in an editorial that the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[27]

CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest.[28]

A 2006 Treasury Department study estimated that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue by approximately 1.5% GDP on average for each of the first four years of their implementation, an approximately 6% annual reduction in revenue relative to a baseline without those tax cuts. The study did not extend the analysis beyond the first four years of implementation.[29]
UQ
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top