". I could just as easily say unemployment numbers started to drop in Sept. '03 exactly 5 months after the war in Iraq began, coincidence? "
-
Yes you could, let's look at your assumption. The military was ready to go on that day. Unemployment continued to rise for 4 more months after the war started.

The tax cut was signed into law 28 May 03. Unemployment reduced in only 1 month, then continued the downward trend for ~5 years. Or you could conclude the sales of peanut butter saved unemployment, I'm sure you could decide that as well.

RetiredAirForce, it's a presumption because you assume correlation. I could just as easily say unemployment numbers started to drop in Sept. '03 exactly 5 months after the war in Iraq began, coincidence? Or I could say, unemployment was at 4.2% when GW took office and 7.7% when he left, coincidence?

Presumption? Tax cuts signed into law end of May 2003, job growth started Sep 2003 and continued for ~5 years; http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOu...

Hambone, explain to me the logic behind RAF's presumption that the GW tax cuts created jobs. It would seem logical to me to look at the unemployment rate when GW began his term vs. when his term was up. Why did unemployment jump 3.5% in that span?

"He cut taxes like a drunken soldier,..."

I think someone analogizes like a drunken blogger...
"Hey Corporal, what do you say to leaving post this evening for some booze and some tax cutting"?

Thank you RAF for debating this topic based upon logic. It is refreshing to see someone respond with logic instead of pure misguided emotion.

So you are claiming there was an employment surge caused by the wars, but just for 5 years. The wars are still going on these positions are still being used, yet you think they are not now there? Guess your burger flipping logic failed you again.

RAF, there's always a surge in job growth during the beginning of war. Look it up. Besides, GW declared victory 7 years ago.

vatoloco, I didn't say the word "fair". The word fair is for idealists, and if we use that argument we'll never find common ground. I just want what works.

Is that your claim, the war(s) created the job growth? Guess you forget the wars are still going on...so if your claim were true why is unemployment high when they have not ended? Is there any other great theories hiding in your burger flipping mind?

"~5 years of growth is diabolical? With unemployment of +9% for +18 months now, we could use more diabolical job growth..." I'm sure you would support another war to stimulate that growth.

"most diabolical way to stimulate temporary job growth"
-
~5 years of growth is diabolical? With unemployment of +9% for +18 months now, we could use more diabolical job growth...

So, according to you lower taxes means higher unemployment and higher taxes means more employment. I guess with your logic, much like dave's article, increasing taxes to 100% not only makes everyone rich they will all be employed?

RetiredAirForce, give me a break. Another event happened in conjunction with the tax cuts of 2003 you reference. Can you guess? Hint, it's the easiest and most diabolical way to stimulate temporary job growth.
Bottom line, GW had 8 years with 6 years of a Republican controlled Congress. He cut taxes like a drunken soldier, and look where we ended up. Your reference to Clinton below is interesting. When Clinton took office unemployment was 7.3%, when he left it was 4.2%. When GW took office unemployment was 4.2%, when he left it was 7.7%. Black and white enough for you?

"Of course you can look at historical charts over the past decade and find 5 year periods where job growth did occur, but ultimately you have to look at the end result."
-
Really? Using your logic you can declare the tax rates under clinton failed, since the end result, today, is high unemployment. Now if you want to stick with reality and realize both that scenario and yours uses false logic we can get back to actual data, the immediate result of the tax cuts resulted in ~5 years of job growth. Ignoring the housing crash and the economic result after that and pretending that is the result of tax cuts is a hard stretch even for you.

The chart showed job growth not unemployment data; two very different statistics. Following the tax cuts of 03 there was ~5 years of growth...guess you cant read a chart either.

"If this was true the opposite would also be true, paying a 100% rate would make everyone rich." Obviously a statement made by someone who sees everything in black and white. There is a law of diminishing returns, and the trick is to find the sweet spot, a spot that we disagree on.

RAF, your link confirms my previous data if you compare May 2001 to Jan. 2009.

future it is apparent you have as much understanding of job growth as you do taxes.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOu...

The pulitzer prize journalist theory that reduced taxes resulted in reduced wages is quite the theory. If this was true the opposite would also be true, paying a 100% rate would make everyone rich. Not that hard to see the numbers for what they are.

RAF, you say the GW tax cuts resulted in job growth for 5 straight years. The first GW tax cut took effect in June of 2001. The unemployment rate was 4.5% in June of 2001. By the end of GW's 8 year reign (Jan. of 2009), the unemployment rate was 7.7%. Of course you can look at historical charts over the past decade and find 5 year periods where job growth did occur, but ultimately you have to look at the end result.

RAF,
I'm going to go ahead and trust the word of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist over your's anyday especially if all you can do is split hairs with two sentences out of the entire article.

Comparing job creation between decades is a great game of numbers, and david knows this. Since no decade is indeed comparable in education, technology, GDP, or economy. Pretending to state numbers to compare is a game of look at this apple and this orange, they are not the same.

RAF,
RAF,
"The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable."
-David Cay Johnston
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/pe...
-
sorry about the repetition. just wanted as many people as possible to see this and hopefully read the article.

"The GW tax cuts were a beautiful experiment in tax policy, but they failed our economy miserably. If the tax cuts worked..."
-
Your revisionist history is amazingly erroneous. Following the 2003 tax reductions net job growth grew for ~5 years.

Are you now going to claim the tax reductions are the reason the housing market collapsed which led to the current recession, was caused by these cuts in 2003?

future, those that make more pay more taxes now...guess you can't grasp what is already happening in the tax code.

Tax is not a four letter word--and I do have to remind myself of that also. Nobody wants to pay taxes for things they don't like--I don't like war others don't like food stamps--we have to pay taxes for both. Taxes are how our government pays for what it does now that we no longer have all that empty land to sell.

RAF, there is a very simple reason why those who make more have to pay more in taxes, it works. It might not make you feel warm and fuzzy and satisfy your moral convictions, but it works, and has worked for the past 65 years. The GW tax cuts were a beautiful experiment in tax policy, but they failed our economy miserably. If the tax cuts worked, I'd be the first to jump on the band wagon.

This article was actually pretty good. Horowitz isn't always my favorite, but he brings up some valid points. This time, the republicans did a lot of the negative spinning, and the media ate it up. I mean really, "death panels"?? I can't believe that actually became a recurring phrase in the debates leading up to the election, and CNN is just as guilty as Fox News for making it a household phrase. The democrats do their fair share of spinning, too. I actually really hope the Dems have the guts to NOT elect Pelosi minority leader...she is too partisan and not helping in moving the progressive policies forward. She's become a toxic asset to the left. I think the most important message in Horowitz' article is that we need to take more responsibility as voters and see through the BS that is being spun to us. I think the Republicans and the Tea Party should have been called out a lot more on some of the retoric they used in this campaign....this time BS won. Now we'll just have to see what they are going to do with their new power in Congress. They can't blame everything on the Dems now.

Really?...seriously

This article is a complete "SPIN" not even close to acurate...but hey any moron can use a type writer...right?....I vote for the death panels part of it cause this reporter is killing me

I have never advocated not following the law nor am I proclaiming they should be lower than they already are. I am responding to those that think other people should pay a higher rate of taxes when they themselves choose not to...unless required. Hardly a principled position; if you think paying higher taxes is a good idea why wait until its required?.

Gandalf, expecting people to act in a manner they proclaim others should may be an absurdity to you.

This article was actually pretty good. Horowitz isn't always my favorite, but he brings up some valid points. This time, the republicans did a lot of the negative spinning, and the media ate it up. I mean really, "death panels"?? I can't believe that actually became a recurring phrase in the debates leading up to the election, and CNN is just as guilty as Fox News for making it a household phrase. The democrats do their fair share of spinning, too. I actually really hope the Dems have the guts to NOT elect Pelosi minority leader...she is too partisan and not helping in moving the progressive policies forward. She's become a toxic asset to the left. I think the most important message in Horowitz' article is that we need to take more responsibility as voters and see through the BS that is being spun to us. I think the Republicans and the Tea Party should have been called out a lot more on some of the retoric they used in this campaign....this time BS won. Now we'll just have to see what they are going to do with their new power in Congress. They can't blame everything on the Dems now.

future by your own accord, all taxes seam to be your favorite; but none that you will voluntarily pay.

Great message, Rick. You're correct. Them Dems need to learn from this lesson about getting out the message. 95% of Americans don't even know they got a tax cut last year!

My favorite one is the "death tax". Of course there are some idiots who believe the estate tax is a tax on their house, so maybe the "death tax" isn't so bad.

A bill is just a bill, and it can't do anyone any good until it is passed. That is what she meant. Plain and simple. When that one sentence is put back into context, it becomes obvious what she was trying to say. Could she have chosen to phrase it a little better? Absolutely. No argument there. But to label that as the overall message of the healthcare bill is nothing short of ridiculous. It's not like she was underneath a giant banner that said "Mission Accomplished"

People jumped all over pelosi's words because it was foolish; plain and simple. Telling people, from the position of speaker, the bill needed to pass for people to see what was in it, while other lawmakers were stating they had not read the bill themselves, is a terrible and imprudent message.

andre,
Obamabot Zombie Spin Machine is actually the name of my band.

donnaw,
If you're going to use quotation marks, you should put words that the person you are trying to quote actually said between those quotation marks. Let me help you out with that:
“[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
She was implying that Congress had to pass the bill for the public to benefit from it and realize it wasn't some job/economy killing piece of garbage legislation. Conservative news outlets jumped all over this quote as if looking further into the healthcare bill was going to reveal that there actual were WMD in Iraq.

Spinning is an American Pastime in the 21st century. Politicians, Employers, Employees, Family members, Friends, Anyone in sales....we all do it. The solution to the problem is we all have to stop the spinner in their tracks and call BS, BS and demand the truth. Maybe after the dollar is worth less than the Peso and all levels of Government are bankrupt or when the Police, Fire department, and other public employees stay home because they've not received pay for a month will we all see the error in our ways. Quit voting liars and cheats into office people.

Repubs could have said the same thing in 08.

sour grapes

How about Pelosi's comment, "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it." Some message. And Obama saying it's how he presented and explained his agenda that was the problem and not the agenda itself that was the problem. Talk about being off message!