Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Jim, please...get your head out of the rubber cement barrel.
Clinton came to office and raised taxes...a lot.
Later when the economy was moving he did cut some, but not significantly. Much of this was due to a rapid decline in defense spending, more slowly rising health care costs and an lack of focus on things like infrastructure.
As Jimmy rightly indicated, the Clinton economy was driven by high tech...actually, it was when the Clinton tax increases were kicking in that the economy took off...go figure.
Welfare reform was one area where Clinton did capitulate to the GOP and he should take credit for it. But it's not like he was the driving force...
The lesson being, this stuff isn't all simple cause and effect.
-spence
|
"Jim, please...get your head out of the rubber cement barrel."
For someone who denies that Michelle Obama claimed that she wasn't proud of the USA until 2008, you seem pretty confident in your grasp of things.
"Clinton came to office and raised taxes...a lot."
Clinton increased taxes in 1993, and decreased taxes in 1997.
"he did cut some, but not significantly"
I couldn't find anything on effective tax rates before and after...but Clinton cut the maximum capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. That's significant by any measure.
"actually, it was when the Clinton tax increases were kicking in that the economy took off...go figure."
Spence, Clinton increased taxes, then decreased taxes, and then the econjomy started growing. Yet you won't consider the possibility that the tax cut had anything to do with it.
OK, so using yuor logic, can't I say that it was when the Bush tax cuts kicked in, that the economy took off, even more? Go figure?
"The lesson being, this stuff isn't all simple cause and effect."
But you just said, that when the Clinton tax hikes went into effect, the economy took off, "go figure"? So aren't you assuming cause-and-effect there?
Spence, I agree the math isn't simple. But it seems like when Clinton tax hikes are followed by economic growth, you assume simple causality (and you ignore completely the subsequent tax cuts he implemented). But when Bush tax cuts are followed by economic growth, all of a sudden "it's not that simple".
"Much of this was due to a rapid decline in defense spending, more slowly rising health care costs and an lack of focus on things like infrastructure"
Spence, the man cut spending, and balanced the budget. How does that jive with our current President who operates with trillion dollar deficits every year?