Bernie appears to be a hypocrite on taxes

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I


The economy took off well before Clinton cut the capital gains rate ...

He cut capital gains taxes in 1997. Let's go to the numbers, shall we? GDP growth by year...

93 2.7
94 2.4
95 2.7
96 3.8
97 4.5 --> year of tax cut
98 4.5
99 4.7
00 4.1

No spike in GDP growth after the tax cut?

My intellect is only dizzying compared to some, to quote Buttercup...common sense only looks dizzying to those who turn their backs on common sense, every time common sense goes against their agenda.


http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by...DP-History.htm

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He cut capital gains taxes in 1997. Let's go to the numbers, shall we? GDP growth by year...

93 2.7
94 2.4
95 2.7
96 3.8
97 4.5 --> year of tax cut
98 4.5
99 4.7
00 4.1

No spike in GDP growth after the tax cut?

No.

You're an actuary right, someone who understands how trends would impact future performance?

How then does a tax cut magically impact the year it's implemented, GDP being calculated after the fact. Not to mention there's an already established vector? Not to mention the other variables that had a much larger impact on the economy like the tech boom.

It's time to fess up on your real job. Subway? Don't be ashamed, any work is respectable in my book.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No.

You're an actuary right, someone who understands how trends would impact future performance?

How then does a tax cut magically impact the year it's implemented, GDP being calculated after the fact. Not to mention there's an already established vector? Not to mention the other variables that had a much larger impact on the economy like the tech boom.

It's time to fess up on your real job. Subway? Don't be ashamed, any work is respectable in my book.

"How then does a tax cut magically impact the year it's implemented"

I didn't say it did. I said the economy took off after that tax cut. And I was correct.

"Not to mention there's an already established vector?"

There was? From 1993-1995 growth ws a steady +2.5% average for those three years. Not much of a vector there that I see. Please explain? Then yes, it shot up in 1997, I am not going to claim I know why, because i don't.

If in 3 years before th ecut, GDP grew by 2.7, 2.4, and 2.7, please tell me how that's an "established vector" by which anyone in their right mind would ssume that growth would shoot up to 4% or more, and stay there? I'm all ears.

"It's time to fess up on your real job. Subway?"

I was a sandwich artist in college! Great job...I also worked at headquarters in Milford CT, doing data mining (looking to see when coupons worked, seeing what impact weather had on sandwich sales, things like that). I learned to look for patterns, or "verctors" as you correctly called it.

Spence, you claim that the following data points:

2.7
2.4
2.7

constitute an increasing trend. And you question my ability to analyze data. What teacher told you that those points represent an upward vector?

Enjoy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you claim that the following data points:

2.7
2.4
2.7

constitute an increasing trend. And you question my ability to analyze data. What teacher told you that those points represent an upward vector?

A) Your numbers are wrong and B) your data range is too small. As a hogie assembling number cruncher you should have known this.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

A) Your numbers are wrong and B) your data range is too small. As a hogie assembling number cruncher you should have known this.

A. I posted my source, if you have th ecorrect numbers, please share.

B. YOU are the one who said there was an upward trending "vector", or something. All I said was that after the tax cut, the economy did very well. You are the only person I have ever heard dispute that. I see you didn't provide any supporting data.

I was better at assemblking sandwiches, and I liked that job a lot more.