English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

When in fact CLinton increased taxes and saw a much higher job growth than Bush and also saw similar increases in tax revenue?

2007-03-30 03:22:36 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Actually, CLinton ahd a lower unemployment rate and real wages were higher. But dont let facts get in the way of conservative opinion.

2007-03-30 03:28:34 · update #1

15 answers

Because it is a proved FACT! Check the History related to your question.

2007-03-30 03:27:13 · answer #1 · answered by Sentinel 5 · 2 3

LOL, your funny.
Bush has a much lower unemployment rate so obviously lower taxes have increased the number of jobs.
*******
Actually, I am sure we both could provide a link to our lower unemployment numbers so it just proves that you can play with numbers and make it say what you want. Just like people can claim the poor pay more in taxes and then others claim the rich pay more.
And if you really wanted to see the economy boom, you would support a major overhaul of the tax code. The Fair tax would be one of the best options but there are others.

2007-03-30 10:26:18 · answer #2 · answered by az 4 · 2 2

1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6

These are the unemployment rates for the U.S. from the Department of Labor. Where did you get your data?

2007-03-30 10:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of a unique period in American history where we had a technological revolution of an unprecedented scale. The dot com boom, cell phone boom, and personal computing revolution all came together while Clinton was president but he had little to do with it. Because of the rapid shift and expansion of technology, the economy could absorb his tax hike with little notice to the new booms. These booms however, can be attributed to low taxes in the 1980s that allowed corporations to spend more money on the R&D that led to these booms (thus creating whole new spheres of jobs).

2007-03-30 10:29:44 · answer #4 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 1 2

8 million jobs created since 2002. In case you weren't around in the late 70's and early 80's, Reagan turned around a horrid economy and brought about the longest peacetime expansion of the economy in history. Heck JFK did it too. If you want to talk about Clinton's economic plan, why don't you mention the recession that began in 2000. Did you forget about it?

2007-03-30 10:35:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I hear a lot of theoretical assertions from the responding Cons (e.g. primitive old supply side arguments) but absolutely no factual contradiction of your statement.

BTW, to the idiots above, Reagan was a fiscal disaster. His "recovery" was entirely borrowed from abroad, resulting in a hugely increasing deficit throughout his tenure in office. The debt was huge when Reagan left office in comparison to what it was under Carter.

The other moron who commented that Clinton somehow inherited a sound economy from Reagan, what the hell are you babbling about? You obviously are too young to remember the Bush 41 recession. It was bad. It happened between Reagan and Bubba.

Finally, I always find it interesting how the Cons credit Reagan as a financial genius for the 80's boom but then get all huffy and argue that the President has nothing to do with the economy when the Clinton boom is mentioned.

2007-03-30 10:43:56 · answer #6 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 0 4

What can you do with money:
1.spend it,that creates jobs
2.save it,the bank in turn loans it out to people for homes ,cars,clothing,appliances,creating jobs.
3.invest it in business and industry,creating jobs
4.bury it in a coffee can in the back yard.
5.Donate it to a good cause

Leting government have it takes away those choices and only creates dependency on government for jobs,food,clothing,housing,ect.

Job growth is not a function of government or a governmental responsibility.
Job growth under Clinton was dispite him and his taxes.
He ran for office pledging a middle class tax cut and gave us the biggest tax increase in history.

2007-03-30 10:42:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

When businesses have less taxes to pay, they can invest more into their companies, including hiring more people. Slick Willie just rode on the coattails of Reagan's tax cuts. His so called deficit cuts came at the expense of our military and the bases he closed, which have put us in a much unsafer position in today's unstable world. Why did he never pull our troops out of Kosavo? Why did he go there in the first place? What scandal was brewing at that time?

2007-03-30 10:31:01 · answer #8 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2 2

Now I thought lower taxes, put more money in consumers pockets. If you have more money it your pocket the more you will spend. If there is more people spending and buying more product, then you will have to hire extra help to support the higher demand for the product. This increases jobs.

2007-03-30 10:27:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Government doesn't create real jobs. People and businesses do. They can't do that if they don't have any money. If tax rates are high enough, their customers won't have money to buy from them. If customers don't buy from them, they don't need employees.

Tell me where you got lost.

2007-03-30 10:28:39 · answer #10 · answered by open4one 7 · 5 0

fedest.com, questions and answers