Is Romney really a job creator? Ronald Reagan?s budget director, David Stockman

[LAM]

Is Romney really a job creator? Ronald Reagan?s budget director, David Stockman, takes a scalpel to the claims.

David Stockman: Mitt Romney and the Bain Drain - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

 

[hagan]

Good read. All it comes down to is the rich and the insiders have info that most people dont have and if they did dont have enough money to take advatage of it. The funny thing is hes filthy rich but its never enough. Romney thinks hes entitled like royalty talk about entitlements. Wow, Yup people just barely paying their bills make sure you vote for romney, hes got your back

 

[Big Smoothy]

Presidents don't create jobs, generally speaking. The exception is in certain industries or fields if certain regulations and/or legislation if passed that can positivey or negatively affect a certain industry.

And this usually takes more than just the potus.

Good find though, LAM.

You're exposing the typical 'election year myths.'

 

[hagan]

Presidents don't create jobs, generally speaking. The exception is in certain industries or fields if certain regulations and/or legislation if passed that can positivey or negatively affect a certain industry.

And this usually takes more than just the potus.

Good find though, LAM.

You're exposing the typical 'election year myths.'

Very true just like the price of gas, has nothing to do with whos president republican or democrat.

 

[Big Smoothy]

And I like the part about Romney not being a businessman, which it true if you look at Stockman's reasons and examples.

 

[LAM]

Presidents don't create jobs, generally speaking. The exception is in certain industries or fields if certain regulations and/or legislation if passed that can positivey or negatively affect a certain industry.

And this usually takes more than just the potus.

Good find though, LAM.

You're exposing the typical 'election year myths.'

not sure if you have been following Stockman's work over the years but it's obvious he feels a great sense of guilt for the party he played in the 80's.

?How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy.? Four Deformations of the Apocalypse By DAVID STOCKMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


David Stockman Channels Herbert Hoover
Reagan's Budget Director Urges Hoover Policies to Counter GOP-Induced Economic "Apocalypse." - Barrons.com

 

[Big Smoothy]

Thank you, LAM.

 

[LAM]

people just don't understand how the US economy was intentionally manipulated to feed and grow the self serving US financial sector.

Congressional Research Service - September 14, 2012
Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

"Summary

Income tax rates have been at the center of recent policy debates over taxes. Some policymakers
have argued that raising tax rates, especially on higher income taxpayers, to increase tax revenues
is part of the solution for long-term debt reduction. For example, the Senate recently passed the
Middle Class Tax Cut (S. 3412), which would allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire
for taxpayers with income over $250,000 ($200,000 for single taxpayers). The Senate recently
considered legislation, the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 (S. 2230), that would implement the
?Buffett rule? by raising the tax rate on millionaires.

Other recent budget and deficit reduction proposals would reduce tax rates. The President?s 2010
Fiscal Commission recommended reducing the budget deficit and tax rates by broadening the tax
base?the additional revenues from broadening the tax base would be used for deficit reduction
and tax rate reductions. The plan advocated by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan
that is embodied in the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), the Path to Prosperity, also
proposes to reduce income tax rates by broadening the tax base. Both plans would broaden the tax
base by reducing or eliminating tax expenditures.

Advocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase
saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher
tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich
are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would
moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report
attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest
income taxpayers and economic growth. Data is analyzed to illustrate the association between the
tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and measures of economic growth. For an overview of
the broader issues of these relationships see CRS Report R42111, Tax Rates and Economic
Growth, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it
is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the
1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP
increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was
1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive
evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax
rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top
tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with
regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how
the economic pie is sliced."

* Stockman stated in his first book that the supply-side tax cuts were nothing but a trojan horse to reduce the top rates for the wealthy and that they were never intended to have a positive effect on economic growth for the overall economy.

I've been telling people this for years and years that there has never been any empiracal data that shows supply-side tax cuts to anything more than increase inequality which at this point has nothing except a negative effect on the economy along with fueling the asset bubble/burst cycle that the US has entered these past decades.



from the World Economic Forum Page (2) - US Infrastructure ranks #24 in the world and even lower in the OECD which only has 31 country's.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2011-12/14.GCR2011-2012DTIIInfrastructure.pdf

 

[LAM]

Tax Cuts for Whom?
Heterogeneous Eects of Income Tax Changes on Growth & Employment

Owen Zidar
University of California { Berkeley
October 1, 2012

Tax Cuts for Whom? Heterogeneous Effects of Income Tax Changes on Growth & Employment by Owen Zidar :: SSRN

 

[Swiper]

the economy is growing slower this year that it did the last year, and even slower than the year before that. backwards, Obama 2012!!

 

[LAM]

the economy is growing slower this year that it did the last year, and even slower than the year before that. backwards, Obama 2012!!

of course it is the economy of 2001-2008 was unsustainable as it was built on mortgage debt and not real income growth. the entire increase in real GDP growth in the 2000's was from mortgage debt.

it took 30 years for US household to go from the historical average of debt at 50% of US GDP to where it peaked at 100% of GDP in 2008. which means US homeowners as a whole need to pay down about 4-5T do get back to healthy LTV ratios and back to the US household debt level of 50% of GDP and that's going to take a while.

70% of the US workforce earns between $13k-$22k in 1990's dollars. needless to say that is insufficient to support excess consumption. while the deleverage process continues by US households that are overextended.

the Great Recession of 2008 was preceded by almost 30 years of rising inequality that started in the 80's. it is the same exact pattern that lead up to the Great Depression, decades of inequality where the top lends it's excess capital back down to the working class. once again just like after the Great Depression the deficit hawks on the right demanding gov spending to be reduced when combined with the reduction of excess consumption far below the pre-2008 levels the economy has contracted during the deleveraging of US households.

Gauging the Impact of the Great Recession
FRBSF Economic Letter: Gauging the Impact of the Great Recession (2011-21, 7/11/2011)

 

[Swiper]

of course it is the economy of 2001-2008 was unsustainable as it was built on mortgage debt and not real income growth. the entire increase in real GDP growth in the 2000's was from mortgage debt.

it took 30 years for US household to go from the historical average of debt at 50% of US GDP to where it peaked at 100% of GDP in 2008. which means US homeowners as a whole need to pay down about 4-5T do get back to healthy LTV ratios and back to the US household debt level of 50% of GDP and that's going to take a while.

70% of the US workforce earns between $13k-$22k in 1990's dollars. needless to say that is insufficient to support excess consumption. while the deleverage process continues by US households that are overextended.

the Great Recession of 2008 was preceded by almost 30 years of rising inequality that started in the 80's. it is the same exact pattern that lead up to the Great Depression, decades of inequality where the top lends it's excess capital back down to the working class. once again just like after the Great Depression the deficit hawks on the right demanding gov spending to be reduced when combined with the reduction of excess consumption far below the pre-2008 levels the economy has contracted during the deleveraging of US households.

Gauging the Impact of the Great Recession
FRBSF Economic Letter: Gauging the Impact of the Great Recession (2011-21, 7/11/2011)

lol, at least you admit we're heading in the wrong direction.

revised weekly jobless claims 388,000 that's pathetic to say the least in a so called recovery.

 

[FUZO]

Your girlfriend Barry is going to lose so all your nonsense posts are meaningless.After Mondays debate Barry is toast and the election will go in Romneys Favor.Your girlfriends horrible 4 years is over

 

[Little Wing]

Your girlfriend Barry is going to lose so all your nonsense posts are meaningless.After Mondays debate Barry is toast and the election will go in Romneys Favor.Your girlfriends horrible 4 years is over

did anyone ever tell you you have a great personality? i didn't think so. maybe you should give us some solid argument to support your opinion instead of stomping around kicking sand and basically pouting.

 

[LAM]

lol, at least you admit we're heading in the wrong direction.

revised weekly jobless claims 388,000 that's pathetic to say the least in a so called recovery.

been headed in the wrong direction for 30 years. since 1980 it's been nothing more than false prosperity for the vast majority of the working class in the US which is exactly why US household debt exploded from 50% of GDP to 100% of GDP in 2008 when it all came to an end.

the debt based consumption using home equity obviously proved to be unsustainable (what a shocker) and the current lack of consumption, demand and continued high unemployment are proof-positive of that.

FRED - Household Sector: Liabilities: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT)
Household Sector: Liabilities: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

 

[Bowden]

Your girlfriend Barry is going to lose so all your nonsense posts are meaningless.After Mondays debate Barry is toast and the election will go in Romneys Favor.Your girlfriends horrible 4 years is over

Nothing nonsense about any post that reflects truth.
There is no empirical data what so ever that lowered capital gains and dividends tax rates have ever contributed to economic growth and increases in the employment rate.
There is evidence that they have contributed a great deal to current income inequality.

What has happened among other forms of rigging the game to enrich the upper economic class at the expense of the lower economic classes is that work is valued less by wall street and the top economic class than passive income distribution to the investor class and rich in the form of capital gains and dividends distributions and they have bought off the politicians to adjust the tax rates so that passive income is taxed at a lower rate then wages.

The upper economic class and investor class is trickling down aka. pissing down on the lower economic class their gains captured from lower interest taxes on passive income to the lower economic class in the form of lending them money at high interest rates at a time that the fed has the cost of capital borrowed from the fed at a low rate of interest.

An example of what is going on is related to the debt loan spread capital capture by banks and the investor classes and rich that own stock in those banks due to the fed holding interest rates at a very low level combined with a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

In example the fed funds rate which is interest rate charged by the fed to banks to borrow money from the fed aka. from the tax payers, is currently at 0.25%.
The WSJ prime rate is at 3.25%.

The money that banks borrow from the fed at those low rates is loaned out to consumers in part on credit cards that are averaging 15% interest rates.

 

[LAM]

Nothing nonsense about any post that reflects truth.
There is no empirical data what so ever that lowered capital gains and dividends tax rates have ever contributed to economic growth and increases in the employment rate.
There is evidence that they have contributed a great deal to current income inequality.

it is painfully obvious for those of us that have been paying attention to this over the years. many are either to ignorant to comprehend these basic facts while others I think are suffering from bruised ego's because they realize they have been duped.

 

[Swiper]

lol at the jealousy of the wealthy in this thread. get over it.

 

[Little Wing]

Jealousy of wealth is really the lamest argument anyone has presented on anti Romney sentiment. He is baby rich. A lot of people with MUCH more money than him do not support him and no one is speaking out against them.

 

[Bowden]

lol at the jealousy of the wealthy in this thread. get over it.

It is not jealousy.
It is fact.
Work wages are taxed at a higher tax rate than passive income derived from stock distributions capital gains and dividends.
Someone like Romney that gets the majority of his income from capital gains and dividends is paying a lower tax rate on his income than someone making a wage of 60k a year.
Hedge fund managers who in some cases are making 900k an hour pay a 15% income tax rate on their income. Their income is classified as 'carried interest'.

Most stocks are owned outside of retirement plans by wealthy people like Romney.
It is what it is and it is a factor in the growth of income inequality in the U.S.

It is defended by some based on a supply side economic theory that the lower tax rate on capital gains and dividends will be trickled down by the rich and wealthy to cause growth in the economy and associated job creation. There is no empirical evidence what so ever that proves that theory to be fact.

 

[Bowden]

it is painfully obvious for those of us that have been paying attention to this over the years. many are either to ignorant to comprehend these basic facts while others I think are suffering from bruised ego's because they realize they have been duped.

The most laughable part is when these facts are brought forward, they are called class warfare.
The actual class warfare is being waged by the rich wealthy investor class against the middle and lower economic classes.

A prime example of this warfare is globalization and related so called wage harmonization that is reducing the level of salary and benefits of the middle class in the US by off-shoring US manufacturing industry and Information technology sectors to low cost resource locations to transfer the capital captured upwards to the upper economic class and wall street.

Warren Buffett was branded a traitor by the monied economic class and wall street when he pointed out that if there is such a thing as class warfare his class is winning it.
He made that statement due to his being educated as to how the system works.

 

[Swiper]

It is not jealousy.
It is fact.
Work wages are taxed at a higher tax rate than passive income derived from stock distributions capital gains and dividends.
Someone like Romney that gets the majority of his income from capital gains and dividends is paying a lower tax rate on his income than someone making a wage of 60k a year.
Hedge fund managers who in some cases are making 900k an hour pay a 15% income tax rate on their income. Their income is classified as 'carried interest'.

Most stocks are owned outside of retirement plans by wealthy people like Romney.
It is what it is and it is a factor in the growth of income inequality in the U.S.

It is defended by some based on a supply side economic theory that the lower tax rate on capital gains and dividends will be trickled down by the rich and wealthy to cause growth in the economy and associated job creation. There is no empirical evidence what so ever that proves that theory to be fact.

so he makes his money on capital gains and pays 14%, so what? anyone who invests can do the same. a lot of people who are not rich make money that way too. what's the big deal. anyone can do it.

 

[LAM]

so he makes his money on capital gains and pays 14%, so what? anyone who invests can do the same. a lot of people who are not rich make money that way too. what's the big deal. anyone can do it.

guys like Mitt went from rich in the 80's to being extremely wealthy not from market principles but from an economy that was rigged via legislation and monetary policy out of the FED to give those with an existing excess an unfair advantage.

the tax cuts under Reagan in '81 reduced the top rates and rates across the board for most US workers. THEN he enacted a variety of tax measures that undid those benefits for the working class and raised taxes on them to make up for the reduced federal revenue. some rather important facts that the supply-siders NEVER seem to mention.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

? phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
? accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
? indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
? created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
? phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
? reduced Windfall Profit taxes
? allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
? expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
? replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

? repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
? tightened safe harbor leasing rules
? required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
? instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
? tightened completed contract accounting rules C increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

Highway Revenue Act of 1982

? temporarily increased gasoline excise tax from 4 cents to 9 cents (thru 9/30/88)

Social Security Amendments of 1983

? accelerated scheduled increases in Social Security payroll tax rate
? instituted taxation of some Social Security benefits
? raised self-employed OASDHI rate to combined employee-employer rate, with SECA credit
? extended mandatory Social Security coverage to non-profit and new federal employees

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

? repealed scheduled 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap)
? reduced benefits from income averaging
? reduced tax benefits for property leased by tax-exempt entities
? temporarily extended telephone excise tax (thru 1987)
? increased depreciation lives for real property from 15 years to 18 years

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

? permanently increased cigarette excise tax to 16 cents per pack
? extended Medicare coverage to new state and local employees

Tax Reform Act of 1986

? reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed capital gains exclusion
? repealed investment tax credit
? lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
? increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
? set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction
? increased standard deduction from $3,670 to $5,000 (joints)
? limited deduction for non-business interest
? repealed second earner deduction
? limited passive losses
? established income limits on use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by pensions
? revised corporate minimum tax
? repealed sales tax deduction for individuals
? set 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

? repealed installment method for dealers
? temporarily extended telephone excise tax (thru 1990)
? eliminated ESOP estate tax deduction loophole

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989

? modified employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
? established excise tax on ozone-depleting chemicals


taken from the report below:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf



and no anyone can not do it the math isn't there. from 2010 Wage Stats collected by the SSA

66% of the US workforce earns wages equal to or less than 35,000.00 ? 39,999.99

and of that 55% earn wages equal to or less than 25,000.00 ? 29,999.99

once adjusted for inflation to 1990's dollars those wages come out to:

$20,978.56 - $23,975.49 (35,000.00 ? 39,999.99)

$14,984.68 - $17,981.61 (25,000.00 ? 29,999.99)

* so 66% of the US workforce is earning wages with spending power equal to $24-14K in 1990's dollars.....

 

[LAM]

OECD (2008), Growing Unequal? : Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries
COUNTRY NOTE: UNITED STATES
http://www.oecd.org/els/socialpoliciesanddata/41528678.pdf


An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries:
Main Findings
http://www.oecd.org/els/socialpoliciesanddata/49499779.pdf

 

[Swiper]

guys like Mitt went from rich in the 80's to being extremely wealthy not from market principles but from an economy that was rigged via legislation and monetary policy out of the FED to give those with an existing excess an unfair advantage.

the tax cuts under Reagan in '81 reduced the top rates and rates across the board for most US workers. THEN he enacted a variety of tax measures that undid those benefits for the working class and raised taxes on them to make up for the reduced federal revenue. some rather important facts that the supply-siders NEVER seem to mention.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

?phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
?accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
? indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
?created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
?phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
?reduced Windfall Profit taxes
?allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
?expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
?replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

?repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
?tightened safe harbor leasing rules
?required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
?instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
?tightened completed contract accounting rules C increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

Highway Revenue Act of 1982

?temporarily increased gasoline excise tax from 4 cents to 9 cents (thru 9/30/88)

Social Security Amendments of 1983

?accelerated scheduled increases in Social Security payroll tax rate
?instituted taxation of some Social Security benefits
?raised self-employed OASDHI rate to combined employee-employer rate, with SECA credit
?extended mandatory Social Security coverage to non-profit and new federal employees

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

?repealed scheduled 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap)
?reduced benefits from income averaging
?reduced tax benefits for property leased by tax-exempt entities
?temporarily extended telephone excise tax (thru 1987)
?increased depreciation lives for real property from 15 years to 18 years

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

?permanently increased cigarette excise tax to 16 cents per pack
?extended Medicare coverage to new state and local employees

Tax Reform Act of 1986

?reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed capital gains exclusion
?repealed investment tax credit
?lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
?increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
?set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction
?increased standard deduction from $3,670 to $5,000 (joints)
?limited deduction for non-business interest
?repealed second earner deduction
?limited passive losses
?established income limits on use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by pensions
?revised corporate minimum tax
?repealed sales tax deduction for individuals
?set 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

?repealed installment method for dealers
?temporarily extended telephone excise tax (thru 1990)
?eliminated ESOP estate tax deduction loophole

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989

?modified employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
?established excise tax on ozone-depleting chemicals


taken from the report below:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf



and no anyone can not do it the math isn't there. from 2010 Wage Stats collected by the SSA

66% of the US workforce earns wages equal to or less than 35,000.00 ? 39,999.99

and of that 55% earn wages equal to or less than 25,000.00 ? 29,999.99

once adjusted for inflation to 1990's dollars those wages come out to:

$20,978.56 - $23,975.49 (35,000.00 ? 39,999.99)

$14,984.68 - $17,981.61 (25,000.00 ? 29,999.99)

* so 66% of the US workforce is earning wages with spending power equal to $24-14K in 1990's dollars.....

good for Mit. He took advantage of a fucked up govt controlled economy. I happen like that. if govt is going to be so stupid and try to run the economy, I hope even more people take advantage of it. maybe govt will take note and not try to run the economy.

 

[LAM]

good for Mit. He took advantage of a fucked up govt controlled economy. I happen like that. if govt is going to be so stupid and try to run the economy, I hope even more people take advantage of it. maybe govt will take note and not try to run the economy.

just remember those words when you are 70 and living in a tent.

all governments dictate policy as legislation does not write itself. the US as always is on the extreme end of the curve redistributing the country's wealth up to the top with a system rigged to benefit a self-serving financial sector at the expense of the real economy.

 

[hypo_glycemic]

^ gospel

 

[Zaphod]

good for Mit. He took advantage of a fucked up govt controlled economy. I happen like that. if govt is going to be so stupid and try to run the economy, I hope even more people take advantage of it. maybe govt will take note and not try to run the economy.

The government wasn't running the economy. It was legislating in favor of those who paid the legislators the most. It wasn't the vast majority of people in this country, in case you didn't already know that.

 

[Swiper]

The government wasn't running the economy. It was legislating in favor of those who paid the legislators the most. It wasn't the vast majority of people in this country, in case you didn't already know that.

govt was not running the economy? lol it is and will continue to do so until it collapses financially. legislators are part of the govt, genius.

 

[Zaphod]

govt was not running the economy? lol it is and will continue to do so until it collapses financially. legislators are part of the govt, genius.

Those with the money are running/ruining the economy. The legislators are their lap dogs, genius.