![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Honzo October 27th, 2005
Durring some reading this morning, I came across this chart. It is
the GPD as a percentage for the last five years. As I looked at the
chart I wondered what the effect on the chart would have been if taxes
would not have been lowered. I cannot get it out of my head that it
would have been much lower across the board if that would have been the
case. Then again I am not much of an economist.
- Politics
- Comments(13)
This is the percent change, which I’m guessing shows how the GDP is growing at any particular moment.
It’s not too surprising. We see negative growth in 2000 and 2001,
followed by recovery, with the largest growth in 2003, followed by a
steady, slower growth since. That matches pretty well with the reports
I’ve been hearing on the news.
A few questions come to mind:
This graph only shows the last five years. How does this compare with the GDP growth in the 90s? The 80s?
How does it compare with economists’ predictions and expectations for
GDP growth during the same time, particularly with respect to the
effects of Bush’s tax cuts?
Why the relatively high growth rate in the middle of 2003? Does it have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq?
your an idiot
and i hate you
Edit by Honzo - changed his name to be more descriptive.
I just now read your title. I wasn’t sure what the point of showing
this graph was. I take it you credit the steady growth of the last two
years to Bush’s tax cuts. How do you know this is the cause? Why should
we assume things would be any different without Bush’s tax cuts?
The economy is subject to natural fluctuations that occur independent
of policy decisions. The effect of spending or taxes is highly
exaggerated.
Hey “Guy” - nice. Well said, well spoken and nice of you to leave your
name like a chicken sh!t. Also, it was good of you to not even address
who you were talking to, me or Kyle. I bet it was me, though. Odd, I
don’t recognize you ip address from here or Brendoman.com
Kyle,
Imagine if the taxes had been left in place, with all the external factors in the market, corporate scandals, 911, ect…
The growth would have been much lower or negative. The tax cutts
allowed a damned economy to survive and even grow dispite all that
happened.
But how can you be so sure that taxes made the difference? You still haven’t said how you can know that.
We know that the market naturally fluctuates, and that recessions
eventually recover on their own, with little or no intervention. For
all we know, the recovery may have been pretty much the same without
tax cuts. We can’t know either way, though, because we can’t go back in
time and try it out.
your a moron
i hate you
(two can play at this game)
You really think that? New Deal anyone?
Lower Taxes frees up money for the economy to run on. Take the ammount
of money out of the system back then and you would get a lower GDP.,
simple as that.
Grant,
Don’t be mean (well too mean) back to the guy, we don’t even know who
he is. When he is big enough to tell us who he is, then we can consider
taking him seriously.
I mean, come on, “your“? How about “you are” or “you’re“.
Then it would be easier to understand him.
think it very safe to bet that whoever this “guy” is more than likely
is a girl and uses the name guy as a cover you know what I mean
You think it is a girl? I don’t know of many girls that don’t like me.
Matter of fact, I only know of a few guys that don’e like me. I can’t
find an IP adress match.
Edited due spamming spamness.
I’ll tell you what Sam, while I don’t like your song, I do like banning your ass.
I just came across this that talks about how the supply siders are correct: The ‘Laffer Curve’ Renamed
.