Tax cuts put people back to work!

Click on graphics to embiggen.

This graph provides a very clear demonstration of the difference between Republican and Democrat economic policies. Republicans trust the free market. Democrats trust big government.

Despite an economic bubble burst AND a major terror attack on our own soil, Bush proposed and a Republican majority Congress passed tax cuts for everyone. This action was followed immediately by an increase in jobs.

Then Democrats took over the majority in Washington and the housing bubble burst. No major terror attack or worry if we will go to war or not. In fact, by 2008, when the downturn in the economy really got rolling, the war in Iraq was mostly over and, despite what the media and Democrats were blatting, we had won.

So what do Democrats do with their economic downturn? They tax, borrow and spend of course. They instituted not one, but two of their signature fixes … a huge bail-out, followed by an even huger stimulus package. Their putative fixes did not just fail to help; they actually made the problem a whole lot worse.

Isn’t it time we put those Big Government Obama Democrats into the back seat where they belong and return leadership to the people whose free market methods have PROVEN they can produce JOBS?

2012-1995 Tax cuts put people back to work

You think the economy is bad now? Just wait until all those ObamaCare taxes kick in!

2012_07 06 ObamaCare Tax Increases Coming Jan 2013

Used with permission from http://terrellaftermath.com/

If you like this, you might also enjoy @ http://polination.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/small-businesses-struggling-to-stay-afloat/

H/t to RedPill.

Source @ http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

About these ads

22 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Economy, Republicans, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment

22 responses to “Tax cuts put people back to work!

  1. Pingback: 2 Helena Handbaskets » Blog Archive » Any Questions Now?

  2. MEGA-LIKE this post! Excellent job, Chrissy!

    • chrissythehyphenated

      :o)) … you deserve a lot of the credit, Red. I was trying to make the graph you asked for yesterday.

      • The only thing that could possibly make it better is if you added the Republican elephant and Democrat donkey to the background colors, like your prior graphic had… it helps to really emphasize the party control (even more than just the red and blue background).

        Thank you so much for being open to suggestions and creating the graphics to represent them. You have a skill with the graphics that I don’t have. You take ideas and make them come to life with your graphics. Thanks again!

      • I actually have one more suggestion for the graph: one more arrow for January 3, 2007, when Democrats took majority control by flipping both houses of Congress. I know that the background colors change to reflect this, but a specific arrow to the date with an explanation of change in the balance of power would be illustrative.

        The Democrats have held majority control for the past 5 and a half years (66 months). The first half of that (33 months from January 2007 – September 2009) they dropped the Employment-population ratio from the 63.4 that they inherited from Republicans, down to 58.7. The second half of that (33 months from October 2009 – June 2012), they have flatlined… not a single month above 58.7.

        Average Employment-population ratio during the Carter administration (January 1977 – December 1980): 59.1

        Average Employment-population ratio during the Obama administration (January 2009 – June 2012): 58.7

        He’s decisively worse than Carter!

        • chrissythehyphenated

          RE: additions … I really appreciate your input and help with these. I think my best graphics have been done in collaboration with you.

          On this particular one, I think it has to be called “as good as it’s gonna get.” I worked on it for hours yesterday, trying different variations. I actually made three graphs with different starting dates. Dunno if it was a huge waste of time or a learning experience. :)

          It’s a tricky balance. Too little info and it doesn’t make the point clearly enough. Too much info and it becomes off-putting, so folks won’t engage with it.

          I’d like to do a graphic with those averages. Where are you getting them?

          • When you go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000, click on “Download: XLS” just above the table data. It will download a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with that table data. I then just used the AVERAGE() function in Excel to get the average number for the Presidents. I then copied those averages to another tab and sorted them, both by term and by entire Presidency. If you want me to email you my spreadsheet, just let me know. (Running the numbers is my forte, while putting them in very accessible graphics is your forte! :-) ).

            If you look from 1977 to present, here’s the ranking of
            avg Emp-pop ratio by 4-year term:

            64.1 Clinton 2nd term
            62.8 G.W.Bush 1st term
            62.7 G.W.Bush 2nd term
            62.6 Clinton 1st term
            62.2 G.H.W.Bush
            61.2 Reagan 2nd term
            59.1 Carter
            58.7 Obama
            58.6 Reagan 1st term

            If you look by entire Presidency, here’s the ranking from 1977 to present:

            63.4 Clinton Presidency
            62.7 G.W.Bush Presidency
            62.2 G.H.W.Bush Presidency
            59.9 Reagan Presidency
            59.1 Carter Presidency
            58.7 Obama Presidency

            Clinton was elevated by 6 years of a Republican Congress and the Dot Com boom.

            Reagan had to deal with a Democrat House for his entire 8 year Presidency, and a Democrat Senate for his last 2 years.

            For as much as the Democrat Media slams Bush, they fail to recognize that over his 8 years he had the second highest Employment-population ratio of any President in U.S. history! And that was even with the Dot Com bust, the 9/11 attacks, and the Democrat-caused CRA and Fannie/Freddie subprime mortgage crisis!

            Each and every month of Obama’s Presidency has “featured” an Employment-population ratio that is lower than each and every month of George W. Bush’s Presidency!

            The lowest it ever got under Bush is higher than it ever has been under Obama.

            • the Democrat-caused CRA and Fannie/Freddie subprime mortgage crisis!

              The CRA was signed by Carter and Expanded by Clinton.

              The Fannie/Freddie crisis that was the direct result of what the DEMONRATS did…

              The Republicans tried for years to rein in Fannie & Freddie, while the Demonrats obstructed and accused the Republicans of racism.

              Watch Maxine Waters and other Democrats accuse Republicans of racism as the Republicans tried to increase regulation of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, and Democrats covered up the corruption:

  3. Tax cuts put people back to work!

    … and can also raise revenue!

    Leftists often claim:

    tax breaks that contributed mightily already to our deficits

    The truth is that the second half of the Bush Tax Cuts:

    1) Increased employment (and decreased unemployment) every year from when they were passed in 2003 until the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. Employment went UP in 2004, UP in 2005, and UP in 2006. Employment went up, and unemployment went down (to 4.4% in December 2006, the last month that the Republicans were in majority control).

    2) Increased revenue every year from when they were passed in 2003 until the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. Revenues (Receipts) went UP in FY 2004, UP in FY 2005, UP in FY 2006, and UP in FY 2007 (the FY 2007 budget was passed in 2006 by the Republican majority).

    Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire will result in LOWER employment (higher unemployment) and LOWER revenues.

  4. The second part of the Bush Tax Cuts were signed in 2003. Revenues went UP in FY 2004, UP again in FY 2005, UP again in FY 2006, UP again in FY 2007.

    The Bush Tax Cuts INCREASED revenues, not decreased them. Look at the numbers yourself:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

    Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2017

    Year Total Receipts (in millions of dollars)
    2000 2,025,191
    2001 1,991,082
    2002 1,853,136
    2003 1,782,314
    2004 1,880,114
    2005 2,153,611
    2006 2,406,869
    2007 2,567,985

    Bush inherited the Dot Com bust and the 9/11 attacks, which caused revenues(receipts) to decline in FY 2001, 2002, and 2003.

    The Bush Tax Cuts turned the economy around and INCREASED revenues to the point that FY 2007 revenues were 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues!

    What made revenues go up? Part of it was an increase in employment and a corresponding increase in the $ amount of payroll taxes collected.

    The Democrats (Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc.) inherited a GOOD economy when they took over majority control of the House, Senate, and overall budgeting and spending process in January 2007.

    What was unemployment in December 2006? 4.4%

    The economy did not start getting worse again until the Democrats took majority control in January 2007.

    Unemployment has skyrocketed since Democrats took majority control in January 2007, and under Obama, we’ve had 40 STRAIGHT MONTHS of unemployment OVER 8%.

    Also look above at the employment-population ratio correlated with the political party which held majority control.

    The positive inflection point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point) was… the signing of the second part of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2003.

    The negative inflection point was January 2007… … when Democrats took majority control.

    It wasn’t Bush and the Republicans who drove the economy into the ditch… it was the Democrats who took majority control in January 2007 and who still hold majority control to this day.

    Are you better off now than you were 5 and a half years ago?

    • GP

      I cannot for the life of me understand why the GOP does not tout this more. Pelosi and Reid purposely destroyed Bush’s last two years, and it was their own party that manipulated the October surprise that sunk both Bush and McCain.
      I am so sick of the GOP refusing to state the facts. By remaining silent, the DNC propaganda machine continues to maintain it was all Bush’s fault.
      And I still blame GW for not standing up for himself. If he would just get out there, and do one network interview, and lay out the facts, as long as he demanded it was live and unedited so they can’t do a hit job like they did on Sarah!
      Why won’t he defend his own presidency!

  5. Saturday, July 07, 2012
    Monitoring the So-Called Recovery

    About Me
    Name: Greg Mankiw
    Location: United States
    I am a professor of economics at Harvard University, where I teach introductory economics (ec 10) among other courses. I use this blog to keep in touch with my current and former students. Teachers and students at other schools, as well as others interested in economic issues, are welcome to use this resource.

  6. The Wall Street Journal, Opinion:

    Off the Tax Cliff He Goes
    President Obama wants lower rates for GE and J.P. Morgan than for small business.

  7. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, 1977 to date

    [Numbers in thousands]

    Number Employed in 2002: 136,485,000
    Number Employed in 2007: 146,047,000
    Increase in Number Employed: 9,562,000

    Well over 9.5 Million more people were employed in 2007 than in 2002 (before the second part of the Bush Tax Cuts was signed on May 28, 2003)

    From 2003 to 2007, the Bush Tax Cuts increased revenues 44%, and increased employment by over 9.5 Million jobs.

  8. If we had the same employment rate (Employment-population ratio) now as we had during the 96 months of the George W. Bush Presidency (average 62.7%), 10 million more people would have jobs!

    Bush-era average Employment-Population ratio:
    62.7%

    Current civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over in June 2012:
    243,155,000

    Number of employed we should have under the Bush average employment rate:
    62.7% * 243,155,000 =
    152,458,000

    Actual number of employed in June 2012:
    142,415,000

    What’s the difference between the two?
    10,043,000 jobs

    Over 10 million more people would have have jobs now if we had Bush’s average employment rate, but don’t have jobs because of Obama’s employment rate.

    And for each person without a job, many more lives are affected.

    The Bush Tax Cuts resulted in both employment and revenues going UP. As shown previously, Revenues in FY 2007 were 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues!

    If Obama and the Democrats raise tax rates on anybody, more jobs will be lost and revenues from taxes will actually go DOWN, not up.

    To allow any part of the Bush Tax Rates to increase now under Obama would be irresponsible.

  9. Net: The economic policies of Bush and the Republican Congress resulted in over 9 million more people having a job, and the economic policies of Obama and the Democrat majority have resulted in 10 million less people having a job than would have if we still had Bush’s average level of Employment-Population ratio.

  10. It’s time for the Millenial generation (those who turned 18 in the new millenium) to wake up and see the truth that Obama and the Democrats have made the Employment-population Ratio worse than it’s ever been in their lifetime.

    And if they want real hope and real change, they would do best to vote Republican in November.

  11. Pingback: Barely a blip | PoliNation

  12. Pingback: Dems lie about American income levels | PoliNation

  13. Allen Shriver

    Brilliant!!!