home

The Return of Voodoo Economics

Rudy Giuliani, the latest practitioner:

In response to questions, they said would not support raising the gasoline tax to finance spending on the nation’s roads and bridges in response to the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis this week. Mr. Giuliani got into a terse exchange with his questioner, David Yepsen, a political columnist for The Des Moines Register, when Mr. Yepsen tried to ask him about such a tax.

‘“David, there’s an assumption in your question that is not necessarily correct, sort of the Democratic, liberal assumption, ‘I need money; I raise taxes,’ ” Mr. Giuliani said.

“Then what are you going to cut, sir,” Mr. Yepsen responded. Mr. Giuliani said that as mayor of New York, he had increased revenue to pay for bridge and road repair by cutting taxes, thereby jolting the economy, and said he would do the same thing as president. The city’s coffers in that period were flush largely with revenues produced by the stock market boom of the late 1990s.

Here's a hint Rudy, your tax cut did not cause the stock market to boom in the 1990s. The President was one William Jefferson Clinton, and Clinton did this to boost the economy:

- created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals.
-created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.

- the cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.

- transportation fuels taxes were hiked by 4.3 cents per gallon.

- The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.

- The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.

NYC benefitted from Clinton's wise economic policies. Rudy think his penny ante tax cut was the secret. He is, as always, a buffoon.

< If The Media Gets It, Why Is It Not Reported? | The FISA Amendment and The Founders >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Heh, I 'm not sure how many more (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    "joltings" through tax breaks this economy can take.

    Return? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 06:39:04 PM EST
    The modern GOP is built on the marriage of voodoo economics and religious fundamentalism.



    A Twofer (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:27:47 AM EST
    not only does he invoke voo doo, but he plays the "liberal media bias" card.

    Well, facts do have an inherent liberal bias.

    The economy was already (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    rebounding in late '92, and the tax increases actually caused a slow down in that rebound.

    The economy of the 90's can be understood as a bubble in which millions of investors ultimately paid a big price for the speculation that ran up the market in tech stocks. The bubble started to deflate in mid 2000 and was futher demolished in 2001 by 9/11.

    The federal coffers were swelled by tax payments on stock options being excercised, many of which later became worthless.

    I generally favor tax increases to pay for specific entittlement programs, say NHC, but am against them as a "budget balancing" act. All they do is give the Congress more of our money to toss away.

    History shows that that the economy expands after a tax cut, and our current economy is at the late 90's levels. How long it can remain, I don't know. We may discover that the Internet bubble became the housing bubble. In the meantime I put 80% of my investments into cash in April. If I were 30 years younger I would be buying every house I thought I could rent for enough to pay the notes.

    Of course, the question should always be:

    Who can spend my money better? Harry Reid or me??

    22 million jobs bubble (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:39:26 PM EST
    Bill Clinton left the country with a surplus, low unemployment, and a more balanced economy in terms of income disparity.

    In the words of The Onion, the advent of Bush 43 insured that our long national nightmare of Peace and Prosperity was over.

    How come it does not surprise me that Jim celebrated the end of the Clinton Era?


    Parent

    Sailor, your blather continues (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:55:15 PM EST
    and why you attack such a neutral comment as mine I can only say demonstrates that you have a need to attack someone. You write:

    Bill Clinton left the country with a surplus, low unemployment, and a more balanced economy in terms of income disparity

    Here, let me give you some facts.

    From 1992-2000, the markets and the economy experienced a period of record expansion. On September 1, 2000, the NASDAQ traded at 4234.33. From September 2000 to January 2, 2001, the NASDAQ dropped 45.9%.

    A total of 8 trillion dollars of wealth was lost in the crash of 2000


    Link

    Now, why would I celebrate losing money?? Are you so zonked out on attack ions that you actually think people want to lose money?? How absolutely drool. How so just.... well... dumb is the only way to describe such a belief.

    The markets and the economy were going down, and the public was concerned. So concerned that they refused to elect's Clinton's chief cheerleader and opted for a mostly unknown southwestern Governor.

    Parent

    What a boob (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:22:18 PM EST
    Gore won.

    Parent
    Nope (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:31:23 PM EST
    First of all, every recount by a reputable organization showed otherwise.

    Including the fact that even if the US SC hadn't stopped the illegal recount by the Demo controlled FL SC, Bush would have won.

    Secondly, all Gore had to do was carry his home state and it was his. A Pres candidate that can't do that has some real big problems.

    Finally, as I indicated above, the rapid fall of the tech markets were showing people that most of the claims about the Demo Boom were false.

    Me? I got out early. Bears make money. Bulls make money. Pigs get slaughtered.

    Greed is a sin.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:42:19 PM EST
    Every recount showed Gore won. In particular the recount ordered by the FLSCT and the one planned by the judge overseeing, which would have included overvotes, Gore would have won. So yes, Gore won.

    Second, red herring of no relevance and certainly not relevant to Clinton's economic performance, to which you attributed Gore's loss (when in fact Gore won).

    Third, the fall in tech stocks showed no such thing. The 22 million jobs, the 8 yerars of economic growth, the budget surplus showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Clinton PResidency was a huge success.

    Finally, your theory is ridiculous. No one saw the closeness of Gore's win as a reflection on Clinton, but on Gore's losing the personality battle with Bush.

    In short, your entire argument is idiotic and fact free.

    Parent

    Clinton Myth (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Fritz on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    Nothing hurts the Clinton Lackacy more than his economic record.  The United States economy has been growing for the past 25 years.  President Clinton may have slightly raised income taxes, but he also cut them and eliminated an entitlement, passed free trade agreements, most importantly left the economy alone.  Had Bush 41 been re-elected, the results would have been the same.  The economic recovery began 18 months before he entered office, before he even announced his candidacy.  Yes, he took credit for it, just like the sun rising every morning.  

    Gore lost.  The election rules do not allow for such recounts.  Subjective interpretation of ballots is nothing more than mischief, precisely why date certain recounts are in place.  

    Parent

    heh BTD Just below Fritz says it (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    nicely, and there is little I can add.

    But your claim that the NASDAQ free fall didn't hurt  Gore is uninformed at best. In fact, his attempt to paint himself as a "techie" and his association with Silicon Valley hurt him even more.

    As for the election:
    wiki snap shot


    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

    The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

    CNN     Bush Won

    Parent

    cherrypicking as always (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:57:20 PM EST
    ppj as usual only picked the result that confirms his delusions, there were many recount studies where gore was determined to have won. Especially if krazy kate harris had not been sec of state AND bush's campaign manager and responsible for illegally denying the right to vote to many blacks.

    IRT the economy, this chart, shows that unemployment goes up under rethugs and down under dems. And here is a snapshot of how bush has trashed the economy after clinton handed his a booming one.

    Parent

    sailor likes to kid us (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    You write:

    And here is a snapshot of how bush has trashed the economy after clinton handed his a booming one.

    The "booming" you speak of must have been the boom of made by the bubble bursting.

    From September 2000 to January 2, 2001, the NASDAQ dropped 45.9%.

    William Jedfferson Clinton was President.

    Is there something about that you don't understand??

    Parent

    bush went from a surplus ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    ... to a record deficit, even beating st. ronnies record of trashing the economy.

    Causes of the Crash:
    1.  Corporate Corruption
    A lot of companies inflated their profits by means of fraud and accounting loopholes and hid their debt.  Corporate officers had outrageous stock options that diluted the company.  

    2. Stocks were overvalued
    Stocks were trading in the hundreds and some in the thousands on a P/E basis.  Some companies that were losing tons of money with no hope for profit until many years down the road had over a 1 billion dollar market cap.

    3.  A Wave of New Daytraders and Momentum Investors
    With the advent of the Internet and online trading, this give traders a quick and cheap way to trade the markets.  This led to millions of new investors hitting the markets with little or no experience.  

    4.  Conflict of Interest by Research Firms
    Analysts and investment bankers worked very closely together.  Whenever a company was trying to raise capital, the investment bankers made sure their research firms would put favorable ratings on stocks.  This led to companies having favorable ratings even though the companies was in serious financial trouble.  In some cases analysts had favorable ratings on stock less than a month before a company filed for chapter 11.    

    Parent

    more (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    Sailor learns something. (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:50:02 PM EST
    Gee, I am glad to see that you understand some of the root causes of the bubble.

    Parent
    Now you must face the music (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    Just out of curiousity, I wonder if you also understand that it is the executive, that would be William Jefferson Clinton, who is responsible for the oversight and regulation???

    Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the SEC consists of five Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.

    Where was Clinton when all of these outlandish things were going on??

    Link


    Parent

    OFF TOPIC POST (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:29:02 PM EST
    Gee, once again I fell under the bridge with the troll.

    ppj was proven wrong about about the election, the economy and Bush losing one and trashing the other.

    Sailor's Law is a constant in ppj's perverted world.

    Just like rush told him to say, it's always Clinton's fault.

    He has no need to deal with millions of Americans being out of work due to republican policies, no need to deal with the fact that the Nat'l debt increased during repub years and was actually a surplus during dem years, no need to deal with anything but his support of whatever faux news tells him.

    But what else can one expect from ppj who supported saddam and the taliban?

    Parent

    sailor demonstrates his abilities ??? (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    Yeah

    NAFTA has worked out well.

    Give up sailor. You mouse trapped yourself with your outlandish attacks when there was no need to. My original comment was quite mild and well documented.

    All you have proven is that you didn't know:

    1. NASDAQ blew off almost 50% during the election cycle.

    2. You can't keep changing the election rules in an attempt to change the meaning of a chad. Hanging, dimpled or creased.

    3. Even if you could Gore would have lost, as certified by non-partian sources.

    4. You didn't know who is responsible for keeping the market honest and enforcing the rules.

    5. And the Pres appoints them, and is responsible for them, same as he is the Senate approved AG.


    Parent
    7 years later and the best ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:08:38 PM EST
    ... the trolls can come up is 'clinton did it.'

    Parent
    You brought the subject up. (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:45:23 PM EST
    Now that you've been shown to not know what you're talking about you resort to the time honored personal attack.

    You are well known here.

    Parent

    I did not bring the subject up (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:04:08 AM EST
    you made a completely ignorant out of the blue attack on me. How ignorant was the attack? It was so ignorant I had not even posted on the thread yet.

    And then you continued to show your ignorance by cherrypicking one tiny fact that you have no ability to understand the context of what it was in.

    I'll keep it simple for you: clinton= economy good, employment good, surplus good.
    bush=slow economy, unemployment is way up, record deficit.

    but all you wrongwingers can do is screech 'clinton did it, clinton did it' after 7 years you'd think you'd grow up a bit.

    Parent

    don't look now (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:31:05 AM EST
    Secondly, all Gore had to do was carry his home state and it was his. A Pres candidate that can't do that has some real big problems.

    And yet the GOP frontrunners are Randi, I mean Rudy and Hair-Do

    Parent

    And your point is?? (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    I just looked and Bush is still Pres.

    And if Thompson can't carry TN, the same will apply.


    Parent

    What A Disaster (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    Fred thompson?  the guy is in 3rd place, has raised peanuts, is firing, I mean "reorganizing" his senior campaign staff, and he hasn't even put on a uniform and participated in the contact drills (there's more skeletons in his closet than a rerun of Jason and the Argonauts).  Romney will pick him apart.

    The once proud GOP machine has been reduced to this: Hair-Do, Horney, and Humpty?

    Wow, it reminds me of how Admiral Yamaguchi stood on the bridge of Hiryu watching the Japanese fleet sink at Midway.

    Parent

    And not bad (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    by a man who hasn't even declared, eh??

    Thompson is the Left's nightmare.

    A Fred and Rudy ticket scares them 10 feet past a Stephen King movie.

    ;-)

    Parent

    A New York (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    Eye-talian American with questionable "family values" and another celebrity spokesperson with all the substance of a mound of Dollar Store cotton candy.

    A formidable combo and a force to be reckoned with.

    Parent

    Bad Finance (none / 0) (#15)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:33:55 AM EST
    Those of us who stayed did so simply because we took out option insurance.

    Doesn't they talk about puts/calls on the fixed news outlets?

    Parent

    No, not everyone took out insurance (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    And I suppose you do the same in Vegas when playing blackjack...

    Option insurance is a sohpiscated strategy that most people don't use. Plus it is not free.

    Millions and millions did not, their money was locked in company stock and company options that couldn't be touched, or at least not quick enough for them to duck. Others just held on hoping.

    Parent

    Excuses, Excuses, Excuses (none / 0) (#19)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    Is this Alberto Gonzales ??

    Parent
    No, Just a Puppet (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    Squeaky squeaks squeakly (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    Ah yes. And Gonzales is still the AG and Bush signed the FISA bill...

    Yes indeed. You just know so much.

    Parent

    Look everyone (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    We have a Left Wing Troll who is trying to appear smart.

    Parent
    RH (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    BTW - Do you even know what insurance is in Vegas??

    Parent
    don't sulk (none / 0) (#26)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    just because Cavuto didn't mention options on Fixed News.  they know their audience is dumb.

    too bad you got out and MISSED the vast UP side we enjoyed.

    Those are the breaks.  you should know that, being a sheepole.

    Parent

    Red (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    Depends on when I got out and what stocks I got out, eh?

    From September 2000 to January 2, 2001, the NASDAQ dropped 45.9%.

    You watch Cavuto, I'll study the reports. It was the  BS coming out of the stock market "news" that blew the bubble, and then popped it.

    BTW. I'm a ROF living off the fat of the land.

    Hope you, at least, get a tad bit of Social Security back.

    Parent

    NYTimes X-word (none / 0) (#3)
    by LizDexic on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    In the NY Times X-word puzzle recently, they had a negative term coined by George H. W. Bush.
    As it turned out, it was "Voodoo economics".
    But I thought it was David Stockman who came up with that.
     No?

    Bush 41 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:35:04 PM EST
    in Iowa in 1980 in his campaign against Reagan.

    Parent
    He was against it before he was for it. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:28:55 PM EST
    H W also used to be Mr. Condom (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    Gerald Ford says he was also pro choice. He sold out 100% in order to preserve the Nixon's southern strategy.

    Parent
    BTD - Gore Won? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:53:24 AM EST
    Your response that Gore won really hurts your credibility.

    USA Today

    What is hard to understand?  You wishing something was true doesn't make it so.

    You need to let go.  It's almost 2008.