American Politics

[Spidy]

The QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesism talk about Dems supports being dumber than Biden, for several manufactured so called reasons, is just hilarious.

Let's for a moment entertain that notion (and play devil's advocate) and give the Repubs the benefit of the doubt, and said dumbness from the Dems were true, it still wouldn't mount to a hill of beans, over Donnie "the Devil" J. Dommkopf, fleecing his gullible, brain dead, dumb supporters/donors into welfare, hardship and saving account depletion.

How quickly the QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesists, forget "the devil" saying, he loves "the uneducated". I wonder why that is? (....kkkk!). I guess ignorance is bliss.

https://onlysky.media/rsnedeker/igno...rump-education

No amount of dumbness on behalf of Dems will ever surpass the QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesism dumb-dumbs, getting a financial drubbing from their supreme grifter, supreme lair and all-a-round supreme fraudster and cheater.

BTW, don't forget to donate to this month's "get-outta-jail" fund raiser email drive.

PS: Donnie "the Devil" J. Dommkopf, I think this month's rally cry, is "...you know you can't be rich, so donate and make me rich instead." (...kkkk!)

[EihTooms]

I hear Biden has already assured doughy, infantile Ron "no Federal aid for Hurricane Sandy" DeSantis that real tax payers in responsible states like New York and California will pick up the tab for his massive shortfall on this.

Hurricane Ian could be Floridas costliest storm ever

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/30/b...icane-ian-cost

Considering Repub pols in states like Florida have for decades ignored the fact that their locations are ripe for the worst of ongoing Climate Change disasters, this might be a good time to start denying Federal assistance beyond immediate life-saving measures to states and districts whose Senators and Representatives did not vote for Biden's American Rescue Plan, Infrastructure Bill and especially the Inflation Reduction Act.

We'll see how inflation goes for those Repub areas when they get their wish to have all these issues taken care of and paid for from "smaller government" city, state and local tills and pay full boat to their ever popular private sector businesses from now on.

[EihTooms]

Well clearly you perceive the word is used pejoratively that way, while...I DO NOT!

I think, whatever else the debate / discussion between the BMs have morphed into something different than perhaps my initial understanding from the genesis of the debate.

EihTooms is correct from my POV, w/r to the economic wellness of Americans. That is to say, he's has shown that historically, most Americans have prospered economically (or socially for that matter) and fared much better when Dems have been in power vs Repubs. That's IT!!! That was my take-away, from their initial arguments, that they put forth.

From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...ent/index.html

That's not to say Americans, didn't do well under a Repub Admin, but IMHO, it's that more Americans fared better under a Dems Admin. For example personally, economically I did okay under Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf admin, but did much better under Pres. Obama and Clinton Admin..

Yes, it is not like the pro Repub Bothsiders who spout unsubstantiated opinions, dig deep to carve out some meaningless detail somewhere that they think saves the day for them and assert that all these sub par Repub outcomes occurred because something horrific happened to just "hit" only on the Repubs' watch that they had no control over and had no duty to prepare for and prevent.

Excuses excuses excuses.

Meanwhile, the only horrific conditions Dems ever happen to get "hit" with are the conditions the outgoing Repubs hand over to them on the way in and for which the Dems invariably succeed in recovering America from in historic fashion.

All while the Repubs and their pro Repub Bothsider partners in MSM and elsewhere yap their flaps, snipe at them, shout that they just ain't doing it right or good enough or fast enough or slow enough or for free! LOL.

[PVMonger]

Yes the dumbest people in the world keep blaming Trump and everything else in the world for Biden's stupidity and incompetence.

Actually, the dumbest people in the world don't have a clue how inflation happens so they blame President Biden. And, like you, their cornbread ain't quite done in the middle.

[EihTooms]

"then Covid hit".

"then the Great Depression hit".

"then the Financial Crises hit".

"then the S&L Crash hit".

"then 9-11 hit".

And on and on.

You pro Repub Bothsiders are hilarious. Talk about head in the sand oblivious and niave.

When any one of you can point to thoughts, words, deeds and results by the Repub Party since at least Reagan's famous declaration of war against America, war whoop and all, that wouldn't better apply to a frankly stated enemy of America rather than people honestly trying to Keep America Great, that would be impressive.

But so far, you've got nothing.

Keep pushing those insignificant sucker social issues and setting up your Big Liar Election Denying QAnon Loons to throw out likely Dem ballots and only count the rest. That's your only hope for power.

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...ular-anywhere/

https://stormer-daily.rw/satanic-hin...ricane-relief/

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/...-visit-to-dmz/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5OkECyvCY8

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://www.breitbart.com/news/brazi...nst-bolsonaro/

Polls had Lula winning by 10-15%.

Fake polls don't work LMAO.

[Tiny 12]

"And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities."

I am all for the Federal government not sending jack shit of what they collect back to the states. Since "red states" receive a disproportionate amount of those federal funds, they'll all wither and die. https://sipanews.fiu.edu/2021/03/24/...endent-states/.

So am I, since my metropolitan area has the highest per capita personal income in the USA. We have a Republican mayor and Republican governor. Local and state government are run efficiently and we get good value for our tax dollars. A majority in the county are people of color and a plurality are Hispanics. And Republicans get about 60 percentage points more votes than Democrats in elections. I'd dearly love it if the busy body politicians in Washington D.C. would back off. To the extent possible, let people in cities and counties and states run their affairs as they see fit.

[Tiny 12]

The term is clearly used by individuals like Tooms as an ad hominem against those who aren't on board with his cherry picking and Dems are light / Repubs are darkness interpretive framework. Online definitions of the term involve the accusation that one is unjustifiably giving equal validity to two sides of an argument, but such an error hardly of necessity follows from questioning some of Toom's simplistic, dubious and blustery claims or his far left sources. Tiny is correct, responsible economic and historical analysis is more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. " End of story.

Spidy and Tooms are just reflecting what they read in left of center media, which has an agenda. You knock out the effect of recessions, and I bet you wouldn't see a lot of difference in performance of the stock market and the economy between Republican and Democratic administrations. And blaming recessions on the president is downright naive. To the extent that government has any control over the economic cycle, it's mostly in the hands of the Fed. What control does the chief executive, or the central bank (Fed) for that matter, have over whether there's a pandemic? Or whether OPEC decides to jack up oil prices? The timing of a dot com boom? Or, as an explanation of recessions in European countries, and a partial explanation of the upcoming Biden recession, a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Well, not a hell of a lot.

I tried to make this sink in by showing the correlation between Democratic presidents and American casualties in foreign wars, but it didn't stick, at least for Tooms.

I believe Republicans are better for America and me in the long term because more of them are in favor of smaller government and devolution of power and taxation to the state and local levels. Government closest to the people is better. And at the state and local level, I believe Republicans on average are the better executives. That's part of the reason why blue states like Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia have Republican governors.

[Spidy]

The term is clearly used by individuals like Tooms as an ad hominem against those who aren't on board with his cherry picking and Dems are light / Repubs are darkness interpretive framework. Online definitions of the term involve the accusation that one is unjustifiably giving equal validity to two sides of an argument, ..."

Well clearly you perceive the word is used pejoratively that way, while...I DO NOT!

... but such an error hardly of necessity follows from questioning some of Toom's simplistic, dubious and blustery claims or his far left sources. Tiny is correct, responsible economic and historical analysis is more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. " End of story.

I think, whatever else the debate / discussion between the BMs have morphed into something different than perhaps my initial understanding from the genesis of the debate.

EihTooms is correct from my POV, w/r to the economic wellness of Americans. That is to say, he's has shown that historically, most Americans have prospered economically (or socially for that matter) and fared much better when Dems have been in power vs Repubs. That's IT!!! That was my take-away, from their initial arguments, that they put forth.

From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...ent/index.html

That's not to say Americans, didn't do well under a Repub Admin, but IMHO, it's that more Americans fared better under a Dems Admin. For example personally, economically I did okay under Donnie "the devil" J. Dummkopf admin, but did much better under Pres. Obama and Clinton Admin.

Going by my initial take on their debate, I found EihTooms, to be correct as he provided opinions and evidence/data to substantiate his claims, NOT AS a "Democrat good, Republican bad" economic issue, as you put it, but rather framed his arguments and substantiated claims, rather as "Repub okay-to-good economies vs. Dems better-to-much-better economies" historically, to dissuade any "bothsidesism" claims, to the contrary.

So not at all the "End of Story", but like democracy, we defend it, make it better and refine it with "new chapters". The fight for democracy, has always been a never ending story.

[Cali Guy]

Yes Biden proved how stupid he is once again. It is amazing how his supporters ignore this proving once again his supporters are dumber than him. Biden dumbass supporters just continue to talk about Trump or try to deflect Biden's stupidity and incompetence with talking about non issues of the past. Americans are suffering from Biden incompetence and the dumbest people in the world continue to think he is doing a decent job. But remember Biden supporters are criminals, illegals and welfare cases. Pretty much over 90% of Biden supporters are losers. Do you want proof? Just read some of the comments defending Biden and blaming Trump and blaming everything else in the world rather than blaming the creator of Biden inflation and recession.

Yes the dumbest people in the world keep blaming Trump and everything else in the world for Biden's stupidity and incompetence.

[Tiny 12]

Errata, Post 10456

The labor force participation rate increased from 62.7% in January, 2018 to 63.4% in February, 2020.

Estimates were that the TCJA would reduce government revenues by 1.5 trillion.

I'm not able to link to Peter Whiteford's comments in Greg Mankiw's blog. Either replace the asterisks below with "b l o g s p o t", or Google Mankiw and Whiteford to read the piece.

http://gregmankiw.********.com/2011/...ssive-tax.html

[PVMonger]

Damn it Tooms, I'm trying to cut back on posting here. But you're making it hard. Real hard.

They don't want you to look at the details, as long as you believe "Democrat Good, Republican Bad", they're happy.

Aaagh! The TCJA took effect on January 1, 2018. Employment grew by 2. 7 million in 2018 and 2. 1 million 2019. Then COVID hit. If I may be allowed to cherry pick, like you and your left of center media sources do, the average growth per year in employment during Obama's administration was 1. 4 million.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/ar...es-in-2018.htm#text=According%20 to%20 data%20 from%20 the, monthly%20 gain%20 of%20223%2 C000%20 jobs.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/ar...industries.htm#text=In%202019%2 C%20 total%20 nonfarm%20 payroll, the%20 Current%20 Employment%20 Statistics%20 survey.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

And in 2018 and 2019, the USA, as described in post #10452, we were inching closer and closer to full employment in 2018 and 2019. Finally as described in posts 10377 and the link in #10381, the demographic wind was at our back in the final years of Obama's administration. The working aged population, 18 to 64, increased by 2. 3 million from 2013 to 2016, the last 3 years of Obama's administration, versus 270,000 from 2017 to 2020.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/ar...es-in-2018.htm#text=According%20 to%20 data%20 from%20 the, monthly%20 gain%20 of%20223%2 C000%20 jobs.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/ar...industries.htm#text=In%202019%2 C%20 total%20 nonfarm%20 payroll, the%20 Current%20 Employment%20 Statistics%20 survey.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

Finally, the labor force participation rate fell like a rock for the first 6 years of the Obama administration, prior to flattening in 2015. After the TCJA took effect, it kicked up, from 62.7% in January, 2017 to 63.4% in January, 2020, before COVID hit.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

We've already discussed GDP growth rate, and I've listed some of the factors like globalization, changes in technology, the business cycle, a pandemic, what's going on in China and the rest of the world, Congress, that are as important or more important than who's president. And provided links that show the increase in real growth in median wages and median household income was off the charts, compared to past years, in 2019.

You're just rehashing what we've already discussed. You have to assume all provisions of the TCJA will be extended to get to "trillions of dollars. " Estimates were that the TCJA would reduce government revenues by $1. 5 million. So far the amount has likely been under $1 trillion, maybe half of what the Democrats' American Rescue Plan cost in 2021 alone. The Democrats control the presidency, the Senate and the House, and they haven't repealed the TCJA. I believe Democrats should receive at least part of the credit and praise for any revenue losses after January 21,2021 from the corporate tax cuts. Biden BTW only wanted to increase the corporate rate back to 28%.

PLEASE!! The closer you get to full employment, the harder it is to reduce the unemployment rate.

I'm all for tax cuts, if the politicians will also reduce the spending, which they didn't during Trumps' term. However, I don't have an argument with what you're saying. The TCJA didn't reduce the complexity of the tax code. The one part of the TCJA I heartily approve of are changes in the corporate tax. They hurt me (and helped you), but still, they were so clearly needed I don't see why you feel compelled to argue against them. As to the QBI deduction for pass throughs and cuts in individual rates, there are valid arguments for and against them.

It's not 1932 any more. Republicans are just as inclined to use Keynesian principles during a recession as Democrats. The problem is that no one, except for Clinton and Gingrich et al, have been inclined to cut the deficits. Most of the politicians around today who are inclined to do so are Republicans.

If you want to argue to increase the average federal corporate rate, say 3 or 4 percentage points, maybe you could make a case for it. If you want to take it back up to 35%, you're just not making sense. It's way out of sync with other countries. You're kneecapping our businesses. How are they supposed to make things in America and export them to other countries, when their taxes are so much higher?

https://taxfoundation.org/us-effecti...te-oecd-peers/

As to higher earners, we already have the most progressive tax system in the developed world. If you want to massively increase the size of government and the welfare state, the lion's share of the money can't come from the high earners, because they don't have enough money to pay for it. See the comments here by Peter Whiteford, the economist at the OECD who did the seminal study on the progressivity of tax systems of OECD countries:

http://gregmankiw.********.com/2011/...ssive-tax.html

I'm all for lower and middle income Americans making more money and saving. Many Democrat politicians don't want to see them doing well, with good paying jobs, because it's to their benefit if people get outsized transfer payments from and are dependent on the federal government. That will keep them voting for Democrats.

And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities. My city has a public transportation system now. And empty buses with no passengers. Because the buses didn't cost anything because they were paid for by the federal government. The power of the purse and governmental power are best exercised closest to the people, at the local and state level. My state and local governments are reasonably efficient and I have no problem paying state and local taxes. The federal government on the other hand flushes a huge amount of our money down the drain.

Baloney. Apparently you subscribe to Obama's belief that people don't build businesses, government does. You take money out of the private sector, away from the businessmen and the investors, and the economy won't grow as fast as it would otherwise. Cash flow of corporations, pass through businesses, and wealthy investors is mostly recycled back into the American economy, not spent on Italian villas. Again, look at CBO estimates for tax cuts and tax increases. You reduce taxes, you grow the economy faster. Nobody really disagrees with that.

The recovery from the 2008/2009 recession was weak by historical standards. We didn't regain 2008 employment levels until May of 2014 (see St. Louis fed employment link above.) Annual YoY GDP growth in 2009 to 2014 reanged from -2. 6% to 2. 7%. Was this Obama's fault? Hell if I know. I give Obama and the Democrats credit for not rolling off the Bush tax cuts immediately after a recession.

More "you didn't build that business" claptrap. I wish more Americans weren't spendthrifts. It would deprive the Democratic Party politicians of one of their major advantages, as long as people are highly dependent on government they're more likely to vote for Democrats.

"And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities."

I am all for the Federal government not sending jack shit of what they collect back to the states. Since "red states" receive a disproportionate amount of those federal funds, they'll all wither and die. https://sipanews.fiu.edu/2021/03/24/...endent-states/.

[PVMonger]

Biden's plan to curtail inflation not working. Gas just went up to $6. 59 a gallon in San Diego today. Over $7 in some areas of California. Biden continues to spend tax payer dollars on giveaways and inflation rising. Idiots are still talking about Trump and past presidents while America suffers. Biden stupidly and incompetence may have USA equal the recession of the 1930's. The worst president ever and he hasn't a clue. Just like the idiots talking about the past. The past looks great with past republican or democrat presidents compared to todays leadership and the future looks even worse. Republicans are smart enough to acknowledge that Biden is a disaster. Several democrats admit USA is in trouble. The idiot socialists keep trying to talk nonsense thinking that Biden disasters will improve on their own. Stupidity at its finest.

Actually, stupidity is the fact that I spent 30-seconds reading this trash and I'll never get that time back.

[Tiny 12]

Damn it Tooms, I'm trying to cut back on posting here. But you're making it hard. Real hard.

I appreciate all the details.

They don't want you to look at the details, as long as you believe "Democrat Good, Republican Bad", they're happy.

But regardless whatever went into that hundreds of pages long TCJA, what matters is what came out of it. And what came out of it is fewer jobs were created with it than without it and the GDP growth rate did not produce a noticeable increase with it than without it.

Aaagh! The TCJA took effect on January 1, 2018. Employment grew by 2.7 million in 2018 and 2.1 million 2019. Then COVID hit. If I may be allowed to cherry pick, like you and your left of center media sources do, the average growth per year in employment during Obama's administration was 1. 4 million.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/ar...es-in-2018.htm
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2020/ar...industries.htm
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

And in 2018 and 2019, as described in post #10452, we were inching closer and closer to full employment. That made it harder to add jobs. Finally as described in post 10377 and the link in #10381, the demographic wind was at our back in the final years of Obama's administration. The working aged population, 18 to 64, increased by 2.3 million from 2013 to 2016, the last 3 years of Obama's administration, versus 270,000 from 2017 to 2020.

Finally, the labor force participation rate fell like a rock for the first 6 years of the Obama administration, prior to flattening in 2015. After the TCJA took effect, it kicked up, from 62.7% in January, 2017 to 63.4% in January, 2020, before COVID hit.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

We've already discussed GDP growth rate, and I've listed some of the factors like globalization, changes in technology, the business cycle, a pandemic, what's going on in China and the rest of the world, Congress, that often are as important or more important than who's president. And provided links that show the increase in growth in real median wages and real median household income was off the charts, compared to past years, in 2019.

At a cost of Trillions.

You're just rehashing what we've already discussed. You have to assume all provisions of the TCJA will be extended to get to "trillions of dollars. " Estimates were that the TCJA would reduce government revenues by $1.5 million. So far the amount has likely been under $1 trillion, maybe half of what the Democrats' American Rescue Plan cost in 2021 alone. The Democrats control the presidency, the Senate and the House, and they haven't repealed the TCJA. I believe Democrats should receive at least part of the credit and praise for any revenue losses after January 21,2021 from the corporate tax cuts. Although recent data shows corporate tax revenues were actually about as high in 2021 as what the CBO was predicting they would have been without the TCJA. Biden BTW only wanted to increase the corporate rate back to 28%.

https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-tax-revenue-federal-tax-collections/

Once the unemployment rate hits the "Full Employment" level, which it did in this era sometime about 2 years before Trump took office, a 1-2% uptick or dip here and there is really meaningless. Extreme weather events, baby-boom retirements, whatever. Not all that much to do with some economic legislation.

PLEASE!! The closer you get to full employment, the harder it is to reduce the unemployment rate.

Almost all economic legislation is like the TCJA. Pages and pages of details, something given to someone here, something taken from someone there. And whatever is given in that bill sf often taken away in another bill and vice versa. That's why I try only to focus on the end results from administration terms, their budget proposals, what got passed and all that, not digging into the weeds so much since everyone digging is bound to miss some detail elsewhere that changed everything.

I'm all for tax cuts, if the politicians will also reduce the spending, which they didn't during Trumps' term. However, I don't have an argument with what you're saying. The TCJA didn't reduce the complexity of the tax code. The one part of the TCJA I heartily approve of are changes in the corporate tax. They hurt me (and helped you), but still, they were so clearly needed I don't feel compelled to argue against them. You do because of your Stockholm Syndrome. As to the QBI deduction for pass throughs and cuts in individual rates, there are valid arguments for and against them.

However, I do think it is valid to factor in the repeated and obvious stated goals and intentions of each party involved in crafting legislation. Because it is their overall philosophy that guides every detail they put into legislation. You will see the sum of all the details in all the related legislation in the results. That's where Dems' Demand-Side economic philosophy vs Repubs' Supply-Side economic philosophy comes into play.

It's not 1932 any more. Republicans are just as inclined to use Keynesian principles during a recession as Democrats. The problem is that no one, except for Clinton and Gingrich et al, have been inclined to cut the deficits. Most of the politicians around today who are inclined to do so, and they're a minority in both parties, are Republicans.

There is a very good reason Dems' Demand-Side philosophy (putting more money in the pockets of the lower and middle income earners) always significantly outperforms Repubs' Supply-Side philosophy (putting more money in the pockets of corporations and the top income earners) on jobs creation, expanding the economy, paying down the debt and deficits, etc. And, sorry, it is also blissfully "simple".
Lower and middle income earners tend to spend all the money in their pockets very quickly, often right up to their next paycheck. For obvious reasons. All too often, they need to. Put more money in the pockets of lower and middle income earners and they will be hitting restaurants and malls to spend it today. The economy will grow. Businesses will get more customers and will need to expand just to keep up. Businesses will need to hire more workers. Grudgingly, as usual. But they will need to hire or miss out. Tax revenue from businesses and workers grows.

If you want to argue to increase the average federal corporate rate, say 3 or 4 percentage points, maybe you could make a case for it. If you want to take it back up to 35%, you're just not making sense. It's way out of sync with other countries. You're kneecapping our businesses. How are they supposed to make things in America and export them to other countries, when their taxes are so much higher?

https://taxfoundation.org/us-effecti...te-oecd-peers/

As to higher earners, we already have the most progressive tax system in the developed world. If you want to significantly increase the size of government and the welfare state, the lion's share of the money can't come from the high earners, because they don't have enough money to pay for it. See the comments here by Peter Whiteford, the economist at the OECD who did the seminal study on the progressivity of tax systems of OECD countries:

http://gregmankiw.********.com/2011/...ssive-tax.html

I'm all for lower and middle income Americans making more money and saving. Some Democrat politicians don't want to see them doing well, with good paying jobs, because it's to their benefit if people get outsized transfer payments from and are dependent on the federal government. That will keep them voting for Democrats.

Roads, bridges, schools, etc get repaired. More jobs are created from that. Police forces get funded. It goes on.

And the federal government doesn't have jack to do with that, except to take taxpayer money and inefficiently redistribute part of it to states and cities. My city has a public transportation system now. And empty buses with no passengers. Because the buses didn't cost anything because they were paid for by the federal government. The power of the purse and governmental power are best exercised closest to the people, at the local and state level. My state and local governments are reasonably efficient and I have no problem paying state and local taxes. The federal government on the other hand flushes a huge amount of our money down the drain.

Corporations and top income earners tend not to spend extra money in their pockets very quickly, if at all. Again, for obvious reasons. They don't need to. There are only so many hamburgers a wealthy person or corporate CEO can eat in a week, only so many cars they can drive, boats they can sail, etc. They can bank it and forget about it. They can speculate on stocks with it. In fact, they can easily create a stock market bubble with fun discretionary money and laugh when the bubble bursts. They can buy another villa in Italy with it. And I assure you the last thing they want to do with extra money in their pocket is expand their business requiring them to hire more pain-in-the-ass employees if it is not clear their doing so would increase their pleasure in life rather than reduce it and add more complications and hassle to their lives.
On top of which, there are too few of those top marginal income earners compared to the huge percentage of lower and middle income earners for any big deal tax cut for them to matter. It cannot possibly do much for the economy and, guess what, it never does. Well, it does add to the deficit in a big way and diverts tax revenue money that sure could come in handy when the inevitable Great Repub Recession comes around.

Baloney. Apparently you subscribe to Obama's belief that people don't build businesses, government does. You take money out of the private sector, away from the businessmen and the investors, and the economy won't grow as fast as it would otherwise. Cash flow of corporations, pass through businesses, and wealthy investors is mostly recycled back into the American economy, not spent on Italian villas. Again, look at CBO estimates for tax cuts and tax increases. You reduce taxes, you grow the economy faster. Nobody really disagrees with that.

It used to crack me up when weepy Repub John Boehner would take the floor of Congress and demand an answer from Obama, "Where are the jobs"? And then he would extoll the virtues of what he termed "Job creators", by which he meant the beneficiaries of his Party's typical Supply-Side / Trickle-Down economic failures. He was just slamming a Dem and flattering the ego of his favorite political donor class by telling them they and not the unwashed rabble were the "job creators. ".

First of all, Obama's economy recovered and created more jobs than any Repub ever could have created had a Repub ever taken over from a Dem with economic conditions as disastrous as it was when Obama took over from GWB. But, of course, they never have done that in at least 100 years.

Second, one reason Obama's recovery was slower than it easily could have been was because Moscow Mitch had that meeting on Obama's inauguration night and set the orders for everyone in his caucus and it was so in the House as well not to do anything to help Obama pull us out of that Great Repub Crash and Recession. Which in one case meant they would stubbornly obstruct Obama's efforts to go back to the Clinton / Dem top marginal tax rates. And that kept the recovery from really taking off. LOL. Let's just say there was no Repub counterpart to Tip O'Neill working with Obama.

The recovery from the 2008/2009 recession was weak by historical standards. We didn't regain 2008 employment levels until May of 2014 (see St. Louis fed employment link above.) Annual YoY GDP growth in 2009 to 2014 ranged from -2. 6% to 2. 7%. Was this Obama's fault? Hell if I know. I give Obama and the Democrats credit for not rolling off the Bush tax cuts immediately after a recession.

Third, the relatively few typical beneficiaries of Repubs' consistently failed Supply-Side / Trickle-Down philosophy are not the true "job creators" in a national economy. The true "job creators" are the many, many more lower and middle income earners who go into the marketplace and spend all the money in their pockets as quickly as possible, essentially forcing businesses to do something they for the most part hate to do; hire more employees to keep up with the customer traffic.

More "you didn't build that business" claptrap. I wish more Americans weren't spendthrifts. It would deprive the Democratic Party politicians of one of their major advantages -- as long as people are highly dependent on government they're more likely to vote for Democrats.