If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Pawlenty: "My tax cuts will usher in a decade of 5% GDP growth." Fun fact: This has never been done before in the history of tracking America's GDP. Ever   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 133
    More: Fail, GDP growth, Tim Pawlenty, America's GDP, economic planning  
•       •       •

1623 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jun 2011 at 8:44 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-07 09:50:15 PM
Pawlenty trifecta in play?

/T-Paw for three, fouled by TehBrosenone James
 
2011-06-07 09:51:05 PM
posting in epic thread

Karac: The only reason that the GDP has never grown like that before is because we've never cut taxes low enough to allow it to.


Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head.

Remember that?
 
2011-06-07 09:51:18 PM
did anyone else read the headline as "Bistro math:..." because I did. and if Pawlenty and the GOP have perfected a bistromath drive, then need to market that bad boy.
 
2011-06-07 09:52:37 PM
Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)

Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)

No Sixteenth Amendment.
 
2011-06-07 09:58:34 PM

dosboot: Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)
Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)
No Sixteenth Amendment.


Sshhh! You're harshing their buzz.
 
2011-06-07 10:00:45 PM

CokeBear: The Bush tax cuts triggered the long downward spiral that led us to the crash of '08, and this guy wants to do more of that? Are these people farking insane??


Why should they care? They're not afraid of the american people. Hell, they have the money and resources to be in a position to take advantage of the collapse. It's you and I that will bear the brunt of it. It's not like the american people are going to do shiat about it.
 
2011-06-07 10:01:44 PM

dosboot: Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)

Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)

No Sixteenth Amendment.


The GOP: Still Building That Bridge To The 19th Century
 
2011-06-07 10:03:11 PM
I know that I will become a millionaire if I stop getting an income.
 
2011-06-07 10:07:49 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: dosboot: Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)

Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)

No Sixteenth Amendment.

The GOP: Still Building That Bridge To The 19th Century


"Pawlenty: "My tax cuts will usher in a decade of 5% GDP growth." Fun fact: This has never been done before in the history of tracking America's GDP. Ever"

lab1663.net


Sorry to bring up the facts to a liberal.
 
2011-06-07 10:08:26 PM
i262.photobucket.com
 
2011-06-07 10:09:10 PM

dosboot: Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)

Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)

No Sixteenth Amendment.


We didn't actually have a GDP measurement in the 19th century. GDP was developed in the 1930's IIRC.
 
2011-06-07 10:10:02 PM

dosboot: Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)

Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)

No Sixteenth Amendment.


Was that GDP growth compared to when the union was fighting a civil war?
 
2011-06-07 10:11:18 PM

soy_bomb: dosboot: Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)
Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)
No Sixteenth Amendment.

Sshhh! You're harshing their buzz.


Hey, Friedmun and Friedmin,

Pawlenty is talking about 10 years of 5% annualized GDP.

It's been done before: Between 1983 and 1987, the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9 percent annually. Between 1996 and 1999, under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the economy grew at around 4.7 percent annually


You've researched total GDP growth over 10 years.

For example, during the Panic of 1873, GDP was only 1.82%

Link (new window)

And in 1874 it was -0.18%

Link (new window)

FYI, this is why you two are poor. You're not very bright.
 
2011-06-07 10:17:08 PM

dosboot: Sorry to bring up the facts to a liberal.


When you've completely missed the point, fumbled the math and made yourself look really, really stupid, you probably shouldn't try and gloat over "facts" that exist only in your head.

You too Soy. Sorry if I'm harshing your buzz
 
2011-06-07 10:22:11 PM
The GOP types like to say Clinton and the GOP congress (although it was before the GOP took control of congress that the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was passed) but never say Reagan and the Democrats who controlled congress.
 
2011-06-07 10:22:35 PM

RexTalionis: Just for perspective on the US's GDP growth rate in the last 4 decades.


Not for nothing, but doesn't it royally piss you off that the current recession isn't indicated? It's as if the chart's author thinks there's no recession at all.
 
2011-06-07 10:24:06 PM
Pawlenty doesn't think you should be taxed on the money you make from stocks or bonds, which means richest man in america Warren Buffet would pay 0 percent taxes.
 
2011-06-07 10:26:33 PM

depmode98: Pawlenty doesn't think you should be taxed on the money you make from stocks or bonds, which means richest man in america Warren Buffet would pay 0 percent taxes.


Seems the more money I make the less % I pay. farking thing boggles the mind.
 
2011-06-07 10:26:34 PM

depmode98: Pawlenty doesn't think you should be taxed on the money you make from stocks or bonds, which means richest man in america Warren Buffet would pay 0 percent taxes.


They've earned it, haven't they? You proles should count your lucky stars you're even allowed to live in the same country as mega-rich billionaires.
 
2011-06-07 10:28:04 PM

dosboot: Between 1870-1880 the real GDP growth was 5.5% Link (new window)

Between 1880 and 1890 the real GDP growth was 5.2%. Link (new window)

No Sixteenth Amendment.


this is either perfect trolling, or such an appalling display of economic/historical ignorance that you should demand your parents' money back from high whatever high school didn't leave you behind.
 
2011-06-07 10:28:34 PM

fritton: You too Soy. Sorry if I'm harshing your buzz


Actual quote, "Five percent economic growth over 10 years would generate $3.8 trillion dollars in new tax revenues." Not 5% per year, every year for 10 years.
 
2011-06-07 10:33:53 PM

StopLurkListen: RexTalionis: Just for perspective on the US's GDP growth rate in the last 4 decades.

Not for nothing, but doesn't it royally piss you off that the current recession isn't indicated? It's as if the chart's author thinks there's no recession at all.


www.fin.gc.ca

Note the forecast line begins before the current recession ended in 12/09. Also, the date: http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/images/ecc1_5-eng.gif

So he/she didn't forecast the end of the recession. A safe, if somewhat lazy move.

The author's projection is a little optimistic though. The US is expected to hit 2.3% this year. This chart has 3% in Q410.
 
2011-06-07 10:38:12 PM

soy_bomb: fritton: You too Soy. Sorry if I'm harshing your buzz

Actual quote, "Five percent economic growth over 10 years would generate $3.8 trillion dollars in new tax revenues." Not 5% per year, every year for 10 years.


He went on to clarify annualized. Here's what the COMMIEFACISTLIBS at Us News and World Report think about it: tim-pawlenty-proposes-insane-economic-plan (new window)

Also, could you do a better job on my wheels this time? There was still brake dust around the valve stem. Thanks a bunch.
 
2011-06-07 10:40:52 PM
Sounds like he left out the part about also doing away with unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, the EPA, Dept of the Interior, whichever dept oversee's banks, and about fifty others that don't directly help the eight-figure-a-year crowd he works for.
 
2011-06-07 10:44:24 PM

cretinbob:


Pawlenty would not be in Gryffindor! He would be in Hufflepuff. Duh.
 
2011-06-07 10:47:09 PM

soy_bomb: fritton: You too Soy. Sorry if I'm harshing your buzz

Actual quote, "Five percent economic growth over 10 years would generate $3.8 trillion dollars in new tax revenues." Not 5% per year, every year for 10 years.

America's economy is not even growing at 2 percent - and that's what many projections say we can expect for the next decade. That's not acceptable.

Let's start with a big, positive goal. Let's grow the economy by 5 percent, instead of an anemic 2 percent.


When economist say that we are growing at 2%, they mean 2% annually, as opposed to the "normal" 3-4% growth of a healthy economy. When he says, "lets grow at 5%" he must also be talking about annually, otherwise it makes no sense.

If he wants a 5% growth of the economy over 10 years, as you put it, then he is saying he would grow the economy at the rate of 1/2 of 1% annually, which would be absolutely terrible growth. Pick your poison.
 
2011-06-07 10:47:18 PM

Rapmaster2000: Also, could you do a better job on my wheels this time? There was still brake dust around the valve stem. Thanks a bunch.


Dude, it's time to invest in at least semi ceramic pads. Then you won't have to pay to lower class to wipe the dust off.

/Physics > economics
 
2011-06-07 10:50:26 PM

RyogaM: When economist say that we are growing at 2%, they mean 2% annually, as opposed to the "normal" 3-4% growth of a healthy economy. When he says, "lets grow at 5%" he must also be talking about annually, otherwise it makes no sense.

If he wants a 5% growth of the economy over 10 years, as you put it, then he is saying he would grow the economy at the rate of 1/2 of 1% annually, which would be absolutely terrible growth. Pick your poison.


To be fair, with Pawlenty, this is probably what you'll get.
 
2011-06-07 10:53:27 PM

brainiac-dumdum: cretinbob:

Pawlenty would not be in Gryffindor! He would be in Hufflepuff. Duh.


All GOP are in Slytherin. You don't have to be smart to be there, look at Gregory Goyle!

I mean... I don't recognize the reference... *cough*
 
2011-06-07 10:56:04 PM

Car_Ramrod: brainiac-dumdum: cretinbob:

Pawlenty would not be in Gryffindor! He would be in Hufflepuff. Duh.

All GOP are in Slytherin. You don't have to be smart to be there, look at Gregory Goyle!

I mean... I don't recognize the reference... *cough*


No way, only the wealthy are in Slytherin. Hufflepuff is for the mediocre and working class.
 
2011-06-07 10:57:02 PM
From a PDF I keep for just such an occasion
Warning: Wall O' Text Ahead

* Raise taxes on all levels while phasing out personal deductions (mortgage interest on any home, child deduction after 2nd child)
* Tax capital gains as regular income, regardless of time held
* Set in motion concrete plans for reducing the military over the course of a decade via attrition and consolidation of bases/hardware.
* Work with states to streamline the Medicare/Medicaid system (like allowing state governments to purchase perscriptions in bulk for Medicare and mandating end-of-life paperwork as a condition of receiving social security and setting up computerized databases of information to promote quicker responses).
* Setup regional specialized clinics throughout the country and allow healthcare providers to concentrate on one or two fields rather than the medical arms race that exists now.
* End the war on drugs and phase in a system of community service for non-violent offenders to remove drug convictions from their record.
* Reform the intellectual property system where the cost of renewal grows progressively every year and businesses are forced to decide whether the additional cost can be offset by additional revenue. If not, the fee is not paid and the work becomes public domain
* Triple funding for space exploration and bio-tech research on the condition that any discoveries become public property
* Push for a massive overhaul of broadband internet (similar to the rural electrification program) for the country
* Phase out tax incentives for polluting power to force consumers to compare the true costs of traditional vs clean energy
* Raise the estate tax to 45% on ALL estates with the ability to offset one's tax burden via community grants or endowments and any revenue from this program is used to pay down the national debt
* End Operation Iraqi Camping Trip
* Tax religious organizations at a flat 10% rate while allowing dollar-for-dollar deductions based around dollars/hours spent of community outreach and caring for those most in need (in accordance with the teachings of most every faith) with a limit of only offsetting 100% of the tax obligation
* Switch to metric

Economic growth comes from letting an open (not "free", more like competitive and non-monopolistic) market do it's thing while regulating the successes of such a market via taxes. Wealth is proof that capitalism works and requiring people to pay back the system that helped create said wealth is expected in any civilized society.
 
2011-06-07 11:00:28 PM
Thanks, Tim, for reminding me why I need to stay motivated to work for an Obama victory in 2012.
 
2011-06-07 11:02:09 PM
Incidentally, here's a powerpoint presentation the Minneapolis Post released with data pertaining to economic status of Minnesota, at least through the first of Tim Pawlenty's term as governor.

While Minnesota's economic status was alright if you factor a range of time from the 1967-2007, after 2004, the Minnesota economy dropped off below US averages. Tim Pawlenty's term as governor started in 2003.

Especially interesting, slide 6:

From 2004 to 2007 Minnesota Underperformed the US Averages

• Personal income growth
US 6.2% MN 4.4%

• Per capita personal income growth
US 16.6% MN 13.5%

• GDP growth
US 8.4% MN 4.8%

• GDP per capita growth
US 5.4% MN 2.6%
 
2011-06-07 11:06:26 PM

Edsel: Thanks, Tim, for reminding me why I need to stay motivated to work for an Obama victory in 2012.


Indeed, the Republicans are way too crazy right now.
 
2011-06-07 11:13:32 PM

Rapmaster2000: soy_bomb: fritton: You too Soy. Sorry if I'm harshing your buzz

Actual quote, "Five percent economic growth over 10 years would generate $3.8 trillion dollars in new tax revenues." Not 5% per year, every year for 10 years.

He went on to clarify annualized. Here's what the COMMIEFACISTLIBS at Us News and World Report think about it: tim-pawlenty-proposes-insane-economic-plan (new window)

Also, could you do a better job on my wheels this time? There was still brake dust around the valve stem. Thanks a bunch.


i know you know this, but what you are doing with this "information" and "facts" nonsense isn't going to sink in to these idiots.

It does, however, provide info for people like myself who couldn't make it through the article b/c I'm in no mood to read T Paw's retarded ideas right now. So , "thanks!"
 
2011-06-07 11:20:58 PM
So the tea party followers are going to attack him for his BS debt reduction strategy?

*crickets*

That's what I thought. They don't really care about deficit reduction.
 
2011-06-07 11:27:49 PM
This is one time I am glad people are quoting a person I have on ignore.

I don't think we'll see Soyboy around for a while after this beating.
 
2011-06-08 12:22:46 AM
Plausibility level low.

blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2011-06-08 12:36:03 AM

Corvus: So the tea party followers are going to attack him for his BS debt reduction strategy?

*crickets*

That's what I thought. They don't really care about deficit reduction.


They only become "suddenly concerned" about it when the Dems occupy the White House.
 
2011-06-08 01:19:46 AM
is this where they pull out garbage like this:

www.dansdata.com

Hurray for politicians who don't understand regression talking about theoretical systems that only exist in test environments!!!
 
2011-06-08 01:28:33 AM
If you say it loud enough and long enough it becomes true.

Tax cuts

Tax cuts

Tax cuts

Nope, didn't work. Sorry.
 
2011-06-08 02:21:41 AM

Jiggatron69: is this where they pull out garbage like this:



Hurray for politicians who don't understand regression talking about theoretical systems that only exist in test environments!!!


That's the most ridiculous graph I've ever seen. They've picked an obvious outlier as the critical point of the entire dataset. Oh, it's from the American Enterprise Institute. I believe their motto is "Lying about math since 1975"
 
2011-06-08 02:21:45 AM

MrEricSir: The best part about that chart is that the biggest GDP grown was when taxes were HIGHEST.

It's almost as if tax rates and GDP aren't really even related!


When the wealthy are undertaxed, there is a strong incentive for them to take money out of their businesses. There's also no incentive to really do very well or work very hard, since they "already got theirs." If their income were heavily taxed, they would instead use it to reinvest in the business and have a vested interest in it's success.

Furthermore, high taxes allow for more spending on social programs, which helps to lift people out of poverty, who then spend their money, which creates demand. And since that business owner kept the money in his business, he can afford to expand to meet that demand, thereby creating jobs.

So there you have it. Want jobs? Increase taxes.
 
2011-06-08 02:39:55 AM

LiberalWeenie: MrEricSir: The best part about that chart is that the biggest GDP grown was when taxes were HIGHEST.

It's almost as if tax rates and GDP aren't really even related!

When the wealthy are undertaxed, there is a strong incentive for them to take money out of their businesses. There's also no incentive to really do very well or work very hard, since they "already got theirs." If their income were heavily taxed, they would instead use it to reinvest in the business and have a vested interest in it's success.

Furthermore, high taxes allow for more spending on social programs, which helps to lift people out of poverty, who then spend their money, which creates demand. And since that business owner kept the money in his business, he can afford to expand to meet that demand, thereby creating jobs.

So there you have it. Want jobs? Increase taxes.


Agreed. But the Republicans do NOT want jobs. They want to complain about the lack, but have no intention of fixing it, and seem more interested in sabotaging efforts to create them.
 
2011-06-08 03:22:49 AM
That wasn't intended as a factual statement.
 
2011-06-08 04:00:24 AM
wait, Pawlenty used the Clinton years, with their HIGHER tax rates, as justification for cutting taxes?

oh dear.
 
2011-06-08 07:25:11 AM
Right... Sure, it will. Just like electing all those republicans in 2010 resulted in a boom in job growth.
 
2011-06-08 07:59:59 AM

Alphax: But the Republicans do NOT want jobs. They want to complain about the lack, but have no intention of fixing it, and seem more interested in sabotaging efforts to create them.


This - they'd start hacking children to death with machetes on live television if that could somehow be spun to make Obama and the Democrats look bad.
 
2011-06-08 08:16:07 AM
Predictions conservatives made 10 years ago about the Bush tax cuts that turned out to be spectacularly wrong

So like all true retards they want to repeat their failure.
_________________________________________________

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/04/the-economic-impact-of-preside n t-bushs-tax-relief-plan

Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.

The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.

The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011,
 
2011-06-08 08:22:48 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: From a PDF I keep for just such an occasion


Cool. I would modify a few things in there but for the most part, I'm in agreement
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report