Boehner’s Views on Economy Contradicted by Indicators, Studies

Source: Bloomberg

House Speaker John Boehner, giving Wall Street leaders his prescriptions for growing the U.S. economy and reducing the nation’s debt, built his case on several assertions that are contradicted by market indicators and government reports.

Boehner said in his May 9 speech to the Economic Club of New York that government borrowing was crowding out private investment, the 2009 economic-stimulus package hurt job creation, and a Republican plan to privatize Medicare will give future recipients the "same kinds of options" lawmakers have

* * *

The speaker didn’t mention a 1993 tax increase that raised the top individual marginal rate to 39.6 percent, where it stood until 2001. In 1998, the government recorded its first budget surplus in almost 30 years.

The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in 1994, the year after Congress passed the second tax increase of the decade. The growth rate dropped to 2.5 percent in 1995, and thereafter rose to 3.7 percent in 1996. The economy grew more than 4 percent a year from 1997 through 2000.


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-11/boehner-s-views-on-economy-contradicted-by-indicators-studies.html

---

It is nice that some media are actually beginning to fact check the fanciful lies of the GOP, rather than dismissing such lies as a mere matter of opinion.

by 5%, we could make the first 30k of income tax free. Changing nothing else would give hundreds of billions of dollars to people who are most likely to spend it. This spending would drive up demand for goods and services, thereby causing a rise in production and the need for more jobs.

In 2007 numbers (the only data I could find for taxes), doing only this would put $300 billion into the hands of consumers. The raise in tax on the top tier would replace that decrease in revenue with $306 billion in additional revenue from the increase.

In 2007, the median income for the us was $45,000. Almost half of the country would have no tax liability. This would affect the rich as well, since the first 30k of their income wouldn't be subject to tax, either. But that's what? 2 days of "work" for them?

Consumer spending drives the economy. Putting money into the hands of those who spend creates WAY more jobs than putting money into the pockets of rich people, since that money is generally invested - and not necessarily in American companies.