Biden Eyes New Taxes: $400K+ earners, corporate, estate, capital gains for $1M+

[Ringo84]

It's not debunked. From that article:

The authors both told us Clinton was “100 percent accurate” with her claim that the economy does better under Democratic presidents, based on their research (which Blinder said has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and is set to be published in the American Economic Review). Blinder served on President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, and he was an economic adviser to the presidential campaigns of Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry.

The authors in their 2014 paper talked about factors that might be attributed to “just good luck,” while the 2015 report refers to “blends of good policy and good luck.” Blinder told us via email that they avoided the term “just good luck” in the 2015 paper for two reasons.

“One reason for superior performance under Democratic presidents is that oil prices go up less (on average),” Blinder stated. “Is that just luck? Well, the fact that we entered several wars in the gulf area (the latest in 2003) under Republican presidents, thereby driving up oil prices, was not just luck — it was policy, though not economic policy.”

“The second main factor underpinning Democratic superiority is that productivity has risen faster under Democrats,” Blinder said. “Well, productivity growth depends on many things, including luck, but also including a myriad of policies.”

In other words, there may very well be policies from Democratic presidents that have led to better economic performance. But the authors were unable to pinpoint what those policies were.

Policies like not getting into unnecessary Middle East quagmires and helping average Americans instead of billionaires.

In fairness, I'm more annoyed by misleading, annoyingly pedantic fact checkers who pull tricks like these than people who post them. Glenn Kessler of the WaPo (?) is especially notorious for this.
Ringo

 

[98cwitr]

Goodbye jobs, goodbye economy.

 

[SimplyMe]

Nope. Clinton attempted to claim that it was Democratic policy that helped the economy. Debunked.

“Democrats would probably like to attribute a large portion of the D-R growth gap to better fiscal (and perhaps monetary) policies, but the data do not support such a claim,” the authors concluded. “If anything, and we would not make much of such small differences, both fiscal and monetary policy actions seem to be a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is president — even though GDP grows significantly faster under Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Democrats than by Republicans.

We have no doubt economists from either side of the partisan divide would have differences of opinion about what those policies might be, or whether the gap was entirely due to factors outside a president’s control. That’s a political debate that cannot be settled in a fact-check. Specifically, though, while Clinton recites the economic statistics as a reason for electing a Democratic president, there is no evidence in the Blinder and Watson research to conclude that a Democratic president’s economic policy would necessarily lead to a healthier economy."

Is it just me or did you reinforce his claim? You proved it was true that the economy does better under Democratic presidents, and more specifically under Federal Reserve Chairmen that are appointed by Democrats. The article points out that the reasons why this is true are disputed but that the fact itself is true.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It's not debunked. From that article:





Policies like not getting into unnecessary Middle East quagmires and helping average Americans instead of billionaires.

In fairness, I'm more annoyed by misleading, annoyingly pedantic fact checkers who pull tricks like these than people who post them. Glenn Kessler of the WaPo (?) is especially notorious for this.
Ringo

The part I quoted indeed debunked Clinton's assertions.

Again:
“Democrats would probably like to attribute a large portion of the D-R growth gap to better fiscal (and perhaps monetary) policies, but the data do not support such a claim,” the authors concluded. “If anything, and we would not make much of such small differences, both fiscal and monetary policy actions seem to be a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is president — even though GDP grows significantly faster under Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Democrats than by Republicans.

We have no doubt economists from either side of the partisan divide would have differences of opinion about what those policies might be, or whether the gap was entirely due to factors outside a president’s control. That’s a political debate that cannot be settled in a fact-check. Specifically, though, while Clinton recites the economic statistics as a reason for electing a Democratic president, there is no evidence in the Blinder and Watson research to conclude that a Democratic president’s economic policy would necessarily lead to a healthier economy."

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Is it just me or did you reinforce his claim? You proved it was true that the economy does better under Democratic presidents, and more specifically under Federal Reserve Chairmen that are appointed by Democrats. The article points out that the reasons why this is true are disputed but that the fact itself is true.

She did claim it was Democratic fiscal policies...but "the data do not support such a claim" and "seem a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is President".

Or "gap was entirely due to factors outside a President's control" (like a pandemic, or some war we didn't enter for financial reasons like WW II).

 

[Ringo84]

The part I quoted indeed debunked Clinton's assertions.

Again:
“Democrats would probably like to attribute a large portion of the D-R growth gap to better fiscal (and perhaps monetary) policies, but the data do not support such a claim,” the authors concluded. “If anything, and we would not make much of such small differences, both fiscal and monetary policy actions seem to be a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is president — even though GDP grows significantly faster under Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Democrats than by Republicans.

We have no doubt economists from either side of the partisan divide would have differences of opinion about what those policies might be, or whether the gap was entirely due to factors outside a president’s control. That’s a political debate that cannot be settled in a fact-check. Specifically, though, while Clinton recites the economic statistics as a reason for electing a Democratic president, there is no evidence in the Blinder and Watson research to conclude that a Democratic president’s economic policy would necessarily lead to a healthier economy."

The entire article debunks that claim by showing that the evidence suggests that the economy does better under Democratic presidents.

This is the sleight of hand I'm talking about. This author's main reason for characterizing the claim as "debunked" is that Democrats can't point to specific policies that improve the economy. But the article is full of them, as I mentioned in my post above.

She did claim it was Democratic fiscal policies

You even admit as much. This is a very misleading fact check article. In fairness, that's not your fault but the fault of the author(s). But the claim isn't debunked at all.
Ringo

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The entire article debunks that claim by showing that the evidence suggests that the economy does better under Democratic presidents.

This is the sleight of hand I'm talking about. This author's main reason for characterizing the claim as "debunked" is that Democrats can't point to specific policies that improve the economy. But the article is full of them, as I mentioned in my post above.

The claim is not debunked at all, and you would do well to not just read the headline and call it a day.
Ringo

It's right there in plain language that though Clinton attempted to make the claim that Democratic fiscal policies lead to better results, they don't. In fact, Republican policies do. And sometimes it's just "due to factors outside a President's control", such as a pandemic, or a War.

 

[Ringo84]

It's right there in plain language that though Clinton attempted to make the claim that Democratic fiscal policies lead to better results, they don't. In fact, Republican policies do.

No it doesn't. Read the article.

“One reason for superior performance under Democratic presidents is that oil prices go up less (on average),” Blinder stated. “Is that just luck? Well, the fact that we entered several wars in the gulf area (the latest in 2003) under Republican presidents, thereby driving up oil prices, was not just luck — it was policy, though not economic policy.”

“The second main factor underpinning Democratic superiority is that productivity has risen faster under Democrats,” Blinder said. “Well, productivity growth depends on many things, including luck, but also including a myriad of policies.”

In other words, there may very well be policies from Democratic presidents that have led to better economic performance. But the authors were unable to pinpoint what those policies were.

Emphasis mine. Farley is either lying or being incredibly obtuse. He mentions policies that have been favorable for the economy and then plays dumb about "Well, Binder doesn't mention any policies". That's poor research on his part (and that's the best I can say for it).
Ringo

 

[essentialsaltes]

The White House is expected to propose a suite of tax increases, mostly mirroring Biden’s 2020 campaign proposals, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

• Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships

More than anyone needs to know about this tax preference and the billionaires who profited from it.

• 
  In November 2017, with the administration of President Donald Trump rushing to get a massive tax overhaul through Congress, Sen. Ron Johnson stunned his colleagues by announcing he would vote “no.”
  
  Johnson’s demand was simple: In exchange for his vote, the bill must sweeten the tax break for a class of companies that are known as pass-throughs, since profits pass through to their owners. Johnson praised such companies as “engines of innovation.” Behind the scenes, the senator pressed top Treasury Department officials on the issue, emails and the officials’ calendars show.
  
  The Trump administration championed the pass-through provision as tax relief for “small businesses.”
  
  Confidential tax records, however, reveal that Johnson’s last-minute maneuver benefited two families more than almost any others in the country — both worth billions and both among the senator’s biggest donors.
  
  Dick and Liz Uihlein of packaging giant Uline, along with roofing magnate Diane Hendricks, together had contributed around $20 million to groups backing Johnson’s 2016 reelection campaign.
  
  But the tax break did more than just give a lucrative, and legal, perk to Johnson’s donors. In the first year after Trump signed the legislation, just 82 ultrawealthy households collectively walked away with more than $1 billion in total savings, an analysis of confidential tax records shows. Republican and Democratic tycoons alike saw their tax bills chopped by tens of millions, among them: media magnate and former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg; the Bechtel family, owners of the engineering firm that bears their name; and the heirs of the late Houston pipeline billionaire Dan Duncan.