Member since Apr 23, 2016



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “It's Going to Be an Education Election in Arizona

The false mental paradigm that David and most of the commenters bring to this debate was revealed once again this week. Stanford came out with a massive, very sophisticated analysis of public school districts across the nation.

Three school districts in Arizona were revealed be among the top twenty, two were revealed be among the top ten.

Chandler Unified School District was shown to be among the top ten school districts in the nation at improving student results across grade levels.

Recognize that name? I've written about them a lot. Since 1998, the percentage of Chandler Unified parents rating their school excellent has risen two points a year.

Chandler Unified is now at 75% of their parents rating their child's school excellent, up from 38 percent in 1998. They measure that rigorously, with an independent phone survey.

That's modern school management and the Chandler School Board and administration are among the very best. Their excellence rating might easily be the highest percentage in the nation among large school districts.

Chandler has 75% market share in its district. Brutal competition has not caused them to be weak, it has driven them to be strong.

Eight percent of Chandler's students come from other districts.

Do their results just come with the territory of an upscale urban area? No, all we have to do is compare their results with that of the Chandler City Government. Since 1995, the percentage of chandler citizens rating city government excellent has dwindled from 55% to 38%.

Did Chandler just ride a national wave? No, the national wave headed in the opposite direction. From2011 to 2015, the national percentage of parents rating their child's school excellent dwindled from 36% to 24%.

3 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 12/10/2017 at 3:14 PM

Re: “A Conversation with Bruce Bartlett, Part 2: "Trump Is Unquestionably the Most Incompetent, Most Inept, Most Ignorant President We've Ever Had in Our History"

" the recession ... was a direct result of Bush's administration "

Maybe not.

Lucas won the Nobel Prize for rational expectations theory, that a change in what people expect for the future immediately changes the present. A simple concept that when people on a train look down the tracks and see them going over a cliff, they get off immediately.

As Obama went from a 15% chance of being president in 2008 to 70%, the stock market weakened and then collapsed $8.2 trillion. As he was first stalemated by the Republicans and then walked to the door, the stock market first went up $7 trillion and then with Trump's surprise election, another 5 trillion.

Obama promised and delivered a big tax increase on small businessmen and women. The economics department at the University of Arizona is so twisted; they think that is good for the economy. Its not; it laid waste to us in something called the Great Recession. Just like Roosevelts increase from 25% to 93% made the Great Depression the Great Depression.

Obama caused the Great Recession intensified the Great Recession, and lengthened the Great Recession.

The huge tax increase that Obama put in place and the huge diversion of resources to engage in the stylish pursuit of climate change devastated our economy. Growth in capital intensiveness, the core of improving living conditions ground to a complete halt.

As a result, our labor productivity improvement only averaged one-half percent under Obama after averaging 2.5% under Bush. No improvement in labor productivity equals no pay increase for the workers.

6 likes, 30 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 12/03/2017 at 9:28 AM

Re: “The Skinny

The unpopularity of the tax bill is irrelevant. What will be relevant is its impact on our economy. Will growth take off or not? What will be the impact on our deficit?

After Reagan reduced personal income tax rates from 70% to 28% and corporate from 45% to 35%, the combined personal and corporate federal revenues hit records in both 1987 and 1988. Plus, the economy grew 4.7% in 1987 and 3.6% in 1988, more than double Obama's 2.9% in 2015 and 1.5% in 2016.

Lower tax rates can result in higher revenues and much higher growth. Tax revenues went up after Kennedy and Coolidge did dramatic tax cuts too.

In 1980, taxpayers with an AGI of $80,000 or more (the top 1% of taxpayers in 1980) paid $47 billion in income taxes. Adjusted for inflation, $80,000 in 1980 is $238,000 today. This year taxpayers with an AGI of $238,000 or more will pay over $850 billion. Thats not a trickle, thats not a river, thats not a tsunami, thats a whole ocean. They went from paying 19% of all U.S. personal income taxes to paying over 50%.

Edward Prescott, Nobel Prize winner, found that the higher taxes of Europe caused people to start work later in life, retire earlier, take more sick leave, take more vacation, work less intensely, work less ambitiously, grow less intelligent as adults and produce corporations with lower market values.

That's why Europe's stock market is at $8 trillion and ours is at $29.9 trillion. Because Reagan reduced our tax rates.

That's why U.S. jobs have grown 60% since 1980 while Europe jobs have grown less than 26%.

Thats why U.S. real median per capita personal income has increased 44% since 1981.

4 likes, 20 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 12/02/2017 at 8:06 PM

Re: “A Conversation with Author Bruce Bartlett, Part 1: Tax Bill Is "Dreadful Legislation"

We can also look at this differently, from a historical perspective. What happened in similar situations in the past?

After Reagan reduced tax rates from 70% to 50%, we had economic growth of a stunning 7.3% in 1984. The highest growth year in the last 65 years. Obama's highest growth year was 2.9%.

After Reagan reduced tax rates from 50% to 28%, we had economic growth of 4.9% and 3.6% in 1987 and 1988.

After Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding reduced income tax rates from 75% to 25% in 1921 legislation, economic growth in the 1920's was 37% in their term as compared to Obama at 12%.

After Kennedy reduced tax rates from 91% to 70%, economic growth was 6.5% and 6.6% in 1965 and 1966.

After Clinton reduced capital gains taxes by 29%, economic growth in 1998 and 1999 was 4.5% and 4.7%.

After Bush the younger reduced tax rates in 2001, he had economic growth of 19% for the remainder of this term.

13 likes, 41 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 11/30/2017 at 9:23 PM

Re: “A Conversation with Author Bruce Bartlett, Part 1: Tax Bill Is "Dreadful Legislation"

What a joke.

The stock market is up $1.3 trillion in just the last 60 days. The "rich", read companies and small businesses, have already paid for this tax cut.

Instead of talking to a make-believe economist, let's study the leading economic indicators that great economists study to predict the future:

1. The stock market is $29.4 trillion dollars, up $5.8 trillion since election day and up $1.3 trillion in the last two months as the tax package moved to the finish line. The stock market is forecasting over 5% growth for our 330 million people.

By comparison, Obama never even had a 3% GDP growth year, the first president to fall short since Hoover started the Great Depression.

Also, by comparison, Europes stock market is at only $8 trillion, forecasting 1% growth for their 510 million people.

2. Consumer confidence index, 101.4, is at its highest since the economy grew 3.8% in 2004.

3. Unemployment, 4.1%, is at its lowest since 2000, when the economy grew 4.1%. Our insured unemployment rate of 1.4% is the lowest of all time.

4. M2 Money supply is the highest ever, $13.7 trillion dollars, up 650 billon since Election Day, more than enough fuel to grow 10% next year. There is $800 for every $1,000 of GDP as compared to only $550 in 1984 when our economy grew 7.3%.

5. Average weekly manufacturing work hours: 42 hours per week, only three periods higher since 1944

6. The U.S. unemployment insurance claim rate is the lowest in recorded history.

7. Corporate Bonds rate, 3.60%, is lower than 57 of the 58 years since the second quarter of 1959, when the economy grew 9.2%.

In short, the leading indicators relied upon by economists to predict the future say that the tax package will have a very powerful and healthy effect on the economy.

11 likes, 38 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 11/30/2017 at 9:11 PM

Re: “Cutting Teacher Compensation and School Funding in Wisconsin

"Hmmm, it appears that Mr. Kulp from WI uses the same debate methodology as 45 which includes: 'who says?', 'make me', and 'so what?'"

I think I detected a fair number of facts in Mr. Kulp's comments along with the spice of a little snark.

Maybe the fact base applies to 45 also.

2 likes, 22 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 11/25/2017 at 4:31 PM

Re: “The 'Freedom Center's' High School Course Is On Shaky Ground at TUSD

"notably omitting Keynesian economics "

Maybe omitting Keynesian economics is akin to omitting Marxian economics. Would you want them to include a lesson on Marxian economics? We could have a session on income inequality in North Korea. Some NK's get 2000 calories a day, others get 200. Some NK's have running water, others don't. Some have electricity, most don't. Some have 12 inch long parasitic gut worms (the guard who was shot while running to freedom), others only 2 inches long.

Maybe we could include Cuba which has a legal maximum on the amount you can earn, a grand $20 per month. The workers paradise.

The left is so intellectually corrupt, that they demand our children be educated in defunct theories of economics, let's include them all.

2 likes, 22 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 11/24/2017 at 3:51 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation