PDA

View Full Version : Comrade Timmy releases cat from bag!



LWW
06-24-2011, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.” </div></div>

The poor and middle class flyover bubbas must continue to suffer tremendously so that the omnipotent state is not made to suffer even a hangnail ... (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise)

Soflasnapper
06-24-2011, 06:09 PM
No poor or middle class bubba makes over $250,000, so these tax increases you speak of do nothing to impoverish them, as they apply only to the approx. 3% of small businesses which make over that amount of profit annually.

97% of all small businesses can do their hiring without any concern for raised tax rates.

Soflasnapper
06-24-2011, 06:41 PM
CNS thinks Obama took office in 2008?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> According to historical budget tables published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending has climbed from $2.89 trillion in 2008—the year President Obama took office—to $3.82 trillion this year, an increase of approximately $930 billion.</div></div>

Let us list the idiocy and false witness all packed up in this claim.

Obama took office in 2009, according to most people who are not CNS. He took office with FY 2009 already 'bout 4 months into it.

The spending number is done on a fiscal year accounting basis. The fiscal year starts ahead of the calendar year by a quarter of the year.

Therefore, the (FY) 2008 accounting of total US spending, besides falsely booking in the total cost of the Iraq war and Afghan war as ZERO (an understatement by a 12-digit figure), ended as of Sept. 30, 2008, thus conveniently (for the lying false CNS) omitting Bush's TARP expenditures that occurred only as of late in calendar year 2008.

As one may recall, the TARP authorization was for $750 billion on top of the already existing spending for FY 2009-- all pure deficit financing.

LWW
06-25-2011, 03:39 AM
You are aware that using your time frame makes dear leader look even worse?

LWW
06-25-2011, 03:52 AM
Let's look at this fairly.

From 1995 to 2007 the R's in congress took spending from $1,515.8B to $2,728.7B. An increase of $1,212.9B ... or about $100B per year. This was deemed to be "OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING!" by the left, and frankly ... I agree.

That being said, since the democrooks took over in 2007 spending went from $2,728.7B to $3,818.8B in 2011. An increase of $1,090.1B in on 4 years ... or about $270B per year.

Now, if you only want to hold Obama accountable for budgets passed while he was POTUS ... IOW giving him a complete pass on budgets he voted for, and petitioned that they be even larger, we can do that. The budget increased from $3,456.2B to $3,818.8B in 1 years. That's $362.6B.

Now ... which is greater ... $270B or $100B? The answer is $270B.

Again ... which is greater, $362.6B or $270B or $100B? The answer is $362.6B.

LWW
06-25-2011, 04:13 AM
I forgot though ... you are one those statist fellows that believes the answer is always more tax revenue.

Let's see how that worked out, shall we?

The R congress increased revenue from $1,453.1B to $2,568.0B ... again, about $100B per year. Now, after the democrooks took office ... that fell from $2,568.0B to $2,173.7B. That's a decrease of $394.3B ... or roughly ($98B) per year.

Now ... which is better, +$100B or -$98B? The answer is +$100B.

So, in closing, Democrook policy increased spending by $1,090.1B ... while sinking revenue by $394.3B.

That's a total of $1,484.4B the wrong way. The regime estimates the 2011 deficit to total $1,645.1B. And the left's contention is that it's all Bush's and the R's fault?

Oh ... and anyone who disagrees needs to be writing with crayons.

Do I pretty much have the leftist case wrapped in the facts?

Yes, I do. And yet y'all wonder why so many view the rank and file Obama voter as a brainwashed cult member?

I rest my case ... you never actually had one.

My source? <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Warning, Spoiler: <input type="button" class="form-button" value="Show" onclick="if (this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName(' div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display != '') { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('d iv')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = '';this.innerText = ''; this.value = 'Hide'; } else { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('d iv')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = 'none'; this.innerText = ''; this.value = 'Show'; }" /></div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div style="display: none;">Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (last accessed March 25, 2011). </div></div></div>

Sev
06-25-2011, 05:54 AM
Its Bush's fault!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
06-25-2011, 06:39 AM
By simple math ... 9.8% Bush's fault, 90.2% the current regime's fault.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's look at this fairly.

From 1995 to 2007 the R's in congress took spending from $1,515.8B to $2,728.7B. An increase of $1,212.9B ... or about $100B per year. This was deemed to be "OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING!" by the left, and frankly ... I agree.

That being said, since the democrooks took over in 2007 spending went from $2,728.7B to $3,818.8B in 2011. An increase of $1,090.1B in on 4 years ... or about $270B per year.

Now, if you only want to hold Obama accountable for budgets passed while he was POTUS ... IOW giving him a complete pass on budgets he voted for, and petitioned that they be even larger, we can do that. The budget increased from $3,456.2B to $3,818.8B in 1 years. That's $362.6B.

Now ... which is greater ... $270B or $100B? The answer is $270B.

Again ... which is greater, $362.6B or $270B or $100B? The answer is $362.6B. </div></div>

Good presentation, if you are not smarter than a 5th grader.

If you are, however, obviously you have grossly misrepresented a lot of numbers.

As all but lower tier 5th graders know, all the way throughout the Bush presidency, no amount of war spending was included in the budget as stated. As per the numbers for 'spending' you used. Yes, those were the 'official' numbers. But yes, they left about $150 billion a year off the stated budget, using the category of emergency spending instead.

Now, from when taking office to leaving office, Bush presided over a just-about doubling of the entire national debt. What do you think that did to the annual debt service payment (between the interest and the principle repayments required)?

And, do you want to argue that the extra interest due from amount the debt increased became zero as soon as he left office, and that it doesn't continue indefinitely into the future as a continuing additional amount of spending that must be done now as compared to then?

Unfortunately, and you appear to have missed this or do not now remember it (for rhetorical purposes, at least), something that occurred in the Bush terms ended up blowing up the financial sector, essentially world-wide. That prompted huge monies to be laid out just at the end of the Bush years, and continuing through this president's time.

If this is acknowledged by you at all, it is said to be equally the fault of one US senator's votes out of 100, who was there all of a couple of years. Compared to the singular person of the president at the time, who alone can oppose anything the Congress passes with an excellent chance of prevailing on any veto he chooses to make.

And in fact, the very person who himself, through his Sec Treasury and with his wholehearted support, put together the $750 billion TARP spending proposal, and his billions in support for the auto industry (not to mention, pushing the Iraq war to start under horribly false claims).

So, in your view, NOTHING that happened prior to Obama's taking office in later January of '09 had anything to do with the trajectory of his budget, and you use the false lowballing of the spending from the accounting trick Bush used to help prove how you're right?

Of course, it is wrong to think every decision Obama makes on spending is wholly the fault of Bush's prior decisions. However, it is equally fallacious to pretend as you do that nothing that happened before impacts these times, and makes certain spending now partially or fully blameable properly to Bush.

LWW
06-25-2011, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's look at this fairly.

From 1995 to 2007 the R's in congress took spending from $1,515.8B to $2,728.7B. An increase of $1,212.9B ... or about $100B per year. This was deemed to be "OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING!" by the left, and frankly ... I agree.

That being said, since the democrooks took over in 2007 spending went from $2,728.7B to $3,818.8B in 2011. An increase of $1,090.1B in on 4 years ... or about $270B per year.

Now, if you only want to hold Obama accountable for budgets passed while he was POTUS ... IOW giving him a complete pass on budgets he voted for, and petitioned that they be even larger, we can do that. The budget increased from $3,456.2B to $3,818.8B in 1 years. That's $362.6B.

Now ... which is greater ... $270B or $100B? The answer is $270B.

Again ... which is greater, $362.6B or $270B or $100B? The answer is $362.6B. </div></div>

http://evans-politics.com/images/3DemDonkeysLic1short300px.jpg </div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 08:47 PM
Geeze what clowning!

BEFORE Obama took office and did one thing as president, OMB projected the then-current fiscal year's deficit at $1.2 trillion.

That is the Obama baseline of deficit that was baked in the cake on his entrance. (He added $200 billion to that figure that year.)

The way you get him responsible for what he came in with is to say he voted as 1% of one body of Congress???

Simply daft.

LWW
06-26-2011, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geeze what clowning!

BEFORE Obama took office and did one thing as president, OMB projected the then-current fiscal year's deficit at $1.2 trillion.

That is the Obama baseline of deficit that was baked in the cake on his entrance. (He added $200 billion to that figure that year.)

The way you get him responsible for what he came in with is to say he voted as 1% of one body of Congress???

Simply daft. </div></div>

So congressional members are not responsible for the votes they make?

You insist upon limiting dear leader to only what happened after his immaculation, which is intellectually dishonest. As a senator he is far more culpable than the VPOTUS.

Had he been a governor or not a member of congress, your argument would hold water.

Instead, you are simply continuing your lame defense of dear leader.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 10:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geeze what clowning!

BEFORE Obama took office and did one thing as president, OMB projected the then-current fiscal year's deficit at $1.2 trillion.

That is the Obama baseline of deficit that was baked in the cake on his entrance. (He added $200 billion to that figure that year.)

The way you get him responsible for what he came in with is to say he voted as 1% of one body of Congress???

Simply daft. </div></div>

So congressional members are not responsible for the votes they make?

You insist upon limiting dear leader to only what happened after his immaculation, which is intellectually dishonest. As a senator he is far more culpable than the VPOTUS.

Had he been a governor or not a member of congress, your argument would hold water.

Instead, you are simply continuing your lame defense of dear leader. </div></div>

Let's see.

Did Obama vote for either the first or second Bush tax cut (the rates cut, and then reducing the top rate for dividend and interest income to 15%)? No.

Did he vote to authorize either the Afghanistan or Iraq war? Well, no.

Did he vote for the No Child Left Behind program? No.

Did he vote for the Medicare D program, or vote to assure that Medicare D couldn't bargain for bulk rates to decrease costs? No.

Was it CONGRESS, or the WH, that pushed these through? The WH created these actions by authoring them and pushing them through their own party-controlled Congresses. Had the WH opposed them, either by veto or threat of veto, would they have been made law? No.

It's true he did vote yes on TARP, but under administration warnings that not to do so would cause calamity, blood in the streets, the complete collapse of the economy, and the required imposition of martial law. As a junior Senator, was he in a position to second guess former Wall St. Grandee Goldman-Sachs CEO, Sec. Treasury Hank Paulson, backed up by the president and the leadership of both parties? Opinions may vary, but I'd say no, for my part.

LWW
06-27-2011, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">97% of all small businesses can do their hiring without any concern for raised tax rates.</div></div>
http://www.elenaphoto.com/laughing_man_pointing_up_sjpg13209.jpg

That made my morning.

Serious question ... do you have any clue how the real world actually operates?

LWW
06-27-2011, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true he did vote yes on TARP, but under administration warnings that not to do so would cause calamity, blood in the streets, the complete collapse of the economy, and the required imposition of martial law.</div></div>

Still clinging to the myth eh.

As memory serves me, the democrooks were fawning all over Obama as the leader in getting TARP put together and passed.

LWW
06-27-2011, 04:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a junior Senator, was he in a position to second guess former Wall St. Grandee Goldman-Sachs CEO, Sec. Treasury Hank Paulson, backed up by the president and the leadership of both parties? Opinions may vary, but I'd say no, for my part. </div></div>

He WAS the leader of the democrook party in the US senate as their candidate for POTUS ... but, of course, you will alter history in your mind to defend dear leader.

LWW
06-27-2011, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Obama vote for either the first or second Bush tax cut (the rates cut, and then reducing the top rate for dividend and interest income to 15%)? No. <span style="color: #3366FF">Irrelevant to the topic as they increased revenue and are probably the only thing currently keeping the economy afloat ... as he has acknowledged.</span>

Did he vote to authorize either the Afghanistan or Iraq war? Well, no. <span style="color: #3366FF">Again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. He did however say that Afghanistan was the war we should fight and has been ever willing to take personal credit for the surge which he opposed.</span>

Did he vote for the No Child Left Behind program? No. <span style="color: #3366FF">No, but he almost certainly would have as it was Teddy's bill ... and also irrelevant.</span>

Did he vote for the Medicare D program, or vote to assure that Medicare D couldn't bargain for bulk rates to decrease costs? No. <span style="color: #3366FF">Of course not. That was a capitalist market based solution that you were recently praising as having worked ... until you found that it worked only because your beloved state was largely left out.</span></div></div>

What was your point, if anything?

Qtec
06-27-2011, 05:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Irrelevant to the topic <span style='font-size: 17pt'>as they increased revenue and are probably the only thing currently keeping the economy afloat ... as he has acknowledged.</span> </div></div>

I have shot down this MYTH of yours a 100 times!!!! Still you state these lies as fact.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/us_revenue_100.png
Notice how revenue DROPPED after 2001 and only regianed the previous level <span style='font-size: 17pt'>five years later</span>!

As a % of GDP, the Bush tax Cuts were a disaster for Govt revenue, for jobs and the economy.

Q

LWW
06-27-2011, 05:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Irrelevant to the topic <span style='font-size: 17pt'>as they increased revenue and are probably the only thing currently keeping the economy afloat ... as he has acknowledged.</span> </div></div>

I have shot down this MYTH of yours a 100 times!!!! Still you state these lies as fact.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/us_revenue_100.png
Notice how revenue DROPPED after 2001 and only regianed the previous level <span style='font-size: 17pt'>five years later</span>!

As a % of GDP, the Bush tax Cuts were a disaster for Govt revenue, for jobs and the economy.

Q
</div></div>

You still don't comprehend that your "PROOF" actually proves you wrong.

What the chart shows is that revenue fell as a percent of GDP ... in spite of rising in totality by 40%.

IOW ... your chart proves the tax cuts worked as claimed, and your repeatedly reposting it proves you to be without a clue.

Next hallucination you would like smacked down by the heavy leather of truth?

Qtec
06-27-2011, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What the chart shows is that revenue fell as a percent of GDP </div></div>

A store has a $1 million turnover and makes 10% profit, ie $ 100,000.

LWW takes over.

5 years later the turnover is $10 M and the profit is $ 100,001.

LWW says, "LOOK, I increased profits."!!!

Q

eg8r
06-27-2011, 08:43 AM
Why do you continue to compare apples and oranges? Do you even understand the data?

eg8r

LWW
06-27-2011, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What the chart shows is that revenue fell as a percent of GDP </div></div>

A store has a $1 million turnover and makes 10% profit, ie $ 100,000.

LWW takes over.

5 years later the turnover is $10 M and the profit is $ 100,001.

LWW says, "LOOK, I increased profits."!!!

Q </div></div>

That would technically be correct, and it proves you <u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>CAN</span></u> understand this ... but you just don't <u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>WANT</span></u> to understand it.

Let's look at it through the prism of reality however.

From 2001 thru 2003 US GDP grew by about $700B ... or about $175B per year.

From 2004 thru 2008, following the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> Bush tax cuts, US GDP grew by $3,300B ... or about $660B per year.

From 2009 thru 2010 US GDP grew by $300B ... or about $150B per year.

Now, which is greater ... $660B or $175B or $150B?

From 2001 thru 2003 federal revenue fell by $242.9B ... or an average of ($80.97B) per year.

From 2004 to 2008 federal revenue rose by $741.7B ... or an average of $148.34B per year.

From 2009 to 2010 federal revenue fell by $361.3B ... or an average of ($180.65B) per year.

Now, which is greater ... $148.34B per year or ($80.97B) or ($180.65B)?

The reality is that the tax cuts raised the economy by $3,300B while increasing revenue by $741.7B ... or 22.475% of increased GDP. If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you dancing in the streets.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead despondent over it? Why?

Meanwhile, Obamanomics has increased the economy by $300B while destroying the tax base to a tune of ($361.3B). That's a return of (120.43%).

f you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you ready to grab a torch and a pitch fork and scale the White House walls.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead are joyous over it? Why?

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">97% of all small businesses can do their hiring without any concern for raised tax rates.</div></div>
http://www.elenaphoto.com/laughing_man_pointing_up_sjpg13209.jpg

That made my morning.

Serious question ... do you have any clue how the real world actually operates?
</div></div>

Well, yes, I've been around the block a little.

I've been a small business owner with various partners since the early '80s, employer of 150 people or so typically (and currently). I've been in business during boom times and by now, during 4 recessions, 3 of them during Bush presidencies. This time period included top marginal rates of 70%, then 50%, (when we were a C-corp with a corporate rate of 35% subject to double taxation at those top personal marginal rates when we got paid), then 28%, then 33.3%, then 36.9%, and 39.6% and now 35% (as a Sub-S corp, no double taxation problem). The capital gain rate during this time was all over the place, and now is at 15%.

Although we've always been fortunate enough in income to be subject to the top marginal rate, we were never deterred, nor motivated, by the tax rate, but by business prospects and consumer demand and competition. Sometimes these last factors have caused us to fail and have to fire-sale the business, most recently in the Bush Sr. recession time, together with a problem in our industry at the time.

If a business has cash flow and profit from good sales numbers, the tax rate (at least in the lower ranges discussed above, and for us, even the rates existing prior to and for 6 years of Reagan, 50% AND the double taxation problem) is/was of minor consequence, and it never determined our business decisions (except for how we took out the money. During the double taxation period, we mainly took our profits as management fees to avoid them paying the corporate rate and then the personal rate on top of it).

Most small business fall below the profit threshold to be in the top bracket anyway (although we didn't and don't), and therefore, the impact of a change in the top rate doesn't apply to 97% or so of all the little business owners. Should they eventually reach a profit level into the top bracket, only the excess of profit above it is subject to the raised rate.

So, for instance, if a small business gets up to $350,000 in profit, an additional 4.96% on the top rate (taking the current 35% to Clinton's 39.6% top rate) means the extra amount in taxes owed compared to now would be about $5,000. Would that deter YOU? You'd be getting another $100k in income, owing what you would have owed before plus owing $4,960 extra (on that last $100k). Are you saying that would make you not want the extra $100k in income? Because, boy, that is punitive and makes it not worthwhile? Please.

If our initial public offering proposal goes forward, we'll reap a windfall at the 15% taxation rate for cap gains on a mid-8 figure sum, which is a really huge break. That also was the furthest thing from our minds-- we were not motivated by it, nor demotivated by the fact that wasn't the case when we re-started this particular business most recently, on 9/11/01. It's completely a bonus for something we were doing quite apart from the rate. And the vast majority of small business owners also have no thought of the cap gains treatment, since that will almost never apply to them.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a junior Senator, was he in a position to second guess former Wall St. Grandee Goldman-Sachs CEO, Sec. Treasury Hank Paulson, backed up by the president and the leadership of both parties? Opinions may vary, but I'd say no, for my part. </div></div>

He WAS the leader of the democrook party in the US senate as their candidate for POTUS ... but, of course, you will alter history in your mind to defend dear leader. </div></div>

His leadership role was important, and by contrast to McCain's Hamlet-like dithering and inconstant positions, probably helped seal his election with the people, yes.

However, he had no independent ability to get information other than from the administration, and no especial expertise to have understood what he might have independently found, if he'd had the resources and time to do so (and he didn't-- a snap decision was absolutely mandatory, according to W and Paulson).

It was his interest in looking at executive compensation, to put limits on it, that caused the early repayment of the TARP monies in response, and his actions kept the second half of the TARP authorization from needing to be issued at all (which saved that $375 billion), as well as the return of about $333 billion off that first tranche.

eg8r
06-27-2011, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">except for how we took out the money. During the double taxation period, we mainly took our profits as management fees to avoid them paying the corporate rate and then the personal rate on top of it</div></div>You must be one of those facist business owners that is out dodging taxes which steals money from the poor and reallocates to the rich.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 11:12 AM
2000 2,025.2 2,310.0 20.6
2001 1,991.1 2,215.3 19.5
2002 1,853.1 2,028.6 17.6
2003 1,782.3 1,901.1 16.2
2004 1,880.1 1,949.5 16.1

2005 2,153.6 2,153.6 17.3
2006 2,406.9 2,324.1 18.2
2007 2,568.0 2,414.0 18.5
2008 2,524.0 2,286.8 17.5
2009 2,105.0 1,898.3 14.9
2010 2,162.7 1,919.0 14.9


This shows federal revenues per year, first column in nominal or current dollars, second column in inflation-adjusted constant 2005 dollars, and the last column, as a percentage of the gdp.

As you may notice, revenues fell every year after 2000 in real terms, only to re-reach or surpass the 2000 numbers as of 2006.

LWW
06-27-2011, 02:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2000 2,025.2 2,310.0 20.6
2001 1,991.1 2,215.3 19.5
2002 1,853.1 2,028.6 17.6
2003 1,782.3 1,901.1 16.2
2004 1,880.1 1,949.5 16.1

2005 2,153.6 2,153.6 17.3
2006 2,406.9 2,324.1 18.2
2007 2,568.0 2,414.0 18.5
2008 2,524.0 2,286.8 17.5
2009 2,105.0 1,898.3 14.9
2010 2,162.7 1,919.0 14.9


This shows federal revenues per year, first column in nominal or current dollars, second column in inflation-adjusted constant 2005 dollars, and the last column, as a percentage of the gdp.

As you may notice, revenues fell every year after 2000 in real terms, only to re-reach or surpass the 2000 numbers as of 2006.

</div></div>

Interesting spin.

What they actually tell us is that following the cuts, they rose in both real and inflation adjusted terms in 2004/5/6/7 and fell off a cliff following the advent of the democrook regime's stupidonomics.

It also shows that they rose as a percentage of GDP in 2005/6/7 before plummeting under stupidonomics.

Thanks for the backup anyway.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 04:56 PM
The figures from the government are spin?

No, these are the official figures from the official source.

LWW
06-27-2011, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The figures from the government are spin?

No, these are the official figures from the official source.
</div></div>

No, you are spinning the numbers ... or don't understand what they are telling you.

I'm being nice and giving you the benefit of a doubt.

LWW
06-27-2011, 06:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">97% of all small businesses can do their hiring without any concern for raised tax rates.</div></div>
http://www.elenaphoto.com/laughing_man_pointing_up_sjpg13209.jpg

That made my morning.

Serious question ... do you have any clue how the real world actually operates?
</div></div>

Well, yes, I've been around the block a little.

I've been a small business owner with various partners since the early '80s, employer of 150 people or so typically (and currently). I've been in business during boom times and by now, during 4 recessions, 3 of them during Bush presidencies. This time period included top marginal rates of 70%, then 50%, (when we were a C-corp with a corporate rate of 35% subject to double taxation at those top personal marginal rates when we got paid), then 28%, then 33.3%, then 36.9%, and 39.6% and now 35% (as a Sub-S corp, no double taxation problem). The capital gain rate during this time was all over the place, and now is at 15%.

Although we've always been fortunate enough in income to be subject to the top marginal rate, we were never deterred, nor motivated, by the tax rate, but by business prospects and consumer demand and competition. Sometimes these last factors have caused us to fail and have to fire-sale the business, most recently in the Bush Sr. recession time, together with a problem in our industry at the time.

If a business has cash flow and profit from good sales numbers, the tax rate (at least in the lower ranges discussed above, and for us, even the rates existing prior to and for 6 years of Reagan, 50% AND the double taxation problem) is/was of minor consequence, and it never determined our business decisions (except for how we took out the money. During the double taxation period, we mainly took our profits as management fees to avoid them paying the corporate rate and then the personal rate on top of it).

Most small business fall below the profit threshold to be in the top bracket anyway (although we didn't and don't), and therefore, the impact of a change in the top rate doesn't apply to 97% or so of all the little business owners. Should they eventually reach a profit level into the top bracket, only the excess of profit above it is subject to the raised rate.

So, for instance, if a small business gets up to $350,000 in profit, an additional 4.96% on the top rate (taking the current 35% to Clinton's 39.6% top rate) means the extra amount in taxes owed compared to now would be about $5,000. Would that deter YOU? You'd be getting another $100k in income, owing what you would have owed before plus owing $4,960 extra (on that last $100k). Are you saying that would make you not want the extra $100k in income? Because, boy, that is punitive and makes it not worthwhile? Please.

If our initial public offering proposal goes forward, we'll reap a windfall at the 15% taxation rate for cap gains on a mid-8 figure sum, which is a really huge break. That also was the furthest thing from our minds-- we were not motivated by it, nor demotivated by the fact that wasn't the case when we re-started this particular business most recently, on 9/11/01. It's completely a bonus for something we were doing quite apart from the rate. And the vast majority of small business owners also have no thought of the cap gains treatment, since that will almost never apply to them. </div></div>

Oh please.

All business decisions are made on a risk vs reward basis.

The less the possible reward, the less risk is taken.

Now, to your completely spun numbers ... if I increase pre tax profit by $100K I don't get but $65K. If that is reduced to $60.4K my tax bill didn't actually rise 4.6% ... it rose from $35K to $39.6K which is an increase of 13.15%.

Now, after about 12% social security taxes, being self employed, what happened is that my $100K under the current plan left me with $53K ... under the old plan, $49.4K.

Taking out state taxes and we find that the risk required to increase the bottom line an extra $100K gives ever less reward under the stupidonomics of the democrooks plan ... hence less risk is taken, and less GDP is produced.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 11:27 PM
You would already owe the current top rate on all monies in excess of the bracket. Most people would not refuse to earn additional monies, just because they are already in the current top bracket. OR just below it, for that matter.

I discussed the DIFFERENCE on your take home from money over the bracket if there were a rate hike, COMPARED TO NOW, the status quo ante. It's under $5k extra per $100k extra income. Most people would not refuse extra money because of that extra amount of taxation over their current rate. In fact, if you could BUY that extra net income by paying $5k per $100k, (while incurring the former tax rate on it), I think most people would scrape together as much as possible to do so if they understood it, because that is to their great advantage.

Any monies over $100k or so do not have the FICA or self-employment tax applied to them, because that is capped at roughly that income level. So the tax from that category on the money above the top bracket is $0.00.

To get TO the top bracket, a small business has to profit just under $5k a week. Few do, and perhaps most do not even gross that much (just a guess, but probably so).

Qtec
06-28-2011, 12:30 AM
GDP ALWAYS grows! That's my point. The rise each year under Bush is accounted for by the rise in GDP, not the Bush tax cuts.

look at the top line (http://peterfaur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Gross-domestic-product-history1.pdf)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gross domestic product (in billions)
1960..$ 526.4
1970..$ 1,038.3
1980. $ 2,788.1
1990..$ 5,800.5
2000..$ 9,951.5
2010..$ 14,660.1 </div></div>

Q

LWW
06-28-2011, 05:26 AM
And your argument is a house of cards because it assumes zero risk is involved.

The less potential reward, the fewer risks will be taken.

Economies are not static.

Building a new plant or expanding a staff is not a guarantee of new revenue.

LWW
06-28-2011, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GDP ALWAYS grows! That's my point. The rise each year under Bush is accounted for by the rise in GDP, not the Bush tax cuts.

look at the top line (http://peterfaur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Gross-domestic-product-history1.pdf)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gross domestic product (in billions)
1960..$ 526.4
1970..$ 1,038.3
1980. $ 2,788.1
1990..$ 5,800.5
2000..$ 9,951.5
2010..$ 14,660.1 </div></div>

Q </div></div>

The only point you have would fit nicely under a Stetson.


GDP most assuredly does not always grow:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ChartImgaxd-1.png

LWW
06-28-2011, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that the tax cuts raised the economy by $3,300B while increasing revenue by $741.7B ... or 22.475% of increased GDP. If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you dancing in the streets.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead despondent over it? Why?

Meanwhile, Obamanomics has increased the economy by $300B while destroying the tax base to a tune of ($361.3B). That's a return of (120.43%).

If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you ready to grab a torch and a pitch fork and scale the White House walls.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead are joyous over it? Why?</div></div>

Bumped so Snoopy and sofla can answer.

Qtec
06-29-2011, 12:05 AM
GDP in current U.S. dollars. <u>Not adjusted for inflation</u>

link (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=united+states+gdp)

or go here (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp) and do 1960-2011 and see what you get.

Or go here (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp) and click on 'Current-dollar and "real" GDP (Excel). You will notice the GDP has risen EVERY year since 1960.

Q

LWW
06-29-2011, 02:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GDP in current U.S. dollars. <u>Not adjusted for inflation</u>

link (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=united+states+gdp)

or go here (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp) and do 1960-2011 and see what you get.

Or go here (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp) and click on 'Current-dollar and "real" GDP (Excel). You will notice the GDP has risen EVERY year since 1960.

Q </div></div>

Except for 2009, 2008, 1991, 1982, 1980, 1975, and 1974.

What a nit.

LWW
06-29-2011, 02:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that the tax cuts raised the economy by $3,300B while increasing revenue by $741.7B ... or 22.475% of increased GDP. If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you dancing in the streets.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead despondent over it? Why?

Meanwhile, Obamanomics has increased the economy by $300B while destroying the tax base to a tune of ($361.3B). That's a return of (120.43%).

If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you ready to grab a torch and a pitch fork and scale the White House walls.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead are joyous over it? Why?</div></div>

Bumped so Snoopy and sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again so Snoopy and Sofla can answer.

Qtec
06-29-2011, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GDP in current U.S. dollars. <u>Not adjusted for inflation</u>

link (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=united+states+gdp)

or go here (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp) and do 1960-2011 and see what you get.

Or go here (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp) and click on 'Current-dollar and "real" GDP (Excel). You will notice the GDP has risen EVERY year since 1960.

Q </div></div>

Except for 2009, 2008, 1991, 1982, 1980, 1975, and 1974.

What a nit. </div></div>

Did you read the excel? Eh NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you had you would see it PROVES YOU WRONG.moron.

Show us the numbers.

Q...

Qtec
06-29-2011, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except for 2009, 2008, </div></div>

Bush................

Q

LWW
06-29-2011, 04:31 AM
Actually ... you showed me the numbers.

But, I have an unfair advantage being that I can read.

LWW
06-29-2011, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except for 2009, 2008, </div></div>

Bush................

Q </div></div>

You just said they didn't happen at all?

LWW
06-29-2011, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that the tax cuts raised the economy by $3,300B while increasing revenue by $741.7B ... or 22.475% of increased GDP. If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you dancing in the streets.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead despondent over it? Why?

Meanwhile, Obamanomics has increased the economy by $300B while destroying the tax base to a tune of ($361.3B). That's a return of (120.43%).

If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you ready to grab a torch and a pitch fork and scale the White House walls.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead are joyous over it? Why?</div></div>

Bumped so Snoopy and sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again so Snoopy and Sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again for Snoopy and Sofla.

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that the tax cuts raised the economy by $3,300B while increasing revenue by $741.7B ... or 22.475% of increased GDP. If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you dancing in the streets.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead despondent over it? Why?

Meanwhile, Obamanomics has increased the economy by $300B while destroying the tax base to a tune of ($361.3B). That's a return of (120.43%).

If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you ready to grab a torch and a pitch fork and scale the White House walls.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead are joyous over it? Why?</div></div>

Bumped so Snoopy and sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again so Snoopy and Sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again for Snoopy and Sofla. </div></div>

And again.

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that the tax cuts raised the economy by $3,300B while increasing revenue by $741.7B ... or 22.475% of increased GDP. If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you dancing in the streets.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead despondent over it? Why?

Meanwhile, Obamanomics has increased the economy by $300B while destroying the tax base to a tune of ($361.3B). That's a return of (120.43%).

If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you ready to grab a torch and a pitch fork and scale the White House walls.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead are joyous over it? Why?</div></div>

Bumped so Snoopy and sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again so Snoopy and Sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again for Snoopy and Sofla. </div></div>

And again. </div></div>

http://www.animateit.net/data/media/august2009/unpatient.gif

Still waiting.

Stretch
06-29-2011, 08:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that the tax cuts raised the economy by $3,300B while increasing revenue by $741.7B ... or 22.475% of increased GDP. If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you dancing in the streets.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead despondent over it? Why?

Meanwhile, Obamanomics has increased the economy by $300B while destroying the tax base to a tune of ($361.3B). That's a return of (120.43%).

If you want increased gubmint funding for social programs, that should leave you ready to grab a torch and a pitch fork and scale the White House walls.

Yet ... you aren't, and instead are joyous over it? Why?</div></div>

Bumped so Snoopy and sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again so Snoopy and Sofla can answer. </div></div>

Bumped again for Snoopy and Sofla. </div></div>

And again. </div></div>

http://www.animateit.net/data/media/august2009/unpatient.gif

Still waiting. </div></div>

I love watching you beg for replys. I hope this one puts you out of your misery, but just a little hint, knowone cares.....if they did the number of contributors and opinions would increase, yet they have shrunk to next to nothing. Well done sucking the oxygen out of the room. St.

Qtec
06-30-2011, 12:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except for 2009, 2008, </div></div>

Bush................

Q </div></div>

You just said they didn't happen at all? </div></div>

OK. It rose continually from 1960 to 2008.

can you see this? (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=united+states+gdp)

1960 526,4
1961 544,8
1962 585,7
1963 617,8
1964 663,6
1965 719,1
1966 787,7
1967 832,4
1968 909,8
1969 984,4
1970 1.038,3
1971 1.126,8
1972 1.237,9
1973 1.382,3
1974 1.499,5
1975 1.637,7
1976 1.824,6
1977 2.030,1
1978 2.293,8
1979 2.562,2
1980 2.788,1
1981 3.126,8
1982 3.253,2
1983 3.534,6
1984 3.930,9
1985 4.217,5
1986 4.460,1
1987 4.736,4
1988 5.100,4
1989 5.482,1
1990 5.800,5
1991 5.992,1
1992 6.342,3
1993 6.667,4
1994 7.085,2
1995 7.414,7
1996 7.838,5
1997 8.332,4
1998 8.793,5
1999 9.353,5
2000 9.951,5
2001 10.286,2
2002 10.642,3
2003 11.142,1
2004 11.867,8
2005 12.638,4
2006 13.398,9
2007 14.061,8
2008 14.369,1
2009 14.119,0
2010 14.660,4


GDP in real Dollars.

Q

Q

LWW
06-30-2011, 04:38 AM
Actually ... I love watching leftists cower in fear when their collective myths explode in their faces like an Elmer Fudd cigar.

LWW
06-30-2011, 04:42 AM
So you are arguing that the regime's numbers are wrong?

And that recessions don't actually exist?

What a nit.

Oh ... how about answering the questions ... or at least be an honest dembot like sofla and admit that you don't care what the truth is, you will toe the regime's line without qualm nor trepidation no matter what.