PDA

View Full Version : Is it stupidity or deceit II?



LWW
06-27-2011, 05:47 AM
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/us_revenue_100.png

Leftists continue to post this chart and make a completely erroneous assessment of what it says ... an assessment so badly mangled that an astute 5th grade math class could understand how wrong the assessment is.

My question is ... do they continue doing this because they are completely ignorant of what it means, or are they hoping to slide an obvious lie past the thinking members of the forum?

Qtec
06-27-2011, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/us_revenue_100.png

Leftists continue to post this chart and make a completely erroneous assessment of what it says ... an assessment so badly mangled that an astute 5th grade math class could understand how wrong the assessment is.

My question is ... do they continue doing this because they are completely ignorant of what it means, or are they hoping to slide an obvious lie past the thinking members of the forum? </div></div>

You love to beat a dead horse, don't you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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>

Are you so dumb?

Q

Q

LWW
06-27-2011, 09:21 AM
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%).

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?

The horse is not dead, you simply close your eyes and wish the horse were dead

LWW
06-27-2011, 09:27 AM
Let me give you a very simple example also.

Sam opens a store in Arkansas and decides that he is going to undercut his competitor across the street, Wooly's.

Saw decides that he sells the same goods as Wooly's and pays the same amount from the suppliers that Wooly's does ... but he decides that whatever Wooly's sells for $9.99 he will sell $9.79. Whatever Wooly's sells for $99.99, Sam will sell for $97.99. Whatever Wooly's sells for $0.99, Sam will sell for $0.97..

40 years later Sam has retired as a multi billionaire, left his family billions, employed millions, and is operating on every continent except Antarctica.

Wooly's is out of business, leaving employees jobless with pensions crushed and their downtown stores vacant and their creditors hung out to dry.

Who was smarter, Sam or Wooly?

eg8r
06-27-2011, 09:58 AM
Here is Boortz's take... http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boortz-bush-tax-987112.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746

eg8r

LWW
06-27-2011, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is Boortz's take... http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boortz-bush-tax-987112.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746

eg8r </div></div>

Here is a part from your link that Q needs to wrap his head around:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hereís something else you might not remember about the Bush tax cuts. Congress thought it would be a good idea to phase these tax cuts in over several years. Didnít work. The economy continued to shed jobs, so the Congress decided to let the tax cuts take effect immediately, and threw in a cut in capital gains and dividends to boot. It worked. Eight million jobs were created and tax revenues increased.

Did you catch that? Tax revenues increased after a tax cut. Democrats just hate this, but increased revenues are the norm after tax cuts. Why? Because tax cuts spur economic growth. The CBO said that the Bush tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Oops! Wrong again! Revenues actually increased by $47 billion. What about jobs? In the 18 months before the Bush tax cuts our economy lost 267,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the cuts it added over 300,000 jobs. In the next 19 months another 5 million jobs were added.

This doesnít just work for Republicans. Kennedy cut taxes with similar results, as did Bill Clinton. (Of course Clinton had a Republican congress pushing for the tax cuts.)</div></div>

Sev
06-27-2011, 01:57 PM
Poof!!!!

LWW
06-27-2011, 02:39 PM
All one needs do is simply look at Snoopy's "FACTS" and they evaporate.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/us_revenue_100.png

Leftists continue to post this chart and make a completely erroneous assessment of what it says ... an assessment so badly mangled that an astute 5th grade math class could understand how wrong the assessment is.

My question is ... do they continue doing this because they are completely ignorant of what it means, or are they hoping to slide an obvious lie past the thinking members of the forum? </div></div>

No, the reason is that they are right, and you and Boortz and company are quite mistaken, even if you sometimes say one or two true things.

Boortz relies on Heritage Foundation analysis? Probably a bad idea, although surely better than an amateur economist /professional propagandist's take (his own, I mean).

Where to begin to explain this to you?

The population of the United States is always growing. The working population is typically growing as well. Except in recessions, the gdp is always growing some. All of these things mean that tax revenues normally always go up, usually even during recessions. The few times this increase of tax revenues even during recessions did not take place (post-WW II) was maybe once in one of the Eisenhower recessions (iirc), and then during the Reagan/Volcker recession, and in the first W recession.

The Reagan/Volcker and the first W recessions saw not only a recession hitting revenues, but also tax rate declines, so although nearly every other president saw a recession or two in their terms (except Clinton, lucky timing, it hit a quarter after he'd left office), NONE of them showed a decline in nominal tax revenues. The difference was the extra amount not taken in because tax rates were lowered quite a lot.

Now just as when you buzz cut off all your hair, if you wait a while, you'll eventually have as much or more hair on your head as before the hair cut, so too will the inexorable rise in tax revenues from population growth, workforce growth, and gdp growth eventually yield as high and then higher revenues as before.

That doesn't mean a haircut made your hair longer, and quite the opposite. As we know, your hair would be MUCH longer, absent the haircut.

Cutting cap gains taxes is an apparent exception, but not really. In the first year of such a cap gain cut, many people who'd been sitting on unrealized cap gains decide now is the time to cash out and realize them, so revenues in that first year have been seen to go up. THEN THEY DECLINE in the out years from what was coming in before. Until once again, eventually down the road, things come up again to meet and then beat the level of income from the cap gain tax before the rate cut was put in place.





Year Receipts In
(nominal) (2005 $) % GDP

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

LWW
06-27-2011, 05:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BLAH BLAH BLAH SNOOPY BELIEVES ME BLAH BLAH BLAH AITCH BELIEVES ME BLAH BLAH BLAH CHARLOTTE BELIEVES ME BLAH BLAH BLAH</div></div>

Already have I slain this nonsense in the other thread.

Your ability to believe gibberish ... so long as it's spoon fed from the party ... is astounding.

LWW
06-27-2011, 05:59 PM
And why don't you address the points I brought up?

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?

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 06:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And why don't you address the points I brought up?

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>

You want to count the runup and ignore the downturn. I've shown you the direct numbers of the downturn in revenues, which occurred for what, 5, 6 years?

Only netting those out shows the hole that was created.

The right's 'starve the beast' argument and strategy would be entirely self-defeating if the result of 'starving the beast' was a flood of EXTRA revenues (over baseline, had they not been enacted).

Clearly enough, the 'starve the beast' ideology SAYS DIRECTLY that to curb the welfare state, we'll bankrupt it or strap it with so much debt that then people will accept we are FORCED TO CUT IT.

As that is what has and is happening right now, with W's cuts extended and O's cuts of taxes on top of it, what you claim shouldn't be happening right now.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

LWW
06-27-2011, 06:23 PM
How do you get it without ever actually getting it.

Bush economic policy was to grow the economy enough to grow the power of the state without destroying the nation, which would eventually end up as a total fascist economy.

That is a leftist economic policy, but not an insane one.

Obama economic policy is to install a fascist economy immediately, and if it destroys the country ... so be it.

Both had the same destination in mind for the country, the difference being that Bush wanted to take the national bus on a slow scenic route to the destination ... Obama wants to drive off the cliff to get there faster.

Bush never, ever, really wanted to shrink the size or power of the state ... he was one of you.