PDA

View Full Version : Slaying leftist mythology V



LWW
12-27-2011, 04:21 AM
Can we balance the budget by raising taxes? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYoFf84mUV4&feature=relmfu)


<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;">NO</div></div></div>

Soflasnapper
12-27-2011, 07:31 PM
Bizarre and incompetent, this man is a freaking liar.

About nothing he said is true.

The federal government's tax revenues do NOT always end up at 18% of gdp. His charts showed they do not end up at 18% of gdp (although the camera work didn't allow much of an examination of the numbers).

For the definitive disproof of his thesis, consider these two data points, which I now riff from memory:

The W tax rate situation saw the federal tax revenues hit about a 40 year low as a percent of gdp, at about 15.x%. Accordingly, it isn't surprising that over an 8 year period of time, the national debt figure essentially doubled in nominal terms.

The Clinton tax rate situation (the tax rate was higher, if you recall, as this man does not) saw the federal tax revenues hit about an all-time high as a percent of gdp, at about 21.x%, iirc. Not suprisingly, over his 8 year period of time, the national debt went up about 32%, mainly in his first term, with each year showing a decreasing deficit and declining increase in debt.

So APPARENTLY, the spoiler alert ought to have said, upon hitting the 'show' button, YES!

Qtec
12-28-2011, 01:12 AM
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/current-tax-receipts-600.jpg

Check this out.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CL4_6K4h4&feature=relmfu)

Q

LWW
12-28-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/current-tax-receipts-600.jpg

Check this out.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CL4_6K4h4&feature=relmfu)

Q


</div></div>

Good catch ... thanks for showing that the Bush tax cuts grew revenue while Obama/demokrook policy collapsed it.

BRAVO!

Qtec
12-28-2011, 05:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the Bush tax cuts grew revenue </div></div>

LMAO. Thanks for that.

Geez. Let me get this straight, between 2000 and 2004 the tax revenue [ as a % of GDP] dropped by 6%. That is PLAINLY stated in the chart!

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/current-tax-receipts-600.jpg





Q

MichaelNelson
12-28-2011, 05:32 AM
This graph clearly shows that how we Americans are under the burden of different raising taxes. Good analysis. Thanks.

LWW
12-28-2011, 05:34 AM
Actually ... what it shows is that following the Reagan era cuts, revenue grew even though revenue as a percent of GDP fell. This happened because the economy grew.

It also shows that the exact same thing happened following the Bush cuts.

Since the demokrooks took power, however, revenue has fallen as a percent of GDP because of economic contraction and money seeking tax shelters.

The solution is simple.

Soflasnapper
12-28-2011, 04:59 PM
Idgit.

But you are correct in this sense:

Revenue has fallen as a percent of GDP because of tax cutting and tax credits (i.e., the Reagan/George W. fiscal policies, extended). We know they have not fallen because of 'economic contraction,' since we have had no economic contraction since roughly April of 2009.

The REASON the projection for federal revenues increasing above the 30-year average of 18% of gdp is that THESE PROJECTIONS ASSUME THAT THE LAW IN EFFECT NOW IS FOLLOWED. (The law in effect now has the W tax rate cuts and his two other cuts sunsetting after 2012.)

So, yes the answer is simple. Hike the damn tax rates and end the damn tax credits. It's right there in that chart.

LWW
12-29-2011, 03:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Idgit.

But you are correct in this sense:

Revenue has fallen as a percent of GDP because of tax cutting and tax credits (i.e., the Reagan/George W. fiscal policies, extended) <span style="color: #3366FF">Ridiculous and desperate talking point as the drop in actual revenue followed Bush leaving office and coincided with the demokrook taking of congress.</span>. We know they have not fallen because of 'economic contraction,' since we have had no economic contraction since roughly April of 2009. <span style="color: #3366FF">So which version of DOUBLETHINK are you using today? Are we in the Bush recession of the Obama :SUMMER OF RECOVERY" ... and, yes, that question was rhetorical as we both know you will recite whichever version is needed to advance dear leader's agenda.</span>

The REASON the projection for federal revenues increasing above the 30-year average of 18% of gdp is that THESE PROJECTIONS ASSUME THAT THE LAW IN EFFECT NOW IS FOLLOWED. <span style="color: #3366FF">Close ... the projections from 2012 are spoon fed lies by the regime ... which you gladly swallow.</span>(The law in effect now has the W tax rate cuts and his two other cuts sunsetting after 2012.)

So, yes the answer is simple. Hike the damn tax rates and end the damn tax credits. It's right there in that chart. <span style="color: #3366FF">Actually ... it isn't, in fact the opposite is there ... but, as always, if the regime tells you there are tigers eating penguins in the chart you will believe it.</span></div></div>

Qtec
12-29-2011, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ridiculous and desperate talking point as the drop in <u>actual revenue</u> </div></div>

Once again you are being dishonest.

SoFla and I both said,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Revenue has fallen as a percent of GDP </div></div>

You choose to ignore this.







Q..................denial?...sounds like it.

LWW
12-29-2011, 04:48 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">Ridiculous and desperate talking point as the drop in <u>actual revenue</u> </div></div>

Once again you are being dishonest.


Q..................denial?...sounds like it. </div></div>

What a tool you are.

In inflation adjusted 2005 US dollars, US tax revenue went from $1,901.1B in 2003 (Full implemebtation of tax cuts.) to $2,414.0B in 2007 (Demokrooks take house control.) ... only to plummet back to $1,901.9B in 2011.

My source? THE OBAMA REGIME (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/)

LWW
12-29-2011, 05:00 AM
Meanwhile, much to your chagrin, after adjusting for inflation ... US GDP hit an all time high of $15,679.16 billion in January, 2007 (Demokrooks take congress.) and 59 months later has not yet reached that level ... after using proper inflation adjusted figures, as opposed to the cooked lies which you slavishly agree with.
http://www.supportingevidence.com/sitebuilder/images/GDPCurrentRealFull-822x564.jpg
THE OBAMA REGIME (http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/US_GDP_over_time.html)

Qtec
12-29-2011, 05:04 AM
..again you twist and squirm.

You are talking in<span style='font-size: 14pt'> numbers</span>, we are talking in percentage.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/current-tax-receipts-600.jpg




Q

LWW
12-29-2011, 05:07 AM
In closing, demokrook economic and fiscal policy has:

1 - Shrank the economy to the point that the last 5 years have had zero, and possibly even negative, actual growth.

2 - Shrank revenue back to essentially 2003 levels ... so, again, we have had a negative growth in revenue since the demokrooks took congress.

3 - During this same period federal spending has grown by over 30%, more if you don't adjust for inflation.

4 - In combination those have succeeded in exploding the deficit while imploding the job market.

5 - Neither you nor your friends have the intellectual integrity to face any of this ... even though the numbers come from the regime itself, and are in reality probably worse.

Qtec
12-29-2011, 05:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in closing, demokrook economic and fiscal policy has: </div></div>

ie, in closing, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>I quit. I have no answer to a direct question</span>.

Forever on the internet. LOL

Q

LWW
12-29-2011, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>I quit. I have no answer to a direct question</span>.

Q

</div></div>

Don't you feel much better now.

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 01:43 PM
Other than allowing prior policies to remain in place, continuing them, and extending them, what exactly did they do to cause these things, in your view?

Is it your stated view that although you are certain to the point of endless repetition that they did SOMETHING, you cannot exactly say WHAT they did, but KNOW IT AS A MORAL CERTAINTY anyway?

This is remarkable, and you are remarkably refractive to this blind spot in your world view.

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:25 PM
Do you honestly have to ask that?

For those unable to grasp reality:

1 - Raising the minimum wage has always increased the unemployment rate. This time was no different.

2 - Exploding the federal expenditure.

3 - Paying people to not work for 99 weeks, leaving them virtually unemployable.

cushioncrawler
12-30-2011, 03:50 PM
"The American economy is the envy of the world, and we need to keep it that way," Bush said. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong. ... Job creation is strong. Real after-tax wages are on the rise. Inflation is low."

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 05:33 PM
1 - Raising the minimum wage has always increased the unemployment rate. This time was no different.

Except when it didn't, you mean? A large wager might be negotiated on your 'always' claim. Let me know.

2 - Exploding the federal expenditure.

In 2007, after the Dems took the House, there was an explosion of federal expenditures? That they caused, by Democratic economic proposals being put into place? Do tell!

3 - Paying people to not work for 99 weeks, leaving them virtually unemployable.

In '07 and '08, this 99 week extension was still years away, right? So somehow everyone knew this would happen in the future, and it had bad effects years before it occurred? I see...

Try to keep on topic, which is how the Dems destroyed the economy while Bush was still president by taking over one branch of the legislature. I am fascinated to see you struggle to finally state a case on this matter.

LWW
12-31-2011, 02:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Raising the minimum wage has always increased the unemployment rate. This time was no different.

Except when it didn't, you mean? A large wager might be negotiated on your 'always' claim. Let me know.</div></div>

We've been down this road before.

If you have a counter claim ... make it.

LWW
12-31-2011, 02:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2 - Exploding the federal expenditure.

In 2007, after the Dems took the House, there was an explosion of federal expenditures? </div></div>

Absolute fantasy.

LWW
12-31-2011, 02:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - Paying people to not work for 99 weeks, leaving them virtually unemployable.

In '07 and '08, this 99 week extension was still years away, right?</div></div>

Ummm ... no.

The problem with attempting to discuss anything with you is that you read the official party line "TRUTH" and toss reality out the window.

Qtec
04-15-2012, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what exactly did they do to cause these things, in your view? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly have to ask that? </div></div>

Eh YES! I have often posed the same Q and you have never given a proper reply.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exploding the federal expenditure. </div></div>

We got that, the Q is why?

Again, '<span style='font-size: 14pt'>what specifically did Obama do to 'Explode the federal expenditure</span>'?

Its a simple question.


You could say, "he extended the Bush Tax cuts for the rich" and you would be right but <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the whole GOP was for that.</span>

Not only were they <u>for that</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but they threatened to raise taxes on everyone, to bring the country to a halt if they didn't get their tax cuts for the rich.</span>

Isn't that the truth?

Q