mnealtx 0 #26 August 5, 2010 Quote(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.) Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #27 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuote(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.) Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. You haven't made a point. You've only weaseled your way out of providing any data at all. And yes, any analysis from Heritage or Cato is suspect as they are both admittedly biased organizations (just read their mission statements). They are no more impartial than Daily Kos or Huffington - and I wouldn't expect you to believe any analysis from Daily Kos.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 August 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt was in 2001, before the lower tax rates came into effect. It just might be unrelated, or at least far more complicated than Lucky's failed theory of < 40% = BAD. Or your practice of 39.6% doesn't = 40%. Rounding is common and typical. Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Look at my chart, taxes, since WWI minus Harding/Coolidge/Hoover have been 70% minimum and we still ran a deficit. So 40% or 39.6% or even 48% is a recipe for disaster. We need them back to the 50's at a minimum. But continue picking apart 39.6 vs 40 and enjoy / entertain yourself. Your writing here again proves that your weaseling is irrelevant. You believe 40% to be dangerously low, a "recipe for disaster." So clearly 39.6 is dangerous, yet we seemed to do well with it. (Nevermind the lowering of capital gains taxes for stocks and real estate). And of course Reagan's term doesn't fit your model. You try to write it off as deficit spending, but your theory only says < 40% is bad! And it clearly ignores the current deficit spending which can only be blamed on Bush for so long (like not past this year). I have no doubt that any increased tax rates will remain under 40%. Just for giggles, answer the question of why the economy was tanking in 2001 before the lower taxes came to be? There's an obvious explanation (two actually) that you won't want to admit to, so give us a new inventive excuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 August 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Why don't you present some statistically valid evidence in support, then? Dodged and ran Put Lucky's idiotic argument in the dirt several times, previously. Fixed it. I just made it even more correct. Quote How is it when Republigarbage politicians get in, cut taxes (Harding / Collidge, Reagan, GWB), hammer the dig piss out of the economy, you claim they didn't fuck it up? Quote Like the 20 year expansion after the Reagan tax cuts, Lucky? Yea, let's use the majic ruler and attribute beneficial doings to whom we like, forward or backwards. Even if true, which it's not, but is tripling the debt, or as you say, doubling using your other majic ruler, really a good trade-off? Wait, wa sthe nominal GDP or real? You're great, Mike, I haven't seen anyone as good as you, able to make the Repub messes look minimal in all my years. I mean that seriously. Quote Oh, wait, that's right - the Kennedy and Reagan cuts were too long ago, and the Clinton cuts don't count because they "didn't do enough for the little people" (in your opinion, of course). Kennedy and Reagan cuts were no where near each other. Kennedy inherited a 91% top brkt, all he could do was to cut them; he took 91% and dropped it to 70%. Fasict pig, however, took 70% and ran the fucker to 28% and you want to compare teh two? Hope it was a good party, sounds as if it was. Quote How about being honest for once and admitting that your only goal is to compare Clinton and GW to try and prove your assumption about taxes? No, I'm not a conservative, I have several goals. I would like to illustrate a concept of low taxes = trouble, high taxes = bliss: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg And it's not a partisan concept, it just has played out mostly that way. Show me where low tax periods have been economically good. Quote Citing partisan idiots who don't provide data and are talking state issue opinions ISN'T the same as arguing federal tax issues. Quote Except, of course, when the partisan idiots or state issues agree with YOU - then you're crowing it from the rooftops. NOt at all, I cite data, I don't really care about economic pundits. Quote NEWSFLASH: No matter which state they live in, they have to pay federal tax, so your point is so ridiculously off teh mark that even your cronies can't dig you out. Quote Yes, of course - because people that move to reduce a state tax are going to happily turn over even more of their money just because it's federal instead of state. No, really. They will. You can dodge taxes or various state rules WITHIN the US, but no matter where you go federal taxes are the same in all 50. Make a little sense here, playing intra-country dodgeball has ZERO to do with federal taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 August 8, 2010 Quote Quote Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Quote Wait, are you suggesting that taxes be set to optimize receipts based on how the economy is performing to finance government expenditures? No, I'm suggesting that taxes be kept high and write-offs be kept generous to ensure reinvestment by the wealth-holders. Profit-taking and stashing cash is a real problem for a healthy economy, it stagnates spending. Quote I thought you were arguing taxes should be used as an underhanded manipulation and that historically top marginal rate increases, in and of themselves, were directly responsible for the state of the economy. The underhanded BS is your lame attempt, the rest is mine. Are you saying tax rates are not largely responsible for the economic state of the nation? Quote If you've changed your mind then... well... I guess we're done here. Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuote(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.) Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. Good to see you've finally admitted they are RW garbage sites. You've asked us to acknowledge them as moderate before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt was in 2001, before the lower tax rates came into effect. It just might be unrelated, or at least far more complicated than Lucky's failed theory of < 40% = BAD. Or your practice of 39.6% doesn't = 40%. Rounding is common and typical. Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Look at my chart, taxes, since WWI minus Harding/Coolidge/Hoover have been 70% minimum and we still ran a deficit. So 40% or 39.6% or even 48% is a recipe for disaster. We need them back to the 50's at a minimum. But continue picking apart 39.6 vs 40 and enjoy / entertain yourself. QuoteYour writing here again proves that your weaseling is irrelevant. You believe 40% to be dangerously low, a "recipe for disaster." So clearly 39.6 is dangerous, yet we seemed to do well with it. (Nevermind the lowering of capital gains taxes for stocks and real estate). Look at the graph and show me where < even 70% has been a good idea? I could overlay the debt mess and it would further prove my point. http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg So never mind your semantics of 39.6 to 40 being worlds apart, other than the 90's when we had teh assistance of the computer age/dot.com revolution leading to massive economic activity, show me where <70% has been healty. Clinton was right to raise taxes a paultry 40%, or 39.6% if you're an exacting princess, but it was really minimal and w/o the dot.com boom it would have been very minimal as far as recovery. Look at history and show me other than that one occurrence in the 90's where, in the last 100 years being below 70% was a good idea and fiscally beneficial. So <30%, < 40%, < 50%; I don;t care where you draw your line, show me success at < 70% other than during the dot.com period. You can't, so drop your 39.6 vs 40% ridiculousness. QuoteAnd of course Reagan's term doesn't fit your model. You try to write it off as deficit spending, but your theory only says < 40% is bad! My theory, supported by 100 years of data says that < 70% seems to be bad unless there is massive economic activity. Reagn's term and policy fits my model as for disaster, just like the Harding / Coolidge corruption. QuoteAnd it clearly ignores the current deficit spending which can only be blamed on Bush for so long (like not past this year). I have no doubt that any increased tax rates will remain under 40%. Yep and the expiring tax cuts, even if let to expire will do minimal good for anything; we have to jack the top brkt up to 50 for starters, more like 70%. Look at history, I even provided a graph. And hell, as for deficit spending, they didn't DS then as we do today, so that means we have to jack taxes even higehr to break even. QuoteJust for giggles, answer the question of why the economy was tanking in 2001 before the lower taxes came to be? There's an obvious explanation (two actually) that you won't want to admit to, so give us a new inventive excuse. Gee, how could they tank, the cap gains tax cut was in effect for a few years, you're not saying that was bd, are you? I thought that was our savior. We had the longest period of growth EVER, the dot.com frenzy was dying down, computers were becoming cheaper and the cash flow was subsiding; receipts were falling off. The lower taxes exacerbated a slightly stagnating economy, the appropriate move at that point would be to raise taxes to replace the artificial activity the dot.com boom gave us. Of course the tax cuts and gov giveaway hammered us into the ground; they were the exact opposite of what was needed; isn't that obvious? Look at what happened: things falling off, cut taxes, fell to hell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #33 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.) Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. Good to see you've finally admitted they are RW garbage sites. You've asked us to acknowledge them as moderate before. Heritage is unashamedly right wing, while Cato is genuinely libertarian as far as I can tell. Cato is at least honest, which is more than can be said for Heritage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #34 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.) Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. Good to see you've finally admitted they are RW garbage sites. You've asked us to acknowledge them as moderate before. Heritage is unashamedly right wing, while Cato is genuinely libertarian as far as I can tell. Cato is at least honest, which is more than can be said for Heritage. Basically agree, but Cato posted that FDR tripled taxes when it was Hoover who raised income tax from 25% to 63%, so for that fact Cato is dishonest. But I agree, Heritage is a ridiculous rag that only the most naive neo-con would find as objective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #35 August 8, 2010 Quote Quote Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Quote Wait, are you suggesting that taxes be set to optimize receipts based on how the economy is performing to finance government expenditures? No, I'm suggesting that taxes be kept high and write-offs be kept generous to ensure reinvestment by the wealth-holders. Profit-taking and stashing cash is a real problem for a healthy economy, it stagnates spending. Your quote above suggests that an active economy would have allowed Clinton to raise the top income bracket to 50% for the purpose of helping to pay down the debt. I was going to agree with you, but now you're telling me that's not what you meant. Oh well, such is life. Quote Quote I thought you were arguing taxes should be used as an underhanded manipulation and that historically top marginal rate increases, in and of themselves, were directly responsible for the state of the economy. The underhanded BS is your lame attempt, the rest is mine. Are you saying tax rates are not largely responsible for the economic state of the nation? I'm saying the top marginal personal income tax rate isn't the direct hard-line into the heart of the economy that you're selling it as. I think you're trying to chip away pieces of wood by banging on the back of a flathead screwdriver with a crescent wrench and you're going to end up with broken fingers. You might want to dig around in your tool bag a little longer and see if you can't locate a hammer and chisel. You've glossed over how you think personal income taxes affect the investment actions of the big-time wealth holders. I also don't think you've taken much time to think about what else these tax rates do. As I've pointed out before, I think this is a case where you argue all day long about going after the "rich people", but then the actions you suggest end up sticking it to a different group entirely. Quote Quote If you've changed your mind then... well... I guess we're done here. Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. The sarcasm in my last post was because I knew even though what you wrote could have been interpreted as progress in making you think more critically about your view on this, I shouldn't hold out hope for much besides a repost of the plot you made. How's that axiom go again? Correlation means something or other? I forget... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #36 August 8, 2010 Quote My theory, supported by 100 years of data says that < 70% seems to be bad unless there is massive economic activity. This is your latest attempt to fit the data. I see you abandoned the 40$ value, but put on this gigantic "unless" clause that basically neuters your thesis. Therefore, Reagan and Clinton, the two most significant expansions of the past 40 years, don't count against it. Quote Look at history, I even provided a graph. LOL (hysterically). Wow, a graph! Do a few hundred more and you can apply to work at USA Today! Like I said before, if you want to play economist, you're going to have to look at how many people were affected by those top brackets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuote My theory, supported by 100 years of data says that < 70% seems to be bad unless there is massive economic activity. QuoteThis is your latest attempt to fit the data. I see you abandoned the 40$ value, but put on this gigantic "unless" clause that basically neuters your thesis. Therefore, Reagan and Clinton, the two most significant expansions of the past 40 years, don't count against it. In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. Low taxes didn't cause the GD, they just killed recovery and then taxes were raised and eventually recovery was realized. There is no majic number, just that < 50% things get questionable, < 40% immenent, < 30% just fucked. Unlike your black/white perspective, lowering the rate creates a regressively worse scenario; there is no falloff point. Quote Look at history, I even provided a graph. QuoteLOL (hysterically). Wow, a graph! Do a few hundred more and you can apply to work at USA Today! So again no response. WOW, how unexpected. If you want to ignore 100 years of data and go on your RW hunch, I'm good, you have just failed to even show up for the argument. Of course you and your lemmings don't think so, but you also don't like objective data as it really doesn't flatter your position. QuoteLike I said before, if you want to play economist, you're going to have to look at how many people were affected by those top brackets. I don't have to do anything, I have 100 years of tax data that shows a trend that when taxes are lowered, the economy undergoes debt and other catastrophes. Even under Hover pre-FDR social programs the RW majic wand didn't work, how is it gonna work now that we have social safety nets? Even if you want to be a good little Republican/Libertarian socipath, you still can't wave the wand enough to make this mess go away by cutting taxes; the exact opposite thing that works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #38 August 9, 2010 Quote In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. So you're saying you're a neo-con now? It's hard keeping up with your wild gyrations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #39 August 9, 2010 QuoteQuote In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. So you're saying you're a neo-con now? It's hard keeping up with your wild gyrations. Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #40 August 9, 2010 Quote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zach 0 #41 August 9, 2010 Just for me can we try to maybe keep the quotes of quotes of edited quotes of quotes to a minimum of say 1 or 2 per post. Without a flow chart, it makes following the argument difficult. Zach Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #42 August 9, 2010 Quote Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. And you will still be wrong.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #43 August 11, 2010 QuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? You're right, that does pretty much end it. But what else can you do, actually defend Reagan's massive cut-n-spend frenzy that turned the debt on its fucking ear? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #44 August 11, 2010 Quote Quote Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. And you will still be wrong. OK, easy to say wrong, but you or anyone has yet to illustrate it other than moving the cause a decade or two to teh effect. That must be a fun dellusional world to live in; you can never be wrong as you just have to move the dot fwd or backward 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever number of decades eaither way. That is what you silly arguments have been reduced to; a shell game. I can attribute my arguments to specific eras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 August 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? I'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. You're making this claim to support higher taxes. I don't need to come up with a counter theory, though I already did. (simply put - it's far more complicated than marginal tax rate) Quote Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? Now you're just pulling weird stuff out of your ass to deflect from your busted "theory." Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #46 August 11, 2010 Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? ??? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #47 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. QuoteYou're making this claim to support higher taxes. Yes, based upon 100 years of history detailing success when they are raised, failure when they are lowered. QuoteI don't need to come up with a counter theory, though I already did. (simply put - it's far more complicated than marginal tax rate) And that could work until we have a 100 years of evidence showing otherwise. Small samples can be skewed by many extraneous factors, 100 years of evidence with repeatability is hard for reasonable people to deny. Quote Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? QuoteNow you're just pulling weird stuff out of your ass to deflect from your busted "theory." Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? You probably make the most sense when you're drunk. Here, we'll touch each point 1 at a time: - 80's revs didn't touch outlays, deficit went crazy - 90's revs far exceeded outlays, deficit fell every year from 93 to 2000 until an eventual surplus was left (236B) - Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? Maybe between liquid courage you can address these. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #48 August 12, 2010 Quote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. Again, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Your thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. everyone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. Republicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) In neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. And deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #49 August 12, 2010 If you make a claim, and people ask if you 1) have considered other factors in your analysis and 2) have more detailed explanations of the mechanisms you feel are in play to support your claim then you can either a) listen to what people have to say and bolster your argument with more information or b) yell your claim louder and become increasingly irrelevant. What's it gonna be? We all know what it's been thus far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #50 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. QuoteAgain, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Or your bro hwt who thinks MSNNBCBS is a real media outlet. QuoteYour thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. Show me times that are good when taxes are < 70% when the debt didn't rise other than Clinton's years when had the help of the dot.com boom. You keeptrying to revise teh number higher and higher. In fact, as taxe rates were dropped in the 1960's the debt grew until in 1969 the tax rate was boosted for a short bit; THE DEBT SHRUNK IN 1969, EINSTEIN. You guy pretend to care about the debt when in reality you don't as you are pro-military spending and pro tax cuts; the 2 things that smoke the debt. Quoteeveryone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. You can't help but to pull other non-related issues in to rally the troops instead of referencing my data and making a point; MAKE A POINT FROM MY DATA OR OTHER OBJECTIVE DATA. QuoteRepublicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) Yes but history remembers the 80's as massive debt, loss of HC for millions and a few overnight millionaires while many suffered, just like the Roaring 1920's where teh rich blew up as taxes were redued to 25% top brkt; ring a bell? History remebers the 90's as deficit killing, taxing teh rich a little more and balancing the budget. Your own arguments speak you in the ass; hillarious. QuoteIn neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. The most massive growth period in US history couldn't even knock the debt down 1 penny; came 33B short in fact and you call that success????? Neo-con success = debt grows. In 1969 the tax rate was bumped a bit for a short time and the debt fell, 1969 was not a massive growth period. Under Eisenhow the debt fell 3 years of his 8 as he KEPT THE TOP MARGINAL RATE AT 91%. These weren't massive growth years. Are you starting to see a trend here where REGARDLESS OF SPENDING, WHEN THE TAX RATE IS HIGHER, THE DEBT WILL SHORTEN AND/OR FALL, POST FDR? Of course not, you will never address the data or make a relevant factual point. QuoteAnd deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Deficit spending isn't good, which is why raisong taxes eliminates that, as you are taking more in; it's real simple math. It's not 1% as of now, it may go to that and you can brag GWB's -6.5% shrinkage and consider that success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,150 #33 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.) Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. Good to see you've finally admitted they are RW garbage sites. You've asked us to acknowledge them as moderate before. Heritage is unashamedly right wing, while Cato is genuinely libertarian as far as I can tell. Cato is at least honest, which is more than can be said for Heritage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote(I'm willing to consider any proper statistical analysis of real economic data, regardless of source.) Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. Good to see you've finally admitted they are RW garbage sites. You've asked us to acknowledge them as moderate before. Heritage is unashamedly right wing, while Cato is genuinely libertarian as far as I can tell. Cato is at least honest, which is more than can be said for Heritage. Basically agree, but Cato posted that FDR tripled taxes when it was Hoover who raised income tax from 25% to 63%, so for that fact Cato is dishonest. But I agree, Heritage is a ridiculous rag that only the most naive neo-con would find as objective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #35 August 8, 2010 Quote Quote Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Quote Wait, are you suggesting that taxes be set to optimize receipts based on how the economy is performing to finance government expenditures? No, I'm suggesting that taxes be kept high and write-offs be kept generous to ensure reinvestment by the wealth-holders. Profit-taking and stashing cash is a real problem for a healthy economy, it stagnates spending. Your quote above suggests that an active economy would have allowed Clinton to raise the top income bracket to 50% for the purpose of helping to pay down the debt. I was going to agree with you, but now you're telling me that's not what you meant. Oh well, such is life. Quote Quote I thought you were arguing taxes should be used as an underhanded manipulation and that historically top marginal rate increases, in and of themselves, were directly responsible for the state of the economy. The underhanded BS is your lame attempt, the rest is mine. Are you saying tax rates are not largely responsible for the economic state of the nation? I'm saying the top marginal personal income tax rate isn't the direct hard-line into the heart of the economy that you're selling it as. I think you're trying to chip away pieces of wood by banging on the back of a flathead screwdriver with a crescent wrench and you're going to end up with broken fingers. You might want to dig around in your tool bag a little longer and see if you can't locate a hammer and chisel. You've glossed over how you think personal income taxes affect the investment actions of the big-time wealth holders. I also don't think you've taken much time to think about what else these tax rates do. As I've pointed out before, I think this is a case where you argue all day long about going after the "rich people", but then the actions you suggest end up sticking it to a different group entirely. Quote Quote If you've changed your mind then... well... I guess we're done here. Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. The sarcasm in my last post was because I knew even though what you wrote could have been interpreted as progress in making you think more critically about your view on this, I shouldn't hold out hope for much besides a repost of the plot you made. How's that axiom go again? Correlation means something or other? I forget... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 August 8, 2010 Quote My theory, supported by 100 years of data says that < 70% seems to be bad unless there is massive economic activity. This is your latest attempt to fit the data. I see you abandoned the 40$ value, but put on this gigantic "unless" clause that basically neuters your thesis. Therefore, Reagan and Clinton, the two most significant expansions of the past 40 years, don't count against it. Quote Look at history, I even provided a graph. LOL (hysterically). Wow, a graph! Do a few hundred more and you can apply to work at USA Today! Like I said before, if you want to play economist, you're going to have to look at how many people were affected by those top brackets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 August 8, 2010 QuoteQuote My theory, supported by 100 years of data says that < 70% seems to be bad unless there is massive economic activity. QuoteThis is your latest attempt to fit the data. I see you abandoned the 40$ value, but put on this gigantic "unless" clause that basically neuters your thesis. Therefore, Reagan and Clinton, the two most significant expansions of the past 40 years, don't count against it. In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. Low taxes didn't cause the GD, they just killed recovery and then taxes were raised and eventually recovery was realized. There is no majic number, just that < 50% things get questionable, < 40% immenent, < 30% just fucked. Unlike your black/white perspective, lowering the rate creates a regressively worse scenario; there is no falloff point. Quote Look at history, I even provided a graph. QuoteLOL (hysterically). Wow, a graph! Do a few hundred more and you can apply to work at USA Today! So again no response. WOW, how unexpected. If you want to ignore 100 years of data and go on your RW hunch, I'm good, you have just failed to even show up for the argument. Of course you and your lemmings don't think so, but you also don't like objective data as it really doesn't flatter your position. QuoteLike I said before, if you want to play economist, you're going to have to look at how many people were affected by those top brackets. I don't have to do anything, I have 100 years of tax data that shows a trend that when taxes are lowered, the economy undergoes debt and other catastrophes. Even under Hover pre-FDR social programs the RW majic wand didn't work, how is it gonna work now that we have social safety nets? Even if you want to be a good little Republican/Libertarian socipath, you still can't wave the wand enough to make this mess go away by cutting taxes; the exact opposite thing that works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #38 August 9, 2010 Quote In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. So you're saying you're a neo-con now? It's hard keeping up with your wild gyrations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #39 August 9, 2010 QuoteQuote In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. So you're saying you're a neo-con now? It's hard keeping up with your wild gyrations. Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #40 August 9, 2010 Quote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zach 0 #41 August 9, 2010 Just for me can we try to maybe keep the quotes of quotes of edited quotes of quotes to a minimum of say 1 or 2 per post. Without a flow chart, it makes following the argument difficult. Zach Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #42 August 9, 2010 Quote Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. And you will still be wrong.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #43 August 11, 2010 QuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? You're right, that does pretty much end it. But what else can you do, actually defend Reagan's massive cut-n-spend frenzy that turned the debt on its fucking ear? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #44 August 11, 2010 Quote Quote Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. And you will still be wrong. OK, easy to say wrong, but you or anyone has yet to illustrate it other than moving the cause a decade or two to teh effect. That must be a fun dellusional world to live in; you can never be wrong as you just have to move the dot fwd or backward 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever number of decades eaither way. That is what you silly arguments have been reduced to; a shell game. I can attribute my arguments to specific eras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 August 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? I'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. You're making this claim to support higher taxes. I don't need to come up with a counter theory, though I already did. (simply put - it's far more complicated than marginal tax rate) Quote Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? Now you're just pulling weird stuff out of your ass to deflect from your busted "theory." Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #46 August 11, 2010 Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? ??? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #47 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. QuoteYou're making this claim to support higher taxes. Yes, based upon 100 years of history detailing success when they are raised, failure when they are lowered. QuoteI don't need to come up with a counter theory, though I already did. (simply put - it's far more complicated than marginal tax rate) And that could work until we have a 100 years of evidence showing otherwise. Small samples can be skewed by many extraneous factors, 100 years of evidence with repeatability is hard for reasonable people to deny. Quote Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? QuoteNow you're just pulling weird stuff out of your ass to deflect from your busted "theory." Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? You probably make the most sense when you're drunk. Here, we'll touch each point 1 at a time: - 80's revs didn't touch outlays, deficit went crazy - 90's revs far exceeded outlays, deficit fell every year from 93 to 2000 until an eventual surplus was left (236B) - Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? Maybe between liquid courage you can address these. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #48 August 12, 2010 Quote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. Again, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Your thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. everyone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. Republicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) In neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. And deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #49 August 12, 2010 If you make a claim, and people ask if you 1) have considered other factors in your analysis and 2) have more detailed explanations of the mechanisms you feel are in play to support your claim then you can either a) listen to what people have to say and bolster your argument with more information or b) yell your claim louder and become increasingly irrelevant. What's it gonna be? We all know what it's been thus far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #50 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. QuoteAgain, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Or your bro hwt who thinks MSNNBCBS is a real media outlet. QuoteYour thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. Show me times that are good when taxes are < 70% when the debt didn't rise other than Clinton's years when had the help of the dot.com boom. You keeptrying to revise teh number higher and higher. In fact, as taxe rates were dropped in the 1960's the debt grew until in 1969 the tax rate was boosted for a short bit; THE DEBT SHRUNK IN 1969, EINSTEIN. You guy pretend to care about the debt when in reality you don't as you are pro-military spending and pro tax cuts; the 2 things that smoke the debt. Quoteeveryone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. You can't help but to pull other non-related issues in to rally the troops instead of referencing my data and making a point; MAKE A POINT FROM MY DATA OR OTHER OBJECTIVE DATA. QuoteRepublicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) Yes but history remembers the 80's as massive debt, loss of HC for millions and a few overnight millionaires while many suffered, just like the Roaring 1920's where teh rich blew up as taxes were redued to 25% top brkt; ring a bell? History remebers the 90's as deficit killing, taxing teh rich a little more and balancing the budget. Your own arguments speak you in the ass; hillarious. QuoteIn neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. The most massive growth period in US history couldn't even knock the debt down 1 penny; came 33B short in fact and you call that success????? Neo-con success = debt grows. In 1969 the tax rate was bumped a bit for a short time and the debt fell, 1969 was not a massive growth period. Under Eisenhow the debt fell 3 years of his 8 as he KEPT THE TOP MARGINAL RATE AT 91%. These weren't massive growth years. Are you starting to see a trend here where REGARDLESS OF SPENDING, WHEN THE TAX RATE IS HIGHER, THE DEBT WILL SHORTEN AND/OR FALL, POST FDR? Of course not, you will never address the data or make a relevant factual point. QuoteAnd deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Deficit spending isn't good, which is why raisong taxes eliminates that, as you are taking more in; it's real simple math. It's not 1% as of now, it may go to that and you can brag GWB's -6.5% shrinkage and consider that success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #38 August 9, 2010 Quote In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. So you're saying you're a neo-con now? It's hard keeping up with your wild gyrations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 August 9, 2010 QuoteQuote In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. So you're saying you're a neo-con now? It's hard keeping up with your wild gyrations. Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 August 9, 2010 Quote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zach 0 #41 August 9, 2010 Just for me can we try to maybe keep the quotes of quotes of edited quotes of quotes to a minimum of say 1 or 2 per post. Without a flow chart, it makes following the argument difficult. Zach Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #42 August 9, 2010 Quote Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. And you will still be wrong.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 August 11, 2010 QuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? You're right, that does pretty much end it. But what else can you do, actually defend Reagan's massive cut-n-spend frenzy that turned the debt on its fucking ear? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 August 11, 2010 Quote Quote Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating. And you will still be wrong. OK, easy to say wrong, but you or anyone has yet to illustrate it other than moving the cause a decade or two to teh effect. That must be a fun dellusional world to live in; you can never be wrong as you just have to move the dot fwd or backward 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever number of decades eaither way. That is what you silly arguments have been reduced to; a shell game. I can attribute my arguments to specific eras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 August 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? I'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. You're making this claim to support higher taxes. I don't need to come up with a counter theory, though I already did. (simply put - it's far more complicated than marginal tax rate) Quote Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? Now you're just pulling weird stuff out of your ass to deflect from your busted "theory." Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 August 11, 2010 Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? ??? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen. We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. QuoteYou're making this claim to support higher taxes. Yes, based upon 100 years of history detailing success when they are raised, failure when they are lowered. QuoteI don't need to come up with a counter theory, though I already did. (simply put - it's far more complicated than marginal tax rate) And that could work until we have a 100 years of evidence showing otherwise. Small samples can be skewed by many extraneous factors, 100 years of evidence with repeatability is hard for reasonable people to deny. Quote Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? QuoteNow you're just pulling weird stuff out of your ass to deflect from your busted "theory." Maybe if I had a few shots it would make sense? You probably make the most sense when you're drunk. Here, we'll touch each point 1 at a time: - 80's revs didn't touch outlays, deficit went crazy - 90's revs far exceeded outlays, deficit fell every year from 93 to 2000 until an eventual surplus was left (236B) - Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? Maybe between liquid courage you can address these. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #48 August 12, 2010 Quote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. Again, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Your thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. everyone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. Republicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) In neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. And deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #49 August 12, 2010 If you make a claim, and people ask if you 1) have considered other factors in your analysis and 2) have more detailed explanations of the mechanisms you feel are in play to support your claim then you can either a) listen to what people have to say and bolster your argument with more information or b) yell your claim louder and become increasingly irrelevant. What's it gonna be? We all know what it's been thus far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #50 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. QuoteAgain, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Or your bro hwt who thinks MSNNBCBS is a real media outlet. QuoteYour thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. Show me times that are good when taxes are < 70% when the debt didn't rise other than Clinton's years when had the help of the dot.com boom. You keeptrying to revise teh number higher and higher. In fact, as taxe rates were dropped in the 1960's the debt grew until in 1969 the tax rate was boosted for a short bit; THE DEBT SHRUNK IN 1969, EINSTEIN. You guy pretend to care about the debt when in reality you don't as you are pro-military spending and pro tax cuts; the 2 things that smoke the debt. Quoteeveryone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. You can't help but to pull other non-related issues in to rally the troops instead of referencing my data and making a point; MAKE A POINT FROM MY DATA OR OTHER OBJECTIVE DATA. QuoteRepublicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) Yes but history remembers the 80's as massive debt, loss of HC for millions and a few overnight millionaires while many suffered, just like the Roaring 1920's where teh rich blew up as taxes were redued to 25% top brkt; ring a bell? History remebers the 90's as deficit killing, taxing teh rich a little more and balancing the budget. Your own arguments speak you in the ass; hillarious. QuoteIn neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. The most massive growth period in US history couldn't even knock the debt down 1 penny; came 33B short in fact and you call that success????? Neo-con success = debt grows. In 1969 the tax rate was bumped a bit for a short time and the debt fell, 1969 was not a massive growth period. Under Eisenhow the debt fell 3 years of his 8 as he KEPT THE TOP MARGINAL RATE AT 91%. These weren't massive growth years. Are you starting to see a trend here where REGARDLESS OF SPENDING, WHEN THE TAX RATE IS HIGHER, THE DEBT WILL SHORTEN AND/OR FALL, POST FDR? Of course not, you will never address the data or make a relevant factual point. QuoteAnd deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Deficit spending isn't good, which is why raisong taxes eliminates that, as you are taking more in; it's real simple math. It's not 1% as of now, it may go to that and you can brag GWB's -6.5% shrinkage and consider that success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #48 August 12, 2010 Quote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. Again, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Your thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. everyone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. Republicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) In neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. And deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #49 August 12, 2010 If you make a claim, and people ask if you 1) have considered other factors in your analysis and 2) have more detailed explanations of the mechanisms you feel are in play to support your claim then you can either a) listen to what people have to say and bolster your argument with more information or b) yell your claim louder and become increasingly irrelevant. What's it gonna be? We all know what it's been thus far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 August 12, 2010 QuoteQuote QuoteI'm saying that your theory that our economy suffers unless we have a marginal tax bracket of > 70%, is stupid and clearly false as proven by history. WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. QuoteAgain, since you're trying to squirm like Rhys, or some fool that thinks the Onion is serious. Or your bro hwt who thinks MSNNBCBS is a real media outlet. QuoteYour thesis is that when marginal tax rates are not >=70, the economy falls apart in disaster. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. Show me times that are good when taxes are < 70% when the debt didn't rise other than Clinton's years when had the help of the dot.com boom. You keeptrying to revise teh number higher and higher. In fact, as taxe rates were dropped in the 1960's the debt grew until in 1969 the tax rate was boosted for a short bit; THE DEBT SHRUNK IN 1969, EINSTEIN. You guy pretend to care about the debt when in reality you don't as you are pro-military spending and pro tax cuts; the 2 things that smoke the debt. Quoteeveryone here knows your thesis is shit. As credible as Rhys and his rocket ships on the towers making it exceed 1g. You can't help but to pull other non-related issues in to rally the troops instead of referencing my data and making a point; MAKE A POINT FROM MY DATA OR OTHER OBJECTIVE DATA. QuoteRepublicans fondly remember the 80s and Reagan. Democrats fondly remember the 90s and Clinton. (At least a few Republicans too) Yes but history remembers the 80's as massive debt, loss of HC for millions and a few overnight millionaires while many suffered, just like the Roaring 1920's where teh rich blew up as taxes were redued to 25% top brkt; ring a bell? History remebers the 90's as deficit killing, taxing teh rich a little more and balancing the budget. Your own arguments speak you in the ass; hillarious. QuoteIn neither period was the marginal rate remotely close to 70. The most massive growth period in US history couldn't even knock the debt down 1 penny; came 33B short in fact and you call that success????? Neo-con success = debt grows. In 1969 the tax rate was bumped a bit for a short time and the debt fell, 1969 was not a massive growth period. Under Eisenhow the debt fell 3 years of his 8 as he KEPT THE TOP MARGINAL RATE AT 91%. These weren't massive growth years. Are you starting to see a trend here where REGARDLESS OF SPENDING, WHEN THE TAX RATE IS HIGHER, THE DEBT WILL SHORTEN AND/OR FALL, POST FDR? Of course not, you will never address the data or make a relevant factual point. QuoteAnd deficit spending is irrelevant. (And if it's not, you have to SDSTFU about Obama's successful 1% growth) Deficit spending isn't good, which is why raisong taxes eliminates that, as you are taking more in; it's real simple math. It's not 1% as of now, it may go to that and you can brag GWB's -6.5% shrinkage and consider that success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
