Amazon 7 #51 January 1, 2011 I would have thought you would have exercised your rights as an American to Vote...if not.... shame on youAnd based on your posting record I think we can be pretty sure you did not vote for any Democrat EVER There are a few of you guys here that probably think Barry Goldwater was a liberal ... just based on your posting Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #52 January 1, 2011 Quote I would have thought you would have exercised your rights as an American to Vote...if not.... shame on youAnd based on your posting record I think we can be pretty sure you did not vote for any Democrat EVER There are a few of you guys here that probably think Barry Goldwater was a liberal ... just based on your posting Again - I refer you to the old assume adage.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
Amazon 7 #53 January 1, 2011 Quote Quote I would have thought you would have exercised your rights as an American to Vote...if not.... shame on youAnd based on your posting record I think we can be pretty sure you did not vote for any Democrat EVER There are a few of you guys here that probably think Barry Goldwater was a liberal ... just based on your posting Again - I refer you to the old assume adage. ITs so cute when the fringe right tag team goes into action Shame on you for not participating in our democracy then if you did not vote Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #54 January 1, 2011 Quote Quote Quote I would have thought you would have exercised your rights as an American to Vote...if not.... shame on youAnd based on your posting record I think we can be pretty sure you did not vote for any Democrat EVER There are a few of you guys here that probably think Barry Goldwater was a liberal ... just based on your posting Again - I refer you to the old assume adage. ITs so cute when the fringe right tag team goes into action Shame on you for not participating in our democracy then if you did not vote If you can find a way to vote from 5 counties away - more power to you. When you do - we'll talk.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
Amazon 7 #55 January 1, 2011 In how many elections Clint Come on Ever hear of an absentee ballot Piss poor planning is not an excuse And truthfully.. I aint buyin it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #56 January 1, 2011 QuoteIn how many elections Clint Come on Ever hear of an absentee ballot Piss poor planning is not an excuse And truthfully.. I aint buyin it You don't have to - I couldn't care less of your approval or opinion. I go where the work takes me. If I am inconvenienced, so be it. Neither you or your ideas are going to put me into a guilt tripo for making a little more money. Shame on me? Who the fuck do you think you are that you think you have the right to say that?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
Amazon 7 #57 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIn how many elections Clint Come on Ever hear of an absentee ballot Piss poor planning is not an excuse And truthfully.. I aint buyin it You don't have to - I couldn't care less of your approval or opinion. I go where the work takes me. If I am inconvenienced, so be it. Neither you or your ideas are going to put me into a guilt tripo for making a little more money. Shame on me? Who the fuck do you think you are that you think you have the right to say that? An American that believes Americans should participate in the system. If you aint helping to elect people why do you bitch so much about the decisions others have made for you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #58 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn how many elections Clint Come on Ever hear of an absentee ballot Piss poor planning is not an excuse And truthfully.. I aint buyin it You don't have to - I couldn't care less of your approval or opinion. I go where the work takes me. If I am inconvenienced, so be it. Neither you or your ideas are going to put me into a guilt tripo for making a little more money. Shame on me? Who the fuck do you think you are that you think you have the right to say that? An American that believes Americans should participate in the system. If you aint helping to elect people why do you bitch so much about the decisions others have made for you I do that when I can't vote that person out with my vote. I voted this past election. I voted the one before that too. You can claim that you are american if you wish - i have my doubts sometimes. Just by your posting history.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
Amazon 7 #59 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIn how many elections Clint Come on Ever hear of an absentee ballot Piss poor planning is not an excuse And truthfully.. I aint buyin it You don't have to - I couldn't care less of your approval or opinion. I go where the work takes me. If I am inconvenienced, so be it. Neither you or your ideas are going to put me into a guilt tripo for making a little more money. Shame on me? Who the fuck do you think you are that you think you have the right to say that? An American that believes Americans should participate in the system. If you aint helping to elect people why do you bitch so much about the decisions others have made for you I do that when I can't vote that person out with my vote. I voted this past election. I voted the one before that too. You can claim that you are american if you wish - i have my doubts sometimes. Just by your posting history. In YOUR ideal AMERIKA I am sure I would not be allowed to be a citizen Only those who goosestep to those fringe right extremeist drums need apply Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou are forgetting the real value of the dollar... arithmetic ain't yur strong suit CPI index, year to year: 2010: 0.98 2009: 1.00 2008: 0.96 2007: 0.97 2006: 0.97 2005: 0.97 2004: 0.97 2003: 0.98 2002: 0.98 2001: 0.97 2000: 0.97 1999: 0.98 1998: 0.98 1997: 0.96 1996: 0.97 1995: 0.97 1994: 0.98 1993: 0.97 Mmmmm, sugar cookies....no, wait - thats desperation. Nevermind, proceed with your next attempt. I think you misunderstood this chart, then. It's showing a typical 2-3% inflation rate - PER YEAR. So to be up 2% 5 years later is not progress, it's regression. You see 3 97 and 2 98s between 2000 and 2005 - that adds up to over 13%. And ignores the population growth during the time, which if we go by the 2010 total, was 5% by itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #61 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd how many millions of your fellow Americans are out of work and how many millions more have lost their homes thanks to your hero and his buddies??? My hero and his buddies? Oh, you mean the guy that kept trying to get more regulation of the housing market, vs. the folks from your side of the aisle. How soon you forget: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPJr7YWmQ... 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
kallend 2,147 #62 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou are forgetting the real value of the dollar... arithmetic ain't yur strong suit CPI index, year to year: 2010: 0.98 2009: 1.00 2008: 0.96 2007: 0.97 2006: 0.97 2005: 0.97 2004: 0.97 2003: 0.98 2002: 0.98 2001: 0.97 2000: 0.97 1999: 0.98 1998: 0.98 1997: 0.96 1996: 0.97 1995: 0.97 1994: 0.98 1993: 0.97 Mmmmm, sugar cookies....no, wait - thats desperation. Nevermind, proceed with your next attempt. I think you misunderstood this chart, then. It's showing a typical 2-3% inflation rate - PER YEAR. So to be up 2% 5 years later is not progress, it's regression. You see 3 97 and 2 98s between 2000 and 2005 - that adds up to over 13%. And ignores the population growth during the time, which if we go by the 2010 total, was 5% by itself. He's been told many times already and it doesn't sink in.... 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
mnealtx 0 #63 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou are forgetting the real value of the dollar... arithmetic ain't yur strong suit CPI index, year to year: 2010: 0.98 2009: 1.00 2008: 0.96 2007: 0.97 2006: 0.97 2005: 0.97 2004: 0.97 2003: 0.98 2002: 0.98 2001: 0.97 2000: 0.97 1999: 0.98 1998: 0.98 1997: 0.96 1996: 0.97 1995: 0.97 1994: 0.98 1993: 0.97 Mmmmm, sugar cookies....no, wait - thats desperation. Nevermind, proceed with your next attempt. I think you misunderstood this chart, then. It's showing a typical 2-3% inflation rate - PER YEAR. So to be up 2% 5 years later is not progress, it's regression. You see 3 97 and 2 98s between 2000 and 2005 - that adds up to over 13%. And ignores the population growth during the time, which if we go by the 2010 total, was 5% by itself. Then it shows there was no 'progress' under Clinton, either - which was the point of posting it. John likes trotting out mention of 'population' whenever the numbers don't go his way - but I can't seem to find anything over at BLS about it. Since there's no mention of it at BLS and nothing that can found in Google, why don't *YOU* explain why population would change CPI and how to calculate for it. The only reason I can think of would be prices changes due to supply/demand pressure from an increasing population, but that would be cancelled out due to the market sampling, I would think.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 January 1, 2011 QuoteHe's been told many times already and it doesn't sink in. So have you, but you still think 'it's all Bush's fault'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #65 January 1, 2011 Quote Since there's no mention of it at BLS and nothing that can found in Google, why don't *YOU* explain why population would change CPI and how to calculate for it. The only reason I can think of would be prices changes due to supply/demand pressure from an increasing population, but that would be cancelled out due to the market sampling, I would think. Population growth may not have any significant bearing on CPI. What it does have is a bearing on the number of taxpayers (iow, revenues go up). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #66 January 1, 2011 QuoteQuote Since there's no mention of it at BLS and nothing that can found in Google, why don't *YOU* explain why population would change CPI and how to calculate for it. The only reason I can think of would be prices changes due to supply/demand pressure from an increasing population, but that would be cancelled out due to the market sampling, I would think. Population growth may not have any significant bearing on CPI. What it does have is a bearing on the number of taxpayers (iow, revenues go up). So if it doesn't have any bearing on CPI, why did you bring it up?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #67 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Since there's no mention of it at BLS and nothing that can found in Google, why don't *YOU* explain why population would change CPI and how to calculate for it. The only reason I can think of would be prices changes due to supply/demand pressure from an increasing population, but that would be cancelled out due to the market sampling, I would think. Population growth may not have any significant bearing on CPI. What it does have is a bearing on the number of taxpayers (iow, revenues go up). So if it doesn't have any bearing on CPI, why did you bring it up? duh. because the topic is revenue increase in non adjusted dollars. Touting a 2% increase in revenue while ignoring the 5% population increase and a 13% CPI change misses the mark. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #68 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Since there's no mention of it at BLS and nothing that can found in Google, why don't *YOU* explain why population would change CPI and how to calculate for it. The only reason I can think of would be prices changes due to supply/demand pressure from an increasing population, but that would be cancelled out due to the market sampling, I would think. Population growth may not have any significant bearing on CPI. What it does have is a bearing on the number of taxpayers (iow, revenues go up). So if it doesn't have any bearing on CPI, why did you bring it up? duh. because the topic is revenue increase in non adjusted dollars. Touting a 2% increase in revenue while ignoring the 5% population increase and a 13% CPI change misses the mark. Constant 2005 $ is non-adjusted? Or did you miss that part? I went and pulled more numbers for the full terms: CONSTANT 2005 $ Clinton: 27.564 T Bush: 34.153T (+23.91%) Job growth (to alleviate your population issue): Clinton: 15.1 million Bush: 3.83 million (25.36% of the job growth) If CPI shows the same 2-3% change year to year, how is that an issue? Funny how this type of thing is never mentioned until the numbers favor conservatives.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 January 2, 2011 Quote Constant 2005 $ is non-adjusted? Or did you miss that part? I went and pulled more numbers for the full terms: CONSTANT 2005 $ Clinton: 27.564 T Bush: 34.153T (+23.91%) I did miss it, though reviewing your post, it wasn't exactly clear (just like this unattributed summarized chunk here). If you're able to post year by year CPI deltas, you can post the claimed revenue numbers as well. But while fixed dollars will remove the inflationary concerns, it still ignores the population growth. The 2000 census counted 281.4M, the 2010 result is currently at 308.7M, a 9.7% increase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 January 2, 2011 QuoteI did miss it, though reviewing your post, it wasn't exactly clear (just like this unattributed summarized chunk here). If you're able to post year by year CPI deltas, you can post the claimed revenue numbers as well. Link 1993 2872.73 1994 3004.63 1995 3151.51 1996 3323.6 1997 3368.79 1998 3764.61 1999 3896.99 2000 4181.16 2001 4229.34 2002 3615.73 2003 4000.08 2004 4063.3 2005 4306.69 2006 4612.9 2007 4931.02 2008 4394.34 1993-2000 sum: 27.564 T 2001-2008 sum: 34.153 T QuoteBut while fixed dollars will remove the inflationary concerns, it still ignores the population growth. That was in the part of the post you snipped. QuoteJob growth (to alleviate your population issue): Clinton: 15.1 million Bush: 3.83 million (25.36% of the job growth) Data was from BLS. QuoteThe 2000 census counted 281.4M, the 2010 result is currently at 308.7M, a 9.7% increase. Total population change instead of change in jobs is a bit...disingenuous when speaking of revenue to government, don't you think, or are all those 10 year olds slaving away in the mines? Just curious, though, since you didn't address it above - are you going to be subjecting kallend to the same scrutiny of *his* data / claims, or am I just the lucky winner for today?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 January 2, 2011 Quote Just curious, though, since you didn't address it above - are you going to be subjecting kallend to the same scrutiny of *his* data / claims, or am I just the lucky winner for today? well, Kallend doesn't generally make such specific claims without proper foundation. He generally lives in the world of vague. 2000 2284.86 2001 2196.84 2002 2012.00 2003 1894.29 2004 1943.02 2005 2153.86 2006 2331.31 note that it wasn't until 2006 that revenues finally passed the 2000 level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 January 3, 2011 Quote (2005$) Bush 01-08: 34.153 T gov't revenue Clinton 00 revenue times 8: 33.449 T gov't revenue Hmm... 2% more, even with 2 recessions and while paying for 2 wars. Yup...all Bush's fault all right. Since you insisted on knowing why you were being challenged. The above is BS, Total revenue included state and city taxes, which is a a questionable metric in discussing Bush v Clinton wrt taxation. States cannot run up red ink. Using your site, selecting only federal revenue, and with constant 2005 dollars, you see the obvious loss in income due to the tax cuts. 2000 2284.86 2001 2196.84 2002 2012.00 2003 1894.29 2004 1943.02 2005 2153.86 2006 2331.31 2007 2417.78 2008 2326.64 Bush average = 2159.47, 6.5% decrease from 2000 benchmark. This is why people want to see specific citations and data when such claims are being made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 January 3, 2011 QuoteSince you insisted on knowing why you were being challenged. The above is BS, Total revenue included state and city taxes, which is a a questionable metric in discussing Bush v Clinton wrt taxation. States cannot run up red ink. They can't? Maybe you should tell California that. Regardless, I missed that. Thank you for pointing it out. QuoteUsing your site, selecting only federal revenue, and with constant 2005 dollars, you see the obvious loss in income due to the tax cuts. Due to the tax cuts? Prove it. QuoteBush average = 2159.47, 6.5% decrease from 2000 benchmark. Averages? Nice shift of the goalposts ya got going on, there. Using only federal numbers: Full term Clinton: 14.731 T Full term Bush: 17.275 T (+17%) QuoteThis is why people want to see specific citations and data when such claims are being made. Only when the claims are coming from a certain side of the argument, you mean. I'll be waiting on your specific cites and data showing that the loss was solely due to the tax cuts - I seem to recall a couple of recessions and almost 5 million jobs lost due to them (-1.7m in 2001 and -3.2m in 2008, according to BLS).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 January 3, 2011 Quote They can't? Maybe you should tell California that. California can't decide to just run a 1.4T deficit like DC does. Certainly they're playing with mirrors, but ultimately they have to have enough short term financing to say they balanced the budget. So after a recession, they have to make up for any sheninigans. DC, otoh, does not. Hence, even in 1999/2000, when the economy was peaking, we were barely even on the budget, rather than paying off debt. Quote QuoteUsing your site, selecting only federal revenue, and with constant 2005 dollars, you see the obvious loss in income due to the tax cuts. Due to the tax cuts? Prove it. You really need proof that if tax brackets are lowered, that you get less revenue? The graph is pretty clear here. And it took until 2006, well beyond the shock of 2001, for revenues to finally catch up to 2000. Quote QuoteBush average = 2159.47, 6.5% decrease from 2000 benchmark. Averages? Nice shift of the goalposts ya got going on, there. How so? It's exactly the situation you use in your initial posting on the subject, but with total revenue instead of federal revenue. Quote Only when the claims are coming from a certain side of the argument, you mean. My posting history is pretty clear - I go after made up or misleading numbers and facts from anyone here. Quote I'll be waiting on your specific cites and data showing that the loss was solely due to the tax cuts - I seem to recall a couple of recessions and almost 5 million jobs lost due to them (-1.7m in 2001 and -3.2m in 2008, according to BLS). Why would I need to prove that? It was your thesis that revenue went up in spite of the tax cuts. I've already shown that to be false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 January 3, 2011 QuoteYou really need proof that if tax brackets are lowered, that you get less revenue? The graph is pretty clear here. And it took until 2006, well beyond the shock of 2001, for revenues to finally catch up to 2000. So, after all the whining about correcting for population, losing 1.7 million jobs in 2001 had no effect? The dot-com crash had no effect? 9/11 had no effect? It was all due to the tax rates? Bullshit. QuoteQuoteQuoteBush average = 2159.47, 6.5% decrease from 2000 benchmark. Averages? Nice shift of the goalposts ya got going on, there. How so? It's exactly the situation you use in your initial posting on the subject, but with total revenue instead of federal revenue. It is? Where did I use average, upthread? But, since you mention averages, lets compare like to like: Clinton average: 1.841T Bush average: 2.159T (+17%) QuoteQuote I'll be waiting on your specific cites and data showing that the loss was solely due to the tax cuts - I seem to recall a couple of recessions and almost 5 million jobs lost due to them (-1.7m in 2001 and -3.2m in 2008, according to BLS). Why would I need to prove that? It was your thesis that revenue went up in spite of the tax cuts. I've already shown that to be false. Seventeen trillion is less than 15 trillion? In what version of reality?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
