Blame Bush

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Increases of 24% of tax revenues (1983, from 1981 cut) and 71% (1999, from 1997 cut) aren't good enough for you?

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetChartbook/Federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx

Here's a graph from your rag, The Heritage Foundation. It shows tax receipts turn around in 1991 as GHWB raised taxes, then huge in 1993 with Clinton's huge tax increase. In 1998, with the small tax cuts, look at how the great momentum hit a plateau for a little over a year. Makes sense to me, increase taxes, receipts grow, cut taxes, receipts shrink.

And then according to your rag, federal spending started to take off in 1974, but it wasn't noticed in the debt/deficit until fascist pig Ronny's massive tax cuts; the graph shows this: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/Federal-Spending-Grew-Seven-Times-Faster-Than-Median-Income.aspx Do keep in mind federal spending will increase with inflation and with population growth, that is normal. This chart is supposedly adjusted for inflation, a raw chart would look more gross under Reagan and GWB. Notice the flatter spending under Clinton, much higher under Reagan and GWB? Yea, slightly diff subject but still relevant.

Now for the 1981 cuts with revenue/receipts considered:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetChartbook/Federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx

A chart from your rag states that tax revenues dropped from 1981 to 1983; so much for your theory. No wonder the debt took off then; fascist pig Ronnie cut taxes and kept on a spending: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html Chart #3 shows the big upsurge in debt as FR cut taxes and spent more. Good thing for him he became senile before he could see the damage he did.

Quote

No wonder you keep getting your ass handed to to every time you talk about the economy.

No, Mike, it is you who just got yoru ass handed to you. Of course you post no data, that would be foreign. Here's a factcheck to bring you around to normal logic:

Here's a Factcheck.org article on GWB's tax cuts: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

Yea, cut taxes and cut revenues, run up deficits and then debts. Not a real difficult concept.

Quote

That would be the 1997 cut that resulted in a whole percentage point MORE growth afterward (4.2% vs 3.2%), right? Wage growing by 6.5% vs the 0.8% after the 93 tax increases?

Sounds like Microcosm Mike at it again; why not be unlike yourself and post data to clarify what you mean.

Again, I don't deal in tiny tax adjustments, I deal in major tax code shifts, it would be dishonest to draw conclusions from small changes. I don'
t expect honesty from, you, Mike.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lucky , i read your post and i can't believe that you allow yourself to be sooo distracted by that one sided opinion of yours.

Your post is typical nonsense from the right.

Emoticons and no letters? WHy bother? Really, just skim on by.

because the post speaks to the irony and the humor of the exchange - without any diarherria posting or volumes of attachments from moveon, or foxnews or anything else

you start your own site and you can personally decide who posts what

I know pithy isn't in your vocab...

I've seen you post substance on rare occassion; why not be that guy instead of this one babbling nothingness rhetoric? There is a bunch of data to respond to - I get it tho, how can you refute the obvious?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Increases of 24% of tax revenues (1983, from 1981 cut) and 71% (1999, from 1997 cut) aren't good enough for you?

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetChartbook/Federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx

Here's a graph from your rag, The Heritage Foundation. It shows tax receipts turn around in 1991 as GHWB raised taxes, then huge in 1993 with Clinton's huge tax increase. In 1998, with the small tax cuts, look at how the great momentum hit a plateau for a little over a year.

"Turn around in 1991 then huge in 1993"? Put down the bong, Lucky - there's very little change in slope prior to the 97 cap gains tax cut.

Quote

Makes sense to me, increase taxes, receipts grow, cut taxes, receipts shrink.

Sure - because you ALWAYS get MORE of something when you penalize it.

Not surprised at all that it makes sense to YOU, though.

Quote

And then according to your rag, federal spending started to take off in 1974, but it wasn't noticed in the debt/deficit until fascist pig Ronny's massive tax cuts; the graph shows this: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/Federal-Spending-Grew-Seven-Times-Faster-Than-Median-Income.aspx

Maybe you can show us all where the deficit is, in that graph, oh Master of Economy.

Quote

Do keep in mind federal spending will increase with inflation and with population growth, that is normal. This chart is supposedly adjusted for inflation, a raw chart would look more gross under Reagan and GWB. Notice the flatter spending under Clinton, much higher under Reagan and GWB? Yea, slightly diff subject but still relevant.

And again, I will say "put down the bong, Lucky" - as before, very little change in slope, prior to '01.

Now for the 1981 cuts with revenue/receipts considered:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetChartbook/Federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx
A chart from your rag states that tax revenues dropped from 1981 to 1983; so much for your theory. No wonder the debt took off then; fascist pig Ronnie cut taxes and kept on a spending: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html Chart #3 shows the big upsurge in debt as FR cut taxes and spent more. Good thing for him he became senile before he could see the damage he did.

And yet AGAIN, a slope with no evidence of these HUGE changes you claim.

Quote

Quote

No wonder you keep getting your ass handed to to every time you talk about the economy.

No, Mike, it is you who just got yoru ass handed to you. Of course you post no data, that would be foreign.

I post plenty of data and mention where I get it. I don't link it just to piss you the fuck off when you whine about it.

Quote

Quote

That would be the 1997 cut that resulted in a whole percentage point MORE growth afterward (4.2% vs 3.2%), right? Wage growing by 6.5% vs the 0.8% after the 93 tax increases?

Sounds like Microcosm Mike at it again; why not be unlike yourself and post data to clarify what you mean.

Sounds like Lippy Lucky again - why not be unlike yourself and actually EDUCATE yourself on something for a change.

Quote

Again, I don't deal in tiny tax adjustments, I deal in major tax code shifts, it would be dishonest to draw conclusions from small changes.

Then you don't know what the FUCK you're talking about (as usual). Educate yourself on the role of business capital and it's effect on the stock market and economy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I've seen you post substance on rare occassion; why not be that guy instead of this one babbling nothingness rhetoric? There is a bunch of data to respond to - I get it tho, how can you refute the obvious?

no, that particular reply was about one thing - the irony of you replying to a post commenting about your blatant partisanship and your replying "typical of a rightie" - nothing more no matter how much your ego is wishing it were

now, you also post here leading with a veiled insult <>

you have zero value added here other than the humor others can find in your lack of respect for others, your unnatural partisanship and arrogance and the complete repetitiveness of your posts again and again - repackaging the same tired crap in different ways but with no substantive difference

so, I'm ok to find humor in it and share that with others

now you are free to take umbrage to this post - reverse insult again - cry that I'm not "able" to discuss whatever random point you are pressing here (though it's more not 'willing' or 'caring' to) - and then claim victory. Perhaps a few dozen links to some random sites would be nice also. I believe that's per the template you are using

I do appreciate those last two replies being very short - you can be pithy - I was wrong on that.

Edit: frankly, you don't really have reason to debate with me here, I'm only really interested in watching how the posters interact. Political debate is such a trivial thing in real life that I just comment to draw out interaction to observe behaviors and opinions.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Why for... two little words...easy to spell and therefore hard for that many idiots with a lack of education to spell them wrong, it works on so many levels for them.

As opposed to the "idiots" who cannot write a grammatically correct sentence.

Hi Jeanne. It's been awhile since I've been here. Hope you are well.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Why for... two little words...easy to spell and therefore hard for that many idiots with a lack of education to spell them wrong, it works on so many levels for them.

As opposed to the "idiots" who cannot write a grammatically correct sentence.

Hi Jeanne. It's been awhile since I've been here. Hope you are well.

Hey we dont want the idjoits to misunderstand now would we.

I ALWAYS consider my audience.. and talk...and write... to make sure they don't get confuzzled

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I've seen you post substance on rare occassion; why not be that guy instead of this one babbling nothingness rhetoric? There is a bunch of data to respond to - I get it tho, how can you refute the obvious?

no, that particular reply was about one thing - the irony of you replying to a post commenting about your blatant partisanship and your replying "typical of a rightie" - nothing more no matter how much your ego is wishing it were

now, you also post here leading with a veiled insult <>

you have zero value added here other than the humor others can find in your lack of respect for others, your unnatural partisanship and arrogance and the complete repetitiveness of your posts again and again - repackaging the same tired crap in different ways but with no substantive difference

so, I'm ok to find humor in it and share that with others

now you are free to take umbrage to this post - reverse insult again - cry that I'm not "able" to discuss whatever random point you are pressing here (though it's more not 'willing' or 'caring' to) - and then claim victory. Perhaps a few dozen links to some random sites would be nice also. I believe that's per the template you are using

I do appreciate those last two replies being very short - you can be pithy - I was wrong on that.

Edit: frankly, you don't really have reason to debate with me here, I'm only really interested in watching how the posters interact. Political debate is such a trivial thing in real life that I just comment to draw out interaction to observe behaviors and opinions.

So after your massive ad hominem, you still have added nothing whne the usual suspects have at least tried to. Again., why comment and cry veiled insult, do just that and then say nothing? I guess, what are you gonna say? How do you defend RW idiotic policy? The data is murder for you guys.

[hwt 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2%E2%80%99
For you fools that still blame Bush for the economy collapsing. Read all of this news article dated September 10 2003.
Remember these two are still receiving bail out funds and they are too big to fail