Republiturds in a pickle

[Lucky... 0]

I gotta run to work, had to make 2 coments:

1) Yes, Democratic Congress spending overshadowed receipts -
link.

Nice Mike, Heritage and it isn't a data transcription from US Gov, it is their calculation, IOW's, their interpetation. Get real.

2) Nice to see you avoid your talking point about the 97 Cap Gains tax cuts being a major tax cut. As you see I provided a CBO statement/link stating Cap gains taxes = 2-3% of all taxes. And to cut 8% off or almost a third, or however you wanna look at it at most makes the 8% chop a .8% effect, perhaps as little as a .24% effect. I'll give you 1% for teh sake fo argument; so how's that for a major tax cut? Right, you still haven't given me a major tax cut that has done some benefit, just hazards. Stay in denial and I'll be home later to address the rest.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I gotta run to work, had to make 2 coments:

1) Yes, Democratic Congress spending overshadowed receipts -
link.

Nice Mike, Heritage and it isn't a data transcription from US Gov, it is their calculation, IOW's, their interpetation.

I'm pretty sure that in the REAL world, "x+y=z" isn't 'interpretation' - it's evidently different where you live.

Quote

Get real.

You first.

Quote

Stay in denial

You always are....but go ahead and have a fun day moving those goalpost around...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Only in government does "receipts don't match outlays" mean "we need to spend more money and hopefully bring in more."

You've got government preaching fiscal responsibility to anyone? Hahahahaha!

"Hey. My hours at work were cut. There's only one solution. Spend more."

"Hey. I got a three dollar per hour raise. I'll spend $1k per month more."

"Hey. I'm falling behind. I need to get more money. I'll work part time for $10 per hour. That'll raise my revenue enough to buy that new Prius."

"Hey. My revenues have never been higher. Why am I broke?"

A reasonable person would say, "Dumb ass. You're spending too much." Lefties say, "it's the Republicans." A Republican would say, "It's the Democrats."

A libertarian would say, "Leave me alone."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

the top 20% holds 93% of all cash

Quote

You keep saying that - going to provide the data at some point?

Love to:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Financial Wealth

Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

42.7 + 50.3 = 93%; anymore easy questions? Or just your strawman?

Quote

It will suck if they can only buy the $10M mansion this time .

Quote

You mean the mansion that results in hundreds of jobs for the builders, the suppliers of the materials, etc etc etc, right?

I see, bow down tht rich and then maybe, just maybe they'll let us have a few crumbs donw here.

Quote

OH, the end of the Clinton years had a massive crash and the 2nd worst economy n US history, or was it a minor, puny recession that didn't even give us 2 consecutive Q's of neg growth in light of and during 911.

Quote

78% loss of value of the NASDAQ, and 6 trillion monetary loss in the industry, as I recall.

Well, your recollection is as meaningless as what you post, the Nasqaq increased 400% in Clinton's 8 years. But because it was higher and was left only 400% higher that's not good enough.

Nasdaq = 696 to 2772.

Quote

Point is SUSTAINABILITY, something any stolen Republicaan success lacks. A repub boom is short, high and followed by a big crash.

Quote

Like the 3 decades of growth from the Reagan cuts? Yup, that's short alright.

So Reagan gets the credit for Clinton's massive growth? Even tho jobs were stale under GHWB, Clinton's tax measures reinvigorated and beat Reagan's by far, the GWB's tax cuts iced them to 1.1% in 8 years,

Quote

Explain how under Reagan with the same high spending but low taxes outlays hammered receipts and the debt soared.

Quote

Yes, Democratic Congress spending overshadowed receipts -
link.

Link
***These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

Tax cuts shift the tax burden onto the higher rates from the lower rates, and cause a reduction in tax avoidance.

That's not raw data, that's interpretation by a Nazi site. You would shit if I posted Moveon.org, yet you feel justified posting partisan BS and asking me to consider it credible

I hope you're joking.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Only in government does "receipts don't match outlays" mean "we need to spend more money and hopefully bring in more."

You've got government preaching fiscal responsibility to anyone? Hahahahaha!

"Hey. My hours at work were cut. There's only one solution. Spend more."

"Hey. I got a three dollar per hour raise. I'll spend $1k per month more."

"Hey. I'm falling behind. I need to get more money. I'll work part time for $10 per hour. That'll raise my revenue enough to buy that new Prius."

"Hey. My revenues have never been higher. Why am I broke?"

A reasonable person would say, "Dumb ass. You're spending too much." Lefties say, "it's the Republicans." A Republican would say, "It's the Democrats."

A libertarian would say, "Leave me alone."

You've taken substantive but errant arguments and reduced them to rhetoric; common in argument losses. Other than throw them in the fucking garbage can, what do you do with the millions on social security, elders, disabled, etc who you would have cut from the roles? Wwe know.

It sounds really neat to say that we can just cut spending and everyone smiles, truth is that tax increase fix things, they motivate reinvesting profits which keep the whole thing moving.

I showed you your 1997 capital gains cut was errant, do you have other theories? Can you show me a major fed tax cut that has helpeed?

[skipbelt 0]

i thought my 2 links would influence you , but , ignored !

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

i thought my 2 links would influence you , but , ignored !

A link is ignored by Lucky for two reasons.

It shows logic Against his position, it has anything to do with a conservative opinion.

You may consider that those are two in the same . . . but he ignores the left media when id disagrees with hime too.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the top 20% holds 93% of all cash

Quote

You keep saying that - going to provide the data at some point?

Love to:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Financial Wealth

Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

42.7 + 50.3 = 93%; anymore easy questions? Or just your strawman?

Funny you should mention strawmen...you *DID* see where it said this on their page, right?

" Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. "

Real estate, stocks, bonds... but I thought you said they had all the CASH, Lucky... strawman, indeed.

Quote

Quote

It will suck if they can only buy the $10M mansion this time .

Quote

You mean the mansion that results in hundreds of jobs for the builders, the suppliers of the materials, etc etc etc, right?

I see, bow down tht rich and then maybe, just maybe they'll let us have a few crumbs donw here.

Yes, because the construction trade is just living on 'crumbs from the rich' . Your "arguments" are getting more and more non-sensical.

Quote

OH, the end of the Clinton years had a massive crash and the 2nd worst economy n US history, or was it a minor, puny recession that didn't even give us 2 consecutive Q's of neg growth in light of and during 911.

Quote

78% loss of value of the NASDAQ, and 6 trillion monetary loss in the industry, as I recall.

Well, your recollection is as meaningless as what you post, the Nasqaq increased 400% in Clinton's 8 years. But because it was higher and was left only 400% higher that's not good enough.

Nasdaq = 696 to 2772.

Ever hear of something called the "dot-com bubble", Lucky? Can you even keep track of your OWN words, where you said "the end of the Clinton years"?

From Investopedia: Market Crashes: The Dotcom Crash
When: March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002
Where: Silicon Valley (for the most part)
Percentage Lost From Peak to Bottom: The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

Link

Quote

That's not raw data, that's interpretation by a Nazi site.

Notice the link, Lucky? See where it says "house.gov"?

Quote

You would shit if I posted Moveon.org, yet you feel justified posting partisan BS and asking me to consider it credible

House.gov is partisan, Lucky?

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

[loumeinhart 0]

Hey Lucky, what is the most money that any one person should be allowed to earn and keep for themselves? (in the US)

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Hey Lucky, what is the most money that any one person should be allowed to earn and keep for themselves? (in the US)

The correct question is:

How much is a democrat allowed to earn?

How much is a republican allowed to earn?

Since most democrats are lawyers and most republicans are business men, democrats earn there money thru legislating it out of republicans. You are allowed to earn as much money as you want that way.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[turtlespeed 212]

Is that before or after contributions are taken out for supporting their local democrat?

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

i thought my 2 links would influence you , but , ignored !

I searched this entire thread and didn't see you post any links, are you saying you've posted 2 links total since you've been here? That's about right. If you want, find that thread and post a link to that thread in this one and I will address it if I haven't already. But you did not post any links in this thread.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

i thought my 2 links would influence you , but , ignored !

A link is ignored by Lucky for two reasons.

It shows logic Against his position, it has anything to do with a conservative opinion.

You may consider that those are two in the same . . . but he ignores the left media when id disagrees with hime too.

You two have a lot in common regarding links. skipbelt did not post any links in this thread.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

i thought my 2 links would influence you , but , ignored !

A link is ignored by Lucky for two reasons.

It shows logic Against his position, it has anything to do with a conservative opinion.

You may consider that those are two in the same . . . but he ignores the left media when id disagrees with hime too.

You two have a lot in common regarding links. skipbelt did not post any links in this thread.

This coming from someone that thinks that House.gov is a right wing biased source.

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