U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2013, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,534,071 times
Reputation: 5606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
So you are going to completely ignore the macro level effects of a stock bubble in the late 90's in your analysis? Yet again, you have shown no point of fact to prove you are remotely close to being correct.

And also, your interpretation of my graph is flat out wrong! Cap gains as a % of GDP skyrocketed in the early 2000s, in the same time period when the cap gains rate was decreasing. Read the graph and try again.
Do you see from the graph how gov't revenue as a p% of GDP skyrocketed in 2001, 2002 and 2003? Me neither.



From: http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

Quote:
As can be seen in the...graph, real individual income tax receipts declined 25.06% from 2001 to 2009. Even total receipts declined -13.93% over that period. Finally, real GDP grew just 13.36% from 2001 to 2009. This was the lowest real GDP growth over any 8-year span since 13.33% from 1966 to 1976. Hence, ... the evidence to this point is that the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short term. This was true even in my prior analysis based on data through 2007, before the financial crisis of 2008.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2013, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
1,798 posts, read 1,640,703 times
Reputation: 1612
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Ah, you mean something like this right:
Are you suggesting that it is just one group? That's divisive nonsense IMO.

I would say campaign finance is the root of most of our fiscal issues if that's what you want to hear.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil (most every other issue that's debated without resolution here and elsewhere) to one who is striking at the root (campaign finance)." Thoreau
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 09:59 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,282 posts, read 33,642,226 times
Reputation: 14172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Is it the Liberals?
Is it the Conservatives?
Is it the sick, disabled and the elderly?
Is it the out of work people on welfare?
Is it the people who take advantage of money meant for the out of work, sick, disabled, and elderly?
Is it the people that cut jobs and put the people out of work?
Is it the people that supported the recent wars?
Is it the people with ill intentions that abuse the government?
Is it the corporations and their stockholders that buy the politicians?
Is it the politicians?
Is it the voters for the politicians?
Is it the minority?
Is it the majority?
Is it the banks who convinced the congress and president to give them the bailout?
Is it the people who took advantage of the tax cuts?
Is it the people who made the tax cuts?
Is it the soldiers who went to fight the wars?
Is it the ignorant voters?

If you had to split up the debt and make people accountable, what group of people should be personally responsible for paying off the debt?


Progressive Social Engineering
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 09:59 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,401,833 times
Reputation: 5453
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Do you see from the graph how gov't revenue as a p% of GDP skyrocketed in 2001, 2002 and 2003? Me neither.

You have to look at the right data series champ. Look at the 2002-2006 uptick here.

As usual in these threads, you prove you know how to copy graphs from wikipedia, but have trouble interpreting them. Since when did the total direct revenue measurement only apply to cap. gains? With all due respect, do you even know what that term means?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 09:59 AM
 
10,357 posts, read 7,957,384 times
Reputation: 4547
Wall Street. The financiers who created the near-collapse of the financial system that brought on a global recession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,534,071 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
You have to look at the right data series champ. Look at the 2002-2006 uptick here.

As usual in these threads, you prove you know how to copy graphs from wikipedia, but have trouble interpreting them. Since when did the total direct revenue measurement only apply to cap. gains? With all due respect, do you even know what that term means?


If you actually look at your graph you will see that when those cuts went into effect in 2002, capital gains revenue dropped from 20% to 16%. I don't know why the graph showed the cap gains rate rising to 20% in 2008. The rate didn't change.

In any case, can you think of anything that had been going on around 2006 that might account for larger capital gains? I'll give you a hint: the housing bubble. Claiming that Bush's tax-cuts are responsible for greater capital gains receipts is like the rooster taking credit for the dawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Since when did the total direct revenue measurement only apply to cap. gains?
I didn't bring it up. aneftp brought it up in post #31. I was merely responding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:08 AM
 
3,744 posts, read 2,586,894 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Wall Street. The financiers who created the near-collapse of the financial system that brought on a global recession.
Jimmy Carter and his Community Redevelopment ACT, which forced lenders to give mortgates to unqualified "borrowers" that resulted in the real-estate market collapse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
1,798 posts, read 1,640,703 times
Reputation: 1612
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Wall Street. The financiers who created the near-collapse of the financial system that brought on a global recession.
They jumped on the bandwagon and made it considerably worse than it otherwise would have been, but they weren't even on the scene when the real estate bubble began. In no particular order, financially illiterate homeowners, realtors, mortgage brokers & bankers, ratings agencies, the Fed & Federal government were all responsible.

But I'm harboring no illusions of changing your POV. No one ever does on forums like these...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,534,071 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi View Post
Jimmy Carter and his Community Redevelopment ACT, which forced lenders to give mortgates to unqualified "borrowers" that resulted in the real-estate market collapse.
The narrative that it was policies that allowed poor people to own their own homes; that it was the big bad government forcing banks to do something they didn't want to do, Barney Frank was a boogie man, etc., just misses the real cause.

Every piece of the government-did-it thesis has been refuted; see Mike Konczal for a summary.

Quote:
For some data, start here: ”More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions….Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.”
Quote:
As economist Robert Gordon has written, the lenders that made the bulk of subprime loans weren’t even covered by government laws to encourage homeownership. In fact, 94 percent of high-cost loans were totally unconnected from government homeownership laws.
source
Financial institutions, both regulated and deregulated, made money taking mortgages of dubious value, rating them AAA and selling them to investors. Nobody had to "force" them. These firms went out of their way asking for more mortgages. They were all getting rich and pocketing large commissions until the economy collapsed -- leaving them personally with millions and the public holding the bag.

What's really funny is that the same people making these claims now, back then were denying that there was even a housing bubble. (source)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 10:20 AM
 
3,744 posts, read 2,586,894 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The narrative that it was policies that allowed poor people to own their own homes; that it was the big bad government forcing banks to do something they didn't want to do, Barney Frank was a boogie man, etc., just misses the real cause.

Every piece of the government-did-it thesis has been refuted; see Mike Konczal [URL="http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/"]for a summary[/URL].





Financial institutions, both regulated and deregulated, made money taking mortgages of dubious value, rating them AAA and selling them to investors. Nobody had to "force" them. These firms went out of their way asking for more mortgages. They were all getting rich and pocketing large commissions until the economy collapsed -- leaving them personally with millions and the public holding the bag.

What's really funny is that the same people making these claims now, back then were denying that there was even a housing bubble. ([URL="http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html"]source[/URL])
Your "refutation" has been refuted. See my post - real world truth, NOT the propoganda you cite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top