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.
The chart I posted and the one you posted, arent even close to the same
And your chart, attributes Obama spending TO BUSH, which is a LIE, and pretends that Bush had 9 years of spending while Obama will only have 7..
It completely ignores that Obama signed most of the spending bills into law his year 1, and added to it.
Why do you support dishonest, or are you just that illinformed that you dont know better?
From your post # 183
Quote: Chad3- "Look at the chart in post #175 (Reagan had LOWER revenues than every democrat.)"
pghquest reply- "People have already responded to that chart and proven to you that its an outright lie."
My post #175 contains a revenue chart titled "Federal Tax receipts as a Percentage of GDP"
(The chart in post #175 is the chart in question.)
You are the one who first posted that chart in post #166.
I then asked you in another post to please provide the post # that discredited that chart. And your above post is your reply to my question. (and no one ever discredited that chart.)
I have never met anyone who manipulates and works people over like you do.
You are like a troll who starts conversations with people, and then you mess with them.
And when you work people over you lie, (and you know that your lying when you do it.)
Presidents --- governments -- control them indirectly through legislation, taxation, monetary policies and other policies.
No, it is not.
Interest Inflation is caused by bad government policies.
Cost-push Inflation is caused by bad government policies.
Real Inflation is caused by bad government policies.
No, that is not why.
Nothing relevant.
Government spending may benefit the economy, but if, and only if, it is spent in those sectors of the economy where Capital is underutilized.
Community groups that supported Obama were underutilized? How?
A source? And who wrote that? Some free-loading Gen Y puke living in mommy's basement?
The statement is irrelevant.
Tax cuts are not required to pay for anything. The purpose of tax cuts is to stimulate economic growth.
Spin what?
The Heritage Foundation is a Neo-Conservative think-tank. I'm guessing you didn't get the memo.
In spite of your Wishful Thinking fallacy, there is no relationship between Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives, nor is there a relationship between Republicans and Neo-Conservatives.
Neo-Conservatives are former Social Democrats formerly the Young People's Socialist League.
No Neo-Conservative has ever held public office. The closest thing would be Joe Lieberman formerly a Democrat now an Independent.
Note that Bush -- like his father -- is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
Yeah, so? Your own government says you have no idea what you're talking about....
The Congressional Research Service says cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
The Internal Revenue Services proves cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
The General Accounting Office has published reports demonstrating that cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
The Congressional Budget Office says cutting the Capital Gains Tax increases government revenues.
"In 1968, real capital gains tax receipts were $34 billion at a 25 percent tax rate. Over the next eight years the tax rate was raised four times, to a high of 35 percent. But with the tax rate almost 10 percentage points higher in 1972 than in 1968, real capital gains tax revenues were only
$27 billion — 21 percent below the 1968 level.
After the 2003 capital gains cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion. Capital gains tax revenues grew from $55 billion in 2002 to $110 billion in 2006. Every indicator demonstrates that the 2003 capital gains tax cut helped increase growth, share values and federal tax revenues."
Source: Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury. See also "Capital Gains Taxes and Federal Revenues," A series of issue summaries from the Congressional Budget Office OCTOBER 9, 2002
In...
"The relationship between realized capital gains and their marginal rate of taxation," 1976-2004, Institute for Research into the Economics of Taxation, October 2009
...Paul Evans demonstrated that the optimum capital gains tax rate is 9%-10%.
Please wait until the Fantasy Ride™ stops completely, before exiting and rejoining the Real World™...
Mircea
I said its controversial to blame a sitting president for unemployment rates, inflation, and GDP growth.
Can you name any president who changed unemployment rates, inflation, or GDP growth while he was in office?
Perhaps Obama created/saved jobs when he bailed out GM, but that's the exception.
And Clinton and the republican congress did the free trade deal with China (and destroyed US jobs), but those jobs moved to China after Clinton was out of office.
Yes presidents can effect jobs, but legislative changes that do it take time, and jobs are usually effected after that president is long gone.
And you said "Inflation is caused by bad government policies." In the early 1900's you could buy a brand new car for $500. Are you saying if our government made good policies, we would still be able to buy a brand new car for $500 today?
And you are 100% correct tax cuts for the middle class stimulate economic growth.
Only problem is republicans lie and say tax cuts increase government revenue (they don't.)
And republicans give the rich and large corporations huge tax cuts. These tax cuts create deficits and grow our debt, and they finance the building of US factories in Asia, ex.ex.
And perhaps you and other people in this forum are real conservatives, but the last real conservative we had in Washington was G(H)W Bush. The majority of our current republicans are CEO's who are only looking for corporate tax cuts.
And "cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department."
Take a look at the above source, it explains why capital gains tax cuts temporally raise revenues, but also how capital gains cuts decrease revenues in the long run.
I said its controversial to blame a sitting president for unemployment rates, inflation, and GDP growth.
It is not controversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Can you name any president who changed unemployment rates, inflation, or GDP growth while he was in office?
Nearly all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Yes presidents can effect jobs, but legislative changes that do it take time, and jobs are usually effected after that president is long gone.
90 Days to as long as 10-12 years, but you only know that because I continually correct people on the influence of economic policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
And you said "Inflation is caused by bad government policies." In the early 1900's you could buy a brand new car for $500. Are you saying if our government made good policies, we would still be able to buy a brand new car for $500 today?
No, I'm saying your knowledge of Economics is highly superficial (at most) and that you have no understanding of what Inflation is.
To you, Inflation is some vague nebulous thing caused by the orange-red radiation emitted by stupidium on the Planet Gobbledy-**** III in the Moronic Nebulae.
There are different types of Inflation, each with their own unique cause....meaning there is a Cause & Effect Relationship....Inflation just doesn't happen all by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Only problem is republicans lie and say tax cuts increase government revenue (they don't.)
Yes, they do increase government revenues. Half-a-dozen agencies in your own government have proven so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
And republicans give the rich and large corporations huge tax cuts.
And Democrats don't?
You need to seriously study the legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
These tax cuts create deficits and grow our debt, and they finance the building of US factories in Asia, ex.ex.
No, reckless spending increases deficits which in turn increases federal debt.
To the extent that they finance the building of US factories in Asia, you have no issue with that.
You are an Obama supporter, are you not?
Well, Obama is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist just like Bush, Clinton and Bush's Daddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
And perhaps you and other people in this forum are real conservatives, but the last real conservative we had in Washington was G(H)W Bush.
What? He was a freaking slug Neo-Liberal.
Who do you think approved US VII Corps units leaving Germany to be transported to Turkey to train in the desert on the border with Iraq prior to Iraq's "invasion" of Kuwait?
I'm sorry....how many square miles of desert are there between Germany and Moscow?
Must be those fierce Polish and Czech desert fighters no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Take a look at the above source, it explains why capital gains tax cuts temporally raise revenues, but also how capital gains cuts decrease revenues in the long run.
Chad.
It explains nothing.
All they do is talk in circles without presenting even one iota of factual data.
90 Days to as long as 10-12 years, but you only know that because I continually correct people on the influence of economic policies.
No, I'm saying your knowledge of Economics is highly superficial (at most) and that you have no understanding of what Inflation is.
To you, Inflation is some vague nebulous thing caused by the orange-red radiation emitted by stupidium on the Planet Gobbledy-**** III in the Moronic Nebulae.
There are different types of Inflation, each with their own unique cause....meaning there is a Cause & Effect Relationship....Inflation just doesn't happen all by itself.
Yes, they do increase government revenues. Half-a-dozen agencies in your own government have proven so.
And Democrats don't?
You need to seriously study the legislation.
No, reckless spending increases deficits which in turn increases federal debt.
To the extent that they finance the building of US factories in Asia, you have no issue with that.
You are an Obama supporter, are you not?
Well, Obama is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist just like Bush, Clinton and Bush's Daddy.
What? He was a freaking slug Neo-Liberal.
Who do you think approved US VII Corps units leaving Germany to be transported to Turkey to train in the desert on the border with Iraq prior to Iraq's "invasion" of Kuwait?
I'm sorry....how many square miles of desert are there between Germany and Moscow?
Must be those fierce Polish and Czech desert fighters no?
It explains nothing.
All they do is talk in circles without presenting even one iota of factual data.
And name a president who effected unemployment rates, inflation, and GDP growth while they were in office.
Name the president, how they did it, and a source that explains it.
"Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." (And your correct that's all I know about inflation.)
And even republican economists say tax cuts don't increase revenues,
"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."
But capital gains tax cuts temporarily increase revenues, but loose revenues in the long run. They temporarily increase revenues because the new low tax rates get people to cash in their capital gains while the rates are low, but this increased revenue has nothing to do with business, a stimulated economy, or economics. Rather it has to do with human greed, people cash in when the rates are low.
"According to CBO estimates permanently extending the tax provisions of EGTRRA and JGTRRA (the Bush tax cuts) it would increase the deficit by $1.2 (trillion) over five years and by $3.3 (trillion) over 10 years."
I wouldn't say that. But I will always vote democrat before voting for some republican CEO who's only purpose in Washington is to hand out corporate tax cuts and deregulate corporations.
Chad.
Last edited by chad3; 04-08-2014 at 12:55 AM..
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.
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.
