Liberals turning on Obama

[BrianFromWA]

I wrote that badly. Let's try again.

According to many articles posted on this board, current government revenue from the rich is the lowest amount per rich taxpayer practically in history, or at least in the last 60 years. The poor and middle class have seen no reduction. The big reduction is from the rich and corporations.

If you want small deficits, return to the tax rates when we had small deficits. Your argument about the poor paying no tax is irrelevant (a more polite word for "gimmick"), because that was true when deficits were small.

In summary, the thing that has changed (=the cause of the increased deficits) is the change in how much the rich pay, not the poor, which hasn't changed.

Sure, let's go back to when Medicare wasn't around, there hadn't been a "War on Poverty", Social Security was 2%, unemployment was capped at 13 weeks and military spending was 15% of GDP. I'll tax the superrich 70%, b/c like you said they'll just start living off of capital gains. Highest progressive bracket is a dumb way of looking at how much the rich are taxed, but if it gets us everything in the first sentence, then I might go for that.

The "difference" is that the "poor" are sucking up a much greater percentage of spending than they were when the government spending was lower (which, amazingly enough, corresponds with your time of "reduced deficits"

 

[¹²³]

are R-star, 123 or HB on here in different names?

I'm here with the same name.

 

[jlprk]

Sure, let's go back to when Medicare wasn't around, there hadn't been a "War on Poverty", Social Security was 2%, unemployment was capped at 13 weeks and military spending was 15% of GDP.

No, just go back to the late 90s. Cut expenses and increase revenues to what we had then. I realize new expenses will be hard to cut, maybe impossible, but the late 90s are a good start.

You don't have to go back to the 50s.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, just go back to the late 90s. Cut expenses and increase revenues to what we had then. I realize new expenses will be hard to cut, maybe impossible, but the late 90s are a good start.

You don't have to go back to the 50s.

Revenues now are higher than back then. Now what?

 

[Masbee]

No, just go back to the late 90s. Cut expenses and increase revenues to what we had then. I realize new expenses will be hard to cut, maybe impossible, but the late 90s are a good start.

You don't have to go back to the 50s.

Late 90's.

Just think about that for more than 10 seconds.

The late 90's was the end of the largest stock market bubble in human history. Tax revenues were at record levels as those evil rich folks were paying massive taxes on their "gains", soon to turn into a bloodbath.

The Clinton era of "balanced budgets" was a temporary situation built on bubble economics that were unsustainable. Additionally, politicians piled on more promises of future spending. That was the real disaster of that era. And the Bush Admin that followed. Not what was spent at the moment as much as what was piled on for the future.

The future is now.

 

[huevonkiller]

Bullshit.

GDP is what the govt. could tax if it taxed everything 100%. This is its significance.

I didn't write about debt to GDP ratio, I wrote about spending to GDP ratio.

When govt. spending was 20% of GDP, the economy boomed. When govt. spending is 40%, we resemble the old Soviet Union, just before it collapsed under its own weight.

If GDP were $1, and the govt. taxed 10%, it could spend $.10 and have a balanced budget. If GDP were $100, and the govt. taxed 10%, it could spend $10 and have a balanced budget.

It doesn't take much in the way of math skills to get it.

Lol what a great response, it amazes me what these democratic superfans try to make up when their story crumbles. Not to mention debt-to-GDP adjusts for population like you proved.

Fuck the Soviet Union and these modern day communists in Congress.

 

[jlprk]

The Clinton era of "balanced budgets" was a temporary situation built on bubble economics that were unsustainable.

It was a permanent solution that extended into 2001. The end of the bubble did not end the surplus, as Republican myth claims. What ended the surplus was the 10-year giant tax cut for the rich, enacted in the first months of the Bush Administration.

Republicans now want to go back to spending levels at the end of the Bush Admin. I say, go back to both the spending and tax rates on the first day of the Bush Administration.

Let's see you tell me how the former is good but the latter is impossible.

As for Denny's GDP ratios, that's all obfuscation to obscure clear debate. Republicans bring that stuff up and the discussion always dies. It isn't helpful in figuring out where to specifically go. It's just some predictive taxonomy to find order in history.

 

[huevonkiller]

It was a permanent solution that extended into 2001. The end of the bubble did not end the surplus, as Republican myth claims. What ended the surplus was the 10-year giant tax cut for the rich, enacted in the first months of the Bush Administration.

Republicans now want to go back to spending levels at the end of the Bush Admin. I say, go back to both the spending and tax rates on the first day of the Bush Administration.

Let's see you tell me how the former is good but the latter is impossible.

As for Denny's GDP ratios, that's all obfuscation to obscure clear debate. Republicans bring that stuff up and the discussion always dies. It isn't helpful in figuring out where to specifically go. It's just some predictive taxonomy to find order in history.

Denny owned you dude sorry, 40% of GDP doesn't cover 20% of the tax revenues we will get. And have always gotten no matter what tax rates are. Stop defending Obama's coward policies. :]

Bush is a loser that spent money, Obama is a loser that spends even more money. Bush isn't even a fiscal conservative.

 

[jlprk]

How did he or you show that returning to Clinton times wouldn't solve the problem? The problem was clearly all solved, then you Republicans fucked it up, robbing the surplus with your giveaway to the rich that you still won't cancel. If your way is better, then our economy is beautiful now, isn't it? History has already recorded that you're the ones owned.

 

[blazerboy30]

It was a permanent solution that extended into 2001. The end of the bubble did not end the surplus, as Republican myth claims. What ended the surplus was the 10-year giant tax cut for the rich, enacted in the first months of the Bush Administration.

How many times are you going to keep spewing this, even after I kicked your ass on this discussion a few weeks ago?

The Bush Tax Cuts were for $1.35 trillion over 10 years. Our deficit is $1.6 Trillion for 1 year. But go on blaming the Bush Tax Cuts for the huge deficit.

Didn't you say you're an accountant? Must be out of work after your clients saw your math skills.

As for Denny's GDP ratios, that's all obfuscation to obscure clear debate. Republicans bring that stuff up and the discussion always dies.

The discussion dies because you democrats can't formulate a logical rebuttal against the real facts.

 

[jlprk]

You seem to thing there's a 1-to-1 correspondence between a tax cut/increase and economic conditions. There's a multiplier effect, because a surplus raises confidence for investment and hiring and a giant deficit reduces confidence. Confidence means that big investors take their money out of domestic companies and send it overseas to better economies.

As for your discussing this with me before, I don't remember that. Are you here often? I probably dismissed you to go outside to play and you thought you were right or something.

 

[huevonkiller]

How did he or you show that returning to Clinton times wouldn't solve the problem? The problem was clearly all solved, then you Republicans fucked it up, robbing the surplus with your giveaway to the rich that you still won't cancel. If your way is better, then our economy is beautiful now, isn't it? History has already recorded that you're the ones owned.

Dude stfu I'm not "Republican". Bush is exactly what Obama is now economically, lol dude he believed in those bailouts too.

You have no mathematical defense for your ignorance, and you have no idea what taxes are or how they are collected. Do some history about housing and .com bubbles. Your guy is a failure and his economy is worse than Bush's. What a clown Obama is.

By the way "obfuscation to obscure" is not a defense genius. A defense is addressing the scientific metrics behind Denny's argument, amateur.

 

[huevonkiller]

You seem to thing there's a 1-to-1 correspondence between a tax cut/increase and economic conditions. There's a multiplier effect, because a surplus raises confidence for investment and hiring and a giant deficit reduces confidence. Confidence means that big investors take their money out of domestic companies and send it overseas to better economies.

As for your discussing this with me before, I don't remember that. Are you here often? I probably dismissed you to go outside to play and you thought you were right or something.

No you're making BS up and it is annoying. Taxes are 20% of GDP at best Denny made it extremely clear.

It. Is. Called. History. Look at tax revenue, look at total GDP. Now stop preaching your failed rhetoric.

 

[barfo]

No you're making BS up and it is annoying. Taxes are 20% of GDP at best Denny made it extremely clear.

It. Is. Called. History. Look at tax revenue, look at total GDP. Now stop preaching your failed rhetoric.

I'm afraid it's utter nonsense to claim that tax revenues can never go above 20% of GDP. Hauser's Law is an observation about what happened in the relatively recent past, not a limitation on what can happen in the future.

Tax relative to GDP is 30% in Australia, 40% in Austria, 47% in Belgium, 39% in Brazil, 32% in Canada, etc. etc. etc.

You'd have us believe there is some fundamental economic law regarding 20% of GDP that applies to the USA but not to any of those other countries?

No, it's been our policy to keep tax revenue around 20% of GDP. It's not a requirement, it's a choice.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Taxes as % of GDP were 26% in 2009 when you factor in state taxes.

Apples to oranges, barfo.

 

[huevonkiller]

Barfo why do you keep wasting time defending this clown? Btw I voted for Obama in 2008 so you can stop pegging me as one of the witchhunters. Obama is a failure and so have every one of your policies.

I'm afraid it's utter nonsense to claim that tax revenues can never go above 20% of GDP. Hauser's Law is an observation about what happened in the relatively recent past, not a limitation on what can happen in the future.

Tax relative to GDP is 30% in Australia, 40% in Austria, 47% in Belgium, 39% in Brazil, 32% in Canada, etc. etc. etc.

You'd have us believe there is some fundamental economic law regarding 20% of GDP that applies to the USA but not to any of those other countries?

I'm Afraid America is #1 in total GDP in the world, barfo honestly stop. Barfo you're really obsessed with the dumbest metrics, if all you said is true which doesn't matter btw, America's ratio is always 20% no matter who is President.

Since always. Further Canada didn't use your policies to get back its triple A Credit rating. You've failed badly and Europe is sputtering into Debt-GDP ratio hell.

No, it's been our policy to keep tax revenue around 20% of GDP. It's not a requirement, it's a choice.

barfo

This is utter nonsense Jimmy Carter, and every single Democratic president's policies were not to keep tax revenues at "20%". Our marginal tax rates have exceeded 90% in the past.

 

[barfo]

Taxes as % of GDP were 26% in 2009 when you factor in state taxes.

Apples to oranges, barfo.

Great, so you agree. There's nothing magical about 20%. We could raise federal taxes, provide more federal money to the states, lower state taxes, and suddenly your magic 20% is 26%.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Taxes as % of GDP were 26% in 2009 when you factor in state taxes.

Apples to oranges, barfo.

Yeah who would have thought, taxing the private sector and small businesses which employ most of America, hurts the economy.


To the commies:

Allen Iverson and Mario Chalmers aren't rich because they steal money from you, stop bitching about cool rich people that employ and fuel America.

 

[huevonkiller]

Great, so you agree. There's nothing magical about 20%. We could raise federal taxes, provide more federal money to the states, lower state taxes, and suddenly your magic 20% is 26%.

barfo

No Hauser's law adjusted for state taxes would merely change, not the efficiency of the economy.

 

[Denny Crane]

Great, so you agree. There's nothing magical about 20%. We could raise federal taxes, provide more federal money to the states, lower state taxes, and suddenly your magic 20% is 26%.

barfo

Why on earth would we want to do that?

Your USSR crumbled under those kinds of burdens on the people.

And we agree you compare apples to oranges.

 

[Denny Crane]

The federal govt. alone is spending ~$4T on ~300M people, or about $13K per person. If they just wrote every man, woman, child, and baby a check for $13K, we'd be far better off and nobody would be poor. The poorest family of 4 would get $52K, which is more than the median family income now.

But in barfo's world, it costs $12.5K to deliver $500 worth of services per person, so let's do more of it!

 

[barfo]

Barfo why do you keep wasting time defending this clown? Btw I voted for Obama in 2008 so you can stop pegging me as one of the witchhunters. Obama is a failure and so have every one of your policies.

You seem confused. I didn't mention Obama at all.

I'm Afraid America is #1 in total GDP in the world, barfo honestly stop. Barfo you're really obsessed with the dumbest metrics, if all you said is true which doesn't matter btw, America's ratio is always 20% no matter who is President.

Again, you seem confused. I wasn't the one who brought up the dumb metric (20% of GDP).

Since always.

No, not since always. In fact in 2009 it was only 15%.

Further Canada didn't use your policies to get back its triple A Credit rating. You've failed badly and Europe is sputtering into Debt-GDP ratio hell.

My policies? What the hell are you talking about?

This is utter nonsense Jimmy Carter, and every single Democratic president's policies were not to keep tax revenues at "20%". Our marginal tax rates have exceeded 90% in the past.

There's a difference between top marginal tax rates and tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. They do both include a "%" sign, I suppose.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Yeah the government should build more mass transit, and start making government cars.

We all know how efficient social security/medicare is, 46 trillion dollars in future promises.

 

[barfo]

Yeah the government should build more mass transit, and start making government cars.

We all know how efficient medicare is, 46 trillion dollars in future promises.

Ok, sorry to interrupt your random rantings. Please continue.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You seem confused. I didn't mention Obama at all.

You seem confused. What's the title of the thread?

 

[huevonkiller]

You seem confused. I didn't mention Obama at all.

You're a cheerleader. Throughout various subjects whether directly or indirectly.

Again, you seem confused. I wasn't the one who brought up the dumb metric (20% of GDP).

Why is it a dumb metric? Because it destroys your virtual reality world where the government has been investing intelligently and not stealing from the private sector?

No, not since always. In fact in 2009 it was only 15%.

Nah nigguh I said 20% at best. Read my posts.

My policies? What the hell are you talking about?

Click on "barfo", then "View forum posts".

There's a difference between top marginal tax rates and tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. They do both include a "%" sign, I suppose.

barfo

What are you going to say now dude? You're screwed.

marginal tax rate equals delta t over delta I and the rich get taxed plenty throughout history.

You have no idea what argument you want to make, we don't "grow" the economy by getting "revenue" from making the private sector weaker.

 

[huevonkiller]

Ok, sorry to interrupt your random rantings. Please continue.

barfo

They're your policies though, why are you so embarrassed?

 

[huevonkiller]

You seem confused. What's the title of the thread?

You know it is really funny, barfo gives the weakest excuse ever by including rates from other countries, and ignores what actually gets countries out of bankruptcy.

And the failing socialist policies of Europe. And the fact that it doesn't disprove your position at all Denny.

 

[barfo]

You seem confused. What's the title of the thread?

Who gives a shit what the title of the thread is? My post addressed a particular issue that other posters had mentioned in the thread. Therefore it was on topic. If you didn't want to talk about tax rates in this thread, you shouldn't have done so.

barfo

 

[barfo]

You know it is really funny, barfo gives the weakest excuse ever by including rates from other countries, and ignores what actually gets countries out of bankruptcy.

Which of those countries have ever been bankrupt?
barfo