Econ 101 for Obamites

[francoHFW]

How is this kook allowed out of its closet????

So....the Bush Tax Cuts that obamination kept in place until last week caused the mortgage and banking messes that blew up when Bush was sitting in the White House???

You are so fucking stupid.

If that was true, then why did obamination keep those EVIL tax cuts in place until last week.....oh we were so lucky to avoid another housing and banking disaster because granny's taxes were "too low."

No, dumbass, that was Pub cronyism and corruption that caused the meltdown. Reaganist tax rates and screwing with the workers caused the worst rich/poor gap and upward social mobility ever, and lack of demand.

Stupid insults and Rush/Beck/Pubcrappe all you got? GOP got nuthin'...LEARN:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

Actually the last 30 years...

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = Reagan Revolution Home To Roost — In Charts - Dave Johnson

 

[NYcarbineer]

Typical of an Obamite to post an inane question/deflection instead of addressing the facts.

Yes, I do believe the charts because they are fact.

OF COURSE you have to have tax rates in a certain range to keep revenue coming in DUH...

I truly believe that folks who gravitate to liberalism are brain-damaged and/or drug-addled.

Plenty of evidence on this forum and MANY others of it.

No. You said revenues don't change NO MATTER WHERE TAX RATES ARE.

So you're retracting that claim. You're admitting that tax rates do affect revenue.

Fine. That was my point. You need to first learn plain English before you attempt Economics.

You "debate" like a child.

Go outside and play, kid.

Then tell us how low the top rate can go without decreasing revenues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Typical of an Obamite to post an inane question/deflection instead of addressing the facts.

Yes, I do believe the charts because they are fact.

OF COURSE you have to have tax rates in a certain range to keep revenue coming in DUH...

I truly believe that folks who gravitate to liberalism are brain-damaged and/or drug-addled.

Plenty of evidence on this forum and MANY others of it.

No. You said revenues don't change NO MATTER WHERE TAX RATES ARE.

So you're retracting that claim. You're admitting that tax rates do affect revenue.

Fine. That was my point. You need to first learn plain English before you attempt Economics.

You "debate" like a child.

Go outside and play, kid.

What was your last username?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. You said revenues don't change NO MATTER WHERE TAX RATES ARE.

So you're retracting that claim. You're admitting that tax rates do affect revenue.

Fine. That was my point. You need to first learn plain English before you attempt Economics.

You "debate" like a child.

Go outside and play, kid.

What was your last username?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obamites foolishly focus on increasing tax rates to increase federal revenue, but IF they'd spend a couple seconds studying the data, they'd know that revenue remains basically the same no matter what the tax rates are.

Did anyone else notice the deception in this chart? I know that none of the rightwingers here including the OP have the intellectual capacity for that, but here it is for my liberal friends who might not have picked up on it.

By putting both of these statistics on the same chart, you create an illusion:

By compressing the % GDP number onto an inappropriately wide scale, you create the illusion that revenues as a percent of GDP fluctuated in a very small insignificant band.

The truth is, because GDP is a huge number - US GDP 2011 was 15 trillion dollars, changes in revenue as a % of that are also huge numbers.

The difference between revenues at 20% and revenues at 15% looks miniscule on the chart.
The number is in fact about 750 billion dollars.

1% of GDP equals 150 billion dollars.

Tax revenues were 20% of GDP in 2000. They fell throughout Bush tax cutting presidency to about 15% of GDP.

You can pretty much attribute all of Bush's deficits to that loss of revenue as a % of GDP.

 

[EriktheRed]

Typical of an Obamite to post an inane question/deflection instead of addressing the facts.

Yes, I do believe the charts because they are fact.

OF COURSE you have to have tax rates in a certain range to keep revenue coming in DUH...

I truly believe that folks who gravitate to liberalism are brain-damaged and/or drug-addled.

Plenty of evidence on this forum and MANY others of it.

No. You said revenues don't change NO MATTER WHERE TAX RATES ARE.

So you're retracting that claim. You're admitting that tax rates do affect revenue.

Fine. That was my point. You need to first learn plain English before you attempt Economics.

You "debate" like a child.

Go outside and play, kid.

This coming from the dickhead who said this earlier:

Typical of an Obamite to post an inane question/deflection instead of addressing the facts.

Yes, I do believe the charts because they are fact.

OF COURSE you have to have tax rates in a certain range to keep revenue coming in DUH...

I truly believe that folks who gravitate to liberalism are brain-damaged and/or drug-addled.

Plenty of evidence on this forum and MANY others of it.

Spare us your faux idignation, dipshit.

 

[eflatminor]

You can pretty much attribute all of Bush's deficits to that loss of revenue as a % of GDP.

Yea, cuz higher tax rates ALWAYS result in more revenue...

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can pretty much attribute all of Bush's deficits to that loss of revenue as a % of GDP.

Yea, cuz higher tax rates ALWAYS result in more revenue...

Bush's deficit in 2005 was 318 billion, after 2 tax cuts, and after having no deficit in 2000.

Tax revenues in 2005 as a % of GDP had fallen to 17% from 20% in 2000. That was on a 13 trillion dollar GDP in 2005.

Calculate the difference between 20% of 13 trillion and 17% of 13 trillion and tell me what you get.

 

[eflatminor]

You can pretty much attribute all of Bush's deficits to that loss of revenue as a % of GDP.

Yea, cuz higher tax rates ALWAYS result in more revenue...

Bush's deficit in 2005 was 318 billion, after 2 tax cuts, and after having no deficit in 2000.

Tax revenues in 2005 as a % of GDP had fallen to 17% from 20% in 2000. That was on a 13 trillion dollar GDP in 2005.

Calculate the difference between 20% of 13 trillion and 17% of 13 trillion and tell me what you get.

First, Bush's tax cuts were not implemented until May of 2003. To use 2000, when many taxes were still high, is rather slippery of you.

Regardless, your math requires a 100% certainty that had tax rates remained high after 2003 that the economy would have performed exactly as it did. Not only can't that be proven, history suggests the exact opposite is often the case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yea, cuz higher tax rates ALWAYS result in more revenue...

Bush's deficit in 2005 was 318 billion, after 2 tax cuts, and after having no deficit in 2000.

Tax revenues in 2005 as a % of GDP had fallen to 17% from 20% in 2000. That was on a 13 trillion dollar GDP in 2005.

Calculate the difference between 20% of 13 trillion and 17% of 13 trillion and tell me what you get.

First, Bush's tax cuts were not implemented until May of 2003. To use 2000, when many taxes were still high, is rather slippery of you.

Regardless, your math requires a 100% certainty that had tax rates remained high after 2003 that the economy would have performed exactly as it did. Not only can't that be proven, history suggests the exact opposite is often the case.

Taxes were higher in 2000, revenues were 20% of GDP, and there was a budget surplus. And UE was 4%.

 

[Rinata]

Obamaroids

Still such bad losers after 2 months!!

 

[Rinata]

The idiots here have never taken Economics even in high school, so this is like Chinese to them.

They are reliant on the media and their leaders telling them how things work and what is going to happen based on their lies. Take money from people that create jobs doesn't harm job creation because they are told that and they believe it.

Nancy Pelosi claims welfare simulates the economy.....this is the fucking idiots we're dealing with here. She thinks taking $10 from you, then giving $8 of that money to someone else has stimulated the economy.

Basically..you have no idea what you are talking about.

You can't last in a thread without personally insulting people when your opinion gets challenged.

Not many of your ilk can.

The OP starts with an insult.

Gee, I thought I was the only one that noticed it. You are absolutely right. Most of them cannot post without insults and cuss words. But when you have nothing else I guess that's what you do!!

 

[Rinata]

Obamaroids

You should get that treated.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You're dealing with stupid people who believe that the federal government IS the US economy

Yes, I realize that. Their World begins and ends with a Centralized federal gov't Those of us in the private sector who earn our living, non-union, are the enemy, only to be demonized and taxed to death to pay for their entitlements and cushy public sector union jobs and FAT pensions.

So, it appears, you are envious of others and have a poor paying job with few benefits. Rather than being personally responsible and getting an education or training which would improve your lot in life you would rather bring everyone else down to your level.

That in a nutshell is today's Reagan Republican.

Well Wry, nobody can ever accuse you of being 'perceptive'...

 

[eflatminor]

Bush's deficit in 2005 was 318 billion, after 2 tax cuts, and after having no deficit in 2000.

Tax revenues in 2005 as a % of GDP had fallen to 17% from 20% in 2000. That was on a 13 trillion dollar GDP in 2005.

Calculate the difference between 20% of 13 trillion and 17% of 13 trillion and tell me what you get.

First, Bush's tax cuts were not implemented until May of 2003. To use 2000, when many taxes were still high, is rather slippery of you.

Regardless, your math requires a 100% certainty that had tax rates remained high after 2003 that the economy would have performed exactly as it did. Not only can't that be proven, history suggests the exact opposite is often the case.

Taxes were higher in 2000, revenues were 20% of GDP, and there was a budget surplus. And UE was 4%.

Okay, but neither does that prove that higher tax rates result in more revenue.

It is true that after Clinton lowered the capital gains rate in November of 1994, the economy took off. It also helped that he embraced many free market policies (Dick Morris was Clinton's political consultant). He promoted free trade, tighter budgets, and he signed welfare reform. By 2000, we also had the tech bubble at its peak, so OF COURSE tax revenues were high. This is no way supports the notion that higher tax rates always result in higher tax revenues.

An example of the opposite occurring is when we increased tax rates in the early 90s. It didn't raise any tax revenues. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize".

 

[GuyPinestra]

Look at the crappe that happened under W's tax rates (a step too far), and of course the cronyism and corruption meltdown (typical and iconic of Pub economies). What we need now is an end to pandering to the bloated rich voodoo has produced, and help for the nonrich and infrastructure, that voodoo has ignored.

That's not communism or a new entitlement attitude, Rush/Beck/Pub dupes, that's fact.

Please Frenchie, don't stop at the cronyism and corruption of the Republicans, let's here some full-throated indignation for the BILLIONS wasted on Obama's bankrupt 'green' backers!

 

[francoHFW]

Look at the crappe that happened under W's tax rates (a step too far), and of course the cronyism and corruption meltdown (typical and iconic of Pub economies). What we need now is an end to pandering to the bloated rich voodoo has produced, and help for the nonrich and infrastructure, that voodoo has ignored.

That's not communism or a new entitlement attitude, Rush/Beck/Pub dupes, that's fact.

Please Frenchie, don't stop at the cronyism and corruption of the Republicans, let's here some full-throated indignation for the BILLIONS wasted on Obama's bankrupt 'green' backers!

So 3 projects out of 35 failing, trying to make the USA competitive in future industry at the cost of billions, is in ANY way like blowing TRILLIONS and wrecking the world out of pure greed? CHANGE THE CHANNEL. You are brainwashed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

National Monitor, Staff | January 05, 2013

The latest unemployment report is out and the Obama administration can chalk up another victory in the fight against rising unemployment in the U.S.

According to the latest unemployment report released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonfarm payroll employment rose by 155,000 in December, leaving the unemployment rate unchanged at 7.8 percent. Employment increased in health care, food services and drinking places, construction, and manufacturing, according to the agency, and will likely be welcomed by congressional Democrats and the White House.

Obama scores another victory: Unemployment rate falls to 7.8 percent, hiring continues | National Monitor

 

[GoneBezerk]

Insane shitheads will never learn....they will come here every day repeating the same bullshit until they die.

 

[EriktheRed]

Insane shitheads will never learn....they will come here every day repeating the same bullshit until they die.

Yeah....


So why do you do that, anyway?