Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Um, they didnt?If tax cuts and deregulation make the economy take off, then why did the economy take a dive after 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.
No, the economy spent itself into bankruptcy. There was no net job creation. The budget deficit, the national debt, and credit exploded
If you didn't make shit up you might be worth pissing on.
Here's the WHite House's own projections:
White House Long-Term Budget Projections, August 2009
Note the increasing deficits every year. And this is the White House's own projection.
Wingnut moron doesn't realize the chart he linked to doesn't even have a projection for 2015.
Here's the right chart, from the same website, which shows the deficit going from $1556B (2010) to $752B (in 2015)
White House 10-Year Budget Projections, August 2009
Ugh, no. The link shows the deficit declining and then rising again.
Whatever it is, the White House's own projections, based on rosy scenarios at best, show massively increasing deficits.
Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.
No, the economy spent itself into bankruptcy. There was no net job creation. The budget deficit, the national debt, and credit exploded
Uh, no. Again.
The economy did well. Unemployment did not exceed 5.5% and was much lower than that. With immigrants and people entering the workforce that means the economy had to generate new jobs. In fact we did. The "no net creation" meme comes from comparing jobs in 2008 to 2001. From 2001 to 07 there was huge creation.
Did you take inflation into acct?
I would be more interested in knowing what the rich were doing with their money rather than buying into the class envy strategy that you simply cannot defend in real life. Did they become richer by saving their money and thereby making more cash available for others to borrow? Did they invest it and thereby increase the fortunes of others? Did they expand their businesses and product lines so that they hired more people, provided more in raises and benefits, and consumed more which also increased prosperity for others? Did they invest in capital improvements which opened up employment opportunities for hundreds more.
If you confiscated all the wealth of the richest Americans, it would run the Federal government for a week or two, and then we would be bankrupt since those folks are the ones who are paying most of the taxes.
Don't worry about how much the other guy has so much. Be glad you live in a country where you can educate yourself, learn a trade of your choice, earn unlimited income and move up the ladder of success according to your ability, inspiration, dedication, and ambitions, and aspire to become one of the rich.
It is that fact that has made our nation the greatest nation the world has ever seen.
I have no idea what you're talking about with your reference to a "class envy strategy", but it sure is making you sound like a Marxist.
And all of your talk about confiscating private wealth only reinforces the idea that your post is nothing more than marxist blather.
Since your skewed wingnut mind cannot seem to understand why those graphs were posted, I'll spell it out for you and I'll use small words:
A poster claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy created jobs and wealth for all americans. The charts prove that is not true.
Temporary=6 years.
Got it.
And you go on iggy you dumb son of a bitch.
I would be more interested in knowing what the rich were doing with their money rather than buying into the class envy strategy that you simply cannot defend in real life. Did they become richer by saving their money and thereby making more cash available for others to borrow? Did they invest it and thereby increase the fortunes of others? Did they expand their businesses and product lines so that they hired more people, provided more in raises and benefits, and consumed more which also increased prosperity for others? Did they invest in capital improvements which opened up employment opportunities for hundreds more.
If you confiscated all the wealth of the richest Americans, it would run the Federal government for a week or two, and then we would be bankrupt since those folks are the ones who are paying most of the taxes.
Don't worry about how much the other guy has so much. Be glad you live in a country where you can educate yourself, learn a trade of your choice, earn unlimited income and move up the ladder of success according to your ability, inspiration, dedication, and ambitions, and aspire to become one of the rich.
It is that fact that has made our nation the greatest nation the world has ever seen.
I have no idea what you're talking about with your reference to a "class envy strategy", but it sure is making you sound like a Marxist.
And all of your talk about confiscating private wealth only reinforces the idea that your post is nothing more than marxist blather.
Since your skewed wingnut mind cannot seem to understand why those graphs were posted, I'll spell it out for you and I'll use small words:
A poster claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy created jobs and wealth for all americans. The charts prove that is not true.
Makes ME look like a Marxist? I heartily approve of the rich. I hope they get richer so they'll be in a better position to help some of the rest of us get rich. I know if "Marxists" who despise and denigrate the rich are successful in taking them down, my chances of getting rich will be much lessened. Class envy is thinking the successful and prosperous do not deserve to be successful and prosperous. A Marxist wants everybody to be equally successful and prosperous. Unfortunately, that almost always translates into everybody being equally miserably except for the few who elevate themselves into totalitarian power in the process.
Your charts prove nothing. My charts, however, backed up by the CBO, do prove that you have posted quite a bit that you can't back up.
Well Sangha, since you obviously didn't or are incapable of reading what I actually wrote, I'll just move on. My motto is do not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises in futility. And those unable to argue a point without using ad hominem and/or being personally insulting usually fall into one of those categories.
Do have a pleasant day.
Well Sangha, since you obviously didn't or are incapable of reading what I actually wrote, I'll just move on. My motto is do not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises in futility. And those unable to argue a point without using ad hominem and/or being personally insulting usually fall into one of those categories.
Do have a pleasant day.
And another wingnut goes running to mommy
I accept your surrender
Well Sangha, since you obviously didn't or are incapable of reading what I actually wrote, I'll just move on. My motto is do not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises in futility. And those unable to argue a point without using ad hominem and/or being personally insulting usually fall into one of those categories.
Do have a pleasant day.
And another wingnut goes running to mommy
I accept your surrender
No. It does not
Sorry meant by not as much. I don't see any negative percentages of income change in any of those columns.
Did you take inflation into acct?
Well Sangha, since you obviously didn't or are incapable of reading what I actually wrote, I'll just move on. My motto is do not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises in futility. And those unable to argue a point without using ad hominem and/or being personally insulting usually fall into one of those categories.
Do have a pleasant day.
And another wingnut goes running to mommy
I accept your surrender
Nope you don't. Because I didn't surrender. I didn't have to use ad hominem or personal insults to make my case. You have used ad hominem and personal insulted and failed to rebut my argument. So I win. But thanks for playing.
Sorry meant by not as much. I don't see any negative percentages of income change in any of those columns.
Did you take inflation into acct?
Yeah. Since the start of your graph it has gone down. In conclusion not only did everyone's income increase in 30 years to some extent or other, that money now actually has more purchasing power than it did then.
Did you take inflation into acct?
Yeah. Since the start of your graph it has gone down. In conclusion not only did everyone's income increase in 30 years to some extent or other, that money now actually has more purchasing power than it did then.
Umm, no
The chart goes back decades. It includes periods of high inflation, such as the 70's, and the increase in income does not account for the inflation, which was much higher. And even in times of low inflation, prices rose faster than income did because income increased by an avg of only 0.25% per year for the bottom 10%
IOW, everything you said was wrong.
Yeah. Since the start of your graph it has gone down. In conclusion not only did everyone's income increase in 30 years to some extent or other, that money now actually has more purchasing power than it did then.
Umm, no
The chart goes back decades. It includes periods of high inflation, such as the 70's, and the increase in income does not account for the inflation, which was much higher. And even in times of low inflation, prices rose faster than income did because income increased by an avg of only 0.25% per year for the bottom 10%
IOW, everything you said was wrong.
Look at your own graph. The one where you show the disparity in income increase between rich and poor. It starts at 1979. Inflation in 1979 was about 12%. 2004 (the year your graph ends) it was 2.6%. Unfortunately your graph happens to start in the two year period where inflation was as high as it has EVER been.
Umm, no
The chart goes back decades. It includes periods of high inflation, such as the 70's, and the increase in income does not account for the inflation, which was much higher. And even in times of low inflation, prices rose faster than income did because income increased by an avg of only 0.25% per year for the bottom 10%
IOW, everything you said was wrong.
Look at your own graph. The one where you show the disparity in income increase between rich and poor. It starts at 1979. Inflation in 1979 was about 12%. 2004 (the year your graph ends) it was 2.6%. Unfortunately your graph happens to start in the two year period where inflation was as high as it has EVER been.
I have no idea what your point is. However, the simple math shows that the inflation rate has ALWAYS been much higher than the increase in income for the bottom 10%. When incomes rises slower than inflation, real income DECREASES.
And wrt the bottom 10%, it doesn't matter which year you start at because EVERY YEAR had an inflation rate that was higher than the increase in income
You're certainly proof of that...Don't you have a toilet to inspect or something? Leave economics to people who actually know something about it.
That certainly would not include you! Silly Rabbi!
My coherency meter breaks every time you post bullshit!
A little knowledge gained by Google is an absurd thing.
The rich have become richer. The wage and earnings gap has become wider. The jobs those beneficent rich were supposed to create were created overseas. Thanks supply siders! You made it so easy for the rich they no longer have the troubles the vast majority has!
Consumer spending drives the economy. The rich aren't in sufficient numbers to rely on their spending. The vast majority of consumers have been screwed blue by supply side economics. If the supply siders decided to trickle the benefits on those who do the most spending, the rich would still get rich and the jobs would be right here making the goods the consumers want.
Does this chart not indicate that even though the rich are getting richer, so are the poor just by as much?
Look at your own graph. The one where you show the disparity in income increase between rich and poor. It starts at 1979. Inflation in 1979 was about 12%. 2004 (the year your graph ends) it was 2.6%. Unfortunately your graph happens to start in the two year period where inflation was as high as it has EVER been.
I have no idea what your point is. However, the simple math shows that the inflation rate has ALWAYS been much higher than the increase in income for the bottom 10%. When incomes rises slower than inflation, real income DECREASES.
And wrt the bottom 10%, it doesn't matter which year you start at because EVERY YEAR had an inflation rate that was higher than the increase in income
And you would have a point IF what you were paid was actually tied to inflation.
