modemocrat

[jacobi]

Republicans best chance in 2012, Romney/Huntsman, that's all the help you are going to get from me. My vote will be for President Obama VP Biden, The Democrat party has always fought for the working man & woman. We are in debt because of 2 unfunded wars & an unfunded prescription plan for Medicare. The Bush tax cuts should have been repealed to help pay and we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[Lovebears65]

You got Obama down pat. Its all Bushs fault. Youre a true idiot if you think Obama is for the working people while he is in a 4 million dollar house in HI

 

[eflatminor]

The Democrat party has always fought for the working man & woman.

Always? The Democrat party was also the party that fought for slavery. Of course, they didn't think slaves were actually humans, so you may still be correct in your statement.

We are in debt because of 2 unfunded wars & an unfunded prescription plan for Medicare.

Actually, Medicare itself is the biggest contributor to our debt. The wars certainly don't help our financial situation but you do realize the your Democrat president has started a few wars of his own, all unfunded and undeclared by Congress?

The Bush tax cuts should have been repealed to help pay and we wouldn't be in this mess

Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely. There is no evidence to suggest that if we had higher tax rates (no "Bush tax cuts") that we would have realized more actual revenue. In fact, a strong case can be made that we have realized more revenue do to those cuts. Either scenario is difficult to prove but we certainly know that your statement cannot be proven. And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely.

Really? Then how do you explain that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down 25% from a decade ago?

In fact, a strong case can be made that we have realized more revenue do to those cuts.

I would love to see this case, because tax revenue dropped every year Bush cut taxes. That's three years in a row, something that has never happened in modern history. It didn't even happen during the Great Depression.

And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?

Yes, but you understand that as a percentage of their income, the wealthy received the largest percentage cuts, right?

 

[eflatminor]

Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely.

Really? Then how do you explain that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down 25% from a decade ago?

In fact, a strong case can be made that we have realized more revenue do to those cuts.

I would love to see this case, because tax revenue dropped every year Bush cut taxes. That's three years in a row, something that has never happened in modern history. It didn't even happen during the Great Depression.

And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?

Yes, but you understand that as a percentage of their income, the wealthy received the largest percentage cuts, right?

Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP despite marginal rates as high as 90%. Of course, revenues always decrease during an economic downturn. The case for increased revenues following marginal tax rate decreases was predicted by Art Laffer...and proven following Regan's tax cuts. True, wealthier Americans may have seen a larger percentage cut, but then we all know the wealthy pay the largest portion of the taxes...by a frickin' long shot. The fact nearly half of Americans now don't pay any federal income tax is another subject, but one that speaks volumes about tax inequity.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely.

Really? Then how do you explain that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down 25% from a decade ago?

I would love to see this case, because tax revenue dropped every year Bush cut taxes. That's three years in a row, something that has never happened in modern history. It didn't even happen during the Great Depression.

And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?

Yes, but you understand that as a percentage of their income, the wealthy received the largest percentage cuts, right?

Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP despite marginal rates as high as 90%. Of course, revenues always decrease during an economic downturn. The case for increased revenues following marginal tax rate decreases was predicted by Art Laffer...and proven following Regan's tax cuts. True, wealthier Americans may have seen a larger percentage cut, but then we all know the wealthy pay the largest portion of the taxes...by a frickin' long shot. The fact nearly half of Americans now don't pay any federal income tax is another subject, but one that speaks volumes about tax inequity.

The last time tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were below 17% was in 1959 when they dropped to 16.2%. The last time they were below 16% was in 1950 and 1949 when they were 14.4% and 14.5%. To claim "Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP" is completely false and utterly dishonest. It is more honest and accurate to say receipts average between 17%-19%, and in the 90's were in the high 19s and hit 20 by the end.

However you phrase it, we have not seen tax receipts this low as a percentage of GDP since the end of WWII. That is a fact.

Additionally, you are utterly wrong about Laffer and Reagan. From 1980-82, by no means economic boom years, receipts never dipped below 19% of GDP. From 1983-1986, they never went above 18%! Just like with the Bush tax cuts, tax receipts went down not up.

Lastly, I am amazed by your spin on the fact that half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. If that isn't proof that taxes are their lowest in generations, I don't know what else to tell you. You're simply ignoring reality and history.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Dems could care less about the working people. Looks like they have you fully encapsulated in their wonderland.

 

[eflatminor]

Really? Then how do you explain that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down 25% from a decade ago?

I would love to see this case, because tax revenue dropped every year Bush cut taxes. That's three years in a row, something that has never happened in modern history. It didn't even happen during the Great Depression.

Yes, but you understand that as a percentage of their income, the wealthy received the largest percentage cuts, right?

Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP despite marginal rates as high as 90%. Of course, revenues always decrease during an economic downturn. The case for increased revenues following marginal tax rate decreases was predicted by Art Laffer...and proven following Regan's tax cuts. True, wealthier Americans may have seen a larger percentage cut, but then we all know the wealthy pay the largest portion of the taxes...by a frickin' long shot. The fact nearly half of Americans now don't pay any federal income tax is another subject, but one that speaks volumes about tax inequity.

The last time tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were below 17% was in 1959 when they dropped to 16.2%. The last time they were below 16% was in 1950 and 1949 when they were 14.4% and 14.5%. To claim "Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP" is completely false and utterly dishonest. It is more honest and accurate to say receipts average between 17%-19%, and in the 90's were in the high 19s and hit 20 by the end.

However you phrase it, we have not seen tax receipts this low as a percentage of GDP since the end of WWII. That is a fact.

Additionally, you are utterly wrong about Laffer and Reagan. From 1980-82, by no means economic boom years, receipts never dipped below 19% of GDP. From 1983-1986, they never went above 18%! Just like with the Bush tax cuts, tax receipts went down not up.

Lastly, I am amazed by your spin on the fact that half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. If that isn't proof that taxes are their lowest in generations, I don't know what else to tell you. You're simply ignoring reality and history.

I am not in any way amazed by your spin on facts...I've come to expect it.

Nevertheless, let's take 'em one at a time:

1) Glad we agree that all Americans should pay an income tax. Chalk one up for bipartisan support.

2) Regan's tax rates included both increases and decreases and were not fully implemented until 1983. And what do you know, receipts stayed about the same. Amazing, isn't it?! The people has less taken out of their pockets but the government still got its revenue. And yes, we stayed within that traditional 15-20 percent range.

3) So you're saying I lied because since WWII, we saw 14.4% in 1950, which isn't technically 15%. You got me. Mia culpa.

But hey, at the end of the day, I'm sure your degree in economics and experience in the field outpaces that of Art Laffer...I'm sure.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You got Obama down pat. Its all Bushs fault. Youre a true idiot if you think Obama is for the working people while he is in a 4 million dollar house in HI

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Even a neocon knows one can be successful financially AND be a real human being. Not everyone is like the bushes or gingrich.

OR, are you saying that since romney was given his money, didn't work for it except to tear down companies and fire employees, since he is tearing down his $4MILLION DOLLAR shack in order to rebuild 4 times bigger, are you saying he's for big Business (as he himself has said repeatedly) and NOT for the working class?

See how that works?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Democrat party has always fought for the working man & woman.

Always? The Democrat party was also the party that fought for slavery. Of course, they didn't think slaves were actually humans, so you may still be correct in your statement.

We are in debt because of 2 unfunded wars & an unfunded prescription plan for Medicare.

Actually, Medicare itself is the biggest contributor to our debt. The wars certainly don't help our financial situation but you do realize the your Democrat president has started a few wars of his own, all unfunded and undeclared by Congress?

The Bush tax cuts should have been repealed to help pay and we wouldn't be in this mess

Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely. There is no evidence to suggest that if we had higher tax rates (no "Bush tax cuts") that we would have realized more actual revenue. In fact, a strong case can be made that we have realized more revenue do to those cuts. Either scenario is difficult to prove but we certainly know that your statement cannot be proven. And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?

The last two points are just flat wrong and we all know it but I have a question for all the pubs/bags -

Why do you think using ancient history is germane to your modern day point?

Pretty dumb, actually.

 

[eflatminor]

The Democrat party has always fought for the working man & woman.

Always? The Democrat party was also the party that fought for slavery. Of course, they didn't think slaves were actually humans, so you may still be correct in your statement.



Actually, Medicare itself is the biggest contributor to our debt. The wars certainly don't help our financial situation but you do realize the your Democrat president has started a few wars of his own, all unfunded and undeclared by Congress?

The Bush tax cuts should have been repealed to help pay and we wouldn't be in this mess

Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely. There is no evidence to suggest that if we had higher tax rates (no "Bush tax cuts") that we would have realized more actual revenue. In fact, a strong case can be made that we have realized more revenue do to those cuts. Either scenario is difficult to prove but we certainly know that your statement cannot be proven. And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?

The last two points are just flat wrong and we all know it but I have a question for all the pubs/bags -

Why do you think using ancient history is germane to your modern day point?

Pretty dumb, actually.

Ah, the smart guy shares his superior intellect! Yet he offers NOTHING to support his points. Interesting.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, Medicare itself is the biggest contributor to our debt.

Wrong.

I have no idea why the facts are so hard for con-wanabes to understand, but here it is again. There's even a nice picture for you to look at.

Critics Still Wrong on What

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Always? The Democrat party was also the party that fought for slavery. Of course, they didn't think slaves were actually humans, so you may still be correct in your statement.



Actually, Medicare itself is the biggest contributor to our debt. The wars certainly don't help our financial situation but you do realize the your Democrat president has started a few wars of his own, all unfunded and undeclared by Congress?



Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely. There is no evidence to suggest that if we had higher tax rates (no "Bush tax cuts") that we would have realized more actual revenue. In fact, a strong case can be made that we have realized more revenue do to those cuts. Either scenario is difficult to prove but we certainly know that your statement cannot be proven. And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?

The last two points are just flat wrong and we all know it but I have a question for all the pubs/bags -

Why do you think using ancient history is germane to your modern day point?

Pretty dumb, actually.

Ah, the smart guy shares his superior intellect! Yet he offers NOTHING to support his points. Interesting.

Ah, the dumb guy offers nothing to support his position because he can't.

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to blow smoke?

Never mind. I know you won't because you can't and I've got to leave anyway.

Enjoy the PROOF I posted in my link.

 

[eflatminor]

Actually, Medicare itself is the biggest contributor to our debt.

Wrong.

I have no idea why the facts are so hard for con-wanabes to understand, but here it is again. There's even a nice picture for you to look at.

Critics Still Wrong on What

Oh that's rich! I love it! You link to a PREDICTION of deficits in the decades to come. Let's deal with reality, shall we? For 2010, the largest budget items broke down as follows:
20% Defense and Security
20% Social Security
14% Safety Net Programs
...and look at this 21% for Medicare, Medicade and CHIP.

Looks like we spend more on Medicare than anything else. Ergo, that's the program that most contributes to debt.

Really not that hard to understand...

 

[eflatminor]

The last two points are just flat wrong and we all know it but I have a question for all the pubs/bags -

Why do you think using ancient history is germane to your modern day point?

Pretty dumb, actually.

Ah, the smart guy shares his superior intellect! Yet he offers NOTHING to support his points. Interesting.

Ah, the dumb guy offers nothing to support his position because he can't.

Are you going to answer my question or are you going to blow smoke?

Never mind. I know you won't because you can't and I've got to leave anyway.

Enjoy the PROOF I posted in my link.

Still waiting for that proof.

Regarding the past as an indicator of what we might expect in the future, I choose to understand history. You are free to repeat it.

 

[jillian]

You got Obama down pat. Its all Bushs fault. Youre a true idiot if you think Obama is for the working people while he is in a 4 million dollar house in HI

well, it's partly the president's fault for not kicking teatard butt so that the bush tax cuts were allowed to expire AS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.

but good you have your talking points!

you really need to change your nic... the word love in it is just hilarious

 

[DontBeStupid]

The last time tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were below 17% was in 1959 when they dropped to 16.2%. The last time they were below 16% was in 1950 and 1949 when they were 14.4% and 14.5%. To claim "Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP" is completely false and utterly dishonest. It is more honest and accurate to say receipts average between 17%-19%, and in the 90's were in the high 19s and hit 20 by the end.

However you phrase it, we have not seen tax receipts this low as a percentage of GDP since the end of WWII. That is a fact.

Additionally, you are utterly wrong about Laffer and Reagan. From 1980-82, by no means economic boom years, receipts never dipped below 19% of GDP. From 1983-1986, they never went above 18%! Just like with the Bush tax cuts, tax receipts went down not up.

Lastly, I am amazed by your spin on the fact that half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. If that isn't proof that taxes are their lowest in generations, I don't know what else to tell you. You're simply ignoring reality and history.

I am not in any way amazed by your spin on facts...I've come to expect it.

Nevertheless, let's take 'em one at a time:

1) Glad we agree that all Americans should pay an income tax. Chalk one up for bipartisan support.

2) Regan's tax rates included both increases and decreases and were not fully implemented until 1983. And what do you know, receipts stayed about the same. Amazing, isn't it?! The people has less taken out of their pockets but the government still got its revenue. And yes, we stayed within that traditional 15-20 percent range.

3) So you're saying I lied because since WWII, we saw 14.4% in 1950, which isn't technically 15%. You got me. Mia culpa.

But hey, at the end of the day, I'm sure your degree in economics and experience in the field outpaces that of Art Laffer...I'm sure.

1) We do agree on this point. However, I'm sure we disagree on how to go about it. For the record, I am in favour of raising wages before we raise taxes on the working class.

2) Again, no. You are ignoring history. After 1983 tax receipts dropped to below 19% and did not rise above that level until 1997! In fact, in 1981, receipts were 19.6% and in 1984 they were 17.3%. That's a substantial drop that you are choosing to ignore. Why is that? Oh right, because ...

3) You are arbitrarily picking a range. You've decided to use 15%-20%, even though since WWII, there are only a couple instances of levels as low as 15% or as high as 20%. If you were being honest, which you aren't, you would use the average and 1 standard deviation, which would get you a range of 16.4%-19% (17.7% being the average). Using that range, you would see we are currently way outside the norm.

As for your hero Art Laffer, you know he drew his famous curve on a napkin as a joke, right? It was never meant to be taken seriously. But, since you are taking it seriously, the least you could do is be honest with yourself. The Laffer Curve is a CURVE. Which means on the left side as tax rates drop so do tax revenue levels. That's what Laffer was saying and that's what you are choosing to ignore.

Whether you like it or not, we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

edit: links to sources

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-hausers-law-still-valid.html

 

[eflatminor]

The last time tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were below 17% was in 1959 when they dropped to 16.2%. The last time they were below 16% was in 1950 and 1949 when they were 14.4% and 14.5%. To claim "Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP" is completely false and utterly dishonest. It is more honest and accurate to say receipts average between 17%-19%, and in the 90's were in the high 19s and hit 20 by the end.

However you phrase it, we have not seen tax receipts this low as a percentage of GDP since the end of WWII. That is a fact.

Additionally, you are utterly wrong about Laffer and Reagan. From 1980-82, by no means economic boom years, receipts never dipped below 19% of GDP. From 1983-1986, they never went above 18%! Just like with the Bush tax cuts, tax receipts went down not up.

Lastly, I am amazed by your spin on the fact that half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. If that isn't proof that taxes are their lowest in generations, I don't know what else to tell you. You're simply ignoring reality and history.

I am not in any way amazed by your spin on facts...I've come to expect it.

Nevertheless, let's take 'em one at a time:

1) Glad we agree that all Americans should pay an income tax. Chalk one up for bipartisan support.

2) Regan's tax rates included both increases and decreases and were not fully implemented until 1983. And what do you know, receipts stayed about the same. Amazing, isn't it?! The people has less taken out of their pockets but the government still got its revenue. And yes, we stayed within that traditional 15-20 percent range.

3) So you're saying I lied because since WWII, we saw 14.4% in 1950, which isn't technically 15%. You got me. Mia culpa.

But hey, at the end of the day, I'm sure your degree in economics and experience in the field outpaces that of Art Laffer...I'm sure.

1) We do agree on this point. However, I'm sure we disagree on how to go about it. For the record, I am in favour of raising wages before we raise taxes on the working class.

2) Again, no. You are ignoring history. After 1983 tax receipts dropped to below 19% and did not rise above that level until 1997! In fact, in 1981, receipts were 19.6% and in 1984 they were 17.3%. That's a substantial drop that you are choosing to ignore. Why is that? Oh right, because ...

3) You are arbitrarily picking a range. You've decided to use 15%-20%, even though since WWII, there are only a couple instances of levels as low as 15% or as high as 20%. If you were being honest, which you aren't, you would use the average and 1 standard deviation, which would get you a range of 16.4%-19% (17.7% being the average). Using that range, you would see we are currently way outside the norm.

As for your hero Art Laffer, you know he drew his famous curve on a napkin as a joke, right? It was never meant to be taken seriously. But, since you are taking it seriously, the least you could do is be honest with yourself. The Laffer Curve is a CURVE. Which means on the left side as tax rates drop so do tax revenue levels. That's what Laffer was saying and that's what you are choosing to ignore.

Whether you like it or not, we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

edit: links to sources

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Political Calculations: Is Hauser's Law Still Valid?

Raising wages? And who does that? Government or the guys that actually own the business?

That is not a "substantial drop"! It is a fluctuation that cannot be attributed to any one specific tax change...and there were changes in rates both up and down. You've not supported your point at all. Bottom line, we took less in taxes and revenues stay about the same...which has been the case for 60 years now when rates go down or up.

Pick whatever range you want. You have no evidence that marginal rate changes have a direct correlation to changes in revenue. Sorry, you just don't.

I understand the Laffer curve and yes, we are on the left side of that curve, exactly as Laffer would have predicted in an economic downturn.

You can ***** all you want about tax rates. There are a hell of a lot of us that are done with the idea of tweaking rates for the benefit of some and the detriment of others. We want a flat, fair and wide base and most importantly, for the government to live within it's means. Deal with it at the ballot box.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I am not in any way amazed by your spin on facts...I've come to expect it.

Nevertheless, let's take 'em one at a time:

1) Glad we agree that all Americans should pay an income tax. Chalk one up for bipartisan support.

2) Regan's tax rates included both increases and decreases and were not fully implemented until 1983. And what do you know, receipts stayed about the same. Amazing, isn't it?! The people has less taken out of their pockets but the government still got its revenue. And yes, we stayed within that traditional 15-20 percent range.

3) So you're saying I lied because since WWII, we saw 14.4% in 1950, which isn't technically 15%. You got me. Mia culpa.

But hey, at the end of the day, I'm sure your degree in economics and experience in the field outpaces that of Art Laffer...I'm sure.

1) We do agree on this point. However, I'm sure we disagree on how to go about it. For the record, I am in favour of raising wages before we raise taxes on the working class.

2) Again, no. You are ignoring history. After 1983 tax receipts dropped to below 19% and did not rise above that level until 1997! In fact, in 1981, receipts were 19.6% and in 1984 they were 17.3%. That's a substantial drop that you are choosing to ignore. Why is that? Oh right, because ...

3) You are arbitrarily picking a range. You've decided to use 15%-20%, even though since WWII, there are only a couple instances of levels as low as 15% or as high as 20%. If you were being honest, which you aren't, you would use the average and 1 standard deviation, which would get you a range of 16.4%-19% (17.7% being the average). Using that range, you would see we are currently way outside the norm.

As for your hero Art Laffer, you know he drew his famous curve on a napkin as a joke, right? It was never meant to be taken seriously. But, since you are taking it seriously, the least you could do is be honest with yourself. The Laffer Curve is a CURVE. Which means on the left side as tax rates drop so do tax revenue levels. That's what Laffer was saying and that's what you are choosing to ignore.

Whether you like it or not, we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

edit: links to sources

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Political Calculations: Is Hauser's Law Still Valid?

Raising wages? And who does that? Government or the guys that actually own the business?

That is not a "substantial drop"! It is a fluctuation that cannot be attributed to any one specific tax change...and there were changes in rates both up and down. You've not supported your point at all. Bottom line, we took less in taxes and revenues stay about the same...which has been the case for 60 years now when rates go down or up.

Pick whatever range you want. You have no evidence that marginal rate changes have a direct correlation to changes in revenue. Sorry, you just don't.

I understand the Laffer curve and yes, we are on the left side of that curve, exactly as Laffer would have predicted in an economic downturn.

You can ***** all you want about tax rates. There are a hell of a lot of us that are done with the idea of tweaking rates for the benefit of some and the detriment of others. We want a flat, fair and wide base and most importantly, for the government to live within it's means. Deal with it at the ballot box.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

17.7% has been the average since WWII. One standard deviation below that is 16.4%. TWO standard deviations below that is 15.1% And we are even below that! Yet, you think this is normal and fine? That this is within the acceptable range? A range you just made up?

Apparently someone flunked his college stats class.

When we were over by two standard deviations, Bush went on TV crying over how the government was taking in too much money and had to give it back. Now we're on the other side the same way ... and you don't care. You choose to ignore it like every other "conservative". Way to go.

You don't understand the Laffer Curve. It doesn't change based on the strength of the economy.

Do some reading. Your ignorance is showing.

 

[jillian]

You got Obama down pat. Its all Bushs fault. Youre a true idiot if you think Obama is for the working people while he is in a 4 million dollar house in HI

says a birther, shut up.

i know...one of the stupider, nastier rightwingnuts on the board....

but she's got loooooooooove. lol..