"Scariest Jobs Chart Ever"!!

[CrusaderFrank]

Why don't Dems pass tax increases? I never understand this. The Liberal Intellectual Elite at USMB rave about the Good Ole Days of 80, 90% top rate but the Dems never even propose it, what the ******* ****?

What a huge disconnect! Why are the Dem punishing the US economy by keeping rates under 80%? Why? we could all learn to play soccer and be a prosperous nation!

 

[edthecynic]

It doesn't matter where the tax rates are or have been. What matters if you want growth, cut taxes. If you want to cool the economy, raise them.

Historically:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

Yeah, conservative think tank, who'd have thought?

Come on, Heritage, you can't be serious! The extreme Right wing think tank pays people to find the most deceptive way to use stats to lie by half truth.
It's half true St Ronnie cut taxes in 1981, but revenue went down, not up the next 2 years. Revenue didn't go up until Ragan RAISED taxes throughout the rest of the 1980s. That's why CONS always talk about the WHOLE DECADE when they talk about increased tax revenue CHRONOLOGICALLY after the 1981 tax cut. Heritage leaves that other part of the truth out, all the tax increases, pretending they never happened and implying only tax cuts caused the increased revenue.
Reagan was a tax raising fool!!!

Tax Increases

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Railroad Retirement Act of 1983

6. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

7. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

9. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

10. Tax Reform Act of 1986

11. Continuing Resolution for 1987

12. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

13. Continuing Resolution for 1988

Raise taxes when the goal is cooling the economy, cut when goal is to stimulate. Now, about the citations in the Heritage, attack those not the host.

Come on! I did BOTH!!!

Reagan's August 1981 tax cuts produced a DROP in revenue from $1 trillion in 1981 to $967 billion in 1982 and then another drop to $899 billion in 1983. That's why Reagan raised taxes over and over and over again in both terms, and guess what, contrary to your claims that raising taxes will cool the economy, the economy grew throughout all the tax increases.

So the fact that Heritage left out the 2 facts that 1 revenue went DOWN after the tax cuts and 2 revenue went UP after the tax increases is a testament to the complete dishonesty of Heritage as a source that cannot be avoided!!!!

 

[editec]

Of course the thing your analysis ignores is that back in the 50's ONE SALARY could support a family.

Now for most Americans TWO INCOMES still isn't enough.

Sort of. One income would be plenty for most Americans IF they were to live in the same style as the 50's: one car, no power steering, A/C, AM radio only etc,; a smaller house, one phone (no cell phones or computers); one television receiving broadcast channels only; no microwave or dvd player. But we have more stuff now, and wages can't catch up to the increased spending on all that stuff.

That's actually a myth ya know.

Its a complelling one until one looks at the percentage of money the average family USED TO SPEND on basics comparing it to what the averge fmily NOW must spend on basics.

FYI, the average family (even with two incomes) NOW spends a greater percentage of their incomes on basics.

The average family ALSO has less "disposable" income than they've ever had in my lifetime.

I know this flies in the face of that myth about how we're all spending money foolishly on DVDS and electronics, but the real numbers tell us entirely a different story.

 

[Vast LWC]

I realize you are only writing an approximation of the truth and by your own admission no one should take you seriously.
In fact unemployment is a lagging indicator (the last thing employers do is hire). GDP growth under Reagan at this point was far higher than it is today.

Give it a rest Rabbi. Your imbecilic point is just harping on a detail to try and distract from the fact that you were wrong.

And no, at this point in his presidency, GDP growth was in fact NOT higher than it is today.

The GDP contracted by 1.9% in 1982. It did not grow at all.

But don't take my word for it, you can see any quarter or years contraction or expansion right here:

Historical GDP Numbers in the United States

 

[onecut39]

You're correct. These idiots have spent us into the poorhouse...and are demanding MORE.

All of the idiots have spent us into the poorhouse.

Taking into consideration all of the congresses and administrations since 1970, Republicans have created slightly more debt than Democrats.

SLIGHTLY MORE???????

The last three republican administrations are responsible for approximately 9 trillion of our 13 trillion debt.

When a reou8blican talks of fiscal responsibility they should be met with hysterical laughter!!!!

 

[onecut39]

Depression era unemployment, record poverty, ahhh the sweet smell of Progressive success. See most people mistakenly assumed Obama was talking about a change for the better, I know he wasn't; this is what he wanted all along

You spelled 'Reagan era' wrong.

LOL. Right. Except 2 years after the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the economy was booming.

Obamavilles are springing up all over the county

Two years after the Reagan "tax cuts" Reagan was busy raising taxes. They were raised to the extent that the net effect was about a wash.


The Reagan "Tax cuts" are a political myth. Look it up!!!!

 

[Vast LWC]

Can't wait to see you dispute the facts, note at site the citations given.

Sure, let's start with the 1920's.

The extremely low capital gains tax formed a massive bubble in the market that created the illusion of GDP growth.

In reality, what was happening was a massive Ponzi scheme, driven by huge amounts of leveraging and susequent investing of the borrowed funds.

Much like the subprime mortgage BS that recently occurred in fact.

The result, as we know, was the market crash of 1929, and the Great depression.

That's only one example, I could go on.

In fact, GDP has increased on a steadily increasing level continuously since the 60's, regardless of tax decreases.

For instance, in 1992, the top income tax rate was increased by 8.6% and was left that way until 2003, and GDP continued to climb at the same increasing rate as other periods.

When the Capital Gains tax rate was lowered to 15% in 2003, it caused a bubble just like that of the 1920's, and a massive catastrophic collapse just like that of 1929.

 

[Vast LWC]

SLIGHTLY MORE???????

The last three republican administrations are responsible for approximately 9 trillion of our 13 trillion debt.

When a reou8blican talks of fiscal responsibility they should be met with hysterical laughter!!!!

I'm sorry, much as I'd like to agree with you, I cannot.

One must take into account who controlled congress at the time, not just who was in the white house.

For my figures, I assign one point for each, and divide the debt accordingly.

The Republicans still come out slightly ahead, but only slightly.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why don't Dems pass tax increases? I never understand this. The Liberal Intellectual Elite at USMB rave about the Good Ole Days of 80, 90% top rate but the Dems never even propose it, what the ******* ****?

What a huge disconnect! Why are the Dem punishing the US economy by keeping rates under 80%? Why? we could all learn to play soccer and be a prosperous nation!

Because people are stupid, and they won't vote for anyone that increases taxes.

Just mentioning possible tax increases is political suicide in many cases, just like mentioning much-needed changes in Social Security or Medicare.

 

[Vast LWC]

WHOOPS!
The Left cannot engage in intelligent debate because htey lack the skills and tools to do so. They read an article and if it tangentially mentions whatever the topic is, they claim it supports their position.

Oooh, look, someone made a minor error in what they posted!

Quick Rabbi, you better jump on that, and harp about how typos and small mistakes disprove their whole point!

Un-friggin-believable.

 

[The Rabbi]

WHOOPS!
The Left cannot engage in intelligent debate because htey lack the skills and tools to do so. They read an article and if it tangentially mentions whatever the topic is, they claim it supports their position.

Oooh, look, someone made a minor error in what they posted!

Quick Rabbi, you better jump on that, and harp about how typos and small mistakes disprove their whole point!

Un-friggin-believable.

Passing off a chart clearly labeled 2007 as one showing the 1930s is more than a typo.
But your comments are only an approximation of reality. You said so yourself.

 

[Vast LWC]

Passing off a chart clearly labeled 2007 as one showing the 1930s is more than a typo.
But your comments are only an approximation of reality. You said so yourself.

As a man that I greatly respected once said, "There you go again...".

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the unemployment rate for people making over 250,000 taxable?

What was the unemployment rate in the 50's when the top tax rate was about 90%?

hmmm...guess what...

...it's not taxes causing the problem. You're retarded if you think so.

Well, let's have a look at those unemployment rates in the 1950's, when the top rate was 90%

Oh my, look. One little blip over 7%, and otherwise...eh?

Looks like a top tax rate of 35% isn't exactly crucial to having low unemployment is it?

Next question: how do you think the deficit/debt looked back then? With those job killing (lol) income tax rates in place?

Any guesses?

uh, that graph is of the current rates

 

[NYcarbineer]

WHOOPS!
The Left cannot engage in intelligent debate because htey lack the skills and tools to do so. They read an article and if it tangentially mentions whatever the topic is, they claim it supports their position.

Oooh, look, someone made a minor error in what they posted!

Quick Rabbi, you better jump on that, and harp about how typos and small mistakes disprove their whole point!

Un-friggin-believable.

If you saw what he INTENTIONALLY posted as supposed evidence the other day you'd see how funny his gotcha really is.

 

[Vast LWC]

Though, I have to admit, you just posted the same wrong graph again.

But it still does not disprove your point.

 

[The Rabbi]

Though, I have to admit, you just posted the same wrong graph again.

But it still does not disprove your point.

If it's the wrong how can you say it does not disprove his point? Anything would not disprove his point. It doesn't prove his point, is the key thing.

But there you go pointing out irrelevant little details, in a general non-literal way of course.

 

[DiveCon]

Though, I have to admit, you just posted the same wrong graph again.

But it still does not disprove your point.

it doesnt disprove it, but it doesnt PROVE it either

 

[NYcarbineer]

Though, I have to admit, you just posted the same wrong graph again.

But it still does not disprove your point.

The site appears to be changing the dates back on the graph for some reason:

Links

United States Unemployment Rate



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Tem...0002.png?39991a65-51f2-48ac-b3a3-cf4d667459cc

 

[DiveCon]

Though, I have to admit, you just posted the same wrong graph again.

But it still does not disprove your point.

The site appears to be changing the dates back on the graph for some reason:

Links

United States Unemployment Rate



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Tem...0002.png?39991a65-51f2-48ac-b3a3-cf4d667459cc

its in a frame
if you use the original URL it wont give you the changed results

 

[NYcarbineer]

Though, I have to admit, you just posted the same wrong graph again.

But it still does not disprove your point.

The site appears to be changing the dates back on the graph for some reason:

Links

United States Unemployment Rate



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Tem...0002.png?39991a65-51f2-48ac-b3a3-cf4d667459cc

its in a frame
if you use the original URL it wont give you the changed results

I use the url from the properties window of the image and it shows up correctly in the preview and when i first posted it.

oh well.