Page 119 of 129 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119120121 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 1288

Thread: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

  1. #1181
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by zip98053 View Post
    Obviously, it is you who are at fault. When Conservative posts data that he says shows that 1 + 1 = 3, he has a damn good reason and you should just accept it as fact rather than challenge the wisdom of his analysis.
    Well, being that his logic was so skewed, and then he posted data that proved me right! Couldn't pass it up. I never heard a response - probably couldn't find anything on Google to prove why even though his data proved him wrong, he was still right!



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  2. #1182
    Don't Mess With Texas
    mertex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    10-14-14 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,382

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You nuts? Tax rate cuts did increase govt. revenue as the U.S. Treasury shows. Also GDP growth and unemployment numbers between 2003-2007 refute the liberal rhetoric
    I can't believe you are still hanging on to that fairy tale.
    What happened in 2008 and 2009? They went down - were the tax cuts not in effect? Those two years refute the conservative rhetoric.

    I suppose you have a good reason as to why they went down, other than that the same factors that cause it to go up naturally, worked in the opposite direction to make it go down.



    "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
    --Adlai Stevenson, Politician





  3. #1183
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Here's a most excellent article that pertains to the discussion at hand.....


    Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on the Economy - TheFiscalTimes.com

    "Republicans are heavily invested in permanently extending the tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration, all of which expire at the end of this year exactly as the legislation was written in the first place. To hear Republicans, one would think that the Bush tax cuts were the most powerful stimulus to growth ever enacted and only a madman would even think of allowing any of them to expire.

    The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. Their main effect was simply to reduce the government’s revenue, thereby increasing the budget deficit, which all Republicans claim to abhor.

    It’s worth remembering where the Bush tax cuts came from in the first place. In 1999, in the midst of one of the biggest economic booms in American history, then Texas Gov. Bush convened a group of Republican economists to draft a tax plan for him. Contrary to Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was a simple across-the-board marginal tax rate reduction, the Bush plan was a hodge-podge of tax gimmicks designed more to win the support of various voting blocs than stimulate growth....snip

    No Reaganites praised the Bush plan; all favored something much bolder, such as the flat tax proposal that was being promoted by publisher Steve Forbes, who was challenging Bush for the Republican nomination. Rather than defend his proposal as one that would increase growth, Bush argued that its main purpose was simply to deplete the budget surplus, which had grown under President Bill Clinton to $126 billion in 1999. Surpluses were dangerous, Bush and his advisers repeatedly warned, because Congress might spend them.....snip

    It’s hard even to find Republican economists who will defend Bush’s policies. Summing up the Bush years, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in Bush’s first term, had this to say in an interview with the Washington Post at the end of the Bush administration:

    The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing. There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable. For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view. It was all Band-Aids.

    Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, who is highly respected by supply-siders, put it more succinctly. When asked by The New York Times last year to name some positive aspects of Bush’s economic policies, he replied, “I don’t see any redeeming features, unfortunately.”...read


    Bush's economic policy was considered a failure even by his own economic advisors, and now Republicans want to do a repeat. God help us.

  4. #1184
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by mertex View Post
    I can't believe you are still hanging on to that fairy tale.
    What happened in 2008 and 2009? They went down - were the tax cuts not in effect? Those two years refute the conservative rhetoric.

    I suppose you have a good reason as to why they went down, other than that the same factors that cause it to go up naturally, worked in the opposite direction to make it go down.
    When you get a job you will understand take home pay and know that tax cuts allow you to take home more of your pay. People today that are working are benefiting from the Bush tax cuts as their take home pay is higher. They aren't getting benefits from the Obama tax cut any more. Tax revenue is lower because of high unemployment, something Obama has done nothing to reduce and in fact has made it more expensive to hire. We had an election Tuesday that you have missed when the American people spoke in historic fashion. You probably ought to take the partisan hat off and figure out why there are 4 million more unemployed since Obama took office and on a month to month basis unemployment is higher this year than last year and it only cost the debt 3 trillion dollars.

  5. #1185
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Here's a most excellent article that pertains to the discussion at hand.....


    Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on the Economy - TheFiscalTimes.com

    "Republicans are heavily invested in permanently extending the tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration, all of which expire at the end of this year exactly as the legislation was written in the first place. To hear Republicans, one would think that the Bush tax cuts were the most powerful stimulus to growth ever enacted and only a madman would even think of allowing any of them to expire.

    The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. Their main effect was simply to reduce the government’s revenue, thereby increasing the budget deficit, which all Republicans claim to abhor.

    It’s worth remembering where the Bush tax cuts came from in the first place. In 1999, in the midst of one of the biggest economic booms in American history, then Texas Gov. Bush convened a group of Republican economists to draft a tax plan for him. Contrary to Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was a simple across-the-board marginal tax rate reduction, the Bush plan was a hodge-podge of tax gimmicks designed more to win the support of various voting blocs than stimulate growth....snip

    No Reaganites praised the Bush plan; all favored something much bolder, such as the flat tax proposal that was being promoted by publisher Steve Forbes, who was challenging Bush for the Republican nomination. Rather than defend his proposal as one that would increase growth, Bush argued that its main purpose was simply to deplete the budget surplus, which had grown under President Bill Clinton to $126 billion in 1999. Surpluses were dangerous, Bush and his advisers repeatedly warned, because Congress might spend them.....snip

    It’s hard even to find Republican economists who will defend Bush’s policies. Summing up the Bush years, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in Bush’s first term, had this to say in an interview with the Washington Post at the end of the Bush administration:

    The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing. There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable. For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view. It was all Band-Aids.

    Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, who is highly respected by supply-siders, put it more succinctly. When asked by The New York Times last year to name some positive aspects of Bush’s economic policies, he replied, “I don’t see any redeeming features, unfortunately.”...read


    Bush's economic policy was considered a failure even by his own economic advisors, and now Republicans want to do a repeat. God help us.
    The economic numbers say differently. I have never seen so much passion on the part of some when it comes to others keeping more of their own money. I suggest you check out the bureau of economic analysis to see economic growth during the Bush years after those tax cuts. Then go to the U.S. Treasury Dept and see the revenue generation after the tax cuts yet for some reason you buy the rhetoric of Bush officials on this issue. I am sure you bought all the rhetoric from the Bush Administration on other issues just like you did on this issue. by the way please explain to me why the U.S. Treasury Dept. doesn't show that Clinton surplus?

    Too many people are out of touch with reality when it comes to taxes as they ignore that tax cuts mean more spendable income. why are liberals against that, think about it?

  6. #1186
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote conservative

    The economic numbers say differently.
    What economic numbers are you referring to? These numbers show something different.

    Kinda looks to me that when a repug scores the Presidential office, they reduce taxes and like clockwork the real GDP takes a nosedive.When a dem gets in office and raise taxes, the real GDP goes up.

    Don’t need a rocket scientist brain to figure this one out; even this old truck driver’s brain can follow two lines on a NIPA table. Line one and line ten.

    Upon closer scrutiny you will also find that is the pattern for most of the Presidents since Hoover.When repugs get in, they wreck the economy,then the dems have to come in and clean up the mess.

    Before you jump in and say LOOK AT OBAMAS NUMBERS, keep in mind that in his first year in office Obama also made a lot of big tax cuts,particularly during his first year, as part the stimulus which he and bush agreed upon.

    Here is a few more links for you to spit on ….now see, that wasn’t so hard; was it?


    U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

    U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis


    And here is where it all came from and a few more graphs to boot. It is all grounded upon your fav site.

    Presidents, the Tax Burden, and Economic Growth | Angry Bear
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  7. #1187
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,258

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    What economic numbers are you referring to? These numbers show something different.

    Kinda looks to me that when a repug scores the Presidential office, they reduce taxes and like clockwork the real GDP takes a nosedive.When a dem gets in office and raise taxes, the real GDP goes up.

    Don’t need a rocket scientist brain to figure this one out; even this old truck driver’s brain can follow two lines on a NIPA table. Line one and line ten.

    Upon closer scrutiny you will also find that is the pattern for most of the Presidents since Hoover.When repugs get in, they wreck the economy,then the dems have to come in and clean up the mess.

    Before you jump in and say LOOK AT OBAMAS NUMBERS, keep in mind that in his first year in office Obama also made a lot of big tax cuts,particularly during his first year, as part the stimulus which he and bush agreed upon.

    Here is a few more links for you to spit on ….now see, that wasn’t so hard; was it?


    U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

    U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis


    And here is where it all came from and a few more graphs to boot. It is all grounded upon your fav site.

    Presidents, the Tax Burden, and Economic Growth | Angry Bear
    Amazing how some people have such passion for raising tax revenue on the American taxpayer. Not sure exactly what you are looking at because not only did GDP go up after the tax cuts and an increase in GDP increases tax revenue as does the tax cuts increase the number of taxpayers. Reagan cut taxes 25% and GDP Doubled, GW Bush cut taxes and the GDP grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion. Get someone to help you read the charts.

  8. #1188
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Amazing how some people have such passion for raising tax revenue on the American taxpayer. Not sure exactly what you are looking at because not only did GDP go up after the tax cuts and an increase in GDP increases tax revenue as does the tax cuts increase the number of taxpayers. Reagan cut taxes 25% and GDP Doubled, GW Bush cut taxes and the GDP grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion. Get someone to help you read the charts.

    Check the numbers out conservative; you will see that “real growth” between the years of 1960, through 2002, shows "real growth" averaged 4.09 percent during dem years, 2.75 percent in repug years.

    How about the ole bugaboo of gubment spending? WELL….under the repugs it was 20.87% of gdp as apposed to 19.58 % for the dems. Even inflation is/was lower under the dem years (wow, shocking when you consider that Carter was during this time frame ) 3.81% compared with 4.85%.

    Then you have the annual deficits with the repugs leading the charge with a 2.74 % of gdp, versus the dems 1.21% of gdp.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  9. #1189
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    Check the numbers out conservative; you will see that “real growth” between the years of 1960, through 2002, shows "real growth" averaged 4.09 percent during dem years, 2.75 percent in repug years.

    How about the ole bugaboo of gubment spending? WELL….under the repugs it was 20.87% of gdp as apposed to 19.58 % for the dems. Even inflation is/was lower under the dem years (wow, shocking when you consider that Carter was during this time frame ) 3.81% compared with 4.85%.

    Then you have the annual deficits with the repugs leading the charge with a 2.74 % of gdp, versus the dems 1.21% of gdp.
    so tell us why do you spend so much time arguing in favor of your fellow citizens having more of their wealth taken by the government.



  10. #1190
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so tell us why do you spend so much time arguing in favor of your fellow citizens having more of their wealth taken by the government.
    Because your so deserving.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •