Higher Taxes=Higher Economic Growth

[apbt55]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:

You are a shining beacon of stupidity. Bailing out the financial institutions sent me into a rage. So is the prospect of bailing out GM or home owners that took out mortgages they can’t afford, or American Express. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and it becomes even more evident with every post.

I beleive in classic economic principals. The same principal that have been widely accepted by the greatest economists of the last 200 and some odd years. The economics of Smith, Hayak, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, etc. If you knew your head from your ass, you would know that corporate welfare is just as damaging as personal welfare in this school of thought. But then again, you don’t know your head from your ass.[/quote]

Maybe one is stuck in the other.

[pat]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Gael wrote:

No actually I do this when I have a spare second so I don’t generally have the time to proofread for spelling,

Spellchecker? Standard Firefox feature.

Yes can when I am at home, but if I check from my laptop or at work, can’t use firefox.

OMG!

They make you use the windows internet explorer?

Dirty rotten bastards!

I am actually very surprised I can access this site,
with our security software.
[/quote]

You can always set up a tunnel to avoid this… The trick is to get an open post through the firewall, so when you set up a tunnel use port 443. Since it is for SSL traffic, it is usually open and the traffic secure.

[Gael]

[quote]pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
… Revenue increased during the Bush years, not because of his tax cuts, but because the economy grew.

You do realize you just shot your self in the foot with that, right? And why do you think the economy grew, sun spots?

Ignorant. Any economy that is not in a recession will grow. Slow growth economies can still qualify as a recession. The economy grew, but not as much as the historical average, and certainly not as much as it did during the Clinton years.

Why is it that you can post stupid shit, and no one will call you out on it as long as you are on the right?

Exactly right your post is ignorant as fucking hell and you clearly have no clue how the real world works. You may not remember but the lion’s share of the economic growth of the '90’s where tied up in dot-bombs and Enron. In case you weren’t old enough to know at that point, you’d know that those poor ass decisions caused the recession in 01-02 because people figured out that if you don’t actually make things or if you just make up profit numbers out of thin air, you won’t stay in business long.[/quote]

A superb nonrebuttal. We are not discussing the causes of the economic growth of the 90s.

Let me remind you – you are trying to say that Bush’s tax cuts caused the economy to grow which in turn caused tax revenue to increase. This would imply that we were on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. I pointed out that the economic growth was subpar during this time period and that Laffer himself does not agree with you.

Lets see if you can stop wiggling and stay on topic.

Perhaps looking at causation rather than correlation would suit you better. You do know the difference?

Yes. Better than you do. Empirical data can only offer correlative links. Causality is a higher assertion that empirical data is too week to demonstrate. So while correlation does not imply causation, it offers predictive power. Change in unemployment is more strongly correlated to presidency than any other factor. Period. As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.

[dhickey]

[quote]Gael wrote:
As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.[/quote]

Would you like to put some money on this?

[Sloth]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.

Would you like to put some money on this? [/quote]

What if the recession breaks (as they do) and it goes down?
Unless this thing lasts 4 years. Anyways, why 6.5? Why only compare the present Bush unemployment rate to an entire future Obama term? What if he gets a 7% rate in his first year, who wins the wager? Bush had an average 5.54 his firt term according to Heritage.

[apbt55]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.

Would you like to put some money on this? [/quote]

Well not just that as the presidency and control shifts back to the capitalist structure, after a classic economist is elected businesses will start to higher or prepare to grow in the last 2 months, kind of like they are laying people off now to prepare for this socialist movement.

[Sloth]

Do conscripted military personell get factored into unemployment numbers?

[dhickey]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.

Would you like to put some money on this?

What if the recession breaks (as they do) and it goes down?

Unless this thing lasts 4 years. Anyways, why 6.5? Why only compare the present Bush unemployment rate to an entire future Obama term? What if he gets a 7% rate in his first year, who wins the wager? Bush had an average 5.54 his firt term according to Heritage.[/quote]

I would say the highest rate of the Bush years as compared to the highest rate of the Obama years. I would be ok with average over the term as well. Highest plus lowest divided by 2.

[dhickey]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do conscripted military personell get factored into unemployment numbers?[/quote]

no gov’t employment should count but I am will to concede this unless the number of gov’t employee syrockets due to his civilian army. conscription, definately not.

[pat]

[quote]Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
… Revenue increased during the Bush years, not because of his tax cuts, but because the economy grew.

You do realize you just shot your self in the foot with that, right? And why do you think the economy grew, sun spots?

Ignorant. Any economy that is not in a recession will grow. Slow growth economies can still qualify as a recession. The economy grew, but not as much as the historical average, and certainly not as much as it did during the Clinton years.

Why is it that you can post stupid shit, and no one will call you out on it as long as you are on the right?

Exactly right your post is ignorant as fucking hell and you clearly have no clue how the real world works. You may not remember but the lion’s share of the economic growth of the '90’s where tied up in dot-bombs and Enron.

In case you weren’t old enough to know at that point, you’d know that those poor ass decisions caused the recession in 01-02 because people figured out that if you don’t actually make things or if you just make up profit numbers out of thin air, you won’t stay in business long.

A superb nonrebuttal. We are not discussing the causes of the economic growth of the 90s.
[/quote]

Hey your the one who brought up the nineties. I am merely pointing out the facts of the era and Clinton’s “New Economy”. Sorry you got called on it.

Let me remind you – you are trying to say that Bush’s tax cuts caused the economy to grow which in turn caused tax revenue to increase. This would imply that we were on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. I pointed out that the economic growth was subpar during this time period and that Laffer himself does not agree with you.

Lets see if you can stop wiggling and stay on topic.

I really don’t give a shit what Laffer thinks, other than his “curve” I do not know who he is nor do I give a shit.

The fact of the matter is that governmental revenue intake increased 20% after the tax cuts were put in place…You see the economy functions on how much money is moving in the various markets.

Since taxes are taken when money changes hands and in low tax periods, more money tends to change hands more often, then you have more opportunities to tax. The revenue generated by more taxing opportunities vastly outweighs the amount generated when a few are taxed more…Look at the car industry.

Who makes more money, Honda or Ferrari? Honda of course because they sell a lot more cars than Ferrari does even though Ferrari makes the price of several Hondas on a single car sale. It is better, for the government, to create more taxing opportunies than it is to tax a few people a lot more. It’s just simple math.
[/quote]

Perhaps looking at causation rather than correlation would suit you better. You do know the difference?

Yes. Better than you do. Empirical data can only offer correlative links. Causality is a higher assertion that empirical data is too week to demonstrate. So while correlation does not imply causation, it offers predictive power.

Change in unemployment is more strongly correlated to presidency than any other factor. Period. As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.[/quote]

What?! Causality is an assertion? LOL! Causality it the initiator of it’s resultant effect. The cause possesses the effect and hence they are related.

The purpose of correlation is specifically to imply causation. Otherwise it is just random data that doesn’t mean anything. You are there for asserting that Republican presidents cause unemployment to rise, which is just plain dishonest.

Their are many factors involved in unemployment and depressed economy. A president is not a king and just does not wave a magic wand to make shit happen…Of all those recessionary end to Republican presidencies, how many of them had a democratic House and Senate?

And duh, when we wiggle out of the recession, of course unemployment numbers will improve. But are those “real” jobs or burger flipping jobs…Both count as employed.

[JD430]

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Why is it that the motherfuckers who think they know so much are still in school, and have yet to make a fucking dime? [/quote]

You know, this may say it all in a nutshell in a very rough way.

I chalk this up to the insane relativist theory being pushed on people from kindergarten on. Everyone’s opinion is not worth the same.

I got good at the things in life that I am decent at by keeping my mouth shut and learning from the people who did them better than me(or had more experience or more knowledge…whatever).

Now it seems, we take success and ability out of the equation and everyone’s opinion is equally valid…just because. It is the definition of lunacy.

[Gael]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What we don’t favor is the leftist big government welfare/entitlement state.[/quote]

What welfare state?

If this wasn’t the internet, I would ask you to name a few federal welfare programs that are funded through income tax.

I would also ask you to estimate the percentage of the GDP that is used to support these programs. I have asked libertarians at my school, and I have not had one who could name any, or get the percentage even in the ballpark.

Since this is the internet, I cannot in good faith expect people to provide these answers off the top of their head.

You people seem to have acquired an image of the swarming masses doing nothing but sitting on their ass and collecting welfare checks every month and enjoying their government funded cable TV/internet, plasma TVs, and luxury cars.

In the 1850s, southerners developed crafty arguments about why slavery was such a good thing, and how the slaves were lucky to be slaves and should count their blessings. As Abe Lincoln retorted “Of all good things, it is the only good thing which men do not want for themselves.”

[dhickey]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What we don’t favor is the leftist big government welfare/entitlement state.

What welfare state?

If this wasn’t the internet, I would ask you to name a few federal welfare programs that are funded through income tax.

I would also ask you to estimate the percentage of the GDP that is used to support these programs. I have asked libertarians at my school, and I have not had one who could name any, or get the percentage even in the ballpark.

Since this is the internet, I cannot in good faith expect people to provide these answers off the top of their head.

You people seem to have acquired an image of the swarming masses doing nothing but sitting on their ass and collecting welfare checks every month and enjoying their government funded cable TV/internet, plasma TVs, and luxury cars.

In the 1850s, southerners developed crafty arguments about why slavery was such a good thing, and how the slaves were lucky to be slaves and should count their blessings. As Abe Lincoln retorted “Of all good things, it is the only good thing which men do not want for themselves.”

[/quote]

The stats for welfare programs are readily available and many links have been posted on this board. I am not sure what your point is? That there are no welfare programs? That they are not a significant part of our budget? That they are not growing? That they will not grow even more under Obama, Pelosi, and Ried?

[Gael]

[quote]pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
… Revenue increased during the Bush years, not because of his tax cuts, but because the economy grew.

You do realize you just shot your self in the foot with that, right? And why do you think the economy grew, sun spots?

Ignorant. Any economy that is not in a recession will grow. Slow growth economies can still qualify as a recession. The economy grew, but not as much as the historical average, and certainly not as much as it did during the Clinton years.

Why is it that you can post stupid shit, and no one will call you out on it as long as you are on the right?

Exactly right your post is ignorant as fucking hell and you clearly have no clue how the real world works. You may not remember but the lion’s share of the economic growth of the '90’s where tied up in dot-bombs and Enron.

In case you weren’t old enough to know at that point, you’d know that those poor ass decisions caused the recession in 01-02 because people figured out that if you don’t actually make things or if you just make up profit numbers out of thin air, you won’t stay in business long.

A superb nonrebuttal. We are not discussing the causes of the economic growth of the 90s.

Hey your the one who brought up the nineties. I am merely pointing out the facts of the era and Clinton’s “New Economy”. Sorry you got called on it.

Let me remind you – you are trying to say that Bush’s tax cuts caused the economy to grow which in turn caused tax revenue to increase. This would imply that we were on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. I pointed out that the economic growth was subpar during this time period and that Laffer himself does not agree with you.

Lets see if you can stop wiggling and stay on topic.

I really don’t give a shit what Laffer thinks, other than his “curve” I do not know who he is nor do I give a shit.

The fact of the matter is that governmental revenue intake increased 20% after the tax cuts were put in place…You see the economy functions on how much money is moving in the various markets.[/quote]

Yeah, and revenue DOUBLED under the Clinton administration. The Bush tax cuts did not increase revenue nor were they intended to.

[quote]Since taxes are taken when money changes hands and in low tax periods, more money tends to change hands more often, then you have more opportunities to tax. The revenue generated by more taxing opportunities vastly outweighs the amount generated when a few are taxed more…Look at the car industry.

Who makes more money, Honda or Ferrari? Honda of course because they sell a lot more cars than Ferrari does even though Ferrari makes the price of several Hondas on a single car sale. It is better, for the government, to create more taxing opportunies than it is to tax a few people a lot more. It’s just simple math.[/quote]

But we aren’t talking about progressive vs flat tax schemes. And weren’t you one of the ones who was trying to feed us the bullshit that Bush’s tax changes were actually progressive rather than regressive?

[quote]Perhaps looking at causation rather than correlation would suit you better. You do know the difference?

Yes. Better than you do. Empirical data can only offer correlative links. Causality is a higher assertion that empirical data is too week to demonstrate. So while correlation does not imply causation, it offers predictive power.

Change in unemployment is more strongly correlated to presidency than any other factor. Period. As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.

What?! Causality is an assertion? LOL! Causality it the initiator of it’s resultant effect. The cause possesses the effect and hence they are related.

The purpose of correlation is specifically to imply causation. Otherwise it is just random data that doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

What bundle of confusion. Correlation is not “random data.” It’s correlated data that is meaningful even if you cannot demonstrate causation. If two variables, A and B, go up and down together, they are correlated. The reason that you cannot assert causality on correlation alone is because there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. Both share a common cause

Laymen take “correlation” to mean “a bunch of random coincidences.” This is wrong, and so are you. Correlation can be observed from empirical data. Causality cannot. But economists do not need to demonstrate causality in order to make predictions based on correlative evidence. Causality is a stronger notion than predictability.

In offering the correlation between unemployment and presidency, I do not need to demonstrate causality to make a prediction.

On the other hand, if your economic model make predictions that right wing politics will reduce unemployment, and you are wrong every time, it is time for you to rethink your economic beliefs.

[pat]

[quote]Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
pat wrote:
Gael wrote:
… Revenue increased during the Bush years, not because of his tax cuts, but because the economy grew.

You do realize you just shot your self in the foot with that, right? And why do you think the economy grew, sun spots?

Ignorant. Any economy that is not in a recession will grow. Slow growth economies can still qualify as a recession. The economy grew, but not as much as the historical average, and certainly not as much as it did during the Clinton years.

Why is it that you can post stupid shit, and no one will call you out on it as long as you are on the right?

Exactly right your post is ignorant as fucking hell and you clearly have no clue how the real world works. You may not remember but the lion’s share of the economic growth of the '90’s where tied up in dot-bombs and Enron.

In case you weren’t old enough to know at that point, you’d know that those poor ass decisions caused the recession in 01-02 because people figured out that if you don’t actually make things or if you just make up profit numbers out of thin air, you won’t stay in business long.

A superb nonrebuttal. We are not discussing the causes of the economic growth of the 90s.

Hey your the one who brought up the nineties. I am merely pointing out the facts of the era and Clinton’s “New Economy”. Sorry you got called on it.

Let me remind you – you are trying to say that Bush’s tax cuts caused the economy to grow which in turn caused tax revenue to increase. This would imply that we were on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. I pointed out that the economic growth was subpar during this time period and that Laffer himself does not agree with you.

Lets see if you can stop wiggling and stay on topic.

I really don’t give a shit what Laffer thinks, other than his “curve” I do not know who he is nor do I give a shit.

The fact of the matter is that governmental revenue intake increased 20% after the tax cuts were put in place…You see the economy functions on how much money is moving in the various markets.

Yeah, and revenue DOUBLED under the Clinton administration. The Bush tax cuts did not increase revenue nor were they intended to.
[/quote]

Well you cannot make up facts dude. Revenue did increase under the Bush administration which were correlated strongly with tax cuts. I’ll have to verify the Clinton thing, but one thing was clear, the Clinton taxes were fucking crippling. People making under 30k were still getting taxed 25% by just the fucking feds.

Since taxes are taken when money changes hands and in low tax periods, more money tends to change hands more often, then you have more opportunities to tax. The revenue generated by more taxing opportunities vastly outweighs the amount generated when a few are taxed more…Look at the car industry.

Who makes more money, Honda or Ferrari? Honda of course because they sell a lot more cars than Ferrari does even though Ferrari makes the price of several Hondas on a single car sale. It is better, for the government, to create more taxing opportunies than it is to tax a few people a lot more. It’s just simple math.

But we aren’t talking about progressive vs flat tax schemes. And weren’t you one of the ones who was trying to feed us the bullshit that Bush’s tax changes were actually progressive rather than regressive?

Perhaps looking at causation rather than correlation would suit you better. You do know the difference?

Yes. Better than you do. Empirical data can only offer correlative links. Causality is a higher assertion that empirical data is too week to demonstrate. So while correlation does not imply causation, it offers predictive power.

Change in unemployment is more strongly correlated to presidency than any other factor. Period. As such, we can safely predict that today’s 6.5 percent unemployment rate will decline under Obama.

What?! Causality is an assertion? LOL! Causality it the initiator of it’s resultant effect. The cause possesses the effect and hence they are related.

The purpose of correlation is specifically to imply causation. Otherwise it is just random data that doesn’t mean anything.

What bundle of confusion. Correlation is not “random data.” It’s correlated data that is meaningful even if you cannot demonstrate causation. If two variables, A and B, go up and down together, they are correlated. The reason that you cannot assert causality on correlation alone is because there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. Both share a common cause

Laymen take “correlation” to mean “a bunch of random coincidences.” This is wrong, and so are you. Correlation can be observed from empirical data. Causality cannot. But economists do not need to demonstrate causality in order to make predictions based on correlative evidence. Causality is a stronger notion than predictability.

Oh brother. Correlation means nothing if it is not tied to causation. If A happens, B happens therefore, A causes B. That is the purpose of correlative evidences. You are asserting that Republican presidents cause unemployment to go up. This is what you said.

In offering the correlation between unemployment and presidency, I do not need to demonstrate causality to make a prediction.

Uh, yes you do if you want your predictive model to have any chance at accuracy. Otherwise you are shooting in the dark like a cave man. Determining cause and effect relationships will make far more accurate predictive models then correlational hoo haw.

If that was true, I could make a pretty damn accurate model that would state that me sitting down to take a shit causes to phone to ring because every time I sit down to take a shit, the phone rings.

On the other hand, if your economic model make predictions that right wing politics will reduce unemployment, and you are wrong every time, it is time for you to rethink your economic beliefs.

Huh? That made no sense what so ever.

[Gael]

Look pat, I’ve got to head out, and I have to respond to a bunch of other people. I will just say that I did NOT make up the fact about revenue under Clinton doubling.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

As you will see, revenue 1091.3B in 1992 2025.5B in 2000.

[Sloth]

Thanks to Newt!

[dhickey]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thanks to Newt![/quote]

Probably thanks to the telecom bubble.

[Sloth]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Thanks to Newt!

Probably thanks to the telecom bubble.[/quote]

No, you’re right. Especially that.

[Sloth]

I was wondering about the conscription thing, because I was wondering how unemployment rates from WW2 could be used fairly. Wouldn’t conscription and an industrial base revved up for war make for some unsustainable numbers?