OHV notec wrote:you and Bill/Goodwrench are basically taking wild-guesses as to what would best turn us around at this point in time...Not exactly wild guesses. I've cited in a recent thread the 4 times in the last century where we were in a recession, and cutting tax rates got us out, improved the employment situation, and increased revenues. Over time, I've had Goodwrench and Bill both give alternative reasons, and I've debunked them. Goodwrench has refused to accept the facts in his case. I'm not sure about Bill. He seems to indicate here that he believes it did work, but suggests it won't work now. As for the statement that at a certain point, lowering taxes does decrease revenue, that's obvious. However, we're far from that point. With the top rate going back to 39%, there's plenty of room to lower, and still not hit that tipping point. Remember, revenues in the 80's doubled, with a top rate of 28%, and in that time, 17 million more people were employed, and the standard of living for everyone increased dramatically. Meanwhile, those who cry out that the cuts served the rich, and hurt the poor, don't look at the fact that the percentage of the tax revenue collected from the bottom income earners decreased, and from the top increased. The IRS was collecting more from the rich than ever, and less from the poor. I've posted all the charts with these bits of info throughout threads, but the same arguments still keep coming up, and they haven't held any water yet.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Okay, maybe not "wild", but they are still only theories based on your personal understanding of the situation, correct? One thing I've seen Bill write quite a bit very recently (although I think it's mostly him backpeddling from an initial stance) is that just because something worked at one point in time doesn't mean it will work in every situation. For instance, and I'm only going to comment on this one since I wasn't around for the others, the tax cuts of 2003. The charts we posted in the other thread show that the housing boom had the greatest rate of growth starting in 2003 (things started getting out of hand earlier, but that was the section with the greatest acceleration. Is it not possible that the tax cuts were not the only factor for the increased revenue at that time? Increased borrowing itself means there's significantly more capital injected into the economy; more jobs, more purchasing, more tax collected. I'm not an economist, but I believe this could have played a significant role during that time period. While we may have been in a "recession" at the time, conditions may have been much more favorable for the tax cuts (lower unemployment, greater production, and whatnot) then than currently.OHV notec wrote:you and Bill/Goodwrench are basically taking wild-guesses as to what would best turn us around at this point in time...Not exactly wild guesses. I've cited in a recent thread the 4 times in the last century where we were in a recession, and cutting tax rates got us out, improved the employment situation, and increased revenues. Over time, I've had Goodwrench and Bill both give alternative reasons, and I've debunked them.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:As for the statement that at a certain point, lowering taxes does decrease revenue, that's obvious. However, we're far from that point. With the top rate going back to 39%, there's plenty of room to lower, and still not hit that tipping point. Remember, revenues in the 80's doubled, with a top rate of 28%, and in that time, 17 million more people were employed, and the standard of living for everyone increased dramatically.All I was trying to get at it "how do you know where that tipping point is? Also, if we cut taxes every time our economy slumps, we WILL eventually pass that tipping point, regardless of where it is. At some point we would need to either raise the rate so that we have something to cut, or simply stop the snipping. (I feel like this is making a stretch, but at the same time, it just makes sense to me at the moment).
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Meanwhile, those who cry out that the cuts served the rich, and hurt the poor, don't look at the fact that the percentage of the tax revenue collected from the bottom income earners decreased, and from the top increased. The IRS was collecting more from the rich than ever, and less from the poor. I've posted all the charts with these bits of info throughout threads, but the same arguments still keep coming up, and they haven't held any water yet.Don't look at me, I support a flat income tax. However, I also support income-based fines and such.
OHV notec wrote:For instance, and I'm only going to comment on this one since I wasn't around for the others, the tax cuts of 2003. The charts we posted in the other thread show that the housing boom had the greatest rate of growth starting in 2003 (things started getting out of hand earlier, but that was the section with the greatest acceleration. Is it not possible that the tax cuts were not the only factor for the increased revenue at that time? Increased borrowing itself means there's significantly more capital injected into the economy; more jobs, more purchasing, more tax collected. I'm not an economist, but I believe this could have played a significant role during that time period. While we may have been in a "recession" at the time, conditions may have been much more favorable for the tax cuts (lower unemployment, greater production, and whatnot) then than currently.This is a possibility, and Bill has taken the stance that this was more of the case than it was the tax cuts. However, as I've pointed out to Bill, him and I see a few of these things from opposite perspectives. He sees cause where I see effect, and vice-versa. I would say that taxes being lowered (and by extention, people having more money to spend), and more people being employed, that the housing market saw a boost, since more people were in a position to buy a home. Again, one thing I will point out is that in the discussion, Bill suggested that the turn around in the tax revenues was due to 1) increase in population, and/or 2) the housing bubble. However, I have pointed out that both were growing while the tax revenues were receding from 2000-2003. There is, of course, the snowball effect, where economic activity puts more people in the position to buy homes, which increases the bubble, which makes people money, etc., but it's still hard to argue the fact that each time the tax rates were lowered, the economy was boosted, and revenues increased. And I don't know where the tipping point is, but I know we're well above it.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:INFIDEL wrote:So.... did you ever pass econ 101?
just, the stupidity of your "national debt" (LOL) sig, WTF, you really don't know why billery had it made was because of Regan.
No, your blind to that fact.
I like this reasoning. This would project that in about eight years, whoever is the current president can then thank Obama for the increase of the national debt during his term. Here's hoping its a Republican so he'll know who to thank. Good call, Chris!
I also especially like that the current national debt has ballooned partially due to tax cuts the Bush administration passed. Yes, yes...what goes around does indeed come around!
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Because you'd buy that same refrigerator if it was 10 times the cost, right? Companies can't just keep raising their prices. Face it, the left claims the companies are screwing the consumer when their prices are raised, and they're screwing the employee when their wages aren't. There's no hope in appeasing someone like you. The companies are just all out to screw someone in your mind.
Quote:
Great. You know their advertising budgets. How about their overhead? How about their loaded labor costs? How about their net profit margins at the end of the year? I've read your bullsh!t long enough to know you don't have much first hand knowledge here.
Quote:
It's truth. Maybe you BS your resume (hey, you're in marketing, where half of it's BS, anyway, so you probably don't even realize you're doing it), but when I put down my achievements on mine, they can be verified. And it was you who first started making it about me, remember? Don't cry when I pull the rug out from under you.
Quote:
According to your statements, it would seem that you believe in people taking the first step of hardship to prove their point, so why don't you refuse to use a computer, since they're not "Made in USA"? Stop using your electronics because they're not made here. After all, you want to have me accept $5/hour because I think too many employees in this country want too much for too little. What's good for the goose...
INFIDEL wrote:So.... did you ever pass econ 101?
just, the stupidity of your "national debt" (LOL) sig, WTF, you really don't know why billery had it made was because of Regan.
No, your blind to that fact.
I really don't get you, your and enigma to me.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Good job understanding sarcasm.Quote:There is a difference numb-nuts, I am not preaching to boycott things that are not Made in USA. That would be utter stupid as we would have to be walking naked, walk to work, take a dingy to go overseas, use a cup and string to contact someone. Utter stupidity to even come up with something like that, genius.
According to your statements, it would seem that you believe in people taking the first step of hardship to prove their point, so why don't you refuse to use a computer, since they're not "Made in USA"? Stop using your electronics because they're not made here. After all, you want to have me accept $5/hour because I think too many employees in this country want too much for too little. What's good for the goose...
You on the other hand like to throw out that if one asks for decent "living wage" it's then as if you're "entitled" to something livable. Seriously, that's low of you. But I guess with your lofty $55 million dollar salary, you can crap on anyone and never feel the raft of "the little people" slinging your crap back up.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Do you know what happened on October 19 1988 and the reason behind it? Why was it H.Bush got defeat in 1992 again? Tell me on that US economy between July 1990-March 1991LOL. I love when you talk about stuff like this. For starters, surely you're talking about 1987, not 1988, right?
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:As for China passing Japan as the world's 2nd largest economy, we should all keep in mind that Japan's economy has been rather stagnant for some time.And do you know why Japan has been stagnant? What did they do to cause this? Conversely, what has China been doing differently with their fiscal policy? If you're not already familiar with it, it would be potentially enlightening to compare Japan's stagnation with our recession.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Good job understanding sarcasmGood job figuring out that your rebuttal was as useful as hammering a nail to your head and now twisting to look sarcastic. Awesome!
OHV notec wrote:Well, this thread went down the hill quickly
Why the name-calling? If you're getting frustrated, take a deep breath, or a nap
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:It's just that I enjoy the discussion when it's actually relevant to the topic. However, once the names come out, the fun is over for everyone else. Don't be the drunk who throws up on the host at the partyOHV notec wrote:Well, this thread went down the hill quickly
Why the name-calling? If you're getting frustrated, take a deep breath, or a nap
Want to avoid the context and just focus on something so petty as the name-calling, while still being bothered... then do the best thing ever: click "X" on your upper right-hand screen. Your problem solved.
There's that old saying" "can't stand heat, get out of the kitchen."
I'll surely give you one thing for now, at least you don't go name calling and hypocritically turn around and preach that you don't do as such, like Limbaugh's Right Nut aka Quickie does.
OHV notec wrote:The problem is you can not differentiate the name that distinguishes and that points out their actions versus the name that actually insults.Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:It's just that I enjoy the discussion when it's actually relevant to the topic. However, once the names come out, the fun is over for everyone else. Don't be the drunk who throws up on the host at the partyOHV notec wrote:Well, this thread went down the hill quickly
Why the name-calling? If you're getting frustrated, take a deep breath, or a nap
Want to avoid the context and just focus on something so petty as the name-calling, while still being bothered... then do the best thing ever: click "X" on your upper right-hand screen. Your problem solved.
There's that old saying" "can't stand heat, get out of the kitchen."
I'll surely give you one thing for now, at least you don't go name calling and hypocritically turn around and preach that you don't do as such, like Limbaugh's Right Nut aka Quickie does.
And yes, Quik likes to throw the personal insults out there as well; but from what I've seen, he isn't usually the first to strike...
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Ah, yes, there it is: notec is just not smart enough to understand you. You're so much more intelligent than everyone that might disagree with you. You are the poster child for the word you so love to throw around: hypocrite. Everyone else here (except, perhaps, Bill) sees that when your argument gets weak, you start with the name-calling. You call it "the name that distinguishes and that points out their actions", but it's just your weakness and immaturity showing it's ugly head. It doesn't matter what spin you try to put on it, you still do nothing but look weak, and bring down the level of the discussion.OHV notec wrote:It's just that I enjoy the discussion when it's actually relevant to the topic. However, once the names come out, the fun is over for everyone else. Don't be the drunk who throws up on the host at the partyThe problem is you can not differentiate the name that distinguishes and that points out their actions versus the name that actually insults.
And yes, Quik likes to throw the personal insults out there as well; but from what I've seen, he isn't usually the first to strike...
And it doesn't matter who does it first, last, middle. If you are an example of the word, expect me to label you as such. Again, don't like it, click the X and be gone.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Puke. Spare me the "high road" act. You're being a TOTAL opportunist here because you see a possible nutswing chance with notec while Goodwrench twists his nipples a bit. Let them joust among themselves...Goodwrench will be with you again in a minute.LOL. What are you now, a referee?
Damn dude. At least TRY not to be so transparent...this is middle school brown-nosing technique...at best!
Quote:
And did you ever passed the 4th grade?
I would guess the sig is stupid, because your well versed self in history has never figured out how much of a mass spender your buddies were. Look on the site for the figures.
What fact speak-th of?
Do you know what happened on October 19 1988 and the reason behind it? Why was it H.Bush got defeat in 1992 again? Tell me on that US economy between July 1990-March 1991 (still with low taxes too--- you know the one no one here talks on)...hmm?
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Ah, yes, there is nothing I can add here, as I exhausted my mind out just trying to figure how to click open this thread. But I must result to some form of response, so I can feel better, and I can feel better.OHV notec wrote:It's just that I enjoy the discussion when it's actually relevant to the topic. However, once the names come out, the fun is over for everyone else. Don't be the drunk who throws up on the host at the partyThe problem is you can not differentiate the name that distinguishes and that points out their actions versus the name that actually insults.
And yes, Quik likes to throw the personal insults out there as well; but from what I've seen, he isn't usually the first to strike...
And it doesn't matter who does it first, last, middle. If you are an example of the word, expect me to label you as such. Again, don't like it, click the X and be gone.
INFIDEL wrote:Quote:
And did you ever passed the 4th grade?
I would guess the sig is stupid, because your well versed self in history has never figured out how much of a mass spender your buddies were. Look on the site for the figures.
What fact speak-th of?
Do you know what happened on October 19 1988 and the reason behind it? Why was it H.Bush got defeat in 1992 again? Tell me on that US economy between July 1990-March 1991 (still with low taxes too--- you know the one no one here talks on)...hmm?
LOL
Yes my "4th Grad Education" Dont be knowing hows the big badddd presdent (Regan) had such a HUGE fallowing from both the left and right..... OSE greatone, will yous edamakate me pla-see!
Chris
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I rest my case. What's even more sad, is that you have resulted using the words and sayings that I use on you; Good lord you're a pathetic sack of flab.LOL. Imitation? Not quite. It's called pointing out the pure irony that you are truly the hypocrite around here, since it's one of your favorite words to throw at others. Good job in missing that part, too. If you want to see someone who truly has exhausted their usefulness, and can't come up with anything but childish idiocy in the face of intelligent articulation, go look in your mirror.
You're mentality has went from (insert death beep), to "if you can't beat em'... join em' " huh. But "imitation is the greatest form of flattery."
INFIDEL wrote:Yes my "4th Grad Education" Dont be knowing hows the big badddd presdent (Regan) had such a HUGE fallowing from both the left and right..... OSE greatone, will yous edamakate me pla-see!What's sad is that that was actually somewhat easier to read than what you normally post
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Hitler did too, so what's your point?THERE IT IS!
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I rest my case. What's even more sad, is that you have resulted using the words and sayings that I use on you; Good lord you're a pathetic sack of flab.LOL. Imitation? Not quite. It's called pointing out the pure irony that you are truly the hypocrite around here, since it's one of your favorite words to throw at others. Good job in missing that part, too. If you want to see someone who truly has exhausted their usefulness, and can't come up with anything but childish idiocy in the face of intelligent articulation, go look in your mirror.
You're mentality has went from (insert death beep), to "if you can't beat em'... join em' " huh. But "imitation is the greatest form of flattery."
OHV notec wrote:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Hitler did too, so what's your point?THERE IT IS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:LOL. What are you now, a referee?
...I gave you the chance, and even credited you with stepping up your level of conversation, but you're right into it again. LOL. Can teach and old dog new tricks, right? [/font