Quite simple, DOUBLE the tax rates for all tax brackets...oh wait, that only covers Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security . Maybe tripling the rates would do it?
Obama got Pwned. Again.
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
It's not just that. There's the estimated 8% yearly increase, too. So we just triple taxes, plus jack them 8% a year?
But wait...
That doesn't take into account those big interest rate hikes for servicing the national debt.
But...
But...
Whatcha mean you ain't got no money left, chump? Better go find some, cuz we needs it bad.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
He didn't get pwned.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
- You don't have to hot link the figures. Just type the numbers in. What was GDP for 2001?
- It's not a violation of forum rules if you post the figures to a site that allows sharing (imageshack) is what I used. Darat posts photos all the time and if you check the picture info you will see he uses an image sharing site. No big deal.
I suspected that. You know you are wrong don't you? You've figured it out and now you want to play a game. I was sincere in reaching out to you and you behave like that. Disappointing. Seriously.
If you read this just know that it doesn't fly. You could type in the figures like such:
Year Real GDP
2001 11,347,200
2002 11,543,100
2003 11,836,400
2004 12,246,900
2005 12,623,000
2006 12,958,500
2007 13,206,400
2008 13,161,900
2009 12,703,100
How hard is that? Arguing via link is dishonest. Posting facts is easy. If you had them. You don't and you know it. So run away.
From the other thread.
The first three have no supporting numbers and no source. They are meaningless without supporting numbers. They are worthless without a source.
Not sourced. No supporting numbers but appears to support my numbers.
I've no idea what the hell you think this shows.
This is just a chart with no supporting numbers and no source.
{snip} Dishonest. It's not my job to do your job for you.
Duh! You got caught lying. Run away.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
You don't learn do you? You still don't know why the word is wrong? That you think what I said sounds like a made up word DOESN'T justify your using the word.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I'm not wrong. You're the one hiding, RandFan.
Go ahead, divide the Real GDP figure that you just posted for 2002 by that for 2001. What percent growth is that? 1.7%
For 2003 by 2002? 2.5%.
For 2004 by 2003? 3.5%
For 2005 by 2004? 3.1%
For 2006 divided by 2005? 2.7%
Every one of those is a far cry from the 0.75% that you claimed characterized the growth rate after the Bush tax cuts.
And the calculation of those numbers INCLUDES the periods of very low GDP growth rate that occurred during the periods right before the tax cuts were passed.
And what do you think the effect of that is on the averages? Hmmmmm?
If you were to only look at the growth that occurred after the tax cuts, the average percentages would be even be higher.
In the range of what I claimed. 2% after the 2001 tax cut and about 3.5% after the 2003 tax cut.
Just like you can see is the case in all those more finely detailed graphs I linked ... that you apparently found to difficult to read.
Now if you can't learn from the above ... there is nothing more I can do.
Then you are simply beyond saving, and I leave you to wallow in partisan ignorance to your heart's content.
And no doubt vote Obama in the next election.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I thought that was what was going on. THAT'S why I want you to post your numbers. Please note. I posted ALL OF MY NUMBERS. No hanky panky. No funny businesses.
Your sites are playing funny with the numbers. You DIDN'T use the GDP deflator. A no-no.
But that's fine. Let's use those for the moment.
- Bush lowered taxes (first time) in 2001.
- You don't really get to declare that the down turn in the economy was the fault of the Democrats WITHOUT explaining why. Did they raise taxes? What did they do BAC?
- You don't get to ignore the data for 07, 08 and 09 because the Democrats came to office.
The average growth is 1.4 without the deflator. With the deflator? .75
Last edited:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
LOL! You haven't a clue what you are doing, do you? You have no idea what the deflator is or does ... but perhaps others now know why I was asking you about inflation rates.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
LOL! You haven't a clue what you are doing, do you? You have no idea what the deflator is or does ... but perhaps others now know why I was asking you about inflation rates.
Oh you are so cute. Never mind I'm right. Never mind you ARE cherry picking your data. Best case scenario: 1.4
With the Deflator: .75
BTW: as for you mentioning inflation. Without you posting numbers I had no way of knowing if you had a clue what you are talking about. Now you have proven it because the adjustment ISN'T AN INFLATOR. Smile alll you want and ignore my premises. Let's see how THAT looks. Why is it that the deflator renders my percentages and NOT yours?
And let me note that from moment one I posted my numbers and you B&Med for pages before you finally addressed my numbers. You didn't even post numbers. You posted charts.
Last edited:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
LOL! I get it now. You don't even know what REAL GDP is, do you?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
LOL! I get it now. You don't even know what REAL GDP is, do you?
YES.There is "REAL GDP" before the deflator and "REAL GDP" after the deflator. You obviously have some silly notion that applying the adjustment renders the GDP "not real" BS.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
LOL! Just keep posting. This is getting more hilarious by the moment. And you don't even know it.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Guess I wasn't the one to "run away."
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
Nice posts Rand, very informative.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Thanks Ken.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
So tbk, do you agree there is a "before" Real GDP deflator and an "after" Real GDP deflator? Hmmmmmmm? Or are you hiding too?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I would invite any intellectually honest person from the right to address the figures I've posted. They are the actual numbers and my percent change adjusts for inflation (BAC's) don't do that.
Please, someone who has the intellectual honesty that some don't, tell me I"m wrong?
And look at the DJIA numbers.
Tax cuts don't appear to be working.
Please, someone who has the intellectual honesty that some don't, tell me I"m wrong?
And look at the DJIA numbers.
- 2001 10,686
- 2012 10,983 (market isn't closed).
Tax cuts don't appear to be working.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Like it or not these are facts.
The averages are without the deflator and W/Deflator.
Either way it sucks. BAC wants to cherry pick the data. Fine, JUSTIFY the Cherry picking.
If you want to Cherry pick from the data you have to give justification, especially since your argument hinges on the idea that lower taxes means a boost to the economy.
Why isn't the economy doing better?
The averages are without the deflator and W/Deflator.
Either way it sucks. BAC wants to cherry pick the data. Fine, JUSTIFY the Cherry picking.
P1 Republicans lowered taxes in 2001.
P2 Democrats DID NOT raise taxes in 2006.
P3 Obama DID NOT raise taxes in 2008.
P2 Democrats DID NOT raise taxes in 2006.
P3 Obama DID NOT raise taxes in 2008.
If you want to Cherry pick from the data you have to give justification, especially since your argument hinges on the idea that lower taxes means a boost to the economy.
Why isn't the economy doing better?