Obama got Pwned. Again.

Wolrab said:
The poor pay taxes?
When I was poor, I got back every nickel and more in anything taken from my paycheck.
Click to expand...

Really? You got all of your Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid taxes refunded?

RandFan said:
Why isn't the economy doing better?
Click to expand...


They didn't lower taxes enough, of course. Lowering taxes increases GDP, so if we lower them to zero, we'll have infinite GDP growth.
 
It helps if you cherry pick your data though.

gdpb.jpg


Ignore the years that don't fit your thesis. Ignore that inflation ISN'T REAL GROWTH. Pretend that just having Democrats in office is reason enough to ignore bad years.
 
RandFan said:
It helps if you cherry pick your data though.

[qimg]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5582/gdpb.jpg[/qimg]

Ignore the years that don't fit your thesis. Ignore that inflation ISN'T REAL GROWTH. Pretend that just having Democrats in office is reason enough to ignore bad years.
Click to expand...
sgs-gdp.gif


Regarding tax increases and cutting spending.

I'd support cutting spending to the level of taxes received. Then and only then, increases in taxes could be considered to pay for additional spending.

But more taxes to generate the appearance of propping up an unsustainable level of spending (the issue now) is insane. This is "Hello, Greece We Are".
 
mhaze said:
But more taxes to generate the appearance of propping up an unsustainable level of spending (the issue now) is insane. This is "Hello, Greece We Are".
Click to expand...
Why is the current tax rate the optimum? Why can't it be said that the taxes should be 20 points lower?

The problem I have with this kind of categorical is that there is no basis for it. It just asserts something that has the appearance of just being a GOP talking point which is, as you say, not conducive to skepticism and critical thinking.

If you can't explain why the rate shouldn't be 20 points lower then you don't have a basis for keeping it where it is now.

I'd support cutting spending to the level of taxes received.
Click to expand...
I'm not against this if it supports a tax increase which is what I think you are saying.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Why is the current tax rate the optimum? Why can't it be said that the taxes should be 20 points lower?

The problem I have with this kind of categorical is that there is no basis for it. It just asserts something that has the appearance of just being a GOP talking point which is, as you say, not conducive to skepticism and critical thinking.

If you can't explain why the rate shouldn't be 20 points lower then you don't have a basis for keeping it where it is now.

I'm not against this if it supports a tax increase which is what I think you are saying.
Click to expand...
We know that COLLECTED taxes have hovered within about a 5% range, from 14-19% of GDP, for, well, 100 years....irregardless of whatever scheme someone dreamed up to get money (or to not get money).

So it's not correct to just think that if you raise rates, you raise taxes. Money flees to where it's free. It goes sideways, to other investments, or offshore. It trickles through any hole in whatever kind of barrel you create to keep it contained.

So that's why for purposes of inputs to a computer model, I'd keep to small bumps in revenue up or down - history seems to indicate that's what reality is.

And since from a wider perspective we are looking at the collapse of the "welfare state model" of progressivism both in Europe and the USA right now, there isn't a lot of use in prolonging the agony for those on the take/dole/junk of free money.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
So it's not correct to just think that if you raise rates, you raise taxes. Money flees to where it's free. It goes sideways, to other investments, or offshore. It trickles through any hole in whatever kind of barrel you create to keep it contained.
Click to expand...
So the increases have tobe in places where they make sense. We need to raise tariffs NOW.

If tax cuts stimulated job growth, we would be eating Europe's lunch by now.
 
mhaze said:
We know that COLLECTED taxes have hovered within about a 5% range, from 14-19% of GDP, for, well, 100 years....irregardless of whatever scheme someone dreamed up to get money (or to not get money).

So it's not correct to just think that if you raise rates, you raise taxes. Money flees to where it's free. It goes sideways, to other investments, or offshore. It trickles through any hole in whatever kind of barrel you create to keep it contained.

So that's why for purposes of inputs to a computer model, I'd keep to small bumps in revenue up or down - history seems to indicate that's what reality is.

And since from a wider perspective we are looking at the collapse of the "welfare state model" of progressivism both in Europe and the USA right now, there isn't a lot of use in prolonging the agony for those on the take/dole/junk of free money.
Click to expand...
These are just empty assertions. The great depression wasn't evidence of the collapse of "the capitalist model". Interestingly the end of the Great Depression was the start of unprecedented economic expansion and FDRs reforms. Some might argue that it was.

You are simply poisoning the well. All systems go through cycles. Claiming that there is some ill defined correlation and it is a cause of a collapse is spurious especially given that most of these nations are more socialist than we are and doing MUCH better. This isn't in keeping with your stated goals of your "hack" thread. Give us facts and not confirmation biased conclusions.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
These are just empty assertions. The great depression wasn't evidence of the collapse of "the capitalist model". Interestingly the end of the Great Depression was the start of unprecedented economic expansion and FDRs reforms. Some might argue that it was.

You are simply poisoning the well. All systems go through cycles. Claiming that there is some ill defined correlation and it is a cause of a collapse is spurious especially given that most of these nations are more socialist than we are and doing MUCH better. This isn't in keeping with your stated goals of your "hack" thread. Give us facts and not confirmation biased conclusions.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you believe facts actually matter. The only thing that matters is winning the ideological war, by any means possible.
 
And since from a wider perspective we are looking at the collapse of the "welfare state model" of progressivism both in Europe and the USA right now, there isn't a lot of use in prolonging the agony for those on the take/dole/junk of free money.

RandFan said:
These are just empty assertions. The great depression wasn't evidence of the collapse of "the capitalist model". Interestingly the end of the Great Depression was the start of unprecedented economic expansion and FDRs reforms. Some might argue that it was.

You are simply poisoning the well. All systems go through cycles. Claiming that there is some ill defined correlation and it is a cause of a collapse is spurious especially given that most of these nations are more socialist than we are and doing MUCH better. This isn't in keeping with your stated goals of your "hack" thread. Give us facts and not confirmation biased conclusions.
Click to expand...
I quoted the only part of my comment that yours could logically follow from. But you are completely wrong. Isn't it the progressive socialist model that wants to spend way more than it actually collects, both in Europe and the US? Numerically it is the "entitlement programs" - socialist, progressive things if there ever was such a thing - which are the budgetary problem.....

Given that central fact, it's hard to argue that after having spent all the money and a boatload of tomorrow's money, we are not seeing the collapse of the "socialist progressive model". Unless you think somehow that model can limp along without it's giveaway programs. But then it wouldn't be what it is.

Sure seems that way from here.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
And since from a wider perspective we are looking at the collapse of the "welfare state model" of progressivism both in Europe and the USA right now, there isn't a lot of use in prolonging the agony for those on the take/dole/junk of free money.
Click to expand...
I would love to have this discussion but you don't seem to want to take it seriously. Making baseless assertions, getting caught making baseless assertion and responding by simply assuming that everyone agrees to those baseless assertions isn't at all conducive to the dialog. It in no way advances the discussion. It's that lack of skepticism, critical thinking and seriousness that is problematic.

If you would like to back up your claims I'd be more than happy to respond.

Thanks.... I guess.

ETA: I would really love it if you would go back to the spirit of your "hack" thread. That was promising.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I would love to have this discussion but you don't seem to want to take it seriously. Making baseless assertions, getting caught making baseless assertion and responding by simply assuming that everyone agrees to those baseless assertions isn't at all conducive to the dialog.
Click to expand...

LOL! This from the guy who had this conversation with me recently:

BeAChooser: Bush's Tax cuts helped the economy.
RandFan: No they didn't.
BeAChooser: GDP grew 3.5% after his second tax cut.
RandFan: No, it grew 0.75%. The economy never grew at 3.5%.
BeAChooser: Well you'd better tell these folks (posting graphs).
RandFan: Dude, I'm posting the facts. Average GDP increase was .75%. It was NEVER 3.5%.
BeAChooser: Here are some more graphs. They ALL show average real gdp growth rates of 3.0-3.5% for many quarters after the 2003 cut.
RandFan: You got caught lying. Run away.
BeAChooser: Divide the Real GDP that you just posted for 2004 by the one you posted for 2003. You get 3.5%.
RandFan: Never mind I'm right. You didn't use the GDP deflator. Average growth is 1.4% without the deflator. With the deflator? .75%.
BeAChooser: You have no idea what the deflator is or does. You don't even know what REAL GDP is, do you?
RandFan: There is "REAL GDP" before the deflator and "REAL GDP" after the deflator.
BeAChooser: Just keep posting. This is getting more hilarious by the moment. And you don't even know it.
RandFan: Good day sir and welcome to my ignore list.
 
RandFan said:
The average growth is 1.4 without the deflator. With the deflator? .75
Click to expand...


I don't understand how you arrived at this number.

I reprocessed the table in Open Office and corrected small errors in the table.
Note: The errors do not change the results in any significant way.

Year | Nominal GDP | Real GDP | Deflator | Population | Nominal/Capita | Real/Capita
2001 | 10286200 | 11347200 | 90.650 | 285335 | 36049.56 | 39767.99
2002 | 10642300 | 11543100 | 92.196 | 288133 | 36935.37 | 40061.71
2003 | 11142200 | 11836400 | 94.135 | 290845 | 38309.75 | 40696.59
2004 | 11853300 | 12246900 | 96.786 | 293502 | 40385.76 | 41726.80
2005 | 12623000 | 12623000 | 100.000 | 296229 | 42612.30 | 42612.30
2006 | 13377200 | 12958500 | 103.231 | 299052 | 44732.02 | 43331.93
2007 | 14028700 | 13206400 | 106.227 | 302025 | 46448.80 | 43726.18
2008 | 14369100 | 13161900 | 109.172 | 304831 | 47137.92 | 43177.70
2009 | 13939000 | 12703100 | 109.729 | 307483 | 45332.59 | 41313.18
| | | | | |
Factors | 1.355 | 1.119 | 1.210 | 1.078 | 1.258 | 1.039

If you take Nominal GDP from the years 2009 and 2001 you get a Nominal Growth of about 35.55 percent increase over the eight year time period or an annual increase of 3.87 percent. Likewise, the Real GDP calculates out to 11.95 percent increase over the eight year time period or an annual increase of 1.42 percent.

From a per capita basis I find some really interesting results.

The Nominal GDP divided by population has a growth rate of 25.75 percent over the eight year period or an annual increase of 2.91 percent in Nominal Income. The Real GDP divided by population has a growth rate of 3.89 percent over the eight year period or an annual increase of 0.48 percent in Real Income. (Wow! That's low.)

So where does this 0.75 number come from? I simply cannot recreate your calculation. Could you show me how you did it?
 
mhaze said:
And since from a wider perspective we are looking at the collapse of the "welfare state model" of progressivism both in Europe and the USA right now, there isn't a lot of use in prolonging the agony for those on the take/dole/junk of free money.
Click to expand...

No. We are looking at a collapse of civilization because some ugly old battleaxe with a withered soul and brain in England convinced people that it was time to kill the welfare state and sell all the scoial; safety net to private interests.

In place of the welfare state, we are getting transnational fascism.
 
Solitaire said:
I don't understand how you arrived at this number.

I reprocessed the table in Open Office and corrected small errors in the table.
Note: The errors do not change the results in any significant way.

Year | Nominal GDP | Real GDP | Deflator | Population | Nominal/Capita | Real/Capita
2001 | 10286200 | 11347200 | 90.650 | 285335 | 36049.56 | 39767.99
2002 | 10642300 | 11543100 | 92.196 | 288133 | 36935.37 | 40061.71
2003 | 11142200 | 11836400 | 94.135 | 290845 | 38309.75 | 40696.59
2004 | 11853300 | 12246900 | 96.786 | 293502 | 40385.76 | 41726.80
2005 | 12623000 | 12623000 | 100.000 | 296229 | 42612.30 | 42612.30
2006 | 13377200 | 12958500 | 103.231 | 299052 | 44732.02 | 43331.93
2007 | 14028700 | 13206400 | 106.227 | 302025 | 46448.80 | 43726.18
2008 | 14369100 | 13161900 | 109.172 | 304831 | 47137.92 | 43177.70
2009 | 13939000 | 12703100 | 109.729 | 307483 | 45332.59 | 41313.18
| | | | | |
Factors | 1.355 | 1.119 | 1.210 | 1.078 | 1.258 | 1.039
If you take Nominal GDP from the years 2009 and 2001 you get a Nominal Growth of about 35.55 percent increase over the eight year time period or an annual increase of 3.87 percent. Likewise, the Real GDP calculates out to 11.95 percent increase over the eight year time period or an annual increase of 1.42 percent.

From a per capita basis I find some really interesting results.

The Nominal GDP divided by population has a growth rate of 25.75 percent over the eight year period or an annual increase of 2.91 percent in Nominal Income. The Real GDP divided by population has a growth rate of 3.89 percent over the eight year period or an annual increase of 0.48 percent in Real Income. (Wow! That's low.)

So where does this 0.75 number come from? I simply cannot recreate your calculation. Could you show me how you did it?
Click to expand...
THANK YOU!

Damn, I wanted anyone to take me seriously and go over my numbers. I begged BAC to go over them.

Let me repost them with explanations. Just a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom