Obama got Pwned. Again.

BeAChooser said:
Now Ziggurat, don't you know that reducing the growth of something has always been called a cut by democrats?
Click to expand...
And calling an average growth of .75, "3.5" when the greatest increase is 3% takes what?
 
Last edited:
Facts for BAC,

economicgrowth2.jpg


Notice how BAC demands to trim the bad years from the good. And the justification?

BeAChooser said:
Go ahead, RF, plug in the years from 2003 to 2006 (after the 2003 tax cut) into that last link and see what it tells you.
Click to expand...
Taxes were cut in 2001, why stop at 2006? Cherry picking? Bush was president for 8 years and it's bee 10 years since tazes were cut. The economy has never grown at 3.5%.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Now Ziggurat, don't you know that reducing the growth of something has always been called a cut by democrats? ;)
Click to expand...

In many cases that is justifiable since the population is growing and there is inflation. If inflation is 3% and a budget only rises 2%, that's effectively a cut.
 
RandFan said:
Originally Posted by Brainster
Economic growth was solid from 2002-early 2008 with most quarters averaging 2% annualized growth or better.

Not quite.
Click to expand...

Actually, Brainster is correct.

https://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Plug in the years from 2002 to 2008 into that last link and see what it tells you. Or are you claiming that the Federal Government and left-leaning media have been lying to the public about the inflation rate?
 
BeAChooser said:
Actually, Brainster is correct.

https://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Plug in the years from 2002 to 2008 into that last link and see what it tells you. Or are you claiming that the Federal Government and left-leaning media have been lying to the public about the inflation rate?
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm posting the facts. I've given you the source. If you want to dispute my numbers then pick a year and tell me why it is wrong? We don't need all the nonsense. We have hard data and we can calculate the results to know that it is right.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
And I've given you four sources (on the other thread) and the facts. And I told you why your source is saying something different. So how about it? Do you think the government and mainstream media have been lying to the public about inflation? Yes or no, DUDE?
Click to expand...
What year from my data is wrong? Come on. it cant be that hard. I'm giving you hard data. Surely you can pick a year and tell me why it is wrong? And the tax cuts were 2001. And the Dems didn't raise taxes when they took office so the idea that the tax cuts improved the economy is a lie.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by mhaze
The idea that spending is not the problem, when spending is 1.5T per year and we only get 60% of what we spend, is delusionals.

RandFan said:
That doesn't make sense, in any event, raise taxes. It worked for Reagan.

David Stockman: We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.
Click to expand...

Wtf? In any event, raise taxes?

Okay, ignore all arguments and facts, stick with irrationality.

No.

Look, suppose you are running a company, and it has problems. You seek to find out specifically what the problems are. Then you fix them. You don't say "Raise revenue, irregardless".

Not if you want to (A) actually fix the problem (B) keep your job.
 
Originally Posted by mhaze
The idea that spending is not the problem, when spending is 1.5T per year and we only get 60% of what we spend, is delusionals.

RandFan said:
That doesn't make sense, in any event, raise taxes. It worked for Reagan.

David Stockman: We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.
Click to expand...

Wtf? In any event, raise taxes?

Okay, ignore all arguments and facts, stick with irrationality.

No.

Look, suppose you are running a company, and it has problems. You seek to find out specifically what the problems are. Then you fix them. You don't say "Raise revenue, irregardless".

Not if you want to (A) actually fix the problem (B) keep your job.

Postscript. "Tax, irregardless" is not a recommended method during a recession by the thinking of:

  • John Keynes
  • Milton Friedman
  • FA Hyack

It is instead, an admission of failure of perverted Keynes political machinations, followed by a shout:

"tax, irregardless. Take all you can from the working class. Use those good slogans..."
  • tax the rich
  • make them pay their fair share
  • share the pain



Yeah, right.

What's going on here is that politicians and their looters have moved from "Loot, but let's call it Keynes style stimulus" to "Well that didn't work. So just loot!".
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
You don't say "Raise revenue, irregardless".
Click to expand...
No because "irregardless" is a silly colloquialism. I would never say that.

Not if you want to (A) actually fix the problem (B) keep your job.
Click to expand...
The US is not a business but I'll play along.

  • If the problem is that revenue won't cover fixed costs then THAT is the problem.
  • If your costs cannot be slashed and the current price of your product is too low you do what? What do businesses do? Come on, what is it? You raise the price. If the market won't bear that raised price then find something else to do or you go out of business. It's called market economy (a bit of a tautology but I didn't invent the term). It happens every day. Having been a manager for a corporation I was in on discussion that resulted in raising prices of our products.
Try again. Spend a few more minutes on your argument this time.
 
mhaze said:
"irregardless".
Click to expand...
Conflating "irrespective" and "regardless" just makes you look silly. The prefix "Ir" and the suffix "less" don't go well together. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

Postscript. "Tax, irregardless" is not a recommended method during a recession by the thinking of:

  • John Keynes
  • Milton Friedman
  • FA Hyack
Click to expand...
Do they recommend zero taxation? What rate do they recommend for our situation? Do me a favor, take a course in economics before you run to Wikipedia and then come back and lecture us about things you know nothing about.

"tax, irregardless"
Click to expand...

Did you just discover this wonderful colloquialism and say to your self, regardless of how dumb it sounds I'm going to spout "irregardless" until their noses bleed. That will teach 'em.
What's going on here is that politicians and their looters have moved from "Loot, but let's call it Keynes style stimulus" to "Well that didn't work. So just loot!".
Click to expand...

Well thank you for that. 50 years as a registered Republican and 45+ as a Conservative I couldn't figure out the rhetoric. Now I know, "irregardless".
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
All your years, unless you wish to argue that the government and liberal media have been lying to the American public about the inflation rate. Do you?

Straw men are fun
Click to expand...

A strawman is a statement that misrepresents an opponent's position. I'm not doing any such thing. I'm asking you what your position is. Why won't you clarify it?

Do you or or do you not believe the official inflation rates that the US government has published the last decade?
 
I really appreciate the tone of your post. Thank you very much. Hopefully we can make some headway but it's going to take effort on both of our parts. :)

BeAChooser said:
I'm asking you what your position is. Why won't you clarify it?
Click to expand...
Thank you. Can we agree to stop the childish (I include me) gainsaying and have a meaningful discussion? I've got to go to an appointment but let's take this slow and at least understand each others point.

Do you or or do you not believe the official inflation rates that the US government has published the last decade?
Click to expand...
The data I posted IS the official inflation rate. Why do you think it isn't? You won't post figures and I've looked at 3 of the links and they are not clear. If you posted figures I could compare them to the us.gov site I posted and see if they match.

Would you be willing to perhaps pick a year of figures from any of your links and we could compare? Please? If you do that I promise to stop all snark and attitude immediately. I will answer any question to the best of my ability.
 
RandFan said:
I really appreciate the tone of your post. Thank you very much. Hopefully we can make some headway but it's going to take effort on both of our parts. :)
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, as I indicated earlier, I can offer many more sources to support my position … that there was significant real gdp growth after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Here:

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us-growth-2009.jpg

http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2005/images/chart02.gif

http://businomics.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/gdp_1.jpg

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/2008/07/31/real_gdp_q2_08.gif

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/60893E6264A8F9D6A81935B8AD5171C3.gif?w=360&h=331&as=1 (from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/past-present-future-economic-growth-in-america )

http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/images/site_assets2/U.S_.real-gdp-q2-10_.gif

http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/images/ecc1_5-eng.gif

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/July/us-dgp-1-1.gif

http://www.taintedalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/TaintedAlpha.com-U.S.-GDP-30082010.gif

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_up3_ViopR...FTdvcB0/s1600/US_Annual_GDP_Contributions.png

And I could go on and on and on posting sources. They ALL show that real gdp growth rates were an average of 3.5% (or thereabouts) for many, many quarters (on the order of 10 quarters) after the 2003 tax cut and were over 2% for at least 3 quarters after the 2001 tax cut. That's a far cry from the 0.75% that you tried to claim on this AND the the other thread.

Can you offer ANY other sources to support your claim that gdp growth averaged only 0.75% following those two tax cuts? Hmmmmmmm? Because not even your source supports that claim. Plug 2002 and 2003 into your source and you get a growth rate during that year of about 2.5%. Plug in 2003 and 2004 and you get 3.47%. Plug in 2004 and 2005 and you get 3.07%. Plug in 2005 and 2006 and you get 2.66%. No where near the 0.75% claim you made.

RandFan said:
You won't post figures and I've looked at 3 of the links and they are not clear.
Click to expand...

I told you, I will not hot link the figures since that's a violation of forum rules. And what the links I provided show is not unclear AT ALL. All of them clearly show real gdp growth rates in the 2002 time frame and in the 2004, 2005 and 2006 time frames that average about 2% and 3-3.5% respectively. Just as I've stated. Beyond that, I nothing further to say to you. Have a good day.
 
RandFan said:
....do they recommend zero taxation? What rate do they recommend for our situation? Do me a favor, take a course in economics before you run to Wikipedia and then come back and lecture us about things you know nothing about. .....
Click to expand...

Your words...
in any event, raise taxes. It worked for Reagan.
​
Pretty much sound like they can be paraphrased into "irregardless", raise taxes.So if there is a clarification to be made...I'll just let you make it. Fair enough?

Oh, and I do like Wikipedia, but I have some of those, you know, actual books by these economists here?Not textbooks by third rate professors.

Don't get mad at me because I enumerated the first rate guys in this tradecraft.Not that Stockman is not respectable.

Oh, and to answer your question about raising taxes to solve "the problem"? The take from 1040 returns is about 1T. Let me know when you figure out how to jack that to 2.5T (and increase it by some 8% per year for the next decade) so that revenue can equal spending.

waiting....waiting....waiting...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom