Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

[Stvn]

Either way, I don't really care. In short, Natoma you were wrong before, but you corrected your numbers as Joe pointed out. I'm surprised you even went that far. I know how much you hate to be wrong. just kiddin.

Yeah, when Natoma gets backed into a corner, that's ususally when he asks for his friends come and lend a hand.

I jump in wherever I want to. But other than that, don't be an asshole Joe. It's not worth my time or anyone else's.

 

[Natoma]

NATIONAL DEBT IS AN ACCUMULATION OVER TIME. THE BUDGET IS AN ANNUAL NUMBER. A % INCREASE IN THE NATIONAL DEBT DOES NOT REFLECT THE SAME % CHANGE IN THE DEFICIT. IT'S NOT ADDITIVE.

Ahh but what did I compare? The accumulation of the national debt from 2001-2003 to the increase in congressional spending from 2001-2003 along with the decrease in federal tax receipts from 2001-2003. I took a time slice, which is perfectly relevant. If I tried to compare the entire debt to this particular 3 year time span, then you'd be correct, but that is not what I did. No amount of bold caps will change that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I jump in wherever I want to. But other than that, don't be an asshole Joe. It's not worth my time or anyone else's.

I was being sarcastic, but accept my apologies.

 

[Stvn]

I jump in wherever I want to. But other than that, don't be an asshole Joe. It's not worth my time or anyone else's.

I was being sarcastic, but accept my apologies.

It's just a forum. You two need to chill out. Really.

My only concern is that Natoma spends more time on these forums than his work. Yea he gets his work done with record speed and that leaves him with a lot of free time, but I'd rather he open a book and learn yet another programming language (he's a rather quick study. god i just complimented him. uggh i feel dirty ) than spend it debating politics, economics, and other dish of the day.

Then again, I spend my time debating perl and other non-essentials in my free time. So who am I to judge?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Ahh but what did I compare? The accumulation of the national debt from 2001-2003 to the increase in congressional spending from 2001-2003 along with the decrease in federal tax receipts from 2001-2003. I took a time slice, which is perfectly relevant.

(Where is that "bang head against the wall" emoticon? I'll just use more bold and caps...)

This does not matter Natoma. In ABSOLUTE TERMS (as I've been TRYING to tell you for ages), you are correct. When looking at PERCENT INCREASE / DECREASE it is NOT correct.

If I tried to compare the entire debt to this particular 3 year time span, then you'd be correct, but that is not what I did. No amount of bold caps will change that.

Wrong. You would be right (at least in your math, not necessarily the data or assumptions), If you used absolute differences over time and NOT precent changes over time.

ONE MORE ILLUSTRATION

* Say my personal income (receipts) is $1000 / month
* Say I've racked up $100,000 in debt over the past 10 years.
* My current expenditures every month are $1000. this includes paying enough interest just to keep my debt at $100,000

This is the situation at month 0. With me?

Now, let's say that I take a pay cut, at the exact same time I incur a hike in my rent. So now my budget looks like this:

* Personal income of $900/month
* Current expenditures of $1100/month

So, I'm running a deficit of $200 a month now.

What happens to my debt after 3 months? (We'll ignore the interest on the additional $200 monthly budget deficit to simplify). It's now at $100,600. Right? Everything here is coming from the "same source"
So, over a 3 month period of time:

Now you tell me....

What is the percent increase in my Debt over 3 months?
What is the percent increase in my spending?
What is the percent decrease in my receipts?

Now try and add up the increase in spending with the decrease in receipts, and see if it equals the percent change in my debt.

 

[Natoma]

The point is Joe, I used the absolute numbers when you asked for them way back on page 3 or 4 I believe, and it still worked out to the percentages as I showed.

I could go out and incur $100 Million in debt with a monthly income of $1000, or some other equally ludicrous example to skew the numbers, but that is not what is happening here.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The point is Joe, I used the absolute numbers when you asked for them way back on page 3 or 4 I believe, and it still worked out to the percentages as I showed.

No, you didn't.

I could go out and incur $100 Million in debt with a monthly income of $1000, or some other equally ludicrous example to skew the numbers, but that is not what is happening here.

[edit...I make mistakes too!]

My God....my example is EXACTLY NO DIFFERENT than what you're doing mathematically. The fact that you seem to think it's irrelevant or "extreme" means you're hopeless. You just defeated yourself. By claiming that a particular data set "skews" results, you have admitted that your "model" is invalid.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

(double post)

 

[jandar]

The State Government is funding more roads being built here. All of this without FEDERAL help.

Sorry. Not so. Fed's help alot. In fact Florida gets about $800 million per year in Federal funds for transportation needs (highways, bridges, interstate maintenance, ect...)

Most of that Federally alloted money goes to Central and South Florida.

North Florida DOES NOT see any of that money.

http://jtaonthemove.com/about/hist/

read and learn. We raise our own money to build roads. Only I-10, I-95 and I-295 routinely get Federal Funds.
a few local roads get State Funding (the state owns those)

http://jtaonthemove.com/highway/

Since 1953 JTA and its predecessor, the Jacksonville Expressway Authority, have built six bridges and several hundred miles of highway that crisscross our county and lead to or are part of the Florida state highway system

[/quote]

 

[Silent_One]

North Florida DOES NOT see any of that money

Nonsence. I bid on FDOT projects every month in Florida. Many projects are in the northern section.

read and learn. We raise our own money to build roads. Only I-10, I-95 and I-295 routinely get Federal Funds.

I'm glad that the private sector & Local goverments can fund private and public infrastructure. But if you look at I-95, I-10, and I295 in just your area you will see millions of dollars being spent on the roadways that comes from the federal government. Working on I-95 is not cheap (although sometimes the prices seem too cheap!)

 

[pax]

Calculating percentages can be a funny biz. I know my tax bracket is 10% provincial and 16% federal of gross income each separately so its 26% income tax bracket total. Now my employer retains only 17% total AND I get 700$ back on my taxes which is about 1/6 th the total.

So lot of ranting about canadian taxes being too high isnt right. Nor do I pay 50% as many claim tho my wage is about median at 32 g a year. Its a funny world like that...

 

[Vince]

Yea, communism works when you take all real world scenarios out of the picture as well Vince. I don't see you being a big supporter of that.

And

It's funny that you are a supporter of supply-side economics. Many staunch supporters of supply-side economics have long come out stating that the long held belief that you can "grow yourself out of deficits" through deep tax cuts is completely wrong

Look at the 1980's as proof that I was correct when I stated, The fundimantals show that in conjunction with nearly static spending or reductionist goverment policies you will experience growth. For example, some actual statistics which I bet you've never seen which happened during the Supply-Side Tax policies of the 1980s which you claim won't raise revenues:

Personal Income taxes payed, by group (in billions of 1982-1984 dollars):

Top 1%:

• 1980: 57.6
  1990: 87.2
  [+29.6]

Top 10%:

• 1980: 149.0
  1990: 191.9
  [+42.9]

Other 90%:

• 1980: 153.3
  1990: 153.0
  [-0.3]

Supplyside Revenue Change: [+72.2]

Tax Revenue per return, by group (in thousands of 1982-1984 dollars):

Top 1%:

• 1980: 63.5
  1990: 79.4
  [+15.9]

Top 10%:

• 1980: 16.4
  1990: 17.4
  [+1.0]

Other 90%:

• 1980: 1.88
  1990: 1.55
  [-0.33]

Supplyside Revenue Change per Return: [+16.57]

Not bad for that Praxis part of the Theory, eh? Kinda makes your comment comparing it to Communism look pretty ignorant huh? And, of course, it justifies my comment regarding seperating the governing dynamics of the economic policies and the geo-political and defense expendatures which were born out of necessity, to repost:

The economics work and they do it consistently when implimented properly; the history is proof. Perhaps you should pay attention to the underlying dynamics and less propoganda.. er.. politic, kinda like the Chinese and Russian economists. And no rant by you which is unable to differentiate between massive strategic spending towards emergent world threats and the economics underlying growth is going to change that. The fundimantals show that in conjunction with nearly static spending or reductionist goverment policies you will experience growth, unfortunatly shit happens when you're a superpower. Nobody wanted a cold-war, nobody wanted two 727's to slam into the Towers - but each event happened and tankfully there were policies in place which were growth & investment orientated that did lead to the economic growth later experienced.

Maybe you should read originating article Vince. This is precisely what the thread is about.

That was referring to comment after it. Go roll at yourself next time.

 

[Natoma]

The fundimantals show that in conjunction with nearly static spending or reductionist goverment policies you will experience growth.

As I said, in real world scenarios, Supply Side Economics has failed to "grow us out of deficits." In theory, it works, but in practice, it has failed the test twice.

Your own statement proves that much. You have to take out the fact that spending was not static in the 80s and 00s, and reductionist government policies were not in place, in order to get numbers that support Supply Side Economics. Theory Vince. Not reality.

 

[Vince]

The fundimantals show that in conjunction with nearly static spending or reductionist goverment policies you will experience growth.

As I said, in real world scenarios, Supply Side Economics has failed to "grow us out of deficits." In theory, it works, but in practice, it has failed the test twice.

Your own statement proves that much. You have to take out the fact that spending was not static in the 80s and 00s, and reductionist government policies were not in place, in order to get numbers that support Supply Side Economics. Theory Vince. Not reality.

Bullshit, you're avoiding the argument... as usual. I'm sure Joe knows a thing or two about this situation, huh?

Supply-Side Economics is clearly a reality as in the real world of the '80s the United States saw revenue growth as predicted by Arthur Laffer. The entire Supply-Side argument has been shown to be consistent with the economic dynamics that actually happened. All the Supply-Side theoretical arguments made in the '70s and '80s, many in the same building I later had classes in, have been shown true.

You can't deny this, you're entirely wrong and it' clear you have no idea what you're talking about. The difference - which you're not grasping proably because of your political bias which doesn't make the distinction - is between Supply-Side Economics itself and the almost Keynesian dynamic which has still been utilized in conjunction with the Supply-Dide cuts during the '80s and '00s due to external national threats.

And as a theory, the validity should be obvious to you as Supply-Side economics is merely a contemporary rebirth of classical economic concepts, such as Say's law. To say it's just a "Nice Theory. Nothing more" just screams ignorance. Keynesian economics, which you liberals just eat-up, and it's failings in the '70s is much more akin to a westernised (diluted) manifestation of the socialistic theory which was prevalent in the early 20th century and later failed.

Supply-Side Economics work, if not explain to me how the Revenue Spikes which I posted from the '80s and as predicted by the infamous Laffer Curve don't exist or are fallicious.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Bullshit, you're avoiding the argument... as usual. I'm sure Joe knows a thing or two about this situation, huh?

Yeah....still waiting for any kind of support (that doesn't fail basic principals of algebra) for Natoma's assertion that Bush "didn't in effect cut taxes...."

Supply-Side Economics work, if not explain to me how the Revenue Spikes which I posted from the '80s and as predicted by the infamous Laffer Curve don't exist or are fallicious.

Why, you forgot to account for "stealth expenditures" you know....so "in effect" the revenue spikes don't exist.

 

[Natoma]

Waste of time. Both of you.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Waste of time. Both of you.

So we've learned.

But then when you think about it, exposing you for the fraud that you are maybe wasn't such an invaluable use of time after all.

 

[Natoma]

This is my last response on this. Neither of you have "exposed" anything. Sitting back here, I realize just how futile an exercise it is to try and have a discussion with either of you.

Both of you who defend Bush no matter what. Both of you who defend wars based on false pretenses, no matter what. Both of you who rail against gays and our rights as american citizens, and our relationships with one another as human beings, no matter what. I'm not saying that this conversation is a waste of my time. I'm saying that you, Joe DeFuria, are a waste of my time. You, Vince, are a waste of my time.

In getting married and going through the things and worrying about my own life with my future husband, it's quite easy to see how small you two are, in every single way. Nothing, no matter what the topic, will change your narrow minded ways on any of the topics brought up above, and frankly I no longer have the wish to try.

I have far more important things to spend my energy on, such as how to make sure my marriage to my future husband goes through, and we take our rights as full american citizens.

You. Pfft. You're just a waste of time. Get in your last word. I know it'll make you feel better.

 

[Stvn]

So you've finally seen the light eh Malik? Btw, it would have been nice for me not to have found out about your future marriage plans through beyond3d.

But that's ok. I forgive you anyway.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

This is my last response on this.

Not surprising...since none of your responses the past couple pages actually address the issue at hand, and only try to deflect away from the argument that you started, but can't defend.

Neither of you have "exposed" anything.

You asserted the Bush is being disingenuous when he claims he cut our taxes.

You are wrong.

Sitting back here, I realize just how futile an exercise it is to try and have a discussion with either of you.

Rather, it's impossible for you to admit you're wrong....so you'd rather leave.

Both of you who defend Bush no matter what.

Wrong again. I have criticized Bush several times. (NCLB act, latest example.) But again, don't let the truth get in your way.

Ther's a difference between criticizing Bush ligitimately, and making up absolutely unsupportable lies, like you have in this case.

Both of you who defend wars based on false pretenses, no matter what.

Ahhh...here we go...deflect away from the topic at hand, to bring up your "I Hate Bush laundry list"

You. Pfft. You're just a waste of time. Get in your last word. I know it'll make you feel better.

No, I'd much rather you get in the last word. Go on..say it:

"I, Natoma, was wrong."

IT's not that hard, and we'll still respect you in the morning.