Why did Tax Revenue INCREASE........AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts?

[Sheik Yerbuti]

What factual relevant information was posted? you think percentage change is more accurate than actual numbers? If you make $100 and get a $50 raise that is a 50% raise but if you make $200 and get a $75 dollar raise which one is better, the 50% increase or the 38% increase? Percentages are affected by the base number something liberals seem to ignore when showing higher negative numbers for previous years.

The people who cannot seem to comprehend are liberals and they don't understand much at all so I consider the source. Seems that Conservatives and libertarians understand what I am stating.

Personally, I don't believe most Conservatives and Libertarians fall for the nonsense you are spewing. What you're doing by ignoring percentages is ignoring population growth. Your sophistic argument claims that gaining 100 job in a job market of 1000 is better than gaining 50 jobs in a job market to 100.

 

[Conservative]

I dunno PB. the opinion piece from Forbes seems to take the tact that the New Deal is still going on. That really stacks the deck against conservative when he said the New Deal did not create any increase in the Middle Class.
I am willing to bet a ton that the number of people classified as middle class in 1932 when the unemployment rate was 25% was relatively tiny percentage wise compared to 1950, 1960, 1970 or even 1980 or later.

Seems like our good friend Conservative has just supplied us with very ammunition that proves his other contention is very very incorrect.

haymarket, there is only one ideology that doesn't worry about what you or anyone else makes and one ideology that promotes an economic policy that allows people to rise in class based upon their efforts. That ideology is the Conservative ideology. How many people can you claim liberalism has helped out of poverty or out of the middle class? You see, your ideology keeps people dependent and your ideology creates situations like Detroit and the dependent class there.

As for the New Deal, you obviously don't know much about it if you don't think it is still being paid for today and still going on. Amazing how poorly you and other liberals understand history. You seem to mean well but don't seem to understand that the so called "help" you are providing individuals keeps them dependent so is that the real goal?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Sure it does. Here is where the data came from.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-08.pdf

Ummm, Badmutha listed 10 cities and said they were the poorest in the U.S.. According to the link you posted, the 10 cities Badmutha list can only be considered the poorest if you ignore the 10 cities that are actually the poorest. Here are the 10 poorest cities according to the link you posted:

• Rochester city, NY
• Tuscaloosa city, AL
• Canton city, OH
• Lawrence city, MA
• College Station city, TX
• Syracuse city, NY
• Brownsville city, TX
• Camden city, NJ
• Muncie city, IN
• Youngstown city, OH

I can't help but note that none of those cities were in Badmutha's list. So what we have is Badmutha was lying and you fell for it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Just an FYI. A little less than 100 posts and this thread will reach 2000... and be closed.

 

[Conservative]

Personally, I don't believe most Conservatives and Libertarians fall for the nonsense you are spewing. What you're doing by ignoring percentages is ignoring population growth. Your sophistic argument claims that gaining 100 job in a job market of 1000 is better than gaining 50 jobs in a job market to 100.

Decided it was Easter and that I would do my charity work for the day and take you off ignore. The fact seems to be that more and more people aren't falling for the liberal rhetoric especially the Obama liberal rhetoric when that rhetoric is compared to the results. Let me know when Obama gets back to the employment level he inherited for as of right now he is down two million. Guess liberal results are to be ignored so you can continue to bash Bush and Reagan? One of these days you are going to grow up and realize what a fool liberalism has made out of you, hope I am around to see it.

 

[Conservative]

happy easter conservative

Thanks, randel, hope you had a good day with your family as well.

 

[Conservative]

That's nothing more than an opinion piece, conservative.

Oh, I see, opinion pieces by liberals are facts but opinion pieces that expose liberalism are false and to be discounted? Looks to me like you and a couple others here don't know what was even in the new deal if you don't believe it still isn't being paid for today and isn't in debt. Suggest you take haymarket back to school with you and this time actually read a history book.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

You are kidding, right, Sheik being accurate? Neither of you apparently understand the three equal branches of govt. When a Republican is in the WH in your world it is always the Republicans fault of spending but when a Democrat is in the WH it is always the Previous

Now you're projecting, Conservative, that is what you do. Who do you credit for the good economy from 1983 through 1988 -- Reagan or the Democrat-led House? Who do you credit for the good economy from 1992 through 2000 -- Clinton or the Republican-led House? Who do you blame for not imposing restrictions on the GSE's between 2002 and 2006 which might have averted the financial meltdown -- the Republican majority party in Congress or the Democrat minority party?

 

[Conservative]

Now you're projecting, Conservative, that is what you do. Who do you credit for the good economy from 1983 through 1988 -- Reagan or the Democrat-led House? Who do you credit for the good economy from 1992 through 2000 -- Clinton or the Republican-led House? Who do you blame for not imposing restrictions on the GSE's between 2002 and 2006 which might have averted the financial meltdown -- the Republican majority party in Congress or the Democrat minority party?

Reagan as it was his economic policy that passed. When Tip ONeil said the economic policy of Reagan was DOA, Reagan went to the people on TV and sold it. The pressure was put on the Congress to pass the agenda. If you were old enough and around during that period you would have known that, instead you read leftwing bs and buy it as fact.

In the 90's it was the GOP Congress that was elected after the Clinton tax increase and it was the GOP Congress through the Contract with America that led to the economic results we had. Clinton was smart enough to sign the legislation including the repeal of his tax increases in 1997.

The results are there for all to see but you refuse to consider you just could be wrong. I lived and worked during both periods of time, how old were you?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

How about because Obama is doing a better job with regards to unemployment than every Republican president going back as far my data goes? Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 26 months in office...

Nixon ............ +77%
Eisenhower ... +59%
Bush ............. +40%
Ford .............. +40%
Reagan ......... +37%
GHW Bush ..... +26%
Obama .......... +13%
Kennedy ........ -14%
Carter ............ -23%
Clinton ........... -26%
Johnson ......... -30%

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Unemployment Rate Since Obama became President

You can't tell the truth about anything, can you, Badmutha? Your graph only goes to December of last year. You do know that this is April, 2011, don't you?

Your dishonesty aside, had you posted the current unemployment rate, you would see that the unemployment rate is at 8.8%, 13% higher than it was when Obama became president. While that's not good, as the list I presented shows you, it's still better than every single Republican president going back to Herbert Hoover. It would lprobably hold true for Republican presidents before him too but that's as far back as the data goes.

So while I understand the complaint about unemployment being up after 26 months into Obama's term, until Conservatives/Republicans elect a Republican who can do better than Obama after 26 months, You righties are in no position to complain. You do because you're hypocrites.

 

[haymarket]

As for the New Deal, you obviously don't know much about it if you don't think it is still being paid for today and still going on. Amazing how poorly you and other liberals understand history. You seem to mean well but don't seem to understand that the so called "help" you are providing individuals keeps them dependent so is that the real goal?

YOUR article takes that position.
YOUR article.

 

[Conservative]

You can't tell the truth about anything, can you, Badmutha? Your graph only goes to December of last year. You do know that this is April, 2011, don't you?

Your dishonesty aside, had you posted the current unemployment rate, you would see that the unemployment rate is at 8.8%, 13% higher than it was when Obama became president. While that's not good, as the list I presented shows you, it's still better than every single Republican president going back to Herbert Hoover. It would lprobably hold true for Republican presidents before him too but that's as far back as the data goes.

So while I understand the complaint about unemployment being up after 26 months into Obama's term, until Conservatives/Republicans elect a Republican who can do better than Obama after 26 months, You righties are in no position to complain. You do because you're hypocrites.

Looks like you are the one that cannot tell the truth, job creation has been meager at best and for someone that always talks about population growth seems that two million less employed today than when Obama took office is a success in your world because there has been some job creation. Let me know when we get back to the employment numbers Obama had when he took office and before he spent over a trillion dollars to generate jobs. How is that hope and change working out for you?

 

[Conservative]

YOUR article takes that position.
YOUR article.

The article I posted claims that the New Deal is still being paid for and cost over 50 TRILLION Dollars, prove that statement false

 

[TurtleDude]

Gee whiz wally - no wonder this guy Turtle is clueless ... he cannot even find the most basic stuff available on the net through a two second search.

I forgot-the socratic method is a teaching technique far too advanced for some third rate teachers' college curriculum

 

[TurtleDude]

Much of the continuing debt build up is because of what Obama inherited from Bush, the wars and Medicare Pat D are a few.

you libs were against Medicare Part D?/

 

[TurtleDude]

randel, I assure you that if you were actually as smart as you think you are you wouldn't be a union employee and would be selling that incredible wit of yours in the private sector. It speaks vollumes that you are a union employee thus assured of total dependence for the rest of your life. Brilliant choice you made.

its hilarious watching the braying from people who claim to be experts on economics except their own personal economy environment is littered with failure and lack of success.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Republican Party too.

BOTH would be frowned on by the Founders.

By deeds, not words.

yep but the dem party has screwed up the constitution more.

 

[TurtleDude]

So would the middle class.

disagree. the destruction of Europe and Japan guaranteed the USA a huge industrial advantage for almost two decades following the war

 

[TurtleDude]

That is a pretty long list.

And on your side is ........... Turtle.

Our team is better than your team.

once again-like a true lib you confuse quantity with quality, and on other threads people like Cpwill fillets you like a fat carp and OldReliable67 has harpooned you several times. That you and randal are a constant tag team partnership means nothing

 

[Conservative]

you libs were against Medicare Part D?/

LOL, good point, they wanted more spent, not what they got thus their anger.

 

[haymarket]

The article I posted claims that the New Deal is still being paid for and cost over 50 TRILLION Dollars, prove that statement false

Your article claims that the programs of the New Deal are still in effect and it goes on because of it.

Your previous post is displaying your abject ignorance about your own link.

But you attacked me so I guess that was the true purpose.

 

[haymarket]

I forgot-the socratic method is a teaching technique far too advanced for some third rate teachers' college curriculum

You would not know the Socratic method if it bit you.

And you have no idea where I went to college. Only a fool pontificates about something of which they know nothing. So keep your smug elitist classims to yourself along with your even worst isms that you have already displayed.

 

[Conservative]

Your article claims that the programs of the New Deal are still in effect and it goes on because of it.

Your previous post is displaying your abject ignorance about your own link.

But you attacked me so I guess that was the true purpose.

Everything to you is an attack, maybe you should grow a thicker skin or put me on ignore. Everyone always attacking you with facts, logic, and common sense is viewed as a personal attack. That normally is the case when liberals like you are refuted as you seem to ask yourself, "how in the world could the liberal ideology make such a fool of me when the rhetoric is so beautiful and full of compassion?"

 

[TurtleDude]

LOL, good point, they wanted more spent, not what they got thus their anger.

its hysterical-they whine about Bush's idiotic spending (probably because it didn't create enough dem-dependent voters) and then voted for the biggest spendthrift in the history of the nation

 

[TurtleDude]

You would not know the Socratic method if it bit you.

And you have no idea where I went to college. Only a fool pontificates about something of which they know nothing. So keep your smug elitist classims to yourself along with your even worst isms that you have already displayed.

yeah you taught a law school class now? OK Haymarket-where did you go to college?