Lead (Pb) price continues to skyrocket

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:11:10 -0600, "Adam Corolla"


Google "dannites"
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


From what I can tell, it appears to be a splinter group from the century before last.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:18:25 -0600, "Adam Corolla"

The "Avenging Angels" actually made it safer to be a Mormon. Folks were afraid to screw or persecute them after they had done some retribution.
Kinda like realizing that you could only kick the neighbors dog for so long, before he ripped out your nutsack.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


LOL, nice analogy. IMO that's accurate maybe for Mormons, but the scientologists' dog rips off your nutsack for looking at them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Or maybe the scientologists rip off your nut sack *in case* you were thinking about looking at them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
Here's another example of their extremely vicious form of retribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:25:37 -0500, "Adam Corolla"

So you are saying that all the entitlements, including LBJs Great Society, were NeoCon constructs?
Tax and Spend = Democrats
Or was Midnight Basketball something a Neocon dreamed up?
Hardly a lie to call Democrats big spenders. Or was FDR a Neocon too?
Now about the single biggest tax increase in US history....that NeoCon Clinton...right?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, now there's a big-spending program. <g> Dem' basketballs cost like hell. And turning on the lights after midnight probably bankrupted the state of Illinois, at least. <g>

point people to, which you claim say one thing, but which actually say the opposite? You'll save everyone some time and yourself some ...oh, never mind, you probably don't care.
Here's what Laffer says in that article. First, it was mostly about capital gains taxes (his favorite subject, for a reason that would be obvious if you thought about it -- cut tax rates on capital gains and people cash in to get the lower rates, which increases tax revenues, temporarily), not income taxes or total taxes, and he pointed out that the capital gains tax was increased from 20% to 28% in 1986. Then he says this:
"Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent back to 20 percent in 1997 was an unqualified success, and every claim made by the critics was wrong. The tax cut, which went into effect in May 1997, increased asset values and contributed to the largest gain in productivity and private sector capital investment in a decade. It did not lose revenue for the federal Treasury."
Now, let's see if you remember who was president in 1997, hmm?
BTW, that is not to say Laffer is right -- he engages in some tricky slight-of-hand, as he often does. Only that your reference says the opposite of what you claim.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:34:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

Actually...no. One small section of the article was about capital gains..at the end. The first portions dealt with the increased revenues:
"Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S.: the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s; and the Reagan cuts of the early 1980s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric."
Followed by an investigation in all three tax cuts and the stats.
(his favorite subject, for a reason that would be obvious if you

So then cutting the capital gains tax ALSO increased revenues. Thanks for backing up the claim.
This of course followed the 1993 Clinton retroactive tax increase. The largest regressive tax increase in history...which flatlined the economy until 1997 when the Capital Gains tax break helped it start climbing again.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1544.cfm
The 1993 Clinton Tax Rate Increase. Without a vote to spare in either the House or the Senate, during his first year in office, President Clinton imposed the largest tax increase in history. His increase in the top tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent59 was the biggest jump since Herbert Hoover boosted the rate from 25 percent to 63 percent in 1930. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein estimates that the tax rate increase raised only one-third of the anticipated revenue.60 The combined effect of the Bush and Clinton tax rate increases was utter disaster.
Some have argued that the Clinton tax increase must have succeeded since the budget shifted from deficit to surplus in the late 1990s, but the Clinton Administration's own budget figures dispel this myth. In January 1995, almost 18 months after the tax increase was enacted, President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget projected that future budget deficits would remain above $200 billion--and climb in all subsequent years.61 Needless to say, if the Clinton Administration admitted in 1995 that the tax increase would not lead to a balanced budget, it would be groundless to make that claim today.
What really happened? As always, it is difficult to provide a precise answer, but the fiscal restraint imposed by the newly elected Republican Congress, combined with pro-growth capital gains tax cuts and private-sector initiative, clearly were the main factors in balancing the budget. In other words, the budget was balanced because government policy shifted away from President Clinton's original approach.
The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. The 1997 capital gains tax cut is the most recent example of the negative impact of static scoring. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that reducing the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent would "cost" the government $21 billion over the next 10 years.62 The JCT did estimate that revenues would increase in the first two years because the lower rate would encourage more asset sales, but there was no attempt to measure the higher revenues that would be generated because of better economic performance.
In reality, capital gains tax revenue skyrocketed, climbing from $62 billion in 1996 to more than $100 billion in 1999.63 But this figure is only a partial measure of the JCT's failure to grasp economic realities. In addition to mis-measuring the impact of a capital gains tax cut on financial markets, the JCT failed to estimate the impact of a lower capital gains tax cut on the overall economy. In other words, the lower capital gains tax rate not only boosted revenues from the capital gains tax, but also indirectly increased personal income tax, corporate income tax, and payroll tax revenues.64 None of these results were incorporated in the JCT estimate. <snip>
I guess Im going to have to start back checking your claims that my cites yada yada.
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
<snip>

<snip lengthy quote from the following>

Duh, Gunner, notice anything about that first URL, which you first supplied as evidence, and the one you quoted from now? See the two different numbers at the end? <g>
Did you just miss the fact that you're quoting from a different article, or did you think you'd get away with it? My guess is the latter. d8-)
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK, what's the CBO?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's absolute nonsense. Government borrowing drives interest rates up by increasing the demand for borrowed money; perhaps you'd care to explain how increasing interest rates boosts the economy? And government spending never provides as much of a boost to the economy as the same amount of private spending -- they can spend only what they take from us, but far less efficiently.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

reality,
exonomy
how
never
Then why are the republicans borrowing and spending like there is no tomorrow? Take away the economic activity due to the government buying goods and services and the economy stinks. I'd like to see the percentage of the GDP that comes from military and defense spending alone. That is pure wasted money. If it was used by the private sector instead of the government we'd actually have a good economy instead of a fake one that only looks good on paper.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gee, I dunno, Hawke. The government has spent a ton of money on the war so far. It should start showing a profit any day now! :-)
Is anyone besides me curious how spending money on overhead is expected to show a profit? Isn't that a whole lot like a free lunch? Someone, somewhere, gets the honor of paying the tab. Taxpayers, perhaps? Raise taxes endlessly, until we're all prosperous?
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Because many of them, including -- perhaps especially -- the President think that they can buy friendship.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Confused? I'll dumb it down for you.
1. Increased spending on US goods and services boosts the economy.
2. Your belief that reducing the tax rate boosts the economy is based on #1 above. Obviously, if everyone stuck their extra money from tax cuts into savings accounts, there'd be no boost to the economy.
3. In private spending, the bulk of it for merchandise goes overseas. Therefore it doesn't boost the US economy much. Or are you denying that almost every item you can buy is made entirely or mostly in other countries?
4. In government spending, the bulk is spent on US goods and services.
Therefore, lowering taxes will result in less money going into the US economy and more of it going overseas.
It's simple reasoning.

The feds set the interest rate. Government borrowing doesn't do anything to the interest rate. Most of the money the US government borrows is borrowed from China.

Sigh. It doesn't matter how inefficiently the government spends the money. The government spends money almost exclusively within the US. If they spend a dollar, a good 95% of it goes to US businesses. If they give that dollar to Joe Blow, he goes and spends half of it at Wal-Mart or other merchandise sellers, and most of that goes to foreign countries. Makes a car payment, mostly the same thing. Etc.
Tax breaks might create a few jobs at places like Wal-Mart and Sears, but government spending is creating thousands of engineering jobs, middle and upper management jobs, etc--jobs that make people thrive, not just keep them alive.
If what you're saying is true, there should be a graph or chart based on cited data which proves that lowering taxes is always followed by increased tax money coming in. If you can find one I would be grateful and will recant, because I *want* to believe that lowering taxes is good for the economy. I don't like paying taxes any more than you do! And for the record, I'm NOT in favor of increasing taxes to stimulate the economy. I'm in favor of the government sharply curtailing spending, and paying off the national debt. The US is rich in resources, we can support ourselves rather than needing handouts (loans) from China and other countries. In that way, I'm actually fiscally conservative--much more so than the borrow-and-spend Reagan/Bush/Rush neocons, who are for practical purposes less so than the democrats!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Strange how well selling in volume at a lower price works so well for Walmart but you say it won't work from the other side of the balance sheet isn't it?
It would seem to me that if it works for retail sales it ought to work for taxes.
The Chinamen do it too. Sell a whole bunch cheap and make more money they selling a few expensive ones
Must be some sort of exotica Asian Magic?
Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:displayed e-mail address is a spam trap)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

this
the
tax
substantial
because
have
already
to
that
sell
If
a
It's
get
revenue
many
wing
It doesn't really work that way. Government and business are different. In business it's a simple matter of figuring out the equilibrium point between price and how many units will be sold. At some point lowering the price of a product produces more sales and more revenue and at some lower price it just produces lower revenues. Business only wants to get at the right price point to achieve the maximum revenue. Government doesn't work that way. When it needs more money it either raises taxes or prints more money. I'd say that makes it wildly different than Wal-Mart. Which is why you can't compare the two and is also why the idea that businessmen make good government leaders is usually unsound.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And yet it happens. So inconvenient for you guys on the left, isn't it?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

sell
You need to check the facts, pal. Supply side economic theory has been discredited by the historical facts. The criticisms of it from the experts when it was proposed have now been proven. The supposed benefits from it have been illusionary. In truth it did what the real experts said it would, end in less tax revenue coming in than before implementation. Check Wikipedia if you don't believe me. The main change from changing to supply side economics has been a reduction in taxes for the rich and for business. As always when republicans are in charge.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Perhaps you should check the facts yourself. Tax revenue has increased substantially -- but the deficit has increased even faster because spending is completely out of control, due in large part to a president who took seven years to figure out that he could actually veto legislation once in a while.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.