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?
formatting link
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
"[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
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.
formatting link
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.
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
"[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
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?
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-)
Not exactly. You said that reducing the tax rate increases revenue. That's not what this page shows. It shows that reducing a tax rate *that's too high* increases revenue. That's a big difference. Otherwise, the more that the feds cut taxes, the more money they get in return, until the tax rate is zero--which of course isn't so.
The Laffer curve is a hemispherical curve--starting at the zero point, arcing to maximum, and curving back to zero. If the tax rate is 100%, no business can occur and therefore no taxes can be collected. However if the tax rate is the opposite, 0%, then no taxes will be collected regardless of what business does.
Laffer pointed out that there is a theoretical "best tax rate" which results in maximum intake of revenue by the feds (and probably a practical one, though it may vary from year to year depending on the global business climate.) When taxes go above or below that point, revenues are reduced.
In Reagan's case, though, his vastly increased borrowing and spending was more likely the cause of any economic upturn. Assuming an average workforce of 118 million people during his time in office, Reagan increased the debt more one point three two trillion dollars in eight years (adjusted to year
1986 values) or over two and a half trillion in today's values, approximately $2700 per worker per year for the whole eight years.
Dumping $2700 per worker per year into the US businesses for eight years is going to make a big difference in the job rate, wouldn't you say? Unemployment down, competition for labor (and thereby wages) up, means more people paying taxes and the ones who were already paying taxes would be paying more, even if the rate was cut slightly.
The "Reagan Republicans" would have you believe that they came up with a magic formula to have your cake and eat it too--however, they are stimulating the economy by borrowing money and spending it. That's not fiscal responsibility, it's setting the US economy on the path to catastrophe. When the catastrophe happens, they'll be blaming the liberals, al Qaeda, Mexico--everyone but the real culprits!
Actually it's just over 14% according to info from the CIA world factbook, but I'm splitting hairs--your point is valid--that's a small percentage of imports.
Ok, but the value of the USA's imports is 15% of the value of all imports for every country on earth (and that's comparing 2004 world imports with
2006 US imports!):
formatting link
However, your point is even better taken when you consider that our exports value around 60% of our imports:
formatting link
However, I hope you can help me understand those numbers. They make no sense to me. Go to your average department store and look around. How much of what you can buy there is made in the US? The few items that even claim to be made in the US are usually just put to final assembly here from components made overseas. Same with cars. Even services such as sales, support, IT and such are being outsourced. How is it that our imports account for only 14% of our GDP? And what are we exporting besides food and raw materials?
All good questions, for which I can't give you complete answers. The CIA World Factbook is good for summaries, but the details lie within the Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis spreadsheets, which can be a little difficult to navigate. If you really get into it I'll try to help you find what you're looking for, but I always dread a new project like that because I have to re-learn it each time.
In broad terms, though, it's not too tough. You see a lot of imports in the department stores because that's where the imports are concentrated: in consumer goods. You see much less of it in industrial goods, and oil is a big wild card that biases the statistics. Don't base your impression on machine tools. They've *always* been a very small percentage of industrial goods. Even back in the mid-'70s, the total volume of all US machine tool builders, added together, would have placed them at number 274 on the Fortune 500 list. I remember that number because the publishing company I worked for, which was then only the 4th largest, was number 273.
As for cars, I don't know the percentage offhand but the domestic production is much higher than you may think. All of the big Japanese builders, Hyundai, and some of the European builders (including BMW and M-B) have plants in the US, and the Japanese in particular tend to make their high-volume cars here. That's counted as US production. My Ford, in contrast, was made in Mexico. d8-)
Concerning services, despite all of the hoopla only a very small proportion of our services are outsourced. The ones that are, again, tend to be consumer-related, so our experience with them gives us the false impression that the volume is much higher than it is.
Let me know if you want to track down the details. If you want to do it on your own, a good place to start is
formatting link
The government statistics are complex, as I said, but the FedStats website tries to make the navigation easier. It's partly successful.
That's partly what I mean. If the drivetrain and chassis are made overseas, shipped here, and welded together on robotic assembly lines, can they count it as a US production?
Thanks much!! I will look into it and try to sort it out myself.
I haven't kept up with this lately, but back in 1996, when I was reporting on it, a car needed to have something like 70% US content to be counted as a US-built car. There was some odd thing in there about NAFTA; I think a car built partly in Mexico or Canada needed 50% US content to count as a US-built car. I don't remember how that worked.
You probably could Google this one up.
Take your time. It will be very frustrating at first, but almost anything you could want is there somewhere. A browser with tabs is a great help for that work.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:58:48 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:
While he's at it, he should googlize this:
formatting link
That's a border around the whole of Canada, the USA, and Mexico, with no division between us. The concept of abrogating our power (adding Canada's liberals and Mexico's communists to our already too-socialist regime) scares me shitless. Life, as we know it, would end.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:03:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth:
I might be willing to lay you long odds on _that_ one, bubba.
I'll have to find one. A pair of Mor(m)ons showed up at my door yesterday. I smiled real big and one of them, realizing my recognition of them, said "Yes, we're from the Church of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons." I simply told them that I didn't believe in religion and closed the door as he started to spout Jesus at me.
A guy across the main highway from me just put up a leanto and his religious squatters on his lower 40 yesterday. I saw them on the way into town. He's the guy who will put almost a megawatt of xmas lights up, too. Is it late January yet? WallyWorld had some hick singer squealing out some xmas song 2 weeks ago, in OCTOBER!
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! Can I shift dimensions into a non-religious world for a few months, please?
Having lived in Utah for the vast majority of my life, and being married to a wonderful lady that came from the religion, a term I use in the loosest of possible meaning (and has long since withdrawn from that miserable excuse of a religion), I can attest that they are very capable of making a huge nuisance of themselves.
Prior to Susan's withdrawal (a decision she made without my assistance), we were rudely interrupted one day by a knock at the door. It was but one of many intrusions, by "missionaries" that had been sent, specifically, to get me bent over.
I inquired of them, "did you know who lived here when you knocked on the door?" "We're you sent, specifically, to attempt to convert me?------because I'm married to a person that is a known member (of sorts) of your organization?"
The answer I received, obviously, was "yes", that they were there to convert me. I informed them that if they didn't call off the dogs-----I would bloody one of them. They were admonished to never darken my doorstep again. Believe it or not, it was strangely effective. I have not been intruded upon since, not by the mormons. Now if I could find a way to discourage the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The mormons have no problems with blood transfusions. They collect and dispense blood routinely at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City. (They don't need that hang-up---they have plenty of them without it! )
Oh, yeah! Big time. I consider them to be every bit as dangerous as the mormons.
Trust me, you do NOT want to piss off the Scientologists!! Turning the other cheek is not part of their belief system. They use high-powered lawyers to prosecute the HELL out of anyone who crosses them... And that's only what we know for certain.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.