Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[kaz]

"You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM"

TELL ME WHAT'S INCORRECT IN MY COMMENT? lol

What's incorrect in your statement is that libertarians opposed Iraq and invading Afghanistan. So you are lecturing us about something we don't support.

I did support hitting the Taliban with serious destruction for abetting the 9/11 attack. But I would not have invaded and tried to nation build there, which is where most of the costs were. And I was against Iraq entirely.

K, So you'll ignore REVENUES PLUMMETING TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS AND IN YOUR WORLD VIEW, THAT SHOULD'VE DRIVEN THE ECONOMY BETTER RIGHT? And though 60% of Dems in Congress voted against the war of choice Dubya had, didn't the spending he have drive the US economy? lol

15% of GDP is way too high. It should never exceed 10% and should be generally well below that.

 

[Dad2three]

So are we libertarians or Republicans? Can you not make up your mind?

I don't care if you call me a Republican, it just makes me think you're stupid. Then you go back to calling us libertarians. Then we are Republicans again. Are you just stupid? Is that all it is?

I'm still waiting for the example of something I think that is Republican and isn't libertarian.

Libertarian/conservatives/GOPers, ALL vote the same way what the fuk is the difference?

As a libertarian, I am pro-choice, think drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay sodomy and all other victimless morality laws should be repealed. I support slashing the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and making our military defensively focused. I would close all overseas bases as I don't think our military belongs permanently in any country but our own. I oppose the Iraq war and nation building in Afghanistan and think we should leave the middle east entirely. Another difference is that I'm a fiscal conservative. I really have nothing in agreement with the GOP.

Conservative BTW is too broad a term to say what is the difference. There are fiscal conservatives, socons, neocons and they are all completely different animals.

Now, what about answering my question where I think something that is Republican and is not libertarian and stop deflecting and evading.

Great, you are a right winger without true convictions


Libertarians are FARRRRR righht on the economic scale and believe in myths and fairy tales, NOTHING MORE. They can't point to ONE state eo nation to EVER use their philosophy. Weird right?

" Now, what about answering my question where I think something that is Republican and is not libertarian and stop deflecting and evading. "



Who said that? Just because you support GOPers 95%+ of the time, WHO would confuse you with a GOPer/Conservative?

 

[Dad2three]

Very well said, Kaz. We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them.

"We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them."



"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .



Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

I'm not surprised the words Socialist LEANING went completely over your rigid brain.

I used the word leaning for a reason.

The Capitalism - Communism comparison is a continuum. 1-100

I'm saying people can fall anywhere in this continuum, but if they want policies that LEAN in that direction, it's Socialist leaning.

Is that too hard for you to understand rigid man???????????

Got it, you want to be vague and subjective AS you throw out false premiss, distortions and lies

 

[Dad2three]

What's incorrect in your statement is that libertarians opposed Iraq and invading Afghanistan. So you are lecturing us about something we don't support.

I did support hitting the Taliban with serious destruction for abetting the 9/11 attack. But I would not have invaded and tried to nation build there, which is where most of the costs were. And I was against Iraq entirely.

K, So you'll ignore REVENUES PLUMMETING TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS AND IN YOUR WORLD VIEW, THAT SHOULD'VE DRIVEN THE ECONOMY BETTER RIGHT? And though 60% of Dems in Congress voted against the war of choice Dubya had, didn't the spending he have drive the US economy? lol

15% of GDP is way too high. It should never exceed 10% and should be generally well below that.

Weird, You'd think going from 20%+ of GDP in revenues under Clinton and dropping to less than 15% would've boomed the economy in YOUR premise, what happened? NOT austere enough? SERIOUSLY? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

Again, you recognize only anarchy and socialism, nothing in between. You have made that clear.

Got it, you want to be vague and throwout words that have no real meaning


'socialism'? lol

 

[Dad2three]

"You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM"

TELL ME WHAT'S INCORRECT IN MY COMMENT? lol

What's incorrect in your statement is that libertarians opposed Iraq and invading Afghanistan. So you are lecturing us about something we don't support.

I did support hitting the Taliban with serious destruction for abetting the 9/11 attack. But I would not have invaded and tried to nation build there, which is where most of the costs were. And I was against Iraq entirely.

THE PREMISE:

""You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM""



FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WHY DIDN'T IT WORK?

 

[JakeStarkey]

15% of GDP is way too high. It should never exceed 10% and should be generally well below that.

Who says? Why? Less is more?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"We're never going to get people with Socialist leanings to ever grasp that. Ever. Self-sufficiency, true freedom, a lack of a nanny state -- those are too skeeeery for them."



"Socialist" is just a catch-all term the Right uses to scare the yahoos who really don't know what it even means . . .



Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!

I'm not surprised the words Socialist LEANING went completely over your rigid brain.

I used the word leaning for a reason.

The Capitalism - Communism comparison is a continuum. 1-100

I'm saying people can fall anywhere in this continuum, but if they want policies that LEAN in that direction, it's Socialist leaning.

Is that too hard for you to understand rigid man???????????

Got it, you want to be vague and subjective AS you throw out false premiss, distortions and lies

You understand the troll perfectly.

 

[kaz]

Libertarian/conservatives/GOPers, ALL vote the same way what the fuk is the difference?

As a libertarian, I am pro-choice, think drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay sodomy and all other victimless morality laws should be repealed. I support slashing the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and making our military defensively focused. I would close all overseas bases as I don't think our military belongs permanently in any country but our own. I oppose the Iraq war and nation building in Afghanistan and think we should leave the middle east entirely. Another difference is that I'm a fiscal conservative. I really have nothing in agreement with the GOP.

Conservative BTW is too broad a term to say what is the difference. There are fiscal conservatives, socons, neocons and they are all completely different animals.

Now, what about answering my question where I think something that is Republican and is not libertarian and stop deflecting and evading.

Great, you are a right winger without true convictions

Great, you are a scarecrow without a brain

 

[EconChick]

WHAT DUMBASS LIBERTARIAN FUKTARD KAZ SAID

"Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.

You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world."

"...No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.

Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster."


YEAH, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT *SHAKING HEAD*

IT's a generalization, genius!

Look, you're obviously a rigid brain that thinks in BINARY CODE only. Black or white. Up or Down. No weighting in your world.

No gradations.

No wonder your analysis is SOOO fucking off.

I'd rather talk to a liberal who doesn't think in your rigid terms....that's when debates are fruitful.

Your generalizations don't hold water.

Of course they do, Fakey,

Fact: the American voter does not believe in an economic malaise as do you.

Sure they do. Just travel to the heartland and ask them.

Fact: the consumer confidence through this week is at a seven year high.

I love when you show an abundance of gullibility. First of all, do you know how many "consumer confidence surveys" there are out there?????

Now tell me when the report was compiled? It was done before the unemployment rate went back UP. It was done before interest rates started to move up. It was done before last week's 2.8% drop.

Now let's dig INTO the survey and I'll educate your gullible mind some more. Consumer confidence indicators, whether coming from the Conference Board or the University of Michigan, are not good at predicting how consumers will act. And they don’t always agree with one another either. Looking at 36-month correlations over almost three decades, the range of correlations runs from 100% at times to -8%. Over one-year periods, it’s even worse, with a correlation that has run as low as -37%. Heck, during the past three months alone, the Conference Board’s number has gone up 3%, down 12% then up 37%, while the University of Michigan’s number has risen 7%, 3% and 5%.

Fact: your opinions are not facts.

As I just showed with very little effort above, you DON'T know how to analyze data. Or polls. Or surveys. What I just posted above to counter your naivete? Now those were facts, Fakey.

Fact: you ad hom instead of debate, a critical far right and far left fault.

If you can't ferret out facts, how in the world do you pretend to understand when something is ad hom.

Hint: you have a weak emotional skin, so if you are going to last here, toughen up. You have to take a punch if you are going to throw one.

LOL, no, I'm what's called passionate, Jakey Fakey. I've watched you dumbass libs take us down this loser road over and over. Whether on Economics OR Foreign Policy. It's frustrating that you people can't read history from just 10 or 20 years ago to see how we repeat the same LIBERAL failures over and over.

You haven't seen me throw a punch idiot. You'll know it when I do.

Yet another clueless post. See my responses in blue, Fakey.

 

[kaz]

15% of GDP is way too high. It should never exceed 10% and should be generally well below that.

Who says? Why? Less is more?

Ten percent is the rate that has been shown through history that when taxes are at or below that rate, people feel that the taxes they pay are fair. There is very little tax evasion and people do not make decisions based on taxes. Every empire in the history of man arose with rates at 10% or less. Every empire fell with them higher. Interestingly the bible also picks 10% as the rate of tithing. I am not religious, I'm not arguing it's a "because the bible says" thing. I'm just saying that for some reason 10% if considered fair in our basic makeup.

So in fact, government revenue peaks at 10%. Lower, government is "leaving money on the table." People would pay more. Increasing taxes above that does not raise revenue because people just work that much harder to not pay them. And their efforts to evade taxes harm the economy. You want people investing and spending freely.

If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/For-Good-Evil-Impact-Civilization/dp/1568332351]For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


The book is fascinating.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, econchick, you have posted another worthless post.

Your opinion is not fact, and your passion is nothing more than your own self loathing lashing out.

No, your generalization is not fact: the data contradicts you.

You won't throw any punch, for a fact.

Econchick, you are melting down. Instead, put together an assertion with solid evidence and a conclusion what it is all important. To that folks can logically respond.

Keep acting out and folks will keep spanking you.

 

[kaz]

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

Again, you recognize only anarchy and socialism, nothing in between. You have made that clear.

Got it, you want to be vague and throwout words that have no real meaning


'socialism'? lol

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. You will see it written different ways, but that is what it boils down to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, econchick, you have posted another worthless post.

Your opinion is not fact, and your passion is nothing more than your own self loathing lashing out.

No, your generalization is not fact: the data contradicts you.

You won't throw any punch, for a fact.

Econchick, you are melting down. Instead, put together an assertion with solid evidence and a conclusion what it is all important. To that folks can logically respond.

Keep acting out and folks will keep spanking you.

True.

But the OP wants everyone to “Forget Econ Stats,” ignore facts and evidence, and go with subjective, partisan rhetoric that comports with the errant agenda of the right.

 

[Dad2three]

15% of GDP is way too high. It should never exceed 10% and should be generally well below that.

Who says? Why? Less is more?

Ten percent is the rate that has been shown through history that when taxes are at or below that rate, people feel that the taxes they pay are fair. There is very little tax evasion and people do not make decisions based on taxes. Every empire in the history of man arose with rates at 10% or less. Every empire fell with them higher. Interestingly the bible also picks 10% as the rate of tithing. I am not religious, I'm not arguing it's a "because the bible says" thing. I'm just saying that for some reason 10% if considered fair in our basic makeup.

So in fact, government revenue peaks at 10%. Lower, government is "leaving money on the table." People would pay more. Increasing taxes above that does not raise revenue because people just work that much harder to not pay them. And their efforts to evade taxes harm the economy. You want people investing and spending freely.

If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/For-Good-Evil-Impact-Civilization/dp/1568332351]For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


The book is fascinating.

Just MORE right wing GARBAGE NOT based in reality. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you


US had a top rate of 70%-91% 1945-1980 AND the top 1/10th of 1% paid SUBSTANTIALLY higher effective tax rates than they do today (OVER 50% as compared to less than 25% today). How'd the US economy do 1945-1980? lol

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


EVEN RONNIE HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% HIS FIRST 6 YEARS, HOW WAS HIS ECONOMY? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Again, you recognize only anarchy and socialism, nothing in between. You have made that clear.

Got it, you want to be vague and throwout words that have no real meaning


'socialism'? lol

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. You will see it written different ways, but that is what it boils down to.

Got it, you'll throw out a false premise AND NEVER ANSWER WHY THE US ECONOMY DIDN'T BOOM UNDER DUBYA, EVEN THOUGH HE TOOK AROUND 25% LESS TAX REVENUES OUT OF THE ECONOMY. lol

 

[kaz]

THE PREMISE:

""You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM""



FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WHY DIDN'T IT WORK?

You know because you rant, don't respond to points and don't address what I said, I tend to not want to bother. But I'll give you a chance. If you want me to respond to future questions, you have to demonstrate you grasp what I said here. You do not have to agree with it, but you can't rant about things I didn't say as if it has anything to do with what I did say.

The reason is because you are only counting taxes as being the money which taken from the economy directly into the general treasury. Those are only a portion of the taxes. Four big things you are missing are:

1) Other Federal taxes, like FICA taxes which are far higher than they were then.

2) State and local taxes which are generally far higher than they were then.

3) Printing money. Let's say if you add up the value of all assets in the country, they are worth $1 million. Now let's say nothing changes except the treasury prints $100,000. Now the total size of the money supply is now $1.1 million. However, they created no value, just printed more money. They have $100,000 that came from the value of people who own all the assets, they took your money. It is a stealth tax.

4) Mandates. When government forces employers to overpay for employees, provide them with benefits they would not receive without the mandate, comply with regulations, ... All of those things are in reality taxes on the economy regardless that government didn't get a check, and government mandates are massively higher.

 

[EconChick]

Yes, econchick, you have posted another worthless post.

Your opinion is not fact, and your passion is nothing more than your own self loathing lashing out.

No, your generalization is not fact: the data contradicts you.

You won't throw any punch, for a fact.

Econchick, you are melting down. Instead, put together an assertion with solid evidence and a conclusion what it is all important. To that folks can logically respond.

Keep acting out and folks will keep spanking you.

Of course it was. It had real data in it. And this post here? Where's the data dumbass? You're the one using generalizations about the Confidence Index without putting it into any detailed context. I was the one that drilled down and explained it.

Self-loathing? LOL, if I suffer from anything, it's too much self-esteem darlin.

Now you're down to baby talk since you're not only out of data that supports this idiot president, you're also out of cool one-liners for your personal attacks.

When the opposition gets to this low of a point in a debate, you KNOW they've completely lost the debate.

Jakey Fakey, you and your allies on this thread are the lowest caliber libs I've ever debated anywhere. Hate to hurt your feelings but sharp liberals would disown you, sweetheart.

 

[Dad2three]

15% of GDP is way too high. It should never exceed 10% and should be generally well below that.

Who says? Why? Less is more?

Ten percent is the rate that has been shown through history that when taxes are at or below that rate, people feel that the taxes they pay are fair. There is very little tax evasion and people do not make decisions based on taxes. Every empire in the history of man arose with rates at 10% or less. Every empire fell with them higher. Interestingly the bible also picks 10% as the rate of tithing. I am not religious, I'm not arguing it's a "because the bible says" thing. I'm just saying that for some reason 10% if considered fair in our basic makeup.

So in fact, government revenue peaks at 10%. Lower, government is "leaving money on the table." People would pay more. Increasing taxes above that does not raise revenue because people just work that much harder to not pay them. And their efforts to evade taxes harm the economy. You want people investing and spending freely.

If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/For-Good-Evil-Impact-Civilization/dp/1568332351]For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


The book is fascinating.

"If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization.""

TALKING ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE THINKING HUH? lol

 

[kaz]

Got it, you want to be vague and throwout words that have no real meaning


'socialism'? lol

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. You will see it written different ways, but that is what it boils down to.

Got it, you'll throw out a false premise AND NEVER ANSWER WHY THE US ECONOMY DIDN'T BOOM UNDER DUBYA, EVEN THOUGH HE TOOK AROUND 25% LESS TAX REVENUES OUT OF THE ECONOMY. lol

Read the post after this one and what you have to do if you want me to answer these questions.

Now what if you answer mine. Name a policy I support Republicans which is not libertarian.