Reality check on economic policies

[expat_panama]

... Obama's BEA admits that since the '08 election corp taxes paid has soared from $203 Billion to $410 Billion, and Obama's BLS admits that unemployment has gone from 6.6% to 9.2%. We need to agree that corp. taxes are way higher and they haven't done any good. Then we can talk about how to make things like they were with lower taxes and more jobs.

I'd like to see the source of your assertions here...

Let's skip all this "assertions" cr@p and just work together with facts.

Here's a walk though for Obama's BEA stats for corp taxes.

BEA website is 'bea.gov'.
Under National, click Gross Domestic Product On the next page click GDP and the National Income and Product Account (NIPA) Historical Tables
Then click Begin using the data...
Click on SECTION 1 - DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND INCOME
Almost there; next is Table 1.10. Gross Domestic Income by Type of Income (A) (Q)
​

Here's a screen shot of what you get with Line 18 showing Obama doubling corp income taxes:

Obamas BLS website is not that much different but if you want I can post a walk-though for that too.

 

[taichiliberal]

... Obama's BEA admits that since the '08 election corp taxes paid has soared from $203 Billion to $410 Billion, and Obama's BLS admits that unemployment has gone from 6.6% to 9.2%. We need to agree that corp. taxes are way higher and they haven't done any good. Then we can talk about how to make things like they were with lower taxes and more jobs.

I'd like to see the source of your assertions here...

Let's skip all this "assertions" cr@p and just work together with facts.

Here's a walk though for Obama's BEA stats for corp taxes.

BEA website is 'bea.gov'.
Under National, click Gross Domestic Product On the next page click GDP and the National Income and Product Account (NIPA) Historical Tables
Then click Begin using the data...
Click on SECTION 1 - DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND INCOME
Almost there; next is Table 1.10. Gross Domestic Income by Type of Income (A) (Q)
​

Here's a screen shot of what you get with Line 18 showing Obama doubling corp income taxes:

Obamas BLS website is not that much different but if you want I can post a walk-though for that too.

And yet, Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, domestic industries went from $789 billion in 2009 to 1,229.7 in 2011....while Profits after tax with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments went from $567.1 billion in 2009 to 838.4 in 2011. So corporations are NOT hurting from the tax rate. And remember, were NOT including the FACT that a lot of corporations (foreign and domestic) DO NOT pay their taxes. This is OLD news:

(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters


And if you think things have changed:

ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)


ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) | ThinkProgress


See, doing comprehensive research gives a better picture....and things are not exactly what you wanted to project using one excerpted piece of information. And correct me if I'm wrong, but since taking office has the Obama administration passed any comprehensive tax reform through the filibuster crazy GOP Senate or the now GOP majority House that's taken immdiate effect?

I'll walk you through the critical thinking process if you STILL don't get it.

 

[taichiliberal]

There are the Democrats economic policies.

Republicans have one. Cut taxes. We cut taxes early in the Bush Administration. We extended those tax cuts when Obama was blackmailed into going along with it. Nearly half the stimulus package was tax cuts. We are paying the lowest taxes in decades. The 12 largest companies in the US didn't pay any taxes. In fact, Republicans made sure they got billions for nothing, just like the oil subsidies. After all that, it's obvious their ONE economic policy doesn't work. Their answer? "Give it time". 13 years hasn't been enough time.

Obama wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts, the Republicans just refused to let him play class warfare with them.

Either get the crack out of the pipe or stop lying your Quantum Windbag ass off. The neocon GOP drew a line in the sand regarding the Shrub's tax cuts....Obama blinked in order to pass his weakened Health Care Reform and other bills, least he face another round of threatened filibusters from the GOP. A matter of fact and history. If you can FACTUALLY prove otherwise, please do. If not, spare us the usual Quantum Windbag of bullshit.

 

[taichiliberal]

Wages are moribund, unemployment is stuck at 9 percent, and the corporate bottom line is doing just fine. You could be excused for thinking that if ever there was time to put the stake through supply-side economics, it would be now. Wall Street and big corporations are doing just fine, but absolutely nothing is trickling down. And yet Republicans are still pushing the same old song and dance, passionately holding the entire creditworthiness of the United States hostage in return for even lower taxes on corporations, adamantly refusing to countenance even the slightest revenue increase to help cushion the hard times for the Americans who are getting a raw deal out of the current recovery.

Indeed and well-said.

Of course the fact that ‘trickle-down/supply-side’ – whatever – is a failure won’t have an impact on rightist dogma.

Does the fact that everyone is richer than they were before Reagan started talking about supply side economics make a difference on progressive dogma?

WHO is richer, you Quantum Windbag of neocon bullshit? I guess those TWO stimulus checks the Shrub gave you put you in a higher tax bracket? Or your personal consumer product expenses drastically lowered by 2008? Or your taxes drastically dropped? Since you're lucky NOT to have gotten screwed by Wall St. or have your job downsized or outsourced or gotten sick enough to have your insurance company deny a claim, you're getting by, but YOU are not "richer". And given the level of unemployment increase and minimal job increase under the Shrub, neither are a hell of a lot of other Americans either. Got that bunky?

 

[expat_panama]

...We need to agree that corp. taxes are way higher and they haven't done any good...

We agree that corp taxes and unemployment are way up, so we need to decide what we want and what works.

...corporations are NOT hurting from the tax rate...

You want corporations to hurt and I want lower unemployment. We don't have a common goal, but Obama likes your choice. When he was asked back in the primaries why he wanted higher cap. gains taxes even if they lowered revenue, he said "it's a question of fairness".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Indeed and well-said.

Of course the fact that ‘trickle-down/supply-side’ – whatever – is a failure won’t have an impact on rightist dogma.

Does the fact that everyone is richer than they were before Reagan started talking about supply side economics make a difference on progressive dogma?

WHO is richer, you Quantum Windbag of neocon bullshit? I guess those TWO stimulus checks the Shrub gave you put you in a higher tax bracket? Or your personal consumer product expenses drastically lowered by 2008? Or your taxes drastically dropped? Since you're lucky NOT to have gotten screwed by Wall St. or have your job downsized or outsourced or gotten sick enough to have your insurance company deny a claim, you're getting by, but YOU are not "richer". And given the level of unemployment increase and minimal job increase under the Shrub, neither are a hell of a lot of other Americans either. Got that bunky?

You are.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FB0EhPM_M4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Would You Give Up The Internet For 1 Million Dollars?‬‏[/ame]

 

[taichiliberal]

...We need to agree that corp. taxes are way higher and they haven't done any good...

We agree that corp taxes and unemployment are way up, so we need to decide what we want and what works.

...corporations are NOT hurting from the tax rate...

You want corporations to hurt and I want lower unemployment. We don't have a common goal, but Obama likes your choice. When he was asked back in the primaries why he wanted higher cap. gains taxes even if they lowered revenue, he said "it's a question of fairness".

Nice try bunky, but the chronology of the post shows how disingenuous and misleading your response is here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3855108-post62.html

Next time you want to lie and bullshit about what other people wrote, Expat-panama, make sure that no one can produce the ACTUAL post that makes you out to be another lame neocon smoke blower.

 

[taichiliberal]

Does the fact that everyone is richer than they were before Reagan started talking about supply side economics make a difference on progressive dogma?

WHO is richer, you Quantum Windbag of neocon bullshit? I guess those TWO stimulus checks the Shrub gave you put you in a higher tax bracket? Or your personal consumer product expenses drastically lowered by 2008? Or your taxes drastically dropped? Since you're lucky NOT to have gotten screwed by Wall St. or have your job downsized or outsourced or gotten sick enough to have your insurance company deny a claim, you're getting by, but YOU are not "richer". And given the level of unemployment increase and minimal job increase under the Shrub, neither are a hell of a lot of other Americans either. Got that bunky?

You are.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FB0EhPM_M4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Would You Give Up The Internet For 1 Million Dollars?‬‏[/ame]

Only a gullible fool would use the posted puff piece for consumerism as some sort of ass backwards "proof" that Reaganomics wasn't the major screw up that history has proven it to be. As the original linked article of this thread points out, the reality trumps the belief in reaganomics.

And as usual, when the Quantum Windbag is logically and factually challenged, he avoids honestly answering the specific questions or honestly responding to the specific points of a post, and blows smoke to distract and detract from the original discussion at hand. But as always, the chronology of the post will ALWAYS be the undoing of little neocon windbags.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WHO is richer, you Quantum Windbag of neocon bullshit? I guess those TWO stimulus checks the Shrub gave you put you in a higher tax bracket? Or your personal consumer product expenses drastically lowered by 2008? Or your taxes drastically dropped? Since you're lucky NOT to have gotten screwed by Wall St. or have your job downsized or outsourced or gotten sick enough to have your insurance company deny a claim, you're getting by, but YOU are not "richer". And given the level of unemployment increase and minimal job increase under the Shrub, neither are a hell of a lot of other Americans either. Got that bunky?

You are.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FB0EhPM_M4&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪Would You Give Up The Internet For 1 Million Dollars?‬‏[/ame]

Only a gullible fool would use the posted puff piece for consumerism as some sort of ass backwards "proof" that Reaganomics wasn't the major screw up that history has proven it to be. As the original linked article of this thread points out, the reality trumps the belief in reaganomics.

And as usual, when the Quantum Windbag is logically and factually challenged, he avoids honestly answering the specific questions or honestly responding to the specific points of a post, and blows smoke to distract and detract from the original discussion at hand. But as always, the chronology of the post will ALWAYS be the undoing of little neocon windbags.

Would you give up the internet for a million dollars?

 

[code1211]

Something for all the voters in 2012 to consider:

The final nail in the supply side coffin

Broken recovery: Taxes are low and corporate profits are high, but nothing is trickling down to the American worker


In the first quarter of 2011, aggregate U.S. GDP -- the total value of all the goods and services produced in the United States -- was higher than the peak reached before the recession began in 2007. During the six quarters since the recession technically ended in the second quarter of 2009, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. But the vast majority of that income was captured as profit by corporations that failed to pass on their happy fortunes to their workers.


The final nail in the supply side coffin - How the World Works - Salon.com

You know what you need to do? Start a business. You need to leverage everything you own, buy all of the licenses, pay all the fees, hire all of the compliance consutants to overcome the government regulatory red tape, lease or construct a building and hire a team to help you run it.

You will then also need to meet your payroll, pay all of your suppliers, hire an accountant so you don't mess things up on your reporting and payment of tax for your business, your status as an employer, the committments you have to report on and pay the tax for your employees and to assure that the loans you have taken are being paid.

If everything goes to plan, in about 5 years you might be able to issue an IPO which shouldn't be too hard to do since it requires fewer documents to issue an IPO than it requires to hire one employee.

Go ahead Tai. Put your money where your mouth is. Open a business and when you do, then you will be qualified to run your mouth on whether or not it's easy or hard and why it's not happening.

 

[code1211]

Wages are moribund, unemployment is stuck at 9 percent, and the corporate bottom line is doing just fine. You could be excused for thinking that if ever there was time to put the stake through supply-side economics, it would be now. Wall Street and big corporations are doing just fine, but absolutely nothing is trickling down. And yet Republicans are still pushing the same old song and dance, passionately holding the entire creditworthiness of the United States hostage in return for even lower taxes on corporations, adamantly refusing to countenance even the slightest revenue increase to help cushion the hard times for the Americans who are getting a raw deal out of the current recovery.

Indeed and well-said.

Of course the fact that ‘trickle-down/supply-side’ – whatever – is a failure won’t have an impact on rightist dogma.

So, to be clear, what you are saying is that everyone who owns a business have come to the same conclusion and that conlusion is what? To stop expanding so they can make more money?

Is that your thesis?

What is the one thing that the businesses in this country have in common? Think hard now. Don't hurt yourself. There is one thing that they all have iin common. What is it?

Time's up. They are in this country.

Companies not in this country have determined that expansion is good for profits and companies in this country have made the opposite business decision. That decision is unique to the time period following the election of the Big 0.

Why do you suppose that Fiat decided that expanding to absorb still another company, Chrysler, was a good decision, but GM decided that divestiture of 3 auto companies, Saturn, Pontiac and Olsmobile, was a good thing?

When the Big 0 stops suing corporations because they expanded and stops impounding land and equipment because the EPA has decided that they want to stop growth, when the real and accurate cost of Obamacare are finally revealed and the tax system has been somewhat formalized after all of the conjecture by the Big 0 about "fairness" then you can blame something else.

Until then, the obvious answer is the one to choose.

 

[code1211]

There are the Democrats economic policies.

Republicans have one. Cut taxes. We cut taxes early in the Bush Administration. We extended those tax cuts when Obama was blackmailed into going along with it. Nearly half the stimulus package was tax cuts. We are paying the lowest taxes in decades. The 12 largest companies in the US didn't pay any taxes. In fact, Republicans made sure they got billions for nothing, just like the oil subsidies. After all that, it's obvious their ONE economic policy doesn't work. Their answer? "Give it time". 13 years hasn't been enough time.

Obama wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts, the Republicans just refused to let him play class warfare with them.

Either get the crack out of the pipe or stop lying your Quantum Windbag ass off. The neocon GOP drew a line in the sand regarding the Shrub's tax cuts....Obama blinked in order to pass his weakened Health Care Reform and other bills, least he face another round of threatened filibusters from the GOP. A matter of fact and history. If you can FACTUALLY prove otherwise, please do. If not, spare us the usual Quantum Windbag of bullshit.

Was Obamacare a part of the tax negotiations? No.

Can a filabuster be maintained by a party with 40 or fewer members? No.

FACTUALLY, your statement is empty.

 

[code1211]

Indeed and well-said.

Of course the fact that ‘trickle-down/supply-side’ – whatever – is a failure won’t have an impact on rightist dogma.

Does the fact that everyone is richer than they were before Reagan started talking about supply side economics make a difference on progressive dogma?

WHO is richer, you Quantum Windbag of neocon bullshit? I guess those TWO stimulus checks the Shrub gave you put you in a higher tax bracket? Or your personal consumer product expenses drastically lowered by 2008? Or your taxes drastically dropped? Since you're lucky NOT to have gotten screwed by Wall St. or have your job downsized or outsourced or gotten sick enough to have your insurance company deny a claim, you're getting by, but YOU are not "richer". And given the level of unemployment increase and minimal job increase under the Shrub, neither are a hell of a lot of other Americans either. Got that bunky?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but are you seriously comparing the performance of the Big 0 to W in job creation?

 

[taichiliberal]

You are.

YouTube - ‪Would You Give Up The Internet For 1 Million Dollars?‬‏

Only a gullible fool would use the posted puff piece for consumerism as some sort of ass backwards "proof" that Reaganomics wasn't the major screw up that history has proven it to be. As the original linked article of this thread points out, the reality trumps the belief in reaganomics.

And as usual, when the Quantum Windbag is logically and factually challenged, he avoids honestly answering the specific questions or honestly responding to the specific points of a post, and blows smoke to distract and detract from the original discussion at hand. But as always, the chronology of the post will ALWAYS be the undoing of little neocon windbags.

Would you give up the internet for a million dollars?

People who are the victims of down sizing and out sourcing via Reaganomics don't have offers for a million dollars to give up the internet......they can't pay the monthly server fees. This is why the unemployment services are now offering free internet time at their offices to job seekers who don't have a computer or have to let slide their internet access in favor of utility bills, food, etc.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have time to shoot the shit on the web like we do, bunky.....or don't you understand WTF the seriousness of being a "99"er is all about?

You seriously need to look at the world beyond your own little bubble, my silly little Windbag.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only a gullible fool would use the posted puff piece for consumerism as some sort of ass backwards "proof" that Reaganomics wasn't the major screw up that history has proven it to be. As the original linked article of this thread points out, the reality trumps the belief in reaganomics.

And as usual, when the Quantum Windbag is logically and factually challenged, he avoids honestly answering the specific questions or honestly responding to the specific points of a post, and blows smoke to distract and detract from the original discussion at hand. But as always, the chronology of the post will ALWAYS be the undoing of little neocon windbags.

Would you give up the internet for a million dollars?

People who are the victims of down sizing and out sourcing via Reaganomics don't have offers for a million dollars to give up the internet......they can't pay the monthly server fees. This is why the unemployment services are now offering free internet time at their offices to job seekers who don't have a computer or have to let slide their internet access in favor of utility bills, food, etc.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have time to shoot the shit on the web like we do, bunky.....or don't you understand WTF the seriousness of being a "99"er is all about?

You seriously need to look at the world beyond your own little bubble, my silly little Windbag.

Would you give up the internet for a million dollars?

 

[expat_panama]

...You want corporations to hurt and I want lower unemployment. We don't have a common goal...

Nice try bunky, but the chronology of the post shows how disingenuous and misleading your response is here:http://www.usmessageboard.com/3855108-post62.htmlNext time you want to lie and bullshit...

You started good with "reality check on economic policies", but picking fights isn't where we want to go because it's neither economics nor reality. Most people get things done by carefully sticking to economics/reality.

 

[expat_panama]

...You seriously need to look at the world beyond your own little bubble, my silly little Windbag.

Would you give up the internet for a million dollars?

Huh, we both hit the same obstacle here, trying to work with economic realities but instead getting stuck with Taic's 'problem'. Then again, his kind of problem may be the big part of what's been hobbling the economy lately.

Dang, buying and selling is easy but dealing with chronic sad-sacks is hard...

 

[sparky]

perhaps the economic question should be what does a too big too fail policy result in?



U.S. Default Would Likely Cause Stocks, Bonds, Dollar To Collapse


We're setting up for a TARP-like moment," said Neil Dutta, U.S. economist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch. "The politicians don't come to a resolution, but the market forces a resolution."

Traders are still banking on a deal to increase the borrowing limit before the Aug. 2 deadline. That's one reason stocks and bond yields have remained relatively stable thus far, even after Moody's and Standard & Poor's warned they may soon take away the country's top credit rating.

"What would shock is if Washington failed to beat the deadline," said Tony Crescenzi, market strategist at Pimco. Crescenzi and other investors believe the negotiations could drag on until the last minute.

Markets would likely greet a deal with a "relief rally," analysts say. The effect would be the reverse of a default: Stocks, corporate bonds and the dollar all jump.

"The market will react well to it," said David Kelly, chief market strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds. Kelly said a deal would lift the uncertainty hanging over investors, especially those too worried to buy stocks now. After President Bush signed the TARP into law in 2008, for instance, the Dow made large jumps, adding as many as 946 points in a week.

When Washington finally agrees to raise the debt ceiling, Treasurys could drop because investors would be more willing to take risks in other investments, Kelly said. That's how they normally trade: Good economic news pushes Treasury prices down and yields up.

 

[taichiliberal]

Would you give up the internet for a million dollars?

People who are the victims of down sizing and out sourcing via Reaganomics don't have offers for a million dollars to give up the internet......they can't pay the monthly server fees. This is why the unemployment services are now offering free internet time at their offices to job seekers who don't have a computer or have to let slide their internet access in favor of utility bills, food, etc.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have time to shoot the shit on the web like we do, bunky.....or don't you understand WTF the seriousness of being a "99"er is all about?

You seriously need to look at the world beyond your own little bubble, my silly little Windbag.

Would you give up the internet for a million dollars?

Would you grow up and stop being a silly little neocon Windbag and HONESTLY debate the issue at hand? If not, tell yourself this latest dodge "wins" the debate and go have another drink or maudlin exchanges with the other neocon parrots on these boards.

 

[taichiliberal]

...You want corporations to hurt and I want lower unemployment. We don't have a common goal...

Nice try bunky, but the chronology of the post shows how disingenuous and misleading your response is here:http://www.usmessageboard.com/3855108-post62.htmlNext time you want to lie and bullshit...

You started good with "reality check on economic policies", but picking fights isn't where we want to go because it's neither economics nor reality. Most people get things done by carefully sticking to economics/reality.

Calling you out on your disingenuous, callous and incorrect statements is not "picking a fight". As the chronology of the posts shows, YOU don't like being challenged on things you say....but that is the nature of the beast called a discussion board. Most people are honest and courageous enough to deal with criticism....which enables them to have a better understanding of economics/reality.

So if you can't do that, I'd say we're done.