Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[The Derp]

Ok I found your source for you're graphs. From this website. Social Economics Blog: Articles Their numbers do not match neither BEAs numbers (that they cite), nor the world banks numbers.

Uhhh...no. You're wrong. The numbers in the charts I provided come from the BEA. What you're doing is showing the GDP growth in current dollars, not in chained dollars to 2009. If we use your metric, then we see that Obama had an average annual GDP growth rate of 3%, not the 1.76% he has in chained dollars. But whatever.

That being said, your graph shows a very high jump in growth right after JFK was elected 1961, and another after 1964. Two things happens during that time that gave us that huge spike. The JFK tax cut from a maximum rate of 91%, to 65%. Then the LBJ Revenue act of 1964.

If you want to return to the top tax rate of 65%, I'm fine with that. It should be noted, though, that from 1961 to 1964, federal spending grew by 21%. Interesting you leave that part out. Secondly, for LBJ, between 1964 and 1969, federal spending increased by 50%. So again, thanks for proving that deficit spending leads to growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they did

But they didn't. So I don't even know why you are insisting on having a debate about hypotheticals and such. Seems like all you can do is continually fall backward on your theory, over and over, while ignoring the real world results of your failed policy ideas and beliefs. Grow up.

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument. For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

Right, the majority of workers make less. Which is the point.

Are Americans who honeymooned in the USSR "on the right"?

Nope. Just the ones who have Russian hookers pee on them.

think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.
Does that mean I'm not on the right? Or that I'm not Russian?

Do you, though? It's easy for you to say that on the message board, but when Obama proposed sanctions on Russia for invading the Ukraine, the right-wing opposed them and Trump's own campaign folks (Manafort, Page) lobbied against them.

So you say you oppose Putin, yet you oppose the measures meant to punish him, while complaining about him. Which, again, would make your argument masturbatory.

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument. For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

Right, the majority of workers make less. Which is the point.

You never did explain how many workers make less than the median.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.

Well, that's certainly a different tune than the right was singing just this past year. Trump clearly has no strategy to deal with Russia because Putin owns Trump. That Russian pee-pee video is how Putin has Trump. Weird isn't it, that two workers for Trump's campaign lobbied against sanctions on Russia for the Ukraine invasion? What's that all about?

Are you saying that Russians who post on message boards can be critical of Russia?

I'm saying with Russian Active Measures, there's no way to know for sure.

Where did I say I opposed anything? Link?

Well, Trump does. And you're here defending Trump. So how would Trump get Putin out of the Ukraine when Putin has a video of Trump getting peed on by Russian hookers?

Well, that's certainly a different tune than the right was singing just this past year.

Who on the right said Putin shouldn't pull troops out of Ukraine? Link?

Well, Trump does.

Trump said that? Where?

And you're here defending Trump.

I defended Trump saying that? Where?

 

[The Derp]

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument. For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

No shit. That's exactly what I said...they make less. The wage is skewed upward by the 1%.

You never did explain how many workers make less than the median.

So the median average wage is $51,000...which is the 63% percentile. Which means 63% of US workers make less than $51,000.

 

[The Derp]

Who on the right said Putin shouldn't pull troops out of Ukraine? Link

Paul Manafort.

 

[The Derp]

Trump said that? Where?

Trump said he wanted to relax the sanctions placed on Putin by the Obama Administration and State Department.

In fact, Trump's lawyer sent Flynn a memo outlining exactly how to go about lifting the sanctions.

 

[sakinago]

Ok I found your source for you're graphs. From this website. Social Economics Blog: Articles Their numbers do not match neither BEAs numbers (that they cite), nor the world banks numbers.

Uhhh...no. You're wrong. The numbers in the charts I provided come from the BEA. What you're doing is showing the GDP growth in current dollars, not in chained dollars to 2009. If we use your metric, then we see that Obama had an average annual GDP growth rate of 3%, not the 1.76% he has in chained dollars. But whatever.

That being said, your graph shows a very high jump in growth right after JFK was elected 1961, and another after 1964. Two things happens during that time that gave us that huge spike. The JFK tax cut from a maximum rate of 91%, to 65%. Then the LBJ Revenue act of 1964.

If you want to return to the top tax rate of 65%, I'm fine with that. It should be noted, though, that from 1961 to 1964, federal spending grew by 21%. Interesting you leave that part out. Secondly, for LBJ, between 1964 and 1969, federal spending increased by 50%. So again, thanks for proving that deficit spending leads to growth.

A. Well sure getting off gold standard will only continue inflation, I don't think that needs to be said. That still doesn't make it a fair indicator, since inflation has only one direction to go, from that point on, which is up, bringing all chained GDP data always down. Obama can have his 3%, Reagan still inherited a worse economy.

B. And federal spending increased because tax receipts increased after the tax cuts by 63%...funny you left that part out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks like they actually raised rates in 1983.

Yes, that is correct. However, the rates in 1983 were far below the rates in 1982. So the cut to interest rates happened throughout 1982, leading to lower borrowing rates in 1983. So fine.

Looks like the Fed Funds rate was above 8% the entire year. And growth still topped 9%.

The GDP growth rate in 1983 was not 9%. So I don't know what numbers you're trying to wiggle in here. You do this constantly, I find...you make generalized, vague statements then try to shift the parameters later on to retroactively make them work. Tsk tsk. I see through it. Are you trying to apply one quarter of 9% growth to the entire year? Because the below chart never shows GDP growth surpassing 4.5%

Obama had 7 years where the Fed Funds rate was below 25 basis points and compared to Reagan, his economy totally sucked ass.

That's because Obama didn't deficit spend like Reagan did. Reagan tripled the debt and doubled the deficit. Obama cut the deficit by 60%. So all you're doing is making the case that deficit spending is good for the economy.

The Democrat idea to push people into houses they couldn't afford was bad, even if some Republicans went along for the ride.

So we are to believe that Conservatives are just these helpless snowflakes who can't come up with ideas of their own, so they just borrow from everyone else? Nah. Conservatives took deliberate actions from 2003-4 to create a housing bubble. The reason is because the growth from 2001-3 was the worst in 80 years. So Bush and the Conservatives hastily created a housing bubble by:

A) Removing leveraging restrictions for banks
B) Invoking an OCC rule to wipe out state protections against predatory lending
C) Regulators ceased enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004
D) Letting the industry "police itself"
E) Repeatedly denying a housing bubble was occurring
F) Forcing GSE's to resume purchasing risky subprimes that they had been banned from purchasing since 2000 after Clinton's HUD institute that rule

All of that (and more) was done in the service of tax cuts. Because the economy was a flaming pile of shit for Bush's first three years, despite the fact that Bush and the Conservatives promised the Bush Tax Cuts would be this wonderful thing, Conservatives had to give the impression the economy was growing, otherwise they'd pay a price for it in the 2004 election. By inflating a housing bubble, Bush could give the impression the economy was growing when it really wasn't, thus taking the economy off the table as an election issue.

3 years later, that housing bubble would pop.

You pass a big tax cut, you know demand will increase.

How? Cutting corporate tax rate does not result in increased consumer demand. Never has, never will.

Well, people who understand economics know it will increase, you'll claim it causes household debt. LOL!

First of all, that is what the facts show. That as taxes were cut household debt skyrocketed:

These are called facts. Which are things you seem to be allergic to.

Looks like they actually raised rates in 1983.

Yes, that is correct.

So were you lying? Or were you stupid?

The GDP growth rate in 1983 was not 9%

Can you even read? Read a chart?
Q2 1983, real GDP grew 9.4%.
Q1, 5.3%
Q3, 8.1%
Q4, 8.5%

Are you trying to apply one quarter of 9% growth to the entire year?

Nope. Funny that Obama didn't have a growth rate higher than Reagan's, after Obama hiked taxes.

1983, 4.6%, 1984, 7.3%

What were you saying about tax cuts not stimulating consumer demand? LOL!

Because the below chart never shows GDP growth surpassing 4.5%

Thanks for a 20 year moving average. What does it have to do with annual growth under Reagan?

That's because Obama didn't deficit spend like Reagan did.

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Obama had more deficit spending. And his economy still sucked.

So all you're doing is making the case that deficit spending is good for the economy.

If it's good, why didn't Obama have a single year of over 3% growth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax cuts redistribute wealth to the wealthy by cutting taxes on the bottom half to zero. Bastards! DERP!

So you don't understand math. That's fine. When you pull revenue from one area (tax cuts) you have to make it up by increasing revenues in other areas or cutting spending in order to balance the budget. Never mind that the initial argument for tax cuts was that they would produce so much growth, we;d be awash in revenues which means no spending cuts...but whatever...not the first lie Conservatives have told and won't be the last. So what spending is cut (because we know Conservatives never raise taxes)? Education and health care. This happens mostly at the State and Local level as those both rely on federal funds in order to maintain their budgets. That's how you can tell if a state is a "taker" state. If it is using more federal revenues to subsidize low tax rates, that is quite literally using welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make you the biggest welfare queen there is.

He could pay over 10 billion. He pays basically zero.It's obvious he prefers to not pay taxes.

He could? How so? If his income is taxed at a lower rate, how is that possible?

When you pull revenue from one area (tax cuts) you have to make it up by increasing revenues in other areas or cutting spending in order to balance the budget.

Neat theory. Now all you have to do is show me the spending cuts.

So what spending is cut (because we know Conservatives never raise taxes)? Education and health care. This happens mostly at the State and Local level as those both rely on federal funds in order to maintain their budgets.

Should be easy to show where federal funding to states was cut.

That's how you can tell if a state is a "taker" state. If it is using more federal revenues to subsidize low tax rates, that is quite literally using welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make you the biggest welfare queen there is.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

On the other side of this group, folks in 14 states, including Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, and Ohio, get back less than $1 for each $1 they spend in taxes.

I live in Illinois. The Atlantic says we're a giver state.

He could? How so?

He just has to realize his capital gains.

If his income is taxed at a lower rate, how is that possible?

His income is taxed at a higher rate than his secretary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument. For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

No shit. That's exactly what I said...they make less. The wage is skewed upward by the 1%.

You never did explain how many workers make less than the median.

So the median average wage is $51,000...which is the 63% percentile. Which means 63% of US workers make less than $51,000.

No shit. That's exactly what I said...they make less.

You said the MAJORITY MAKE LESS THAN THE MEDIAN.

So the median average wage is $51,000...

Why are you saying "median average"? No such term.
More math fail on your part.

which is the 63% percentile.

Where did you read that the median is the 63rd percentile?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who on the right said Putin shouldn't pull troops out of Ukraine? Link

Paul Manafort.

Post the qoute from your link where he said that, because I didn't see it in there.

 

[The Derp]

A. Well sure getting off gold standard will only continue inflation, I don't think that needs to be said. That still doesn't make it a fair indicator, since inflation has only one direction to go, from that point on, which is up, bringing all chained GDP data always down. Obama can have his 3%, Reagan still inherited a worse economy.

No, Reagan did not inherit a worse economy. Stagflation is not worse than the frozen credit markets that happened in 2008, both in scope and scale. The job loss when Reagan stepped in was relatively static, with the unemployment rate not shooting up until the end of 1981, after Reagan's tax cuts were passed. The job loss Obama inherited was around 700,000 a month. For Reagan, the unemployment rate reached its peak in December 1982, nearly 18 months after the tax cuts that would supposedly create all this growth, we'd be awash in jobs and revenue (we weren't).

So I noticed how you moved the goalposts on what you said. Not sure why you're talking about inflation in relation to the gold standard. To combat inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. When that didn't work, they lowered the rates and as a result, consumers plunged themselves into debt because their wages didn't increase. BTW - Conservatives were warning of hyperinflation the minute Obama was elected. That hyperinflation never happened. So if they were wrong about it then, why would they be right about anything now?

B. And federal spending increased because tax receipts increased after the tax cuts by 63%...funny you left that part out.

No. Tax receipts did not increase in a meaningful way. That's why the deficit went from $73B in 1981 to $155B by 1988, an increase of 100%. As for tax receipts, let's check them out, according to the Tax Policy Center:

Federal Receipts (in billions, 2009 Constant dollars)
1981 (Reagan tax cut passed): $599.3
1982 (Reagan raised taxes for the first of 11 times): $617
1983: $600 - so is this more or less than the year before?

And furthermore, what about household debt? Well, of course, after tax cuts household debt skyrocketed:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump said that? Where?

Trump said he wanted to relax the sanctions placed on Putin by the Obama Administration and State Department.

In fact, Trump's lawyer sent Flynn a memo outlining exactly how to go about lifting the sanctions.

So he didn't say Putin should not pull Russin troops out of Ukraine.

Thanks for admitting your lie...err...mistake.

 

[The Derp]

So were you lying? Or were you stupid?

Was the interest rate in 1983 lower or higher than in 1982? It was lower. So they lowered the rate throughout 1982 so that by 1983, it was low enough to spur borrowing.

Q2 1983, real GDP grew 9.4%.

Damn, dude. That's not in chained dollars, but current dollars. If you use that metric, then Obama grew the economy by an average of 3%. You do know the difference between chained dollars and current ones, right???????????? Chained dollars is how GDP growth is determined. Like, for instance, GDP growth for Q1 2017 in chained dollars was just 0.7%.

Nope. Funny that Obama didn't have a growth rate higher than Reagan's, after Obama hiked taxes.

I never claimed he did. Reagan deficit spent us into a debt hole. That's how he got his growth so high. The deficit grew by 100% and the debt grew by 200%. So the only argument you are making is that deficit spending grows an economy. By contrast, Obama reduced the deficit by 60% and grew the debt by 80%. Obama also added 11,000,000 net private sector jobs despite the deficit reduction. Reagan added that many through the same deficit spending you screech about as bad policy today.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

What were you saying about tax cuts not stimulating consumer demand? LOL!

That they don't. You can see it happening in real time in Kansas right now. You can also see it throughout the Bush years. Taxes are cut, consumer debt spikes. Now why would that be the case if "people are allowed to keep more of what they earned"? And what happened to your "correlation is not causation" argument? I see you've abandoned that pretty quickly as each piece of your argument crumbles.

Thanks for a 20 year moving average. What does it have to do with annual growth under Reagan?

That his growth wasn't the 9% you claimed.

Obama had more deficit spending. And his economy still sucked.

No, he didn't. In fact, Obama reduced the deficit by 60% whereas Reagan doubled it.

If it's good, why didn't Obama have a single year of over 3% growth?

Well, he did if you're using the metric that you're using the claim Reagan had 9% growth.

 

[The Derp]

You said the MAJORITY MAKE LESS THAN THE MEDIAN.

Do you not know math? If the median income is $51K, and that is the 63% percentile, then that means 63% of Us workers make below the median income.

For God's sake, this isn't rocket science.

Where did you read that the median is the 63rd percentile?

Here ya go, you Russian troll. Just type in $51,000 into the Total Annual Income, and it spits out what percentile of all income that is.

Seriously, why are you even posting here? Is Putin ordering you to?

 

[The Derp]

So he didn't say Putin should not pull Russin troops out of Ukraine.

Yes he did, by saying the sanctions should be lifted.

 

[sakinago]

A. Well sure getting off gold standard will only continue inflation, I don't think that needs to be said. That still doesn't make it a fair indicator, since inflation has only one direction to go, from that point on, which is up, bringing all chained GDP data always down. Obama can have his 3%, Reagan still inherited a worse economy.

No, Reagan did not inherit a worse economy. Stagflation is not worse than the frozen credit markets that happened in 2008, both in scope and scale. The job loss when Reagan stepped in was relatively static, with the unemployment rate not shooting up until the end of 1981, after Reagan's tax cuts were passed. The job loss Obama inherited was around 700,000 a month. For Reagan, the unemployment rate reached its peak in December 1982, nearly 18 months after the tax cuts that would supposedly create all this growth, we'd be awash in jobs and revenue (we weren't).

So I noticed how you moved the goalposts on what you said. Not sure why you're talking about inflation in relation to the gold standard. To combat inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. When that didn't work, they lowered the rates and as a result, consumers plunged themselves into debt because their wages didn't increase. BTW - Conservatives were warning of hyperinflation the minute Obama was elected. That hyperinflation never happened. So if they were wrong about it then, why would they be right about anything now?

B. And federal spending increased because tax receipts increased after the tax cuts by 63%...funny you left that part out.

No. Tax receipts did not increase in a meaningful way. That's why the deficit went from $73B in 1981 to $155B by 1988, an increase of 100%. As for tax receipts, let's check them out, according to the Tax Policy Center:

Federal Receipts (in billions, 2009 Constant dollars)
1981 (Reagan tax cut passed): $599.3
1982 (Reagan raised taxes for the first of 11 times): $617
1983: $600 - so is this more or less than the year before?

And furthermore, what about household debt? Well, of course, after tax cuts household debt skyrocketed:

No goal post were moved. Unless you think using a consumable, oil, over a precious metal thats been continually desired throughout human history to back the dollar is better at keeping inflation down. But the data, and common sense, doesn't show that it is. Of course inflation is going to continually rise, and of course chained GDP numbers are going to continue to show a decline.

And frozen credit markets was a pretty simple problem to fix, a problem where we never actually addressed the root of and has actually been getting worse. Let the finance giants practicing crazy business practices go under, or suffer the consequences of their actions...and let all the small banks, credit unions, investments firms etc. practicing smart policy take their place. What we did was a short term band-aid on a flesh wound, that didn't fix anything. Sure, letting big finance suffer the consequences of their lunacy would have consequences on a lot of people, the lunacy should not have been there in the first place, but the long term solution we needed, was to let them take the hit, let small finance not acting crazy to buy up their assets for pennies on the dollar, and let them re-stabilize the market.

And the tax receipt increase I was referring to was that of JFK and LBJ tax cuts, and yes a 64% increase is quite substantial. Reagans tax receipt increase after tax cuts was around 40%, he also spent a bitch ton. (Mostly to force the soviets to try to compete and collapse). Which wasn't federal spending helping citizens one of your points? These are all receipt increases you said didn't exist...so what's with the shifting goal posts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So were you lying? Or were you stupid?

Was the interest rate in 1983 lower or higher than in 1982? It was lower. So they lowered the rate throughout 1982 so that by 1983, it was low enough to spur borrowing.

Q2 1983, real GDP grew 9.4%.

Damn, dude. That's not in chained dollars, but current dollars. If you use that metric, then Obama grew the economy by an average of 3%. You do know the difference between chained dollars and current ones, right???????????? Chained dollars is how GDP growth is determined. Like, for instance, GDP growth for Q1 2017 in chained dollars was just 0.7%.

Nope. Funny that Obama didn't have a growth rate higher than Reagan's, after Obama hiked taxes.

I never claimed he did. Reagan deficit spent us into a debt hole. That's how he got his growth so high. The deficit grew by 100% and the debt grew by 200%. So the only argument you are making is that deficit spending grows an economy. By contrast, Obama reduced the deficit by 60% and grew the debt by 80%. Obama also added 11,000,000 net private sector jobs despite the deficit reduction. Reagan added that many through the same deficit spending you screech about as bad policy today.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

What were you saying about tax cuts not stimulating consumer demand? LOL!

That they don't. You can see it happening in real time in Kansas right now. You can also see it throughout the Bush years. Taxes are cut, consumer debt spikes. Now why would that be the case if "people are allowed to keep more of what they earned"? And what happened to your "correlation is not causation" argument? I see you've abandoned that pretty quickly as each piece of your argument crumbles.

Thanks for a 20 year moving average. What does it have to do with annual growth under Reagan?

That his growth wasn't the 9% you claimed.

Obama had more deficit spending. And his economy still sucked.

No, he didn't. In fact, Obama reduced the deficit by 60% whereas Reagan doubled it.

If it's good, why didn't Obama have a single year of over 3% growth?

Well, he did if you're using the metric that you're using the claim Reagan had 9% growth.

Was the interest rate in 1983 lower or higher than in 1982? It was lower.

You asid the economy grew because the Fed cut rates in 1983.
In January 1983, Fed Funds was 8.68%. In December 1983, Fed Funds was 9.47%.
Looks like you lied.

Q2 1983, real GDP grew 9.4%.

Damn, dude. That's not in chained dollars, but current dollars.

Damn, dude, learn to read. The chart says "Real Gross Domestic Product"

That means it's NOT CURRENT DOLLARS.

You do know the difference between chained dollars and current ones,

Obviously I do, better than you.

Thanks for a 20 year moving average. What does it have to do with annual growth under Reagan?

That his growth wasn't the 9% you claimed.

Wow. Moron!. If you average Reagan's very high numbers in 1983, 1984 and 1985 with 17 other years, to get a 20 year moving average, you're not proving anything about Reagan's numbers. And 9.4% real GDP growth in Q2 1983 isn't my claim, it's reality. Sourced from the Federal Reserve. Moron!

The most common type of moving average is the simple moving average, which simply takes the sum of all of the past closing prices over a time period and divides the result by the total number of prices used in the calculation. For example, a 10-day simple moving average takes the last ten closing prices and divides them by ten.

Technical Analysis: Moving Averages

You're embarrassing.

Obama had more deficit spending. And his economy still sucked.

No, he didn't.

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Reagan's largest deficit, 1983, was 5.7% of GDP.
Obama had larger deficits in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said the MAJORITY MAKE LESS THAN THE MEDIAN.

Do you not know math? If the median income is $51K, and that is the 63% percentile, then that means 63% of Us workers make below the median income.

For God's sake, this isn't rocket science.

Where did you read that the median is the 63rd percentile?

Here ya go, you Russian troll. Just type in $51,000 into the Total Annual Income, and it spits out what percentile of all income that is.

Seriously, why are you even posting here? Is Putin ordering you to?

Do you not know math?

I do. That's why your claim "the majority make less than the median" proves you're an idiot.

If the median income is $51K, and that is the 63% percentile

If the median is $51K, that means it's the 50th percentile.
Because that's the definition of median. 50th percentile.
ROFLMAO!!!

Seriously, why are you even posting here? Is Putin ordering you to?

Yes, Putin told me to prove you're a moron.
I won a bottle of vodka. It was so easy.

 

[The Derp]

If the median is $51K, that means it's the 50th percentile.

NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. All it means is that of all wages together, the median is $51K. But when you enter that median wage into a percentile of wages, you find that $51K is in the 63rd percentile. So that means there are more workers making under $51K than at or above it. The reason it's $51K is because of incomes at the top, skewing the median upward.

Fucking moron...wow. No wonder GDP growth was so terrible last quarter.

Seriously, did you even bother to figure this out for yourself? You can very easily see where $51K/yr falls in income percentiles. The fact that you don't do that means you're either too lazy or too ignorant to know better.