Democrats versus Republicans

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

erps

the population more than doubled over the period covered by that graph. The labor force more than doubled because women entered the workforce in far greater numbers as time went on. So it is no mystery why the graph looks like it does.

Sck5, what you said doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that tax revenue per cap should increase with increased population ? That economies of scale should actually become less efficient ?

[erps]

The tax revenue line is labeled as a percent of the GDP, so it's a ratio.

[wind_magic]

Candidates are all talking mortgage bailout, and this morning under my hotel room door I see U.S. today talking about the distress that home owners have been feeling over mortgages. So, I would like to propose a competing plan.

Instead of taking away money from people who didn't speculate on home prices in the cities to give to people who did, rewarding irresponsibility, I propose a different approach. I propose that anyone who is upset for home owners and who is worried for them consider visiting the markets via their broker to take a look at mortgage backed securities. Numerous corporate bonds by companies such as Countrywide and many others are selling at rates that have tremendous yields even over the relatively short term. Since nobody has been willing to buy the bonds for fear that home owners won't pay their mortgages these bonds are selling at a big discount. The risk is, of course, great, and you could lose your principal, but the rewards look good too. Since defaulting borrowers have forced yields up it might also be worth looking into "F", "GMAC", and other car manufacturer bonds that are used to loan money to car buyers. Yes, repossessions are also a big problem now, so it might be time for the country to step in and help companies who loan money to car buyers. These bonds too are paying high yields now because of the perceived default risk.

This proposal has a lot of merits that do not exist in existing bailout proposals such as 1) not penalizing people who didn't borrow money to pay for things that can't afford, 2) rewarding people who want to help during this terrible crisis that is apparently affecting so many, 3) true fairness, people who have worked hard to save up money won't just have it taken away from them to give to people who over-extended themselves, 4) opportunity, it helps preserve the opportunity for people to borrow for cars and houses by stimulating the market for their debt, 5) it gives existing homeowners the opportunity to refinance their debt to a fixed price mortgage by creating a market for that debt, 6) market rates for the bonds reflect the anxiety about them and reward people who actually deserve to have a reward, 7) it gives people a chance to keep going to work to pay the interest on their debts, 8) giving Presidential candidates the opportunity to look like they are responsible and not just pandering, 9) helping to encourage people not to just live for today but to think about tomorrow, 10) encouraging participation in the U.S. capital markets which teaches the merits of investment and return on risk, etc, etc, etc. The potential benefits to this plan are many, too many to go into in this humble proposal.

I hope that the people of America will join me in supporting this important proposal and to stop competing plans which basically just rip people off who have worked hard and made good decisions. The American debt markets need you! [insert picture of bond trader dressed in flag pointing at you].

[yes, this is sarcasm and not actually an offer to sell or buy securities, not actual advice on investing in the markets, etc, etc, buyer beware, risk of loss, blah blah blah, these bonds are known to cause cancer in the state of california, etc].

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

Chuck

At last. You have agreed that the tax cuts resulted in less revenue. Even if the trend then resumed at a higher rate (at least that is what it looks like) the inescapable result is that the tax cuts created a structural gap that remains with us to this day. Just hoping that the gap will close isnt a policy and it would have been far better not to have tried to fix what wasnt broken. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and he pissed it away.

Only in your twisted logic could you read it that way. Clinton handed Bush a failing economy (proven on more than one occasion within this thread) and a disaster in waiting on the security front.
So..

NO, that is not what I have said, nor more importantly what I (and many others) have SHOWN. We have SHOWN that tax cuts both
a) improve the economy by putting money in the hands of people that invest in our economy rather than the government that is a drain on our economy.
and
b) in the long term raise the amount of revenue gained from the same source of payers, resulting in a net gain of revenue while leaving money in the hands of the invester.

You are supposed to be the 'protector of the people' - why do you have a hard time seeing that it is better to leave money in thier hands than put it into the hands of the wealth redistributors and spenders?

Originally Posted by sck5

And Chuck dont you think it is kind of a copout to say Clintons success was just luck while Bush's screwup was some brilliant plan that will someday erase our deficit? (just not in our lifetimes)

I've never said a thing about Bush's screwup. He inherited a mess from Clinton and has worked dilengently to correct it, both the economy which was tanking under Clinton's historically high tax rates and the security situation where he was asleep at the switch for eight years.

The cop out is saying Billy and Al had a damn thing to do with the internet and dot com boom that was the impetus of the economic upswing of their time house sitting at 1600 Pa ave.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

erps

the population more than doubled over the period covered by that graph. The labor force more than doubled because women entered the workforce in far greater numbers as time went on. So it is no mystery why the graph looks like it does.

You truly can read a chart and make it say anything can't you?
The BS flow has spilled over onto the keyboard. You are aware that the Bureau of Labor keeps records and your assertation can be shown to be a puff of what ever you are smoking?

" Over the past 30 years, there have been dramatic changes in women's participation in the U.S. labor force. In 1970, about 43 percent of women ages 16 and older were in the labor force. By 2000, 61 percent of adult women were in the labor force. Over the same period, men's labor force participation rates declined from 78 percent to 74 percent. These trends are part of broader changes in the labor force that have occurred since the middle of the 20th century. The rapid increase in women's labor force participation, combined with the simultaneous decline in men's participation, has closed much of the gender gap in the labor force. "

NOTE the simultaneous decline in men's #'s. Bottom line - ERPS chart shows that the dem's tax and spend is true.

Candy coating the facts doesn't change them, and for this Independent doesn't make them easier to swallow either.

Any more FACTS we can disprove for you, or does it get embarassing after a while?

[PBzeer]

When your overarching philosophy rests on government knowing what is best, anything that keeps money in the pockets of those who EARN it, can never be good. Regardless of the outcome.

[sck5]

yes the graph is in percent. but over that period income per capita more than doubled so it can still make sense. but i am not sure what partisan difference there could be on these numbers.

and all you guys who have religious beliefs about how tax cuts increase revenues, who you gonna believe, the smoke blowers or your lying eyes? Just LOOK AT THE GRAPH posted by erps. When the tax cuts were implemented, the revenue line goes down! Who woulda thunk? But if you can convince yourself that the revenue line is in fact going up after the 2001 tax cuts then you have to be standing on your head.

[sck5]

pb

On government always being bad - I guess you personally install the ATON's you sail by? You think the National Weather Service doesnt need tax money to exist? How about the Coast Guard? How about the Port Authorities in the various ports you go to?

Yes, there are some things government does that HAVE to be done. And if you are honest about it you ought to pay for it instead of sticking our kids with the bill

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sck5

yes the graph is in percent. but over that period income per capita more than doubled so it can still make sense. but i am not sure what partisan difference there could be on these numbers.

and all you guys who have religious beliefs about how tax cuts increase revenues, who you gonna believe, the smoke blowers or your lying eyes? Just LOOK AT THE GRAPH posted by erps. When the tax cuts were implemented, the revenue line goes down! Who woulda thunk? But if you can convince yourself that the revenue line is in fact going up after the 2001 tax cuts then you have to be standing on your head.

Sck,
I know the economy is a complex thing, as are taxes. It's hard to grasp the big picture, but do try.
With tax cut:
When GDP goes up by 1.2% and revenues go up 4.5% does that ring any bells in a democrats head?
Let's be clearer, no tax cut, GDP goes up 1.0 (less money to play with in the hands of them that invest, ergo less rise in GDP).
Revenue goes up maybe 1.0% -i.e. same as GDP.
Tax cut, time delay BOOM, Revenue up way over projected amounts.

Do a little research and quit shooting off the hip. here's a nice article that uses simple words:
What Is Really Happening to Government Revenues: Long-Run Forecasts Show Sharp Rise in Tax Burden
Here's the big picture:
(come back after you have learned histories lessons on the economy - hell even Obama knows better).

[PBzeer]

Ya see sck5, that's what I'm talking about. You take something, twist it into something it isn't, and then try to make a point with it. NOWHERE in that post did I say government is bad. NOT EVEN BY IMPLICATION, which is what you are trying to use. Either you don't understand the English language, or you deliberately ignore the meaning of words, either way, there is no point in trying to hold any type of discussion with you.