Obama Budget Speech

#26
#26
utgibbs said:
Certainly the maturity of microelectronics (thanks gov't) helped the Clinton economy. I will only ever praise it relative to what came before and after.

"Spending went up" is the equivalent of the "people have cell phones now." The increased revenues were thanks to tax increases.
Click to expand...

the all time high labor participation rate and all time low unemployment didn't have anything to do with tax revenue increases?
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
you continue to push this senselessness regarding Reagan but never include the idiotic dem congress, which was bullied by Tip the sorry for the entirety of the time. Somehow, that congress gets a pass from you. Pull your head from your ass and figure out that Reagan had to give in to keeping Tip's voter base at the polls.
Click to expand...

And yet it went down under Ike, Nixon, and Ford....
 
#28
#28
droski said:
the all time high labor participation rate and all time low unemployment didn't have anything to do with tax revenue increases?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure on your facts, especially on unemployment.

Remember, it was under Reagan we decided we would make the unemployment figure look better by, well, not counting the unemployed.

Regardless, Clinton certainly raised taxes. And now you have completely debunked your own premises regarding taxes and wealth creation.

Again, I can always count on you for support, droski! :hi:
 
#31
#31
utgibbs said:
I'm not sure on your facts, especially on unemployment.

Remember, it was under Reagan we decided we would make the unemployment figure look better by, well, not counting the unemployed.

Regardless, Clinton certainly raised taxes. And now you have completely debunked your own premises regarding taxes and wealth creation.

Again, I can always count on you for support, droski! :hi:
Click to expand...

why do you think i said labor force participation rate?

labor-participation-rate.gif


and as BPV also mentioned. capital gains during his presidency surged as well.
 
#32
#32
BigPapaVol said:
maybe a small look at capital gains rates over the period will help you look less ignorant in a debate like this.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm:

us_rev_fed_type_100.png


Not sure those ad-valorem revenues have changed too much over time.

And they don't have a big impact anyway.

On the other hand, major revenues from income....

And droski has once again proven to be a major supporter of utgibbs themes.
 
#35
#35
droski said:
yeah no effect whatsoever.
Click to expand...

So the difference in revenue from 1992 to 2000 amounted to a little over 2% of total revenues.

federal%20revenue%20bar%20chart(1).jpg


Meanwhile, revenues from income taxes, the difference between 1992 to 2000 accounted for over 25% of total revenue:

U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG


Thanks again, droski, for your seemingly unending support. :hi:
 
#36
#36
so you've decided to completely ignore the factor of having 9 million more people working on tax revenues?
 
#37
#37
utgibbs said:
So the difference in revenue from 1992 to 2000 amounted to a little over 2% of total revenues.

federal%20revenue%20bar%20chart(1).jpg
Click to expand...

I fail to see 1992 on your graph. It looks to me like that graph runs from 1997-2006. Therefore, the graph neither confirms nor refutes your statement; however, it certainly does not support anything.
 
#38
#38
increased capital gains payments are only a hundred billion dollar difference from 1992 (in inflation adjusted, probably means 120 bill otherwise). chicken feed right?
 
#40
#40
Totally unacceptable for anyone to sleep on the job especially if you are VP and your boss is giving a speech. These guys are such a joke
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
therealUT said:
I fail to see 1992 on your graph. It looks to me like that graph runs from 1997-2006. Therefore, the graph neither confirms nor refutes your statement; however, it certainly does not support anything.
Click to expand...

Uh, the graph is used to give the total revenues from 2000.

It doesn't need to have 1992.

You've swung and missed badly twice today alone. I'm not sure if you are a dyed-in-the-wool or what, because you seem like a progressive. Might want to stop trying so hard to take a shot.
 
#42
#42
utgibbs said:
Uh, the graph is used to give the total revenues from 2000.

It doesn't need to have 1992.

You've swung and missed badly twice today alone. I'm not sure if you are a dyed-in-the-wool or what, because you seem like a progressive. Might want to stop trying so hard to take a shot.
Click to expand...

I could have sworn you were making a comparison between 92 and 00.

Also, not a progressive. I'm me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#43
#43
droski said:
increased capital gains payments are only a hundred billion dollar difference from 1992 (in inflation adjusted, probably means 120 bill otherwise). chicken feed right?
Click to expand...

Well, "chickenfeed" is your word. I simply showed you were thinking of drafting Ryan Leaf when Peyton Manning was available.

It was a solid gain. It was simply not what brought in the majority of the additional revenue.

As for 9 million extra workers, do we really need to get into those percentages? Besides, wouldn't most of those be in the magic 40%?
 
#44
#44
therealUT said:
I could have sworn you were making a comparison between 92 and 00.

Also, not a progressive. I'm me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

But not with that data, realUT. I was comparing droski's data with the second chart I provided. Which, I have to say, even droski followed.

I'm me too.
 
#45
#45
Gibbs is so far left he makes Thereal UT look like a diehard republican.

It's amazing.
 
#48
#48
utgibbs said:
Often when people ask me to describe my politics I say:

"Hang a Left at Gandhi."
Click to expand...

Would that be the same Ghandi who decided that his work was done in S. Africa after he fought for more rights for Indians (not for Africans) and then bolted?

Or, would it be the Ghandi who decided that Indians deserved independence from the British, yet the caste system was just fine?
 
#50
#50
therealUT said:
Would that be the same Ghandi who decided that his work was done in S. Africa after he fought for more rights for Indians (not for Africans) and then bolted?

Or, would it be the Ghandi who decided that Indians deserved independence from the British, yet the caste system was just fine?
Click to expand...
Ghandi's non violent approach to independence may not have been the greatest thing for India, too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top