Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Study: liberals cause headaches

Ever notice how the day to day irritants in your life are all the result of liberal policies/big government? Your morning commute, liberals obsession with mass transit. High housing prices, liberals obsession with density. (could also apply to the commute)

The fact that your kids just came home and told you that they can no longer play dodge ball, liberals obsession with having no competition or having anyones feelings hurt. Not being able to use the word Christmas, liberals hate Christmas.

High taxes, high gas prices, high health care costs. If only you silly democrats would realize that the things that actually affect you in a negative way on an everyday basis are the fault of the idiots that you vote in.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

oh Danny I am sorry you are having such a bad day. Boo hoo half of the people we vote in are republicans and are conservative, your guys. try to clean up your own side of the street first. Your dislike of liberals goes beyond reason, oh thats right you are not a reasonable person.

tad williams said...

Even taking into account the abysmally low expectations one has of rational debate at Daniel's Political Musings, this morning's "headache" post manages to be even more banal and pathetic than the usual drivel that passes for "discussion" here. What a sad little man you are, Daniel Miglavs. Grow the fuck up!

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Who ever said you can't use the word "Christmas"? I don't know any liberals who have said that.

There are con-men, though, like Bill O'Reilly and Lars Larson, who are trying to stop people from saying "Happy Holidays".

You realize, of course, that saying "Happy Holidays" is not a new thing. There's even a song, "Happy Holiday", that Bing Crosby sang in 1942. Are you trying to say that Bing Crosby hated Christmas?

Let's see, what else to cover...oh, it's conservatives responsible for the high National Debt--it increased by huge amounts under Saint Ronald.

Oh, yeah, we also had selling arms to both Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, one of the most evil policies possible.

I'll take "lib" policies over the policies of con men any day.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Daniel, how have liberals caused high gas prices and high health-care costs?

eddie said...

Ever notice that if you say anything negative about liberal politics you get "National Debt!" in response? Then that debt is always layed at the feet of the president? In point of fact, the Congress that controls the purse-strings of the nation was Republican when the debt went down, Democrat when it went up.

Besides which, the widely touted facts about the debt are complete obfuscations. No politician actually speaks of the real "debt", instead they seem to use debt to mean the rate of acceleration of debt increase... in other words, the debt going down really means that it's not increasingly increasing quite as much.

Yeah, the republicans in office are almost as bad as the democrats, I'll admit it. The fact of the matter is, however, that they at least make a token attempt at not financially screwing over the voters, while if given free rein, their assiciates across the aisle seem to believe that all spending is better done by the government than the citizen.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Actually, Edddie, for the first six years of Reagan's Presidency the Senate was controlled by the Republicans, and with the help of conservative Democrats (remember, Phil Gramm was a Democrat at the beginning of Reagan's first term) had effective control of the House.

R Huse said...

Anyone, and I mean anyone who thinks that the National Debt can be laid at the feet of anyone other than Roosevelt and Johnson is really out of the loop. Look at a pie chart of the budget. See that big huge wedge called entitlements? Take a look at the budget for HHS, that's right baby, its twice the size of the Pentagon.

Reagan doubled tax revenues to the federal government. Aint no gettin around who spent it all and it wasn't big Ron and boy does the left hate that little fact. Putting entitlements on auto pilot is what did it. Thank you "The Greatest Generation".

Anywhoo, for more inanity on the left and taxes how about this recent gem:

Bill Clinton, NYT, Nov 28, 2007

"Mr. Clinton’s remark yesterday came in the context of opposition to Republican-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans like himself, and how that loss of revenue affected financing for the military.
“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Mr. Clinton said. "

Hey Bill, you ridiculous nitwit, that "pay this amount" at the bottom of your 1040? That's a minimum you jack ass. Don't go whining to me about how you hate tax cuts for the wealthy and then take advantage of all of them. If you want to send in more, go right ahead, just don't drag the rest of us down with you. 50% is more than enough to pay in taxes.

Asshole

virginian said...

wm jackass clinton...the best president the chinese ever bought.

Simon Templar said...

Huse is correct when he states that the social services brought on board during the depression era, (the NEW DEAL) is what is still hurting the U.S. The fact that these services are there isn't what bothers me, I have compassion for those who need help and I'm certainly willing to kick-in and help out. It's the "Auto Pilot" nature of these programs that leaves them open to abuse that I have a problem with. Social Service Entitlement Programs such as welfare and Social Security Disability are riddled with fraud, and there needs to be a complete overhaul of the system before I can trust that the money used for the programs is being distributed to those who truly are deserving and in need.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Actually, tax revenues increased 65% under Reagan (1989 revenues/1981 revenues), which is not doubling.. Interestingly, they increased 68% in the four years of the Carter administration (which had lower unemployment than the Reagan administration).

These figures are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist01z1.xls

The national debt increased at a mostly slow rate (with a big jump in the Ford years), then ballooned by a huge amount in the first four years of the Reagan administration. It's absurd to argue that somehow there was a big jump in entitlements during those years.

Scottiebill said...

"Liberals cause headaches" Very true! Witness the big hoo-haw over the renaming of Interstate Ave. and 4th SW. The interstate Ave. thing was suggested by the Latino community, but bought into, hook, line, and sinker, by Tommy the Irrelevant and the Toadies. They in no stretch of the imagination, can be considered conservative.

And Ferd, O'Reilly and Lars are not trying to stop people from saying "Happy Holidays". They are trying to stop the p.c. crowd from attempting to keep people from saying "Merry Christmas" and from literally removing the word "Christmas" out of the Christmas season be cause it "might offend" the atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, whatever, take your pick.

And the Teachers Union seems to be one of the largest advocates for this idiocy in stopping the government schools from recognizing Christmas almost entirely.

This is what Lars and O'Reilly are against.

Mr. Huse, You, perhaps inadvertently, neglected to add that Clinton said that he "loathed the military" while he was on his way to Oxford, thereby avoiding the draft during the VietNam era. It is just another Clinton lie that he "wants to support the troops".

And Virginian, You are dead on target about Clinton.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Actually, Scottie, Lars is trying to get people to stop using the word "Holiday"--witness his plan two years ago to erect a cross in Pioneer Courthouse Square because city officials had the audacity to call the tree a "Holiday Tree".

It's not really a matter of not offending anyone, it's recognizing that there are other holidays in December besides Christmas. How about we just call it a Yule Tree? How'd you feel about that, since the Christmas Tree, and many other Christmas traditions, come from the Pagan celebrations of Yule and Saturnalia.

I, personally, don't get my undies in a twist at the thought of honoring as many traditions as we can, and have no need to have my traditions celebrated to the exclusion of all others.

Anonymous said...

Daniel

I am a little perplexed that you never respond to the comments on your blog. It is as if you are a drive by blogger. You come in throw something on your blog which is usually offensive to someone and then you disappear. What gives?

The Meek said...

Ferd, you can honor all of the traditions you please by wishing folks a happy Hanuka, Rowdy Ramadan, or Cool Kwanzaa. Why is the Menorah called the Menorah instead of holiday candelabra? Why do we have public school plays, or dress like a Muslim day during Ramadan but not even a mention of Christmas allowed?

Can't you honor all of the traditions you please and still have a Christmas Tree in Pioneer square or is there another reason for using holiday in place of Christmas?

The Christmas Tree, regardless of it's origins, has come to represent one particular religious celebration.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

The Meek,

I happen to know a substantial number of people who celebrate Yule or the Solstice, either instead of or in addition to Christmas.

By the way, Ramadan is not a December holiday. It occurred in December a few years ago, but it actually moves forward about 11 days every year (Islam follows a lunar calendar, but unlike Judaism has no leap months.)

It's not my experience that "no mention of Christmas is allowed"--take a look around, Christmas is mentioned all over the place.

By the way, a true follower of Jesus wouldn't trumpet their faith the way some so-called Christians do. Jesus said to beware of those who make a spectacle of their praying.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals hate Christmas," says Daniel. Not SOME liberals hate Christmas, not MANY liberals hate Christmas, not QUITE A FEW...just LIBERALS. Well, isn't that odd! My husband and I absolutely adore Christmas. Our house becomes a winter wonderland complete with Nativity scene the day after Thanksgiving. We have Christmas cookie parties, we go caroling, we do all kinds of church activities during the advent season, we go to Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. I hate Christmas? All the other liberals who belong to my awesome Church (overwhelmingly Democrats) hate Christmas. Gee, I better let us know before we make absolute fools of ourselves!!! Happy Holidays Daniel.

Anonymous Hippopotamous

R Huse said...

Ferd
>Actually, tax revenues increased 65% under Reagan (1989 revenues/1981 revenues), which is not doubling..

Well, partially correct - Revenues doubled from roughly 500 billion to 1 trillion under Reagan. In constant dollars though, this does not result in a doubling. Revenues did increase however as would be expected as tax cuts consistently lead to higher revenues, it was no different under Reagan. The same being true of the Bush and Kennedy tax cuts. That's the point, the tax cuts did not lead to the increase in the deficit.

>It's absurd to argue that somehow there was a big jump in entitlements during those years.

Of course, and no one is arguing that. Reagan spent a huge amount on the military. At the time this was seen as hugely needed and Desert One proved that. No one liked seeing how helpless
Carter had rendered our military, now no longer able to fly half a dozen helicopters into Iran.

The point is, whatever the military spending under Regean or any president, it is but the tiniest blip compared with entitlement spending. Reagan also got hustled by congress under the 1986 TEFRA act. Supposedly, up until he was stricken with Alzheimer's, Reagan used to ask political visitors from DC "Have I gotten my spending cuts yet?" as a joke. It was a reference to TEFRA wherein Congress was supposed to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax increase Reagan agreed to. Guess which part never happened?

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Well, partially correct - Revenues doubled from roughly 500 billion to 1 trillion under Reagan.

You're not an accountant, are you?

In 1981, Reagan's first year (which is really the last year of the Carter budget), revenues were 599 billion. That's not "roughly 500 billion).

In 1989, Bush I's first year, and the last year of Reagan's budget, revenues were 991 billion (closer to "about a trillion" than 599 billion is to "about 500 billion", but still off). That's an increase of 65%, not 100%, which is what doubling is.

Again, revenues increased less during eight years of Reagan than they did in four years of Carter. Tax cuts do not lead to increased revenues.

Anonymous said...

No, Ferd, R Huse is definantly NOT an accountant, ROTFLMAO.

Anonymous said...

Back in the 60s when they still taught American Civics in school, I was taught how to be a well-mannered American citizen. I was taught how to properly say the pledge of allegiance, how to sing the national anthem, how to handle and display the American flag and how to conduct myself in such a manner that at all times I showed respect and appreciation for ALL those who make up our citizenry, regardless of the color of their skin or any other detail that made them differ from the "norm." I remember vividly being taught that NOT ALL people celebrate Christmas and therefore it was more polite to say "Happy Holidays." Now this was back in Wisconsin in the early 60s and a parochial school. Are you going to tell me that there was a vast Liberal conspiracy led by a pack of "America Haters" who were responsible for developing the insidious civics curriculum of the day? I continue to follow the lessons taught to me in that civics class and have to laugh at how many of those ideals are now considered "liberal" or "anti-American." In that civics class I spoke of, Daniel and his merry band are the ones who would have been questioned about their patriotism and civic behavior. Funny how things get so twisted by "some" people.

Eli Barnhardt

Anonymous said...

... liberals hate Christmas.

Possibly the most assinine, unimaginative, unjustified and utterly ridiculous insult to be made by conservatives since the old "You must hate America" line. Needless to say, it plays well in Miglavia.

The Meek said...

Ferd, what about the practical ban on all things Christmas or Christian in the public schools while discussion of what it means to be a Muslim is allowed?

And I don't think you answered this: "Why is the Menorah called the Menorah instead of holiday candelabra? Why do we have public school plays, or dress like a Muslim day during Ramadan but not even a mention of Christmas allowed?"

Didn't Jesus sort of go about preaching to folks alot? And, His diciples seemed to make quite a fuss over getting His message to everyone even when the secular and religious leaders of the day would have prefered they had kept their mouths shut. It does not seem that Jesus wanted to keep his message of salvation low key so as not to bother some certain powerful minorities of the day.

Anonymous said...

There is a vast difference between the scholarly study of religions and religous instruction. You did say in your post "....discussion of what it means to be a Muslim." KEY word: discussion. You answered your own question with that single word.

At my university, right now, there are 3 clasess directly related to Christianity:

The Literature of the Bible

The Geography of the Bible

The History of the Bible

Classes similar to these are VERY common from university to university. My son's high school history class just wrapped up a section on "The World's Great Religions." The STUDIED Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. This is also, NOT UNCOMMON among high schools across America. Call your local University or High School and ask them what classes they teach that STUDY religion. If you can't see the value of studying the religions of the world then thank God you aren't Defense Secretary. Don't be so ill informed.

Eli Barnhardt

Ferd Schnerkele said...

And I don't think you answered this: "Why is the Menorah called the Menorah instead of holiday candelabra? Why do we have public school plays, or dress like a Muslim day during Ramadan but not even a mention of Christmas allowed?"

The Menorah is called the Menorah because that's what Jews have decided to call it, and it's an official part of the Chanukah celebration.

But the Christmas Tree is a tradition borrowed/stolen from pagan traditions, and there are people in this country who follow those traditions.

Part of why I didn't answer your question is it doesn't seem to make sense. But since you're asking again, I'll do my best.

We have public school plays because it's educational to perform in public, and to go through the process of learning to perform a part.

The only references I could find to a "Dress like Muslim Day" (which I find offensive, actually--Muslims dress in all sorts of ways) are on right-wing blogs, which leads me to believe that it's a hoax.

I have no problem with public schools teaching about Ramadan, as it's useful for students to learn about other cultures, and Islam is still a small minority culture in this country.

And it's really just a right-wing fantasy that mentioning Christmas isn't allowed in the public sphere. It's mentioned all over the place.

I'm not a Christian, though I believe that Jesus is a great teacher and I honor those who truly follow him, and I'm not offended by mentions of Christmas. But I'm not offended by saying "Happy Holidays" either. Those who demand that all mentions of December holidays be of Christmas are really just Christian Supremacists.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Study: Right-Wingers Cause Violent Retching

[AP]A study of people with 50% or more of a brain has found that listening to the factless spew of right-wingers causes projectile vomiting.

From their claims of "Dress Like a Muslim Day" to their claims of an "INS/FBI Statistical Report" to their continued claims that Iraq had WMD immediately prior to the U.S. invasion, the falsehoods of people claiming to be conservative make thinking people violently ill.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for intelligent people to avoid these vectors, and the vectors themselves seem unaffected by the truth, though occasionally one will see the light (see Brock, David and Huffington, Arianna).

Anonymous said...

PS: Also, my younger kids are in public elementary school. Last year they both brought home handmade Christmas tree ornaments and handmade Christmas trees made from popsicle sticks. The marquee outside the school said "Merry Christmas." I snapped a photo of it and sent it in as a "Letter to the Editor" to my local paper. I have never, at any time, felt like someone was "cramping my style" with regards to celebrating Christmas. My faith is not ego-driven so I don't crave public affirmation of it. The REAL war on Christmas is not coming from our schools and other federally-funded agencies, it's coming straight from directives issued by conservative's other religion: capitalism. Shop, shop, shop, shop, shop, shop. Why don't you focus your energies on changing that? It's far more damaging to the real "reason for the season."

Eli Barnhardt

Anonymous said...

Fred-

I like your rhetoric and agree with yo 95% of the time, but I think you've been excessively militant as of late. Keep posting, but make sure posts stay rhetorically sound.

And remember, sometimes the right, even those on the far right, are correct.

R Huse said...

Ferd - Sorry, going from 599 to 991 is pretty much close enough to a doubling of revenues, at least as far as I am concerned. At any rate it is certainly closer to the truth that what most of the left would have us believe, that the Reagan tax cuts lead to an increased deficit. Also, you might want to keep in mind that most of these figures you see are NOT in constant dollars. Thus Reagan's tax cuts resulted in really a 25% increase in revenues if measured in constant dollars. However, this affects Carter quite a bit more than Reagan as anyone around will remember Carters legendary fiscal expertise.

At any rate, the point is, and the point remains, when substantial tax cuts are enacted, they do lead to increased revenues. You might have your own opinion on that, but I tend to think Mssrs Kennedy ( cut top rates 91% to 70% increased revenues 62%), Reagan (cut top rates from 70% to 28% increased revenues from $500B in 1980 to $1T in 1990), Coolidge ( cut the top rate from 73% to 24%, increased revenues 61%) and Bush2 would tend to disagree. Frankly I don't exactly understand why this point would even be in contention as its pretty basic economics, the lower the price, the more buyers one will have. Since income tax revenues are really only substantially garnered from the top 10% or so of wage earners, cutting the top rates would of course have the most effect.

At any rate, you are entitled to your own opinion on the effect of tax cuts, however the history doesn't bear you out very well.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Fred-

Actually, it's Ferd. :-)

I like your rhetoric and agree with yo 95% of the time, but I think you've been excessively militant as of late. Keep posting, but make sure posts stay rhetorically sound.

Thanks. I'm frankly just sick and tired of right-wingers passing off stuff that's made up as fact. They either make it up themselves or they read it somewhere else and didn't bother to check it out, even though there are flaming red flags (such as "Dress as a Muslim Day"--c'mon, how does a Muslim dress, anyhow? Some of the one's I know dress in suits and ties. Another I know dresses like your average Portlander, probably because he is pretty much your average Portlander.)

And remember, sometimes the right, even those on the far right, are correct.

I'm not so sure about that. I will grant you that conservatives may be correct, but there's not much that's very conservative about the modern American right wing. They support military adventurism, they have supported the two greatest deficit spenders of my lifetime, their rhetoric is often filled with race-baiting and immigrant-bashing.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Ferd - Sorry, going from 599 to 991 is pretty much close enough to a doubling of revenues, at least as far as I am concerned.

So, you're admitting that you don't care about being accurate. Would call an increase from 10,000 to 16,500 doubling? Because that's what you're saying.

And even if you adjust for inflation, tax receipts increased more under Carter than they did under Reagan, especially in Reagan's first term.

In Carter's administration, tax receipts increased 19.2%. In Reagan's first term, tax receipts increased a paltry 0.5% (inflation-adjusted). In his second term receipts increased 20% (but that's comparing post-tax-cut to post-tax-cut, not pre-cut to post-cut).

In G.H.W. Bush's one term tax receipts increased only 1.9%, compared to the healthy 25.5% in Clinton's first term (after a tax increase) and 17.1% in his second term.

So, after the tax cuts in the first year of Reagan's first term, tax receipts increased 0.4% in real terms over the next four years, and after the tax increase in the first year of Clinton's first term tax receipts increased 25.5% in real terms over the next four years.

So, the right wing gospel that tax cuts increase tax receipts is bullshit.

R Huse said...

Ferd:

>So, the right wing gospel that tax cuts increase tax receipts is bullshit.

Well, except for the fact that even your own numbers, should one accept them I assume you do, show they increase receipts. You sure aren't an accountant are you?

But you are almost right here. Tax cuts do increase revenue, it seems like both our number agree with that. However they are of course a lagging indicator. The economy doesn't turn on a dime. Much like if a store lowers prices, and there is no increase in sales on the first day, that doesn't mean that lowering the prices has no effect.

>In G.H.W. Bush's one term tax receipts increased only 1.9%, compared to the healthy 25.5% in Clinton's first term (after a tax increase) and 17.1% in his second term.

Awww, naughty naughty. You are comparing the Bush first term, when we were hit by little old things like 9/11, and two invasions with Clintons two terms, when we had the Dot Com bubble? Frankly that Bush's tax receipts increased at all, under those conditions, is testament alone to their effectiveness. As a retailer, I can tell you, the number of calls I got when people got their rebate cheque was phenomenal. That helped us through what looked to be a very rocky road indeed.


Look, there is simply no getting around the simple fact that historically, tax cuts have resulted in increased revenue.

>Thanks. I'm frankly just sick and tired of right-wingers passing off stuff that's made up as fact.

Well, hardly right wingers doing that. And at least its better than left wingers who seem intent on passing off made up crap to demoralize our troops as much as possible from day one of a war. Sure, both sides make up crap, but the morality of some of the lefts made up stuff is a little insidious in this regard.

Phony Koran flushings, made up massacres, no one died when Clinton lied - you know the deal.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Well, except for the fact that even your own numbers, should one accept them I assume you do, show they increase receipts. You sure aren't an accountant are you?

Okay, let me tell you this again. In the first four years of Reagan's Presidency, tax receipts increased a whopping 0.4% in real terms, after they had increased 19.2% in Carter's administration. When you factor in population growth, the tax receipts in Reagan's first term amount to a decrease.

Awww, naughty naughty. You are comparing the Bush first term, when we were hit by little old things like 9/11, and two invasions with Clintons two terms, when we had the Dot Com bubble?

No, we weren't hit by 9/11 in George Herbert Walker Bush's one term in office, which had the paltry 1.9% growth in tax receipts.

Actually, the rise in tax receipts was greater in Clinton's first term, before the dot com bubble.

Look, there is simply no getting around the simple fact that historically, tax cuts have resulted in increased revenue.

No getting around it if you're willing to accept make-believe as fact. Otherwise, it's hogwash, as I've amply demonstrated.

Let me know when you return from never-never land.

R Huse said...

Ferd - I guess you are missing my contention here. I am not arguing that revenues don't increase for a variety of reasons. I am simply arguing that tax cuts are one way to raise revenues. You have done nothing to disprove that, only cite other situations where revenues increased.

>Okay, let me tell you this again. In the first four years of Reagan's Presidency, tax receipts increased a whopping 0.4% in real terms

Yes, I still agree with you, tax cuts are a lagging indicator. I really cant put it any more simply than that. Bottom line, Reagan cut rates and revenues increased 25% in constant dollars by the end of his 2nd term. What's your point here?

>No, we weren't hit by 9/11 in George Herbert Walker Bush's one term in office, which had the paltry 1.9% growth in tax receipts.

OK - I thought you were comparing Clinton to Bush 2, My mistake. But, this does prove my point, yet again.. Bush 1 never cut taxes, I never claimed he did. What was the single biggest reason for Bush 1 losing the election? "Read my lips, no new taxes" a promise he broke, which was accompanied by the slow growth you cite. Thank you, for the additional proof of my contention.

>No getting around it if you're willing to accept make-believe as fact. Otherwise, it's hogwash, as I've amply demonstrated.

Not really, what you have demonstrated, with your own numbers I might add, is that revenues go up after a tax cut. Where you are making a mistake is in assuming that is an exclusive contention. It is not. Revenues also can go up for other reasons as well, and I am not arguing that point.

My point is simply, cutting taxes has historically raised revenues. The numbers you cite prove that, the numbers I cite prove that, so I have no idea what your point is other than that revenues also go up under other conditions as well. Big woop, I never said they didn't.

My point is to put to bed yet another left wing lie - tax cuts lead to a decrease in revenue and an increased deficit. Using your numbers or mine, this does seem to be the case

If you want to argue that point, you need to show where there were revenue falls after a substantial tax cut, that could reasonably be tied to that cut. I have cited four major examples where there were revenue increases as a result of tax cuts. Citing other examples of revenue increases, under other conditions, does nothing to disprove my point.

Good luck!

Ferd Schnerkele said...

I am simply arguing that tax cuts are one way to raise revenues. You have done nothing to disprove that, only cite other situations where revenues increased.

I'm sorry, but you're simply a fool.

Revenues increasing by 0.4% over a four year period, the lowest rate in real Federal Revenue increase since Nixon's first term (that is until the current Bush's first term, when Federal revenue declined in real terms.)

Saying that the tax cut caused "increased revenue" is like saying it caused the sun to come up. In general, Federal revenues have increased, as GDP has generally increased and the population has increased.

And, actually, Federal revenue did fall in each of the first two years after Reagan's tax cut, but they rose steadily during Clinton's administration. According to your theory the tax increase in Clinton's first year should have led to declining revenues.

It's estimated that Federal revenues won't exceed 2000 revenues until this year. If tax cuts are a revenue-producing engine, they are an extremely weak one.

Look, I'm not going to go on any farther with this discussion--I've produced ample evidence that conservative dogma about tax cuts is rubbish. You can keep your head in the sand (or wherever else that's dark that you choose to keep it), but the evidence speaks for itself.

R Huse said...

>Look, I'm not going to go on any farther with this discussion--I've produced ample evidence that conservative dogma about tax cuts is rubbish.

Of course you haven't. Every number you cited shows an increase in revenue after a tax cut, not a loss of revenue as the left constantly claims. Thats my contention, I have stuck with it, and because I wont be sucked into wandering off of it you are frustrated.

You have then tried to obfuscate by citing other instances of revenue increase. That does nothing to disprove that tax cuts result in revenue increases and you know it.

It is for the best you are bowing out now Id say. I've given four examples. You cant counter them so now you are moving on to the insult phase of things.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Every number you cited shows an increase in revenue after a tax cut

Okay, in 1981 the Federal Government took in 1.0777 trillion (in 2000 dollars). The next year, AFTER the tax cut, the Federal Government took in 1.037 trillion (again, in 2000 dollars). That's a reduction of 3.8%. The following year, the Federal Government took in 0.962 trillion, a further reduction of 7.3%.

That's a real reduction in tax revenue after a tax cut. It took another two years to get above pre-tax cut levels, and even then just barely, after five years of steady growth.

Taxes were cut and revenue dropped. In fact, from '82 to '83 there was a drop in tax revenue in current dollars, even before accounting for inflation.

Even with the boom economic growth of 1984 tax receipts were still below the level of 1981 (in real terms). Of course, we also had 7.5% unemployment. The three years after the Reagan tax cuts the unemployment rate was 9.7%, 9.6%, and 7.5%.

Meanwhile, after the Clinton tax increase, unemployment dropped from 6.9% in 1993 to 6.1% in 1994, 5.6% in 1995, and 5.4% in 1996.

It seems as though the economy isn't really hurt by tax increases.

Until you can show that the economy does better after a tax cut and does worse after a tax increase, using real data and not made up stories, there's not point in continuing this discussion.

The Meek said...

Eli Barnhardt

Where would you get the idea that I would not want other religions studied in school? I was trying to contrast how public/schoolyard/classroom treatment of things Christian are, in my opinion, from what I observe in the media (Portland's Festival of the Trees? Are we worshiping trees?), what I see on school billboards/newsletters, suppressed while things of non Judeo-Christian religions are, in my opinion, looked at as favorable opportunities to broaden one's mind.

Does the majority religion need to be supressed or downplayed to be able to study, learn about, give enough room for the minority religions?

Stevie said...

Daniel, this is the type of rant that makes it hard to take people like you seriously.

For example, we can just look at your first sentence to see some brazen ridiculousness. The idea that liberals are champions of big government is an idea with which right-ringers have squeezed a lot of mileage the last few decades. The only problem? It ignores the fact that in the last 25+ years, GOP spending and government growth has made liberals blush with envy.

First, a lesson in political science for those of you who forget: There are three bodies that control the budget…The Executive Branch, The Senate, and The House of Representatives. During the majority of the Reagan years, when American’s national debt started to sky rocket, two of those three bodies were in Republican hands. And in the last seven Bush years, when the national debt increased from $5 trillion to almost $8 trillion, Republicans were firmly in control of all three bodies responsible for the budget. That’s right…it took this country over 225 years to acquire $5 trillion in debt, but it took Republicans only 6 years to tack on another $3 trillion.

And look at this link…not surprisingly, increases in the federal debt (as a percentage of GDP, which is the most honest measurement) have almost exclusively come from Republicans in the last 50 years, with Ronald Reagan and George Bush being the primary culprits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

And this is not even to mention that during the first six years of the Bush nightmare, America got it’s first gigantic new government entitlement program in 30 years (the prescription drug bill), and the first new huge government bureaucracy (Dept. of Homeland Security) in almost 40 years. Both brought to you by a Republican Executive Branch and Republican Congress.

Nice try right-wingers, but the ideas that the Republicans are somehow the party of fiscal responsibility and small government is what’s known as a “popular myth”. The facts show that when Republicans consolidate power, they spend at levels that would make any liberal blush. And in fairness, there are a few conservatives (real conservatives, at least) who will freely admit this. Go look over at the CATO Institute website if you want to see some of them. The rest of you who keep championing the idea that Republicans might actually engage in spending restraint are doing nothing other than drinking the Kool-aid.

me2 said...

Tax cuts are a tricky thing. A good tax cut at the right time is beneficial to the economy. However, a major tax cut combined with a huge increase in government spending results in the weakening of the economy (3 trillion additional debts IN 7 YEARS and the weakening of the dollar... Canada's dollar is stronger than ours).

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Tax cuts are a tricky thing. A good tax cut at the right time is beneficial to the economy. However, a major tax cut combined with a huge increase in government spending results in the weakening of the economy (3 trillion additional debts IN 7 YEARS and the weakening of the dollar... Canada's dollar is stronger than ours).

Me2, perhaps it's true that some tax cuts can be a good thing--if they go mostly to poor and middle-class folks the additional spending money would likely drive the economy.

But we haven't really had any major tax cuts that weren't accompanied by large spending increases--both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts saw large spending increases go along with them.

R Huse said...

Ferd - Gee, ya think that the decrease in revenue in the first two years of Reagan could be due to the fact that he came into office during the worst recession in most peoples memories i.e. the CARTER recession? Come on, give me a break, for the last time Tax Cuts are a lagging factor.

>perhaps it's true that some tax cuts can be a good thing--if they go mostly to poor and middle-class folks the additional spending money would likely drive the economy.

That's sort of weird. Poor and middle class people don't pay much of the taxes, why in the world would tax cuts ever mostly go to them? Why in the world would tax cuts targeted at them, and not the rich affect the economy?

>both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts saw large spending increases go along with them.

Yep, very true. Reagan at least had the excuse that the military clearly needed to be built up. Bush had no excuse. He sure spent a lot on Iraq, but that's nothing compared to what will eventually be spent on the stupid drug benefit.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

Ferd - Gee, ya think that the decrease in revenue in the first two years of Reagan could be due to the fact that he came into office during the worst recession in most peoples memories i.e. the CARTER recession?

No, because the Carter recession was mild--only a 0.2% drop in real GDP in 1980. In 1982 we had a 1.9% drop in real GDP--that's a much worse recession, and we had 9.7% unemployment, as opposed to 7.1% in 1980.

That's sort of weird. Poor and middle class people don't pay much of the taxes

I don't have figures handy, but poor and middle class people certainly DO pay plenty in taxes.

Ferd Schnerkele said...

One of the things I find astonishing is how ignorant many right-wingers are about how our economy works.

For example, R Huse was trumpeting the 0.5% increase (sorry, I made a rounding error earlier) in revenue over four years as a significant increase.

Our economy, as presently configured, is based on continual growth, and our government mirrors that--as the economy grows, government needs to grow, partly, but not exclusively, in order to facilitate and regulate the overall growth in the economy.

So when receipts grow only at 0.5% over a four year period, with much of that time at a real deficit, and when expenditures grow at over 14%, there can be real problems.

Anonymous said...

You find it astonishing how ignorant right-wingers are? You must have just joined the game, pal. I don't find it astonishing anymore. The thrill is gone. Now, it's just annoying.