More Taxes to Come

All you schmoes complain about the deficit, the debt, the cost of the war, etc. but nobody wants to pay more taxes. Just shut the fuck up and pay for what you are, in part, responsible for causing.
 
Cypress said:
I’m embarrassed for you, that you can’t acknowledge that the debate was about supply side economics, and not about the ill defined generic term “free markets”. Socretease is right. You either don’t read what people write, or you’re just being an ass.

I’m further embarrassed that you felt a need to cut and paste some class you took in your college. Kid, your elders and superiors here, have resumes with vast experience in the professional, business, and financial world. Trotting out some introductory class you took doesn’t impress anyone, anymore than your thin and virtually blank resume with your taco bell jobs on it.

If your not going to read what anyone wrote, please ignore me or find someone else to pester. I can’t waste my time on this.
Click to expand...

You are an annoying smug bastard.

With a mullet.

Mullet%20man.jpg
 
ib1yysguy said:
All you schmoes complain about the deficit, the debt, the cost of the war, etc. but nobody wants to pay more taxes. Just shut the fuck up and pay for what you are, in part, responsible for causing.
Click to expand...

Several states have a tax me more fund which you are free to donate to if you feel Uncle Sam is not taking enough from you.
 
I think only people like Grind are arguing for NO taxes.

But I personally think we could and should aim for a top rate of around 25-35%.
 
Cypress said:
Superfreak, google is your friend. The recession we experienced in the early 1980s was the worst economic downturn since the great depression. With over 10% unemployment. The Reagan-worshipping books you’ve been reading, evidently left out that little factoid.
Click to expand...

You are a fucking moron. You stated that the recession of 1983 was one of the worst ever. Yet again pulling shit out of your ass.

2 things Gumby...

1) The recession was 1980-82.... 1983 was a good year for the economy and markets

2) The 80-82 recession was not worse than 73/74 recession or for that matter the recession at the beginning of this decade (in terms of market decline).

You tried to be your usual over dramatic self and it blew up in your face. Now that you have realized that the recession was not in 1983 you are trying to act like you said something different.

Again, your ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty are showing for all to see.
 
Last edited:
Side note Cypress.... the recession of 1980-1982 (that began under Carter) was saved from being worse by Volker.... not Reagan. His monetary policy got inflation under control. It did lead us into a recession, but it was not nearly as painful to the economy as the oil crisis of 73/74.
 
Cypress said:
Reagan wasn't a supply sider. At least, not after 1982.

The reagan adminstration abandoned supply side economics in 1982-93. Reagan's own OMB Director, David Stockman, wrote a book about it. Reagan's 1981 tax cuts caused massive Hemorrhaging in the nation's budgets and fiscal affairs, and was followed by one of the worst recessions in history in 1983. After 83, Reagan abandoned supply side, and became one of the greatest tax increasers in history. And he spent enourmous amounts of money, particually on our military industrial base. Nothing free market or supply side about that.

.
Click to expand...

Then Cypress says....

"Superfreak, google is your friend. The recession we experienced in the early 1980s was the worst economic downturn since the great depression. With over 10% unemployment. The Reagan-worshipping books you’ve been reading, evidently left out that little factoid. "

How fucking stupid are you looking right now Cypress? First you claim that the recession was in 1983 and a result of Reagans tax cuts.

Then you claim that the recession (that began in 1980 under Carter) was in the early 1980's to try and cover your original stupidity.

Obviously your moveon.org rewrite of economics history is leaving you feeling pretty fucking ignorant for someone who is proclaiming to be anyones "superior"
 
Watermark said:
The GDP is the same as what everyone earns, unless money just magically disappeards.

How are you sure that they didn't look up the total tax revenue of all governments and use that? Otherwise, the system would be seriously unfair to countries with unified governmental system. Damo, why do you always talk about things you know nothing about as if you're the utmost authority on the subject?
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. It is the value of what is produced without depreciation, not what people earn. Take a course in economics.

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

It is not the value of what everybody earns. Geez man, every time you post something like this you are so fricking wrong that it becomes a parody of itself.

GDP includes spending and gross investment. Neither of which are earnings.
 
Damocles said:
No, it isn't. It is the value of what is produced without depreciation, not what people earn. Take a course in economics.

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

It is not the value of what everybody earns. Geez man, every time you post something like this you are so fricking wrong that it becomes a parody of itself.

GDP includes spending and gross investment. Neither of which are earnings.
Click to expand...

You take too long to look thigns up on wikipedia.

If you'll notice, Dear Damo, earnings isn't included in the GDP. Why was it left out? That's alright. Take your time.
 
Watermark said:
You take too long to look thigns up on wikipedia.

If you'll notice, Dear Damo, earnings isn't included in the GDP. Why was it left out? That's alright. Take your time.
Click to expand...
I "take too long". When did you become so arrogant in your own deliberate ignorance?

You make a truly ignorant statement when I am not online then pretend your point was actually made because I "take too long"? Come on, you are both smarter and better than this. We expect more, even from you, than deliberate foolishness like this.

Investment is not earnings, and earnings are not realized until you sell those investments. Nor is spending earnings. In fact, earnings would only be profit. All of that is included in the GDP, however many things that are not earnings are also included.

Don't be deliberately ignorant. Please, tell me how investment is earnings.
 
Superfreak said:
You are a fucking moron. You stated that the recession of 1983 was one of the worst ever. Yet again pulling shit out of your ass.

2 things Gumby...

1) The recession was 1980-82.... 1983 was a good year for the economy and markets

2) The 80-82 recession was not worse than 73/74 recession or for that matter the recession at the beginning of this decade (in terms of market decline).

You tried to be your usual over dramatic self and it blew up in your face. Now that you have realized that the recession was not in 1983 you are trying to act like you said something different.

Again, your ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty are showing for all to see.
Click to expand...

Superfreak, did you ever wonder why so many people on the board don't like you anymore, and why so many people ignore you now?

Because of shit like this. Your anger. Your dishonesty.

So I was off by a few months, when I said 1983. Big fucking deal. It was a quarter century ago. And now your spiking the ball in the end zone, like you caught me in some kind of "gotcha". How childish.

I never once said reagans tax cuts caused the 1982 recession. You just lied about that. I said reagan's 1981 tax cuts, were followed by a recession. That's a factual statement. I never said not one word about what caused the recession. This whole thread was about whether classic "supply side" economics was practiced in the 1980s, and was responsible for economic growth in the 1980s. I just used Reagans own top adminstration officials like Stockman and Barlett, to show that, by 1983, they were actually abandoning the tenets of classic supply side economics.

This is why a lot of people don't like you anymore. You argue relentlessly over minor little points, get angry at the drop of a hat, and make dishonest statements.

Later.
 
Damocles said:
I "take too long". When did you become so arrogant in your own deliberate ignorance?

You make a truly ignorant statement when I am not online then pretend your point was actually made because I "take too long"? Come on, you are both smarter and better than this. We expect more, even from you, than deliberate foolishness like this.

Investment is not earnings, and earnings are not realized until you sell those investments. Nor is spending earnings. In fact, earnings would only be profit. All of that is included in the GDP, however many things that are not earnings are also included.

Don't be deliberately ignorant. Please, tell me how investment is earnings.
Click to expand...

GDP = wealth.

America taxes 11% of it's wealth a year.
 
Watermark said:
You take too long to look thigns up on wikipedia.

If you'll notice, Dear Damo, earnings isn't included in the GDP. Why was it left out? That's alright. Take your time.
Click to expand...
Let me explain even more clearly.

If I made just 75K last year, and invested 10K. Both my earnings and the money I spent investing are counted, even though the investment is not earnings for anybody.

Then if I get robbed, because money changed hands, the money I lost is counted for the GDP. So it was counted when I earned it, then when it was forcibly taken from me. When the government takes my money, it is counted again. Then when I buy a car, the earnings (profit) isn't what is counted, it is the entire price of the car, including the taxes and fees that go to the government. Again that same money is recounted as both income and then as government income when it is taken in taxes.

It is NOT the sum of all earnings, it is FAR more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top