Traitors.

Well, I speak in broad strokes because of you.

Like, you're the one who is forcing me to do it this way because you don't use specifics, you don't use sources, you don't acknowledge the resources and citations I give you, you routinely conflate and confuse topics, and you rely on anecdotes and "conventional wisdom" (BARF) to carry you instead of doing the work.
The only source I accept for actual recessions are the ones declared by NBER. Do you need help finding the list of when they declared recessions occurred? Any other "recessions" you claim happened are not really recessions.

Take Bush's Housing Bubble and Tax Cuts, for example. How Bush tied the two together as he was campaigning in 2004 on the strength of the housing market that he said was due to his tax cuts. I mean you have the literal guy whose name is on the tax cuts telling you that they're the reason the housing market was so strong.

I didn't make that up. I didn't put those words in his mouth. He said it, so there ya go. Tax cuts were responsible for the housing market collapse! That's according to Bush himself. So I don't know why anyone would think any differently.
And Trump claimed he won the election in 2020. Just because a politician said it doesn't make it true. I prefer to look at the actual data and facts. The housing bubble and the resulting loan defaults were not the result of tax cuts. If you haven't read "The Big Short" I suggest you do. It's a decent start for understanding how the credit default swaps helped to cause the crash.
 
Ah, but they are paying some of them minimum wage, and in the case of Apple, they are paying slave wages since their manufacturing is done overseas in places like China. And most of the Apple retail employees don't get much more than minimum wage. The corporate workers are probably paid well, but the store employees? The customer service people? If they're even in America, they're not doing great.

I think a good rule of thumb should be that you cannot pay anyone so little that they qualify for supplemental programs like SNAP. If that means you can't run your business, then you weren't supposed to run it in the first place.

You're not entitled to owning a business.

Apple isn't running the factories. They have hired Foxcon and other companies to do that. Apple is just looking for the cheapest supplier.

Considering minimum wage is $7.25, Apple retail employees make much more than that. It seems the average is $20 for working genius bar.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Apple-Genius-Bar-Hourly-Pay-E1138_D_KO6,16.htm

retail employees hit that magic $15 an hour
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Apple/salaries/Retail-Sales-Associate
 
No. You are mistaken. When reaching conclusions about a large data set using just one or two anecdotes is anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence isn't verifiable evidence because anecdotes are always filtered through a prism of bias. That's the way it is, dude.

So linking to the Kansas Board of Regents saying they are hiking tuition because of revenue shortfalls, isn't anecdotal. Anecdotal would be me saying that I spoke with the Kansas Board of Regents, or overheard their discussion, and they said the reason they hiked tuition was because of revenue shortfalls. Do you see the difference?

I would never use one Board of Regents raising tuition to claim all Board of Regents are doing something.

I never said that, so what you're doing now is sophistry...you're trying to ascribe something to me dishonestly that I never said. That's a Flash and Dutch Uncle habit you need to break if we are to ever have a serious discussion or debate.

What I said, very specifically, was that the Brownback tax cuts resulted in revenue shortfalls, and those shortfalls were closed -in part- by cutting spending for the State College system. So the Kansas State Board of Regents, who runs that system, said they had to raise tuition because of spending cuts from Topeka...spending cuts that were only necessary to fulfill the balanced budget amendment KS has, after the Brownback tax cuts destroyed revenue.

So there's nothing anecdotal there. It's all fact that you can read for yourself.

It doesn't sound to me like you really understand the difference between an anecdote and empirical evidence. That's very troubling because it also says that you're blurring the lines between truth and subjectivity.

If you can't tell the difference between a piece of empirical evidence (like the KS Board of Regents making their announcement) and an anecdote (me relaying an experience I had or something someone else said, second-hand), then what the fuck are we even doing here?

BTW - Kansas legislators recognized what a disaster those tax cuts were, and repealed them -with bipartisan support- in 2017.
 
You are claiming one or two instances mean all have the same result.

When did I claim that? All I said was that when Kansas cut taxes, out of pocket costs for everyone rose (including tuition and Medicaid) because of the drop in revenues thanks to the tax cut.

It's not anecdotal evidence if you can see it for yourself with everyone else.

I linked to that announcement by the Board of Regents. Did you read it? No.
 
From 1945-1980 there was a recession every 5 years or less except for one period

Right, but these weren't the kinds of recessions we saw in the 1980's+. Largely, these recessions didn't last very long, didn't contract the economy as much as the later recessions did, and what legislation did we put in place after some of these recessions to prevent a bigger or worse one. From 1945-1980 we learned from our mistakes, but we ignored that starting in 1980 and the reason we ignored it was because of racism. The racism of tax cuts was more popular than the economic argument against them, as Lee Atwater made crystal clear for you, and for which I've quoted a couple times already this thread.

So what you've done here is half the job. To do the full job, and to do the actual work, you'd have to examine each of those recessions, find out how much they contracted the economy (because they all contracted it at different rates), and then compare those contractions to the post-tax cut contractions and see where you end up.

I'm hedging towards the fact that most of the recessions between 1945-1980 didn't see as much of a contraction in the economy as we have from 1980-2020. But that's not my work to do...that is your work to do.
 
False. The recession actually started prior to the tax cut taking effect since it started in 1981 and the tax cut was for 1982.

Well, you're not actually right about that.

The tax cut was passed into law in August 1981, before the recession started in October 1981.

And guess what? IT DIDN'T FUCKING WORK TO PREVENT THE RECESSION, TO SOLVE IT, AND ACTUALLY SPED IT UP.

Didn't we RAISE TAXES starting in 1983?


Tax revenues have no real relationship to GDP growth.

They sure as shit do when they are spent. What are you talking about? This is mishegoss.
 
Last edited:
The only source I accept for actual recessions are the ones declared by NBER.

Right, you're only superficial, skin-deep...you don't do the actual work.

You lazily rely on topline numbers, and then bristle at any attempt to drill down into them.

It's really fucking lazy, it's insulting, and it's behavior I have nothing but the utmost contempt for.


Do you need help finding the list of when they declared recessions occurred? Any other "recessions" you claim happened are not really recessions.

What the fuck are you talking about? You're losing control of your own through line here. You're trying to assume positions on me I don't have, and alluding to things I never said. All I've talked about were the recessions fueled by tax cuts since 1980, of which there are several really bad recessions, and I even tied the 2008 economic collapse to tax cuts using Bush's own fucking words.

So I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it feels to me like you're getting frustrated at losing control of your argument.
 
And Trump claimed he won the election in 2020. Just because a politician said it doesn't make it true.

Why would Bush tie the housing market to his tax cuts while campaigning in 2004?


The housing bubble and the resulting loan defaults were not the result of tax cuts.

Yes, they were. They were the result of FAILED TAX CUTTING POLICIES to deliver on the promises made of them. The Bush Tax Cuts were first passed in 2001, not 2003. So from 2001-2003, we lived in an economy with tax cuts, and that economy was so fucking shitty that Bush had to juice a housing bubble to make it look like the tax cuts were responsible for the economic growth.

So the Housing Bubble and resulting foreclosures and defaults are a direct result of the policy failure of The Bush Tax Cuts.

Otherwise, why would Bush juice a housing market if the tax cuts were so great for the economy?
 
Why would Bush tie the housing market to his tax cuts while campaigning in 2004?




Yes, they were. They were the result of FAILED TAX CUTTING POLICIES to deliver on the promises made of them. The Bush Tax Cuts were first passed in 2001, not 2003. So from 2001-2003, we lived in an economy with tax cuts, and that economy was so fucking shitty that Bush had to juice a housing bubble to make it look like the tax cuts were responsible for the economic growth.

So the Housing Bubble and resulting foreclosures and defaults are a direct result of the policy failure of The Bush Tax Cuts.

Otherwise, why would Bush juice a housing market if the tax cuts were so great for the economy?

Are you claiming it was a Bush conspiracy to collapse the economy?
 
If you haven't read "The Big Short" I suggest you do. It's a decent start for understanding how the credit default swaps helped to cause the crash.

The problematic credit default swaps were a symptom of what Bush had already done to the lending standards. And there wouldn't have even been those problematic CDS' had Bush and his regulators not lowered lending standards for subprime loans.

Now, WHY did Bush lower those standards for subprime loans? Well, I'll tell ya. The reason Bush lowered those standards was to juice the housing market to grow the economy because his stupid tax cut didn't.

That's why Bush took an axe to state protections against predatory lending in 2003.

That's why he reversed Clinton's HUD rule that prohibited GSEs from buying risky loans in 2003.

That's why he killed GSE reform in 2003.

That's why he lowered the Net Capital rule for Wall Street in 2004; so they could over-leverage themselves buying up those shitty subprimes.

There was no trap that was set. Bush took very obscure and explicit steps to create a housing bubble where one didn't previously exist and he did it for the sole reason of making his shitty tax cuts look good.

And yeah, I read and watched The Big Short...I don't think you took the right lessons away from that film.
 
Apple isn't running the factories. They have hired Foxcon and other companies to do that. Apple is just looking for the cheapest supplier.

Right, at the expense of everyone else. So, how does cutting Apple's taxes change anything here?


Considering minimum wage is $7.25, Apple retail employees make much more than that. It seems the average is $20 for working genius bar.

Which ain't that great and qualifies you for several income-based assistance programs. Also, they're not working full time. They are part-time workers.


retail employees hit that magic $15 an hour

Which qualifies you for the following assistance programs:

ACA subsidies or Medicaid
SNAP
Heating assistance
Child Care Subsidies
EITC
Federal Child Care Deduction
Housing Subsidies
TEFAP
WIC
Pell Grants

So I mean, $15/hr ain't the answer. Neither is $20/hr.

Most companies aren't going to raise wages just because, so since they're not doing that (and haven't the last 40 years), they should pay more in taxes so we all pay less for education and health care.

Seems like a fair bargain to me, given the alternatives are pitchforks, torches, and guillotines....
 
Are you claiming it was a Bush conspiracy to collapse the economy?

No, Bush was too stupid to understand what he was doing.

The goal of the housing bubble was to secure Bush re-election in 2004 so he could then destroy Social Security in his second term, after already nearly destroying Medicare in his first.

People were warning about this, including Barney Frank, but they were ignored because...HEY LOOK AT HOW THE ECONOMY IS DOING NOW! TAX CUTS MUST BE WORKING! NOT THE FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH A PULSE COULD GET A HOME LOAN, NO IT WAS THE TAX CUTS THAT DID THIS.

That capitalized above is a paraphrasing of Bush during his re-election campaign in 2004:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership

He was 100% right...the housing market was an effect of the tax cuts...except it's not the housing market or effect he thought it would turn into.

I never said they were smart...just greedy and power hungry and they preyed on people like you to carry faulty racist economic beliefs for them. Like you're doing right now, arguing that tax cuts have no effect on anything.

Well OK, if they have no effect on anything, then let's fucking repeal them. Can I count on your support for that?
 
Right, but these weren't the kinds of recessions we saw in the 1980's+. Largely, these recessions didn't last very long, didn't contract the economy as much as the later recessions did, and what legislation did we put in place after some of these recessions to prevent a bigger or worse one. From 1945-1980 we learned from our mistakes, but we ignored that starting in 1980 and the reason we ignored it was because of racism. The racism of tax cuts was more popular than the economic argument against them, as Lee Atwater made crystal clear for you, and for which I've quoted a couple times already this thread.

So what you've done here is half the job. To do the full job, and to do the actual work, you'd have to examine each of those recessions, find out how much they contracted the economy (because they all contracted it at different rates), and then compare those contractions to the post-tax cut contractions and see where you end up.

I'm hedging towards the fact that most of the recessions between 1945-1980 didn't see as much of a contraction in the economy as we have from 1980-2020. But that's not my work to do...that is your work to do.

I showed that tax cuts happened and recessions didn't follow within 3 years as you claimed always happens. My work is done. Your attempt to now move the goalposts doesn't help your argument.

The simple fact is that since WW2 when you examine the data of tax revenues compared to GDP growth there is no correlation between lower revenues and lower growth or higher revenues and higher growth. Government revenues have no statistical relation to GDP growth. It shows that claiming tax cuts lead to higher growth is wrong and it also shows that the claim that tax cuts lead to lower growth is wrong. The fact that I found 2 instances of tax cuts not leading to recessions within 3 years would show your claim that tax cuts always lead to recessions to be wrong. That means that Republicans claiming tax cuts lead to GDP growth have no basis for their statement. You have no basis for your statements other than cherry picking data. (Cherry picking data is the same thing as using anecdotal evidence but since you want to use equivocation to redefine anecdotal evidence from my definition to yours we will simply change to a different term.)
 
The tax cut may have passed in August of 1981 but didn't go into effect until the 1982 tax year. You can't claim it has an effect before it goes into effect. That is simple nonsense on your part. The 1981 tax rates were the same as 1980.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

Then look at the tax rates in 1984 compared to 1983.
the 13% tax rate in 1983 became 12% in 1984, the 15% tax rate in 1983 became 14% in 1984, the 17% tax rate in 1983 became 16% in 1984, and on and on.
When tax rates go down that is a tax cut. There can be no other interpretation.

The revenues as a percent of GDP went from 17.0% in 1983 to 16.9% in 1984 reflecting the cut in income tax rates.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2021-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2021-TAB.pdf
table 1.2

So the answer is a clear, "NO!" We didn't raise taxes in 1983 as the most basic research would have revealed to you.

They sure as shit do when they are spent. What are you talking about? This is mishegoss.
Revenues are not the same thing as spending. Anyone that knows anything about government spending should know that. Government revenues have averaged from 15-20% of GDP. Government spending has averaged from 17-24%. Spending has almost always been more than revenues other than a few years during the Clinton Presidency.

When you take the revenues as a percent of GDP and then compare that to GDP growth there is no correlation to higher revenues and higher GDP growth. Even if you take a 3 year average of growth after the year's revenues there is still no statistical correlation. This is what shows the lie in the claim that cutting taxes caused higher GDP growth.
 
Right, you're only superficial, skin-deep...you don't do the actual work.

You lazily rely on topline numbers, and then bristle at any attempt to drill down into them.

It's really fucking lazy, it's insulting, and it's behavior I have nothing but the utmost contempt for.




What the fuck are you talking about? You're losing control of your own through line here. You're trying to assume positions on me I don't have, and alluding to things I never said. All I've talked about were the recessions fueled by tax cuts since 1980, of which there are several really bad recessions, and I even tied the 2008 economic collapse to tax cuts using Bush's own fucking words.

So I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it feels to me like you're getting frustrated at losing control of your argument.

I am lazy? You have no concept of the actual numbers.
Bush's own words don't prove anything. Bush's words have as much weight as Trump claiming he won the 2020 election. Did you fall for Trump's claim like you did for Bush's?

You have attempted to claim that the 1981 tax cut went into effect prior to the 1981 recession when it clearly didn't go into effect until 1982. (We can see that both in the tax tables and in the revenue as percent of GDP numbers.)
You have tried to claim that the tax cut in 1983 was really a tax increase. It clearly wasn't as we can see by tax tables and revenue as percent of GDP.

You haven' drilled down into any numbers. You haven't even presented any actual numbers from actual sources. Stop using news reports and find the actual government numbers.
The US Budget Historical Tables are a good place to start.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

Those tables are part of the US Budget documents every year and have been available on the WH website since Clinton was President. They used to only be available as part of a PDF of the entire 300+ page budget.

But then you also need to know how to look up data on the BEA website.
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm
 
Why would Bush tie the housing market to his tax cuts while campaigning in 2004?
Hmmm.. Why would someone running for office try to take credit for something that had nothing to do with his actions? Next you'll be trying to tell me Trump oversaw the best economy ever because he claimed that while campaigning.



Yes, they were. They were the result of FAILED TAX CUTTING POLICIES to deliver on the promises made of them. The Bush Tax Cuts were first passed in 2001, not 2003. So from 2001-2003, we lived in an economy with tax cuts, and that economy was so fucking shitty that Bush had to juice a housing bubble to make it look like the tax cuts were responsible for the economic growth.

So the Housing Bubble and resulting foreclosures and defaults are a direct result of the policy failure of The Bush Tax Cuts.

Otherwise, why would Bush juice a housing market if the tax cuts were so great for the economy?
Lack of oversight which allowed mortgage companies to make bad loans and bundle them as good loans to sell to other companies which then sold default swaps at rates that didn't reflect the actual nature of the loans really has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts.

I am curious how you think Bush juiced the housing market. Be specific and provide actual evidence. Just a reminder - the President doesn't set Federal Funds rates which is the basis for how banks set mortgage rates. The President also doesn't push people to take out adjustable mortgages while not warning them of the dangers if the rates go up.
 
No, Bush was too stupid to understand what he was doing.

The goal of the housing bubble was to secure Bush re-election in 2004 so he could then destroy Social Security in his second term, after already nearly destroying Medicare in his first.

People were warning about this, including Barney Frank, but they were ignored because...HEY LOOK AT HOW THE ECONOMY IS DOING NOW! TAX CUTS MUST BE WORKING! NOT THE FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH A PULSE COULD GET A HOME LOAN, NO IT WAS THE TAX CUTS THAT DID THIS.

That capitalized above is a paraphrasing of Bush during his re-election campaign in 2004:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership

He was 100% right...the housing market was an effect of the tax cuts...except it's not the housing market or effect he thought it would turn into.

I never said they were smart...just greedy and power hungry and they preyed on people like you to carry faulty racist economic beliefs for them. Like you're doing right now, arguing that tax cuts have no effect on anything.

Well OK, if they have no effect on anything, then let's fucking repeal them. Can I count on your support for that?

Ahh. All Bush's fault. Got it. Thank you, sir.
 
Back
Top