(Portsmouth Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,625 messages
Updated 5/17/2024 10:13:59 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Portsmouth Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
architect
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
OK MM
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 12:10:43 AM (updated 1/9/2013 1:02:26 AM)
|
I know this is whipping a dead horse but so what. I know this is going to be dull as dishwater but so what. You spout your "facts" constantly and the "sheeple" on this forum swallow it like Candy. I wish they would occasionally do a little fact checking of their own rather than always fall in line. You try (with no success) to belittle any poster who dares to dispute your ideas and demand that they back up their claim with facts, then when they do just that you either disappear, change the subject or indignantly dispute their assertions with more editorializing but no actual contrary facts.
On 1/6/13 at 4:43:16 you popped off in response to one of my posts in that thread with the closing comment "Glad to do your research for you Archie".
Well I would gladly accept the "research" if it was correct...with you it is apparently made up!
You point out that we agree Carter was a lousy president then make statements that are simply not correct.
Employment went up every year of Carter's adm, not down as you claim. According to the BLS in the 4 years from 1977 - 80 US employment went up by 10.3 million from 80.7 million to 91 million (13%)...FACT. Tax revenues grew
47.8% during the 4 Carter years...FACT. Now Carter was a failed president, mainly because of the hostage crisis, but fair minded people don't need to bend the truth to prove the point. (Oh BTW: Reagan and Volcker may have fought inflation but Carter and Volcker also fought oil shock inflation after Carter appointed Volcker.)
Reagan 's adm saw employment go up in 8 years by 17 million from 91 million to 108 million (18%)...FACT
Revenues under 8 years of Reagan ("thanks" to his tax CUTS and "in spite" of his TAX increases) grew 55%...FACT
You then make the claim revenues after the Bush tax cuts were at RECORD HIGHS until the 2008 housing crash. Actually, according to the Tax Policy Center, the worst revenue years for Bush were in his first term. They fell 9.8% from 1145.4 billion in 2001 to 1033.4 billion in 2002 (9/11 certainly didn't help) and another 10.4% to 925.5 billion in 2003 before finally recovering 7.8% to 998 billion in 2004...FACT. For the first term revenue was down 12.9%. In the 2d term revenues were up 20.8% to 1205.5 billion in 2005, up 15.9% to 1397.8 in 2006, up 9.7% to 1533.7 in 2007 then down 5.5% to 1450.1 in 2008. For the entire 8 years Bush had revenue increases of 26.6%...FACT W had record high revenues only in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (all other years they were below Clinton's last year)...and guess what, Carter's were at "record highs" to that time every year he was in office...same Clinton and for Reagan except in 1983. The fact is Bush had dismal, not record, revenues even with his tax cuts. The growth (26.6%) in revenue during W's term was also no where near a record...That belongs to Clinton (up 93.2% in 8 years in spite of those onerous tax increases...guess that helped get us to surplus). BTW: Clinton also holds the record for job growth at 23 million (21%) Now how about Obama, well in 2009 revenues plummeted to 1053.3 billion before rising to 1272.6 billion in 2011...O's deficits would look a lot better if he had Bush's 2007 revenues of 1533.7 billion! FACT But, Bush's revenue record was stering compared to his employment record...in 8 years 1.1 million jobs...worst since Herbert Hoover! FACT. In 4 years of Obama the jobs total is up 500,000 from when he took office and if it continues to grow at the present rate it will be up 8 to 10 million by the end of the 2d term, not up there with Clinton or Reagan or even Carter for that matter, but way ahead of W!
Another bit of trivia. GDP increases:
Carter up 37.4% in 4 years
Reagan up 63.1% in 8 years (25.7% in 1st term, 20.1% in 2d term...you claim the the 1st term was when he
cleaned up Carter's mess and the boom came in the 2d term)
Clinton up 54.3% in 8 years
Bush up 35.5% in 8 years (fell in 1 year-2008)
Obama up 4.1% in 2 years (up both years)
This is demonstration that there is no obvious direct relationship between cutting taxes = boom and raising taxes = despair. As previously stated, unlike you, I do not claim to know that much about why the economy performs as it does...then again apparently neither do you if you continue to claim only good things come with tax cuts and only bad things come with tax increases when the facts do not back it up. Willing it so does not make it so!
Now MM, continue to push your ideas as forcefully as you please, but when you use facts to back them up please try to do a little research for of your own and be a little more careful to be sure those claimed facts are in line with the actual facts.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sleepless In Georgia
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 1:02:51 AM
|
Poor ole MM will be up all night trying to defend himself against the man of the hour Archibald. MM should spend his forum time polishing his Green Egg and realize that Archibald has the facts.
|
| Name: |
HubCap
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OK MM
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 5:41:19 AM
|
Sic-um Arch, you sound like Harry S Truman you don't give them hell, you tell the truth and it feel like hell
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Unemployment went up to 7.8% in 1980
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 10:04:21 AM (updated 1/9/2013 10:50:54 AM)
|
And Carter was still President until January and as we all know it was his policies that caused unemployment to go up. And you can see from below that the rise began in late 1979 which is just one of many very good reasons he lost his reelection bid. Here are the numbers from the BLS website for 1976-1980. I suppose you didn't read my post carefully as I pointed out that rates did indeed go down in the first three years of his presidency but went up at the end and he left Reagan with a heck of a recession.
Heck, using Oblamer's standards Nixon/Ford were responsible for the low unemployment in Carter's first and only term (thank God) and Carter was totally responsible for the entire recession that Reagan had to fix with tax reductions in his first term. Which is it Archie?!?!? Is Oblamer to blame for the unemployment numbers in his first term or was it Bush? You can't have it both ways.......but what am I saying, you are a liberal......of course you think you can have it both ways.
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|
| 1976 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 7.8 | 7.8 | |
|---|
| 1977 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 7.4 | 7.2 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 6.4 | |
|---|
| 1978 | 6.4 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
|---|
| 1979 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
|---|
| 1980 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.2 | |
|---|
But remember Archie, we also had pitiful GDP growth (especially in 1979 when the full effect of his failed policies took hold and it averaged less than 1.3%). And you can see the turnaround during the early part of Reagan's first term. Source: Trading Economics
Carter left us with high interest rates that peaked during Reagan's first term and then dropped from there and inflation which went from less than 6% in 1976 up to 11% in 1979 and peaking at almost 14% in 1980. By the end of Reagan's first term inflation had dropped to 4.3%. Source: Inflationdata.com
| 1984 | 4.19 % | 4.60 % | 4.80 % | 4.56 % | 4.23 % | 4.22 % | 4.20 % | 4.29 % | 4.27 % | 4.26 % | 4.05 % | 3.95 % | 4.30 % | | 1983 | 3.71 % | 3.49 % | 3.60 % | 3.90 % | 3.55 % | 2.58 % | 2.46 % | 2.56 % | 2.86 % | 2.85 % | 3.27 % | 3.79 % | 3.22 % | | 1982 | 8.39 % | 7.62 % | 6.78 % | 6.51 % | 6.68 % | 7.06 % | 6.44 % | 5.85 % | 5.04 % | 5.14 % | 4.59 % | 3.83 % | 6.16 % | | 1981 | 11.83 % | 11.41 % | 10.49 % | 10.00 % | 9.78 % | 9.55 % | 10.76 % | 10.80 % | 10.95 % | 10.14 % | 9.59 % | 8.92 % | 10.35 % | | 1980 | 13.91 % | 14.18 % | 14.76 % | 14.73 % | 14.41 % | 14.38 % | 13.13 % | 12.87 % | 12.60 % | 12.77 % | 12.65 % | 12.52 % | 13.58 % | | 1979 | 9.28 % | 9.86 % | 10.09 % | 10.49 % | 10.85 % | 10.89 % | 11.26 % | 11.82 % | 12.18 % | 12.07 % | 12.61 % | 13.29 % | 11.22 % | | 1978 | 6.84 % | 6.43 % | 6.55 % | 6.50 % | 6.97 % | 7.41 % | 7.70 % | 7.84 % | 8.31 % | 8.93 % | 8.89 % | 9.02 % | 7.62 % | | 1977 | 5.22 % | 5.91 % | 6.44 % | 6.95 % | 6.73 % | 6.87 % | 6.83 % | 6.62 % | 6.60 % | 6.39 % | 6.72 % | 6.70 % | 6.50 % | | 1976 | 6.72 % | 6.29 % | 6.07 % | 6.05 % | 6.20 % | 5.97 % | 5.35 % | 5.71 % | 5.49 % | 5.46 % | 4.88 % | 4.86 % | 5.75 % |
So as a result of Carter's first failed term he left us with an economic mess.....not to mention he also left us with an Islamofascist Iran that pretty soon will have nuclear weapons and when they do, they will use them against Israel either directly or through a cut-out like Hamas or Hezbollah.
So Archie, how about that whipping of a dead horse? Got to look at the whole picture Archie, not just cherry pick one number that you like.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Only Archie is sleepless
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 11:54:19 AM
|
I do appreciate his staying up late at night pounding away on the keyboards with a red face and sweat pouring out but I am a little worried about his health.....physical and mental. But as you can see from my post below my statements were accurate and backed by the data. Its just that Archie doesn't like to read carefully and he loves to cherry pick data and apply different standards. To wit, everything positive that happens during a Democrat's term is directly a result of tax increases and everything negative that happens was directly a result of some Republican somewhere at some time somehow........and tax cuts had to be in there somewhere.....we just can't have the American people keep more of their own money........
What he doesn't want to do is look into each of these issues in any detail. To critically and carefully examine them. As an example, the recession in 2008 that was caused by the bursting of the housing bubble, said bubble caused by the distortion of the real estate markets as a result of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie. He thinks they were caused by tax rates put in place in 2002 by Bush and Congress in response to Clinton's economic slowdown (which was probably a minor recession as I documented from CNN in an earlier thread) and 9/11. And he thinks that the abysmal economic results of Oblamer's entire first term were Bush's fault but that the lower unemployment numbers in the middle part of Carter's presidency were not Nixon/Ford's "fault".
But again, it is easy to generalize without looking at what actually happened. Its why liberals today still think FDR was a good president. That's why I use facts, logic and reason together because it is easy to delude yourself with the basic numbers.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Unemployment went up to 7.8% in 1980
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 1:55:47 PM
|
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Unemployment went up to 7.8% in 1980
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 1:55:58 PM
|
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Wait until you type something to hit Post Message
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 2:07:57 PM
|
Just a friendly hint to you drive-by posters on how things work here on the forum.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
BOTTOM LINE MM
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 2:09:54 PM
|
To support your position you made statements as fact about employment under Carter and revenue growth under Bush which were, shall we diplomatically say, less that accurate. I introduced, without editorial (well maybe a couple of snide asides) comment, dull but certifiable statistics which pointed out and countered your inaccuracies.
Nice charts...of course they do not address the subject of the false claims of your earlier comment. As I said, when someone dares to call your bluff you change te subject.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
BOTTOM LINE ARCHIE
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 3:03:58 PM (updated 1/9/2013 3:05:17 PM)
|
I will just give you one example of your inability to read critically what I wrote instead of misrepresenting it.
My comments about revenues to the Treasury under Bush in a prior post were accompanied by a table that covered his first term and documented record growth in revenue to the Treasury AFTER his tax cuts. Now to listen to the left tax cuts cause revenues to go down and the economy to tank. That just isn't so and the numbers prove it. But those numbers came from the Treasury Department website so unless they made a mistake lets just say your characterization of my post was less than accurate.
But once again, Archie, you want to have it both ways and I am pointing out that you can't. Either Obama was responsible for the terrible economy during his first term or Bush was and if it is the latter then Carter deserves no credit for his first term (that goes to Ford/Nixon), he is directly responsible for the rough start of Reagan's first term and Reagan, after cutting tax rates was responsible for the boom that occurred in his second term. You choose because I am OK either way.
As for Clinton, as I have already pointed out to you he had two significant advantages for his presidency. First, he was the first president to truly benefit from our cold war victory and second, he had the GOP in control of Congress and because he was more ambitious (ie, he wanted a second term) than he was ideological he went along with what they wanted and got the results. You have to look at the full picture and not cherry pick one or the other.
Facts, logic and reason......use them Archie, they will change your life.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OK one more time!!
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 9:55:04 PM (updated 1/9/2013 10:01:24 PM)
|
MM your continued assertion of "facts" which are not factual is getting old. In your response to me in an earlier thread you make the claim that tax revenues grew at a record pace after Bush cut taxes. That is absolutely not correct! I have already disproved your assertion with numbers in my original post which you ignore and come right back with the same false claim.
OK, again:
FIGURES FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Year / Total of all US revenue / % of GDP / Amount per capita
______________________________________________________________
*2000 / 2310 billion / 20.6 / $8108
2001 / 2215.3 billion / 19.5 / $7765
**2002 / 2028.6 billion / 17.6 / $7041
2003 / 1901.1 billion / 16.2 / $6537
***2004 / 1949.5 billion / 16.1 / $6642
2005 / 2153.6 billion / 17.3 / $7271
2006 / 2324.1 billion / 18.2 / $7773
2007 / 2414.0 billion / 18.5 / $7993
2008 / 2288.5 billion / 17.5 / $7508
* Last Clinton year
** Reflects 2001 tax cuts
*** Reflects 2003 tax cuts
Now MM I hope even you can look straight ahead past your ideological blinders and see that revenues went down 4 out of the 8 years of the Bush adm and it was not until the 6th year of his presidency that revenues finally got back (barely) to the last Clinton year. Now if you think that is "record" revenue growth you need to demand a refund of that money you spent on those MBA classes.
You advise me to use "Facts, logic and reason". I do! You sir use non-facts to support illogical and unreasonable conclusions
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
A blind squirrel finds an acorn
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 11:00:22 PM
|
You are right, Bush's record tax receipts were in his second term and not his first term. As the NY times says regularly we regret the error. The new rates passed in 2002 but were actually not implemented until 2003. Receipts rose in 2004 and then really took off after the full effect of the cuts effect and it was in fact his second term when the record revenues were recorded. Any problem with those facts? I suggest a quick visit to OMB and you will see receipts of over $2 trillion in 2005 peaking at $2.57 trillion in 2007 with slightly less in 2008 but still record receipts.
So I was wrong to reference it happening in his first term as it happened in his second term but the beautiful thing is that actually makes more sense and strengthens my argument. Again, my apologies for the error of using the word "first" when it should have been "second". It actually took longer for his policies to rectify the mess Clinton left but the point remains, revenues to the Treasury go up after tax cuts are implemented and take effect and the economy suffers when rates go up.
Gee Archie, while you are at it, with your command of second versus first maybe you can explain how higher taxes improve economic performance. I am all ears.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
A blind squirrel finds ANOTHER acorn
|
|
Date:
|
1/9/2013 11:59:53 PM (updated 1/10/2013 12:13:13 AM)
|
Well Thanks for the apology MM. One problem...you are still wrong. According to the Tax Policy Center the last 4 years of the Clinton adm saw total revenue from personal plus corporate taxes go from 920 billion to 1212 billion (+31.6%) with each year showing an increase. The 2d Bush term saw an increase from1205.5 billion to 1450 billion (+20.3%) including a big drop in 2008. Face it MM...Bush did not have "record" revenue increases before or after he cut taxes while Clinton did have near record increases after he raised taxes. Please cease and desist from continuing to spout the Bush claim in support of your economic and political opinions. Spout your agnda 24/7 if it makes you feel good, but stop justifying it with questionable claims backed up by incorrect data.
Now as for explaining why I believe higher taxes bring economic growth...I can't because I don't know whether such is true just as I don't know if the converse is true. I do contend the "facts" in the numbers give very strong evidence that taxes (going up or going down) don't seem to have the effects you describe ad-infinitum!
FINITO! until the outrageous statements made by you and others on this forum get me PO'd enough to "drive by again". Good evening to all...I start 16 days at the beach tomorrow and plan to TRY to substitute oysters and booze for politics for a few days!
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
A blind squirrel finds ANOTHER acorn
|
|
Date:
|
1/10/2013 11:02:56 AM
|
Make sure you leave great big tips to your servants. You could even share those oysters with everyone in the parking lot
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I need your source Archie...here's mine
|
|
Date:
|
1/10/2013 11:36:12 AM
|
And they don't match.
These are the federal tax receipts from the Tax Policy Center, a non-profit group and they do not match the numbers you provided. And lest you think the numbers are bogus, the Tax Policy Center is a group formed by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, not exactly right wing groups. Here is where I got my data.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
As you can see from my numbers above tax revenues were lowest in 2003 which was the first year of the implementation of Bush's tax rates. By 2007 revenues were almost $800 billion higher than 2003. If you look at the table you will see that the highest tax receipts during Clinton's years was a little over $2 trillion which is half a billion less than the peak of the Bush years.
As you know OMB is part of the White House and should be taken with a grain of salt. But even so, I could not find the numbers you provided on the OMB website. So your exact source please because this does not match what I have read about tax revenues during the Bush years and certainly does not match my source.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I included my sources
|
|
Date:
|
1/10/2013 12:05:10 PM (updated 1/10/2013 12:07:14 PM)
|
My 1/9/13...9:55:04 post was for ALL federal revenue from the OMB
My 1/9/13...11:59:53 post was for INCOME TAX (indiv and corporate) from the Tax Policy Center
Both sources refute your "record revenue" claim. Now if the Tax Policy Center info you are using is in conflict with mine then I suggest while I am at the beach you find out whether they are lying to you or me. Now, how do you refute the OMB's numbers?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
No you did not
|
|
Date:
|
1/10/2013 9:42:08 PM (updated 1/10/2013 9:43:00 PM)
|
I provided the specific location of a table from which I obtained my revenue numbers. You provided an obscure quote to OMB, which in my opinion is less credible than even my source. But you are wrong about your conclusion and the numbers I provided prove it. Total tax revenues, which we were discussing were at record levels during the Bush administration. Even you are not dumb enough to think $2 trillion is more than $2.5 trillion......oh wait a second, you think the war on poverty worked, you thnk that government is the solution to all problems.......what am I saying?!?!? Of course you can believe that 2 is greater than 2.5. Archie, go on vacation, your brain needs a break.
You scored one point when I said first instead of second but lost 20 points on everything else. And of course you can't explain why the govt taking more money out of the hands of its citizens can't improve the economy for one simple reason...it can't!!!! It doesn't make sense that it can and only a half twit would think that it can. He!!, even Bill Clinton knew that. Liberals....they believe so much that just isn't so.m if you weren't so obstinate in your ignorance I might actually have some pity for you......but I don't. Common sense Archie, you need some desperately.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OMB
|
|
Date:
|
1/10/2013 11:38:42 PM
|
Jack Lew, as director of OMB, told blatant lies to Sen Sessions. If they have liars like him as a director, why should we trust their numbers?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We should not
|
|
Date:
|
1/11/2013 10:31:35 AM
|
I wonder how much Archie trusted OMB's numbers during the Bush years? Funny, I don't recall him ever quoting them for those 8 years. I do find it strange that their numbers do not match with the ones I found. May be two different things or one may be wrong. I do find it interesting that Archie only wants to reference OMB with no specific url for us to examine them. I briefly looked on the OMB website and did a bing search but could not find the data. I suspect it is there somewhere which is why I asked for the specific reference.
Maybe when Archie gets back from his beach vacation he will be all rested up and can provide the specific reference so we can do our own due diligence. Lord knows I will never use first when I mean second ever again although I do love that his correction actually reinforced my point that revenues went up after the new rates were put in place which actually makes more sense.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We should not
|
|
Date:
|
1/11/2013 11:11:45 AM
|
I'm just disappointed that he feels enough privilege to take a vacation, and instead of producing, is now consuming (on all fronts if you believe his words.) He should know that he is just a cog in the wheel, and work is never done, and the government's hunger will never be filled. Doesn't he have a conscience?
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
New Hampshire Coast
»
Portsmouth
Login
|
Home
