Obama's electability

A sensible one, designed to actually pay our bills as a nation, something that supposed Fiscal Conservatives don't seem to care too much about...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A sensible one, designed to actually pay our bills as a nation, something that supposed Fiscal Conservatives don't seem to care too much about...

Cycloptichorn

You so naive.

Huh, I thought I remembered Gore leading Bush in the poll. Thanks, sozobe.

No time for this Fox; but in the simplest terms your entire argument fails the cause and effect test. The rule changes and revenue increases didn't happen in a vacuum... and it is ridiculous to pretend they did.

Nor did I say that they did. All I am saying is that reducing capital gains taxes is good for the economy AND treasury revenues and increasing capital gains taxes has the opposite effect. This is provable from numerous sources while the opposite is not provable at all.

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A sensible one, designed to actually pay our bills as a nation, something that supposed Fiscal Conservatives don't seem to care too much about...

Cycloptichorn

You so naive.

Please explain, in what way is this true?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A sensible one, designed to actually pay our bills as a nation, something that supposed Fiscal Conservatives don't seem to care too much about...

Cycloptichorn

You so naive.

Please explain, in what way is this true?

Cycloptichorn

You are so blinded by the realities of politicians, with each side favoring their own special interest, that you absolutely think that only democrats can "fix the economy and the budget" by raising taxes. As if that is the only answer.

EVERY politician at the local, State and Federal level is a "lobbiest" for their own special interest while the vast majority of hard working, tax paying American Citizens get it in the "neck".

If it is not some Dummycrat pandering to the so called "poor" it is some Repuglican pandering to some Corporate CEO.,

Yet, there is Cyclo, going along chirping to the wonderful "plans" of the Democratic Controlled Congress and the new neophyte in town, Obama.

When will you and yours open your eyes wide and see reality.

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Look Joe, I admitted I misspoke on the quadrupled part.

You didn't misspeak. You were making up statistics and hoping that nobody would call you on it.

No dear, I was working from faulty memory. There is a difference.

When I suspect that my memory is faulty, I try to double-check the facts. You, on the other hand, just post whatever bullshit you want and hope that nobody catches it. Well, I caught it this time.

Foxfyre wrote:

You don't know me or what I know or what I have experienced or what my motives are. You certainly show that you're not above slinging **** that you make up about me, however, and you can support it with nothing other than your own imagination, however.

By your works we shall know thee.

Foxfyre wrote:

Capital gains were declining in the period immediately before 9/11 because we were easing into what would almost certainly be a mild recession at that time and a whole lot of the major profit taking had already happened. 9/11 changed everything however pushing us into a deeper and longer recession than would otherwise have occurred, and the stock market tanked big time. When the market is down, so are capital gains likely to be down since that is where a huge chunk of capital gains are created.

That may be true, but it doesn't support your argument.

Foxfyre wrote:

The links I posted and the table you posted, however, show capital gains revenues that can be analyzed against increases in capital gains taxes and decreases in capital gains taxes and the results appear to be be pretty consistent. You can try to make a case that there is no correlation, and if you can go for it, but otherwise I think the evidence shows and it is reasonable to believe that reduction in capital gains taxes have traditionally produced increases in revenues and increases in capital gains taxes have traditionally produced decreases in revenues.

Let me guess: faulty memory again? From the table I posted:

1969-70: rates went up, revenue went down
1970-71: rates went up, revenue went up
1971-72: rates went up, revenue went up
1978-79: rates went down, revenue went up
1980-81: rates went down, revenue went down
1981-82: rates went down, revenue went down
1986-87: rates went up, revenue went down
1987-88: rates went up, revenue went up
1989-90: rates went down, revenue went down
1996-97: rates went down, revenue went up
2002-03: rates went down, revenue went up

So, on the eleven occasions when the tax rates changed, revenues went in the same direction six times and the opposite direction five times. That doesn't look like much correlation to me, let alone any causation.

Foxfyre wrote:

And you still can't get around Obama acknowledging that in a backhanded way but discoutning it because it still isn't 'fair' that the wealthy don't pay more even if it will reduce revenues to the national treasury.

Frankly, I'm not interested in defending Obama's stance on capital gains taxes right now. I'm interested in exposing the continuing fabrications in your posts.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Look Joe, I admitted I misspoke on the quadrupled part.

You didn't misspeak. You were making up statistics and hoping that nobody would call you on it.

No dear, I was working from faulty memory. There is a difference.

When I suspect that my memory is faulty, I try to double-check the facts. You, on the other hand, just post whatever bullshit you want and hope that nobody catches it. Well, I caught it this time.

As did I which is why I retracted it.

Or you can do the analysis this way:

1970 - Rates up - revenues down.
1971 - Rates up and revenues up but still less than 1969.
1972 - Rates up again and revenues up but still less than 1969.
1979 - Rates down and revenues up more than 1969 and remained strong until the Carter administration.
1981 - Rates down and revenues down but we were coming off Carter's double digit inflation and interest rates at that time.
1982 - Rates down - revenues down as we were still in recession but were beginning to turn it around. By 1983 capital gains revenues skyrocketed and continued good gains through 1986.
1987 - Rates up - revenues down.
1988 - Rates up - revenues up a bit but still below 1986
1990-91 - Rates down and revenue down but we were in recession triggered by George 41's tax increase when he broke his 'no new taxes' pledge and the market tanked.
1997 - Rates down - revenues up significantly until 9/11
2003 - Rates down - revenues up and increasing signifantly for the next several years for which we have information on the internet.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that raising capital gains rates increases capital gains revenues or that reducing them reduces revenues.

Which beautifully illustrates my original observation that Obamamaniacs don't give a damn about what his policies might do and aren't about to examine them closely less his halo might appear a bit tarnished. It is so much easier to make snotty remarks to those who are examining them closely.

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Look Joe, I admitted I misspoke on the quadrupled part.

You didn't misspeak. You were making up statistics and hoping that nobody would call you on it.

No dear, I was working from faulty memory. There is a difference.

When I suspect that my memory is faulty, I try to double-check the facts. You, on the other hand, just post whatever bullshit you want and hope that nobody catches it. Well, I caught it this time.

As did I which is why I retracted it.

No you didn't! You didn't catch it at all, and you wouldn't have retracted it if I hadn't called you on it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Or you can do the analysis this way:

1970 - Rates up - revenues down.
1971 - Rates up and revenues up but still less than 1969.
1972 - Rates up again and revenues up but still less than 1969.
1979 - Rates down and revenues up more than 1969 and remained strong until the Carter administration.
1981 - Rates down and revenues down but we were coming off Carter's double digit inflation and interest rates at that time.
1982 - Rates down - revenues down as we were still in recession but were beginning to turn it around. By 1983 capital gains revenues skyrocketed and continued good gains through 1986.
1987 - Rates up - revenues down.
1988 - Rates up - revenues up a bit but still below 1986
1990-91 - Rates down and revenue down but we were in recession triggered by George 41's tax increase when he broke his 'no new taxes' pledge and the market tanked.
1997 - Rates down - revenues up significantly until 9/11
2003 - Rates down - revenues up and increasing signifantly for the next several years for which we have information on the internet.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that raising capital gains rates increases capital gains revenues or that reducing them reduces revenues.

Or, in other words, every time the rate changed and revenues went in the opposite direction, it's evidence of causation, and every time the rate changed and revenues went in the same direction, there's some other factor that explains that relationship. The question is no longer if other people buy your nonsense, Foxfyre, but whether you buy it. Surely no one can be that delusional.

Foxfyre wrote:

Which beautifully illustrates my original observation that Obamamaniacs don't give a damn about what his policies might do and aren't about to examine them closely less his halo might appear a bit tarnished. It is so much easier to make snotty remarks to those who are examining them closely.

If I have made snotty remarks to someone who is examining Obama's policies closely, I'll offer an apology. You, however, are definitely not that someone.

Fine Joe, then you can just go back to ignoring me and that will be fine. You're perfect, I'm scum. You can read minds and you have no interest whatsoever in discussing any issue; just making up stuff to discrediting those who are. You really should be the poster boy for the Obamamaniacs. You exemplify both their mindset and their tactics. Tis a pity though. As he very well could be the next President, I did hope he was somebody who would be defensible. I guess he isn't.

Foxfyre wrote:

Fine Joe, then you can just go back to ignoring me and that will be fine. You're perfect, I'm scum. You can read minds and you have no interest whatsoever in discussing any issue; just making up stuff to discrediting those who are. You really should be the poster boy for the Obamamaniacs. You exemplify both their mindset and their tactics. Tis a pity though. As he very well could be the next President, I did hope he was somebody who would be defensible. I guess he isn't.

That's rich considering all Joe did was point out your BS... and you're accusing him of making stuff up?

Also interesting that Joe's thorough refutation of your nonsense has somehow convinced you Obama is indefensible. Do you ever take a minute to read your crap before posting it? (Could save you some embarrassment, .)

Do you ever have an original thought that somebody like Joe didn't filter into your little head?

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you ever have an original thought that somebody like Joe didn't filter into your little head?

No. And Joe and I agree on everything.

Foxfyre wrote:

Fine Joe, then you can just go back to ignoring me and that will be fine. You're perfect, I'm scum. You can read minds and you have no interest whatsoever in discussing any issue; just making up stuff to discrediting those who are. You really should be the poster boy for the Obamamaniacs. You exemplify both their mindset and their tactics. Tis a pity though. As he very well could be the next President, I did hope he was somebody who would be defensible. I guess he isn't.

That's rich considering all Joe did was point out your BS... and you're accusing him of making stuff up?

Also interesting that Joe's thorough refutation of your nonsense has somehow convinced you Obama is indefensible. Do you ever take a minute to read your crap before posting it? (Could save you some embarrassment, .)

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A sensible one, designed to actually pay our bills as a nation, something that supposed Fiscal Conservatives don't seem to care too much about...

Cycloptichorn

You so naive.

Please explain, in what way is this true?

Cycloptichorn

You are so blinded by the realities of politicians, with each side favoring their own special interest, that you absolutely think that only democrats can "fix the economy and the budget" by raising taxes. As if that is the only answer.

EVERY politician at the local, State and Federal level is a "lobbiest" for their own special interest while the vast majority of hard working, tax paying American Citizens get it in the "neck".

If it is not some Dummycrat pandering to the so called "poor" it is some Repuglican pandering to some Corporate CEO.,

Yet, there is Cyclo, going along chirping to the wonderful "plans" of the Democratic Controlled Congress and the new neophyte in town, Obama.

When will you and yours open your eyes wide and see reality.

'reality' to me is that we are 9 trillion in debt and that has gone up by over half during the last Republican administration, who claimed that cutting taxes would help the economy. See, your side of the fence IGNORES THE DEBT like it doesn't exist. It does exist. The larger it gets, the larger the debt service payments are from our general fund, and eventually it's going to be a serious problem.

If we don't start addressing this problem soon, it is going to collapse our economy, and that will be Very Bad. It isn't a matter of which party we are talking about here, it's a matter of survival. So pardon me if I'm not too upset when I hear talk of tax raises.

I also would point out that taxation is currently at the lowest levels it's been at for about a century, at least in the last 80 years. Your parents and grandparents and mine got the job done whilst paying more then you and I are, so I find the modern complaints about taxation to be a bunch of whining from pussies who have no idea what heavy taxation looks like.

Cycloptichorn