I notice you aren't providing sources for all of these wonderful charts.
Are you just Googling around for charts that validate your assumptions?
The debt chart further up conveniently excludes the Obama years as well as who controlled Congress in those years...but then you've been told this multiple times...and ignored it.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I notice you aren't providing sources for all of these wonderful charts.
Are you just Googling around for charts that validate your assumptions?
The debt chart further up conveniently excludes the Obama years as well as who controlled Congress in those years...but then you've been told this multiple times...and ignored it.
If you could remember back to where we discussed this earlier I posted all sorts of facts like gdp growth, inflation, military spending, debt etc for when there was a dem president with a dem congress, dem pres with repub congress, repub pres with repub congress, repub press with dem congress etc. The results were clear. The figures went from good to bad the more there was dem control to the more there was repub control. So please stop with these childish responses. Your demeaning yourself.
The last graph I posted comes from here- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/04/business/economy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html?ref=economy
The data comes from-
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
If you could remember back to where we discussed this earlier I posted all sorts of facts like gdp growth, inflation, military spending, debt etc for when there was a dem president with a dem congress, dem pres with repub congress, repub pres with repub congress, repub press with dem congress etc. The results were clear.
Actually, far from it. The problems with your simplistic and superficial "analysis" was explained to you then. Clearly you've not taken any of that under consideration and continue spewing the same garbage.
So please stop with these childish responses. Your demeaning yourself.
Stop with the simplistic and superficial "analysis" you're providing. You're demeaning yourself.
Again, I find great amusement in your abusiveness after accusing me (and others) of being abusive.
The last graph I posted comes from here- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/04/business/economy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html?ref=economy
The NYTimes? 
Well, until you can point to the actual data they used and not just the the front page of the BEA, we'll just assume you're not being serious.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
If you could remember back to where we discussed this earlier I posted all sorts of facts like gdp growth, inflation, military spending, debt etc for when there was a dem president with a dem congress, dem pres with repub congress, repub pres with repub congress, repub press with dem congress etc. The results were clear.
Actually, far from it. The problems with your simplistic and superficial "analysis" was explained to you then. Clearly you've not taken any of that under consideration and continue spewing the same garbage.
So please stop with these childish responses. Your demeaning yourself.
Stop with the simplistic and superficial "analysis" you're providing. You're demeaning yourself.
Again, I find great amusement in your abusiveness after accusing me (and others) of being abusive.
The last graph I posted comes from here- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/04/business/economy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html?ref=economy
The NYTimes?
Well, until you can point to the actual data they used and not just the the front page of the BEA, we'll just assume you're not being serious.
What's wrong with the NYTimes? Besides why are you trying so hard in this thread? I mean you won't support anyone in this election unless it's a Libertarian candidate ( and then maybe not even then ).
Jesus!
Remember however if you vote for Romney you're as good as a Republican. Also remember as you're finding so much amusement with others you're not taking into account how much we're finding with you. ( wink if I could )
What's wrong with the NYTimes?
Aside from being a bias liberal paper, even they haven't provided the source of what data they used for their infographic...err...charts.
Besides why are you trying so hard in this thread?
It's just fascinating to see Hands explain to how much better Obama is.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
What's wrong with the NYTimes?
Aside from being a bias liberal paper, even they haven't provided the source of what data they used for their infographic...err...charts.
Besides why are you trying so hard in this thread?
It's just fascinating to see Hands explain to how much better Obama is.
Why would you do any of that? Romney's pretty well finished ( especially since he announced how much he's paid in taxes over the last few years ).
Why would you do any of that?
Do any of what?
Romney's pretty well finished
Maybe. Maybe not.
especially since he announced how much he's paid in taxes over the last few years
I don't see anything wrong with what he's paid. But I suspect there will be a lot of morons voting who do, so, yeah, I guess I see your point.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Why would you do any of that?
Do any of what?
Romney's pretty well finished
Maybe. Maybe not.
especially since he announced how much he's paid in taxes over the last few years
I don't see anything wrong with what he's paid. But I suspect there will be a lot of morons voting who do, so, yeah, I guess I see your point.
Lot's of others will see something wrong MJ. But given as to what you say your position is why even post in this thread?
Lot's of other will see something wrong MJ.
I know. There's a lot of moronic people out there.
But given as to what you say your position is why even post in this thread?
Because it's fun. Besides, someone has to point out when Hands is wrong. Today's my turn.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Lot's of other will see something wrong MJ.
I know. There's a lot of moronic people out there.
But given as to what you say your position is why even post in this thread?
Because it's fun. Besides, someone has to point out when Hands is wrong. Today's my turn.
So are you going to vote for Romney?
So are you going to vote for Romney?
Probably not. But I don't know at this point. The only reason I would be able to justify that is if I thought it would be better than 4 more years of Obama. May not cast a vote for POTUS at all. All that said, I don't see how my voting plans are relevant here.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So are you going to vote for Romney?
Probably not. But I don't know at this point. The only reason I would be able to justify that is if I thought it would be better than 4 more years of Obama. May not cast a vote for POTUS at all. All that said, I don't see how my voting plans are relevant here.
It helps put your position on things into perspective. Thank you.
It helps put your position on things into perspective. Thank you.
OK. Whatever. I think I've been quite clear on my position on things.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Originally Posted by MJ1970
The NYTimes?
Well, until you can point to the actual data they used and not just the the front page of the BEA, we'll just assume you're not being serious.
The whole point of charts is to show the information in an easily understandable way. If you want to check out the spending versus the gdp for yourself for the time periods shown in these graphs you're free to do so from the same official data. The idea that they just made it all up is absurd when they point to their source for the data. Clearly you don't like what you see in them.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
The whole point of charts is to show the information in an easily understandable way.
I understand what the point of graphs and charts is.
If you want to check out the spending versus the gdp for yourself for the time periods shown in these graphs you're free to do so from the same official data.
Except that I don't know what data actually went into those charts.
The idea that they just made it all up is absurd when they point to their source for the data.
I didn't claim that. But it is a very well known fact that people can craft charts from real data to tell stories they want to tell by using the data in a way that manipulates or distorts the picture. I suspect you know this. As one small example, I pointed out that the debt chart you posted conveniently excluded the Obama years. This is a very common tactic: Selectively choose the beginning or ending points of the data.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I notice you aren't providing sources for all of these wonderful charts.
Are you just Googling around for charts that validate your assumptions?
The debt chart further up conveniently excludes the Obama years as well as who controlled Congress in those years...but then you've been told this multiple times...and ignored it.
If you could remember back to where we discussed this earlier I posted all sorts of facts like gdp growth, inflation, military spending, debt etc for when there was a dem president with a dem congress, dem pres with repub congress, repub pres with repub congress, repub press with dem congress etc. The results were clear. The figures went from good to bad the more there was dem control to the more there was repub control. So please stop with these childish responses. Your demeaning yourself.
The last graph I posted comes from here- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/04/business/economy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html?ref=economy
The data comes from-
I'm pretty sure in all the discussions around here, it has been pointed out to you that Obama took his entire growth in government spending, reopened FY2008 and put it into that year. Thus yourself and numerous others keep posting charts that assign it all to George W. Bush and assign no change or growth in spending to Obama because after that he only "sustained" trillion plus dollar a year deficits.
It isn't honest to keep ignoring that point. it is also ridiculous to assert that Obama hasn't engaged in any sort of massive spending when he has borrowed more in one term than all other presidents than Bush combined more than Bush did in two terms in his one term.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
You really need to read up on this subject if you want to be taken seriously. Ryan's tax decreases would not generate more than they cost in revenue. Even your own party accepts that. If all you ever do is take an extreme position, just to slag off the opposition, you'll never contribute to a serious discussion on how best to solve these issues. Tax cuts of course stimulate growth in the economy, but not enough. The spending by the government per dollar actually has a greater effect on growth than the equivalent dollar spent in reduced taxes. Target those tax cuts to the very wealthy and the difference is even more stark. Seriously, educate yourself.
Obama has increased the debt largely thanks to Bush.
In the longer run Dems need to cut military spending, close nearly all foreign bases and end the war on drugs as we know it. The repubs aren't just warmongers, they're debtmongers too. Be honest SDW, is that really what you want?
Yes, yes...I've seen that chart before, and it's complete bullshit. It first compares 8 years of Bush spending with 3 years of Obama spending. Then, it counts the Bush tax cuts as $1.8 Trillion of spending, which is laughable. Tax cuts are not spending, nor can one assume that we would have taken in a certain amount of revenue without those cuts. That's because cuts stimulate the economy and grow the tax base. The reality is that by 2007, revenue to the federal government was at record levels. Last...what is with the "2008 stimulus and other changes"---$773 billion? Riiight.
The actual spending numbers don't lie, Hands. Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the world. Deficits are 4x higher. Debt has accumulated at more than twice the rate of the Bush years. You have no way around this.
Lot's of others will see something wrong MJ. But given as to what you say your position is why even post in this thread?
The average family pays around 12+%. Romney has paid around 13.6-14%. It's the way the laws are written on investment income. What is "wrong" with him following the law?
I'm pretty sure in all the discussions around here, it has been pointed out to you that Obama took his entire growth in government spending, reopened FY2008 and put it into that year. Thus yourself and numerous others keep posting charts that assign it all to George W. Bush and assign no change or growth in spending to Obama because after that he only "sustained" trillion plus dollar a year deficits.
It isn't honest to keep ignoring that point. it is also ridiculous to assert that Obama hasn't engaged in any sort of massive spending when he has borrowed more in one term than all other presidents than Bush combined more than Bush did in two terms in his one term.
The defense of the indefensible continues. I didn't read every post of his...did he claim that Obama has spent the least since Eisenhower, yet?
The average family pays around 12+%.
I think I've ranged from 10-15% for the past 10 years. Typically there are three reasons for this for me: mortgage interest deduction, 401k deduction, charitable giving deduction.
Romney's numbers are not out of line. If anything, I'm surprised he paid that much.
Part of the issue here is that I'm betting he's talking about what I'd call "effective tax rate" which is taxes paid divided by TOTAL income (not the AGI or anything). It's not the marginal rate. Frankly, that's the only rate that really matters. What they ought to do is just eliminate all deductions, credits, etc. and just lower the rate to 10-15% and be done with it.
Anyone who votes against him for this reason is a moron.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Yes, yes...I've seen that chart before, and it's complete bullshit. It first compares 8 years of Bush spending with 3 years of Obama spending. Then, it counts the Bush tax cuts as $1.8 Trillion of spending, which is laughable. Tax cuts are not spending, nor can one assume that we would have taken in a certain amount of revenue without those cuts. That's because cuts stimulate the economy and grow the tax base. The reality is that by 2007, revenue to the federal government was at record levels. Last...what is with the "2008 stimulus and other changes"---$773 billion? Riiight.
The actual spending numbers don't lie, Hands. Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the world. Deficits are 4x higher. Debt has accumulated at more than twice the rate of the Bush years. You have no way around this.
When you post stuff off the cuff like this that is so remarkably lacking I have to ask myself, "what on earth have you not been learning during these past years?". It's shocking the level of ignorance. I understand you're a teacher, and I know you've spent countless hours online here. How the flip have you managed to be so ignorant? It really is mind boggling. I'm not actually trying to be rude, I'm just amazed that you can write such tripe. What hope is there when there are so many people who read even less than you?
Oh well.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
When you post stuff off the cuff like this that is so remarkably lacking I have to ask myself, "what on earth have you not been learning during these past years?". It's shocking the level of ignorance. I understand you're a teacher, and I know you've spent countless hours online here. How the flip have you managed to be so ignorant? It really is mind boggling. I'm not actually trying to be rude, I'm just amazed that you can write such tripe. What hope is there when there are so many people who read even less than you?
Oh well.
Show me one thing I posted that was inaccurate. I've already explained why the chart is misleading.
Lot's of others will see something wrong MJ. But given as to what you say your position is why even post in this thread?
The average family pays around 12+%. Romney has paid around 13.6-14%. It's the way the laws are written on investment income. What is "wrong" with him following the law?
I'm pretty sure in all the discussions around here, it has been pointed out to you that Obama took his entire growth in government spending, reopened FY2008 and put it into that year. Thus yourself and numerous others keep posting charts that assign it all to George W. Bush and assign no change or growth in spending to Obama because after that he only "sustained" trillion plus dollar a year deficits.
It isn't honest to keep ignoring that point. it is also ridiculous to assert that Obama hasn't engaged in any sort of massive spending when he has borrowed more in one term than all other presidents than Bush combined more than Bush did in two terms in his one term.
The defense of the indefensible continues. I didn't read every post of his...did he claim that Obama has spent the least since Eisenhower, yet?
What is "wrong" with him following the law?
It's because many have doubts as to if that's what he really paid all along.
Here's an example : http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/mitt-romneys-taxes-how-low-13-percent
One group that did not pay the same rate as Romney? People who made roughly equal amounts of money – those in the top 0.1 percent of earners. Households making about $20.7 million paid at a 23.6 percent rate, says Scott Klinger, associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, citing a Tax Policy Center analysis.
Romney pays at a lower tax rate than the top 400 earners did in 2009, Mr. Klinger says. Their income averaged $202 million and they paid taxes at a 19.91 percent rate.
The reason Romney’s overall rate is so low is because the bulk of his income – earned when he ran Bain Capital – is considered “carried interest.” That means it is taxed at the capital-gains rate, which is 15 percent. He also has very large deductions that lower his tax rate further. According to his 2010 return – the only final tax return he has released – he gave $3 million in charitable contributions, including $1.5 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It's all in the fine print.
It's because many have doubts as to if that's what he really paid all along.
Here's an example : http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/mitt-romneys-taxes-how-low-13-percent
It's all in the fine print.
Your example doesn't support your strawman argument. No one except Harry Reid and the Obama camp is questioning whether Romney paid taxes. Your own article points to what he actually paid (effective rate). As for that rate, I still don't see the problem. He followed the law and minimized his tax liability. That's what everyone does. What should he do...voluntarily pay more taxes? Why? And are you seriously questioning his charitable contributions? The man gives something like 15% of his income to charity...his church. How much does Obama give? Joe Biden? Oh wait...Biden is poor (which for some reason you and yours admire) and Obama is only worth a few million. In other words, he's not REALLY rich. Only married couples making $125K a piece are really rich. ;)
