The tax policy center has a chart of the effective federal tax rate for all households from 1979 to 2007. On the years in the chart, the highest effective tax rate was in 2000 at 23%, it reached its low in 2003 with 19.8%, in 2007 it was 20.4%. So although its true that taxes went up from 2003, they went way down from 2000.
According to the "Taxes per Household" graph the tax rate increased 46.5% under Clinton from $15,801 to $23,151. While Clinton did raise taxes with the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 by raising the rate from 36% to 39.6% on the top 1.2% of wage earners that certainly wouldn't account for the numbers you've shown in your graph. Can you please explain this discrepancy?
@davwhitt I know this comment is 3 weeks old, but whatever.
In 1993 the richest 1% had an average income of $807,900, in 2000 it was $1,551,000, in inflation adjusted dollars. The amount they paid in taxes went from $278,000 to $512,000. Considering that the richest 1% make up 1% of the population, this corresponds to an "Average" of a $2,400 tax increase from the richest 1% alone.
I still don't understand your math here. Your graph indicates a 46.5% average tax rate increase per household between 1993 and 2000. Your response only mentions the top 1% leaving out the other 99% which I assume is calculated in that average for the graph you posted. But since you've mentioned the top 1% based on your numbers their income increased by 92% while their taxes paid increased by 84% meaning an 8% drop (807,900/278,000 > 1,551,000/512,000).
@omegahpla It doesn't ALWAYS happen, IDIOT. Look at the Laffer Curve. The idea (as I SAID IN THE VIDEO--one of these days the ignorant dogmatists will actually pay attention) is that the lower tax rate spurs economic growth, raising revenues. But that doesn't understand why revenues increased AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. Even in an ideal scenario, the real revenue increase would just be an equal percentage of GDP.
@shanedk I think the reason revenue increases as a % of GDP is that higher tax rate payers pay more as they are cycling their income, as opposed to the lower rates who have jobs who don't tend to cycle their incomes through as much, the people with more money tend to be more active & make even more when the economy is hot. I can only back that with educated theory, that is what occurs, so that should explain it.
I was a real dick though, I apologize. I also don't give a fuck about spelling ; )
@omegahpla Except you've got it exactly backwards: it's the lower-earners who cycle through a greater percentage of their income since that's what's required for them to continue their lifestyle. People with more money invest more, partially arresting the cycle.
@shanedk Well I would have it backwards except we are talking about the shift. What you say is correct, but you know that when the economy rages it's not the lower tax brackets that kick up in volume, it's the higher ones. That results in a higher ratio of higher % tax rate on average, but I don't think you'll hear anyone complain (genuinely) because it does actually bring down their individual tax rates.
Again, the over all ratio to GDP will rise because of the higher ratio of top tax bracket
@omegahpla Of course there are probably those who get pushed up into high tax brackets as well, but they make more money so they are probably not feeling bad about it.
I know when you study this from one accounting paradigm it's hard to shift, but I've watched some of your vids & I know you look at things logically & I know you'll see what I saw. I don't think you would dispute any single point I made on income / tax % trends
I've seen you're smart, now we'll see if you are mentally agile : )
@omegahpla Are they earning more, or is inflation pushing them into higher brackets. Remember at the time of these "tax cuts" interest rates were being pushed down artificially as the government was borrowing more and more causing a real estate bubble that popped in 2008.
Also by your and John McCain's argument you could say the Economy in the 90's grew because of Clinton's tax increases. So much for your "Empiricism". There is a term for that. It is called Post Hoc reasoning.
@johnrainrules Ahh, that's a more intelligent post. The numbers were adjusted for inflation, but I guess that wouldn't account for the brackets, but then again neither would the inflation levels. There are factors here & there, but it's a fact incomes went up, and it's a fact that they did when adjusted for inflation.
My argument is deeper than one cycle & much as I detest McCain he was right there, not that it was on purpose or anything, lol. That ass will change arguments with the wind anyway
@omegahpla Inflation levels could easily explain it because wages are stickier than prices. They don't all rise at the same rate. That's why inflation is essentially a tax on the poor and middle class.
@shanedk The levels were around 3% right? per year? The growth was around 7% per anum? Plus there was a raise in minimum tax tables so less paid income taxes & a shift to people at higher levels making much more of an upward shift than in lower income levels, business dependent incomes rose quicker than salaries I'm saying. My numbers might be off because I'm going from memory. The effect I'm speaking of is real & it had to have some effect on the average tax rates paid, over the cut
Not according to independent analysts. The government has been deliberately under-counting inflation for decades. Pretty much none of the things that you actually buy are included in their inflation index.
@johnrainrules What popped in 2007 leading to effects in 2008 was more than a bubble, it was a set up. I'm libertarian in philosophy, but I'm a realist & I don't hedge to make anything sound like anything, I'm a "chips fall where they will and the truth will set you freealist" I suppose because much of the "their all the same" bullshit drives me crazy, no they are fucking not the same, they are damaging in different fucking ways ... I'm also kind of a fuckingist sometimes I guess.
@omegahpla If you mean the bubble itself was a setup, you're correct. Check Paul Krugman in 2002 saying that we need a housing bubble to replace the tech bubble, and proceeding to advocate all the things you need to do to create a bubble. Then, in 2006, he says, gee, I think there's a tech bubble. Oh, really? You must be Sherlock Freakin' Holmes or something...
@shanedk I'm going way past that out into the wild wild freaky conspiracy jungle lol. If you want I'll send you stuff
Krugman is such a flipin stuffed shirt phony idiot & the man is a liar with no honor. Have you seen him laughing at Peter Shiff saying we were in for a collapse? Paul & Shiff nailed it because they are not tied to the school of kill the economy, which I believe is done purposely to give some more power because a dependent populace is a stronger power base for government leaders.
@omegahpla Actually when I say I'm out in the jungle I'm talking about conventional thought on the subject. I have cause & effect progression that's pretty compelling, at least to myself, about what happened to the housing market, that it was set up, by who, and why. It has to do with fuel, the housing market & their effect on the banking industry / credit market & thus crashing business that used lines of credit or needed credit. That it was done with purpose starting back soon after JFKs death
@omegahpla Peter Schiff predicted the collapse during the Bush administration because of the bad monetary policy and deficits. By this logic you are "tied to the school of kill the economy" whatever that means.
@johnrainrules lol you need to pay attention, I'm not a big Bush fan. It's just that tax cuts kick up the economy & result in more revenue. The spending & monetary policy & big government I was NOT happy with. I don't hedge, I don't go with a myopic favoring or not of policy because of my view of other policy or a person. Everything needs to be judged on it's merits alone. I'll defend George Soros on some things, though I wish the bastard would drop dead. Even Obama if I could think of something
@johnrainrules We can't get into all the factors by specific numbers here. I'm not going to all the work to disprove this video that he didn't do the work to prove. Not enough data & the factors I've mentioned are proven EMPIRICALLY we also know that factors effects on the economy take months to decades. We know effects vary by magnitude of cause. If you understand economic conditions you know my theory's much more plausible than "everything's equalized" there's a World of empirical information.
@omegahpla I've studied a lot of economics, and of all the different economic conditions--prosperity, inflation, deflation, recession, depression--I've never heard of the "raging" condition...
@shanedk Well then I guess you ain't as bodaciously brilliant as you thought are ya? lol ... not because you've never heard of it, but because you made a point of it. All the shit you learned in economics in school isn't all of it. You didn't get "the economics" & there isn't an "approved language" & anal nitpicking is a sign of a mind stuck in someone elses box ... thus not thinking, just parroting. Is that whaz up? (ever hear of whaz up?) or some snotball attempt at cheap argument impeachment?
@omegahpla "Well then I guess you ain't as bodaciously brilliant as you thought are ya? lol ... not because you've never heard of it, but because you made a point of it."
That was sarcasm. There is no such economic condition as "raging." All you did was show your own pathetic ignorance.
@shanedk to be more responsive to your petty bull shit, raging, as in raging river, movin strong & goin real fast. Google Raging Economy if you have to, I didn't coin the phrase lol. Then you will have heard about it.
In the mean time, in order to show both Democrats & Republicans can take us to a bad place, you don't have to show both are equal in all respects, all the time. Some are worse on this issue, some on that, but very seldom are they the same in their policies effect on any issue.
@omegahpla Here's how I see it. A government with the power to choose winners & losers WILL ALWAYS become corrupt. ALWAYS. Those in power will usually succumb or even if they don't those corrupt individuals will bribe their way to power using promises of advantage to those who can help them gain power.
They KEY, government that is kept within Constitutional constraints enforcing only basic laws such as Fraud, Violence, Ect & civil officials who cycle through, no government careers, no pensions.
@omegahpla "raging, as in raging river, movin strong & goin real fast."
There is no sense of strength and speed in the market. But I figure you're talking about prosperity, which is the REAL term for it. Except that, as I've already told you, a prospering economy works exactly the opposite of the way you describe.
@shanedk Geez enough with the semantics bullshit ok? lol I'm a rebel, I don't like burea speak, I don't like the pretentious bullshit that leads people to equate language with technical competence. That's Paul Krugman style pretentious bullshit. I'm not going to limit myself, and I'll FART! in your general direction if you try to make me. If an economy is going fast, I'll say it's RAGING, and I'm not the first, so maybe I'll use economic power humping! Pretty sure no one else did How about that?
@shanedk Economic prosperity is a series of waves, ups & downs. It gets to a certain point it should fall, businesses should fail, things should slow down. If people were not idiots & kept resources in reserves that would be ok. It's when the government tries to soften the lows that it becomes a problem. Individual Charity? That's fantastic, Social programs? (I forkin hate the very word program with a passion) social programs are extremely destructive. They give Gov power to dole & put condition
@omegahpla You SERIOUSLY need to research Business Cycle Theory. It's not just that government is trying to soften the lows; it's CREATING the need for them to begin with!
@shanedk Much of what you say about bail outs & screwing with the monetary system I totally agree with. I'm arguing about tax policy & it's effects. I don't like deficits at all, but I don't see the wars as the same as making a pay off to your buddies with our tax money. The Wars were in no way just a "Bush" thing, but after we were in the democrats saw a chance to stab him in the back, after many of them being much louder about it than the administration. Didn't like our post invasion though.
@shanedk Really? you got me wit the too to thing? WOW, you checked out my channel for ammo? WOW! lol I hope you don't mind if I picture you in a baby outfit with the frills on the hood with a big whahhhh & one tooth? You know Grammer requires a very low level of intelligence don't you?
OK I was a dick, was amped from other shit I was into, sorry (2nd time tonight actually). I was also hasty on your video, it's not moronic, it's got a lot of good analysis to it though the conclusion doesn't add
@vspqbd Don't waste your grammar crap on me, could care less lol. Albert Einstein didn't give a fork about it either, so you really can't use that to say someone is stupid, unless it's the one using that lame shit, know what I mean? ; )
@vspqbd Shane got me to rewatch & figure out that the higher activity resulted in a higher % of payments made by higher tax brackets caused the phenomena he was blaming on a phantom of tax cuts not being tax cuts really, but still increasing economic activity which made no sense unless you figure out the higher % of higher tax bracket payments, so indirectly he taught me something, yes
I don't really give a flying frogs fat as+s about your grammar heroics of tovtoo, but if you wanna be proud...
@vspqbd Butt, on the subject o butt, Shane is a pretty smart guy if that was his theory, and if he can shake off the shackles of substandard education & think outside the Fabian shit box education has become as he shows promise of doing, he should become very aware & even dangerous ; ) I have to watch more of his vids but it's 3:50 am & I'm dawg tired here spellin nazi boy. You gotta get a better angle or you'll just be an ankle biter or ankle pwnr, like a mini dog humpin people's shoes n shit
@vspqbd ... butt still, people have to understand even if you don't understand why something works the way it does, you have to go with empiricism. Even if Bush tax cuts didn't cut taxes (but they did) they still increased economic activity, which is the goal because it helps the economy ... so even if for some math magical reason it wasn't really a tax cut, it still means McCain's (I really hate McCain too) argument was true while Obama's wasn't & they are not equally dirtball/incompetent.
@johnrainrules It does, it's also used in diverse study. There were economists who take more from the Austrian disciplines who touted empirical evidence. They labeled themselves empiricists. My spelling could be off, as it's been shown I'm not a huge anal source of grammatical correctness, butt I knows what I'z talkin bout!
@omegahpla Empiricism: The practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences. A theory that all knowledge comes from experience.
Apologetics: Systemic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine).
Given these two definitions, which one of these do you think your doing right now.
@johnrainrules I think I'm reading feckless drivel right now. I explained the meaning (applying empirical data to economics) who used it, how it applies. You obviously don't even understand the word empirical, so get a clue, or STFU fool
shanedk may be engaged in Apologetics, maybe an agenda to paint "both sides the same" is more important than realistic argument or maybe it's pride. He can't / won't explain the effect of higher tax brackets & less paying in lower on the GDP to tax relationship
@shanedk lol, well since you said it did I didn't think I'd get any argument about that point. Unless you're speaking of the [(but they did)] comment. As an aggregate you are absolutely correct, taxes didn't get cut. I can't say you are wrong there, your point is a good one
Until you get to the part about people's taxes not being cut, maybe you're technically correct there, but all things being same if no ones incomes went UP it would have been tax cut. They paid higher % because they made more
And look, even if you were to convince me about the actual cuts, they still wouldn't have had any effect because of the massive amounts of deficit spending. Tax cuts are meaningless unless they are met with spending cuts, and these most decidedly weren't.
@shanedk And again, while you are technically correct, when you attached that to th tax cuts making no difference in our lives? That statement wasn't quite on, if you concede that people care more about how much they make to take home, than what % they pay in taxes. I don't think many would argue against that point. Would you? Maybe we could do a survey? lol
@omegahpla That's fallacious reasoning. Granted, it's fallacious reasoning the government counts on, but that doesn't change the fact that people on the whole were not taking home as much money as they would have.
@shanedk Fallacious Reasoning? You mean people were making more money, keeping more money, but shouldn't have been happy with that because the government was getting more money too? That would be fallacious reasoning in my book.
I'm sorry man, it seems pretty cut & dried which benefits the people most. More money to people & government is a win win in my book. If it's not then that's some strange rules.
I don't see much use for propaganda to prove a point, I'm more into truth will set you free
@omegahpla "You mean people were making more money, keeping more money, but shouldn't have been happy with that because the government was getting more money too?"
Government does NOT make money. (Well, it prints it, but that's not the same thing.) PEOPLE were making that money and government was just TAKING it. Pretending that that money is the government's is perverse; claiming it's a tax CUT is just plain dishonesty.
@shanedk haha, either you're confused or you're blowing smoke. The semantical obfuscation about who "makes money"? blagh ect ... They got more revenues because the GDP expanded and the smaller % they were getting was offset in excess of the cut. In very simple terms, 20% of a 10 lb pie is more than 30% of a 5 lb pie.
The relation to GDP is explained by more money being made @ higher tax brackets. In fact in Bushes case 40% or so paid NO taxes.
@omegahpla I mean after the Bush cuts many more people paid nothing in income taxes. Whatever ... the tax cuts brought in more revenue & the economy ramped up. The history on this is clear, unless you listen to the smoke screeners who obfuscate the numbers or the bone head sheep who fall for anything the herd thinks they should.
There are anomalies like the tech bubble, but they correct. The constant is that the economy grows with tax cuts, since Coolidge not long after they started income tax
@shanedk ... so your point is that tax levels don't matter? Unless someone you like is President, maybe? This is starting to smell like an argument worked backwards from an agenda & it's taking smoke & gyrations. I don't want to see it that way. I like about all of what you have to say, watched a few of your vids & subscribed. I have no tolerance for hedging on reality to set things up perfectly for a pre selected solution. If it's a good solution it can stand on pure fact & nothing is perfect
@shanedk Lower tax levels kick up activity, but spending does damage. It's not like it doesn't matter, it does, both actions do in their own way. They have the effects they have, and it's NEVER the same, or extremely rarely. All things being equal, lower taxes are better 2 ways. The economy grows & government has less control. The point of government control isn't how much they have, but how much the people have. People who have more are less dependent & less controllable. That's good.
@shanedk All things being equal I said, did you read that? Yes, spending being reduced helps, but you're talking as if amounts don't matter, and they do. The more I probe this thing the more it's sounding like a religion than economics. Are you starting the Church of "It's all the same"? Is this some simple propaganda to feed idiot sheep to get them to vote for a certain guy? Did you ever calculate out the inflation numbers vs the spending vs cuts? General Hog Wash doesn't mean anything real.
@omegahpla "All things being equal I said, did you read that?"
Yes, and if all things are equal--INCLUDING SPENDING--then spending HASN'T DROPPED.
Inflation is, in effect, a tax. And it's a very regressive tax that takes from the poor and middle class disproportionately. So if you reduce taxes without reducing spending, the resulting inflation means that the money spent represents wealth taken from them. That's a basic economic fact.
I've heard arguments about deficit spending not increasing inflation, but the way I figured it, it would still decrease economic growth and prosperity.
@vspqbd True, I just have to wonder if the Government wasn't $13 trillion or so in debt what sort of capital assets would people have invested in instead? Maybe that's why we don't have flying cars and 4 second ready dehydrated pizzas like they promised in Back to the Future 2 :)
@johnrainrules That's one of the worse things, but I think the worst is that it takes wealth regressively from the poor and middle-class and gives it to banks and politically-connected corporations.
@shanedk Plus some of that money taken from the poor and middle class may have gone into capital assets so they aren't just stealing whatever they took from the poor and the middle class, but also any potential profits they would have made.
@shanedk No, if you reduce revenues without reducing spending that leads to inflation if they monetize. Reducing tax doesn't reduce revenues, increasing tax reduces revenues. Revenues we need to pay down the debt WHEN we reduce spending. I'm as big on reducing spending as you are, but you're dishonest or stupid about who you blame for debt. Bush reduced spending except for the Wars, and Republicans were not along pushing for war so you can pin all that on Bush and be honest at the same time.
@omegahpla Nope, but since Libertarians opposed Bush, Clintons, and Obamas military actions, and Omega supports Bush and opposes Clinton and Obama for doing the exact same thing, that just shows Omega supports a large Government if a Republican is in charge.
@omegahpla "Reducing tax doesn't reduce revenues" , cool , why don't we set tax rates to negative 1,000,000 % and have the Fed reduce the prime rate to negative 100% and then we can borrow and get money from the Government and then everyone will be rich and no one will ever have to work again.
@omegahpla "Bush reduced spending except for the Wars"
This is just wrong. The prescription drug benefit cost a ton of money adding to the colossal spending of Medicare.
George W. Bush increased non-defense discretionary spending more than any previous President.
He also proposed TARP. John McCain and Obama both voted for it in the Senate and in 2008 Sarah Palin stated that "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in"
Yet according to Omega only Obama should be condemned.
@johnrainrules Obama was given his choice of direction & Bush respected it as he was coming in. Obama signed tarp, not only that Obama chose tarp. Bush couldn't have dictated anyway as he was a lame duck with an incoming massive majority of democrats & the democrat president. Bush just helped them expedite what they wanted to do because he was more into what is good for the country than the idiotic petty ass holes the democrats have put in office for the last few decades, since JFK.
@omegahpla Humm, wait, not sure about that. I have to go and read up again. My memory is a little fuzzy about all that went on. Bush did Consult Obama on how he wished to proceed & went with what Obama wanted to do, just not sure who signed what. Bush did the AIG bailout ... I'm pretty sure, ahh. I have to read up & I don't have time right now. Didn't want to leave bad info out there. The truth will set you free man : )
@omegahpla Your memory is fuzzy about a lot of things. You claimed your idol George W. cut non-defense spending when he increased it more than any previous President. You claimed Bush signed TARP after the election when he and his Treasury secretary proposed it when Obama and McCain were neck and neck in the polls.
If the truth will set you free, then why do you make so many grossly inaccurate statements?
@johnrainrules lol, you idiots are like arguing with 3rd graders. I admit to a mistake and you're all over it as if desperate to win a personal argument & the substance is secondary. That doesn't help your point, defamation against an opponent to reduce their credibility is a sophist trick, and sophists are pathetic & contemptible lower life forms, is that your goal? Being a great sophist? That's pathetic
@omegahpla It is apparent from this post Omega doesn't know what a sophist is. The only thing that is pathetic is Omega crying when he is caught being factually wrong about everything, but only every single time.
@omegahpla You can't have done MUCH "reading up," or you would have known that Bush signed TARP into law on 5 October 2010, a month BEFORE Obama was elected.
@shanedk Great win, I admitted I'd been fuzzy on something & you won! Yeaaa Good for you, along with searching my profile & finding a typo. You must be just proud as punch of yourself, lol.
You know my big problem with Ron Paul? He attracts immature sophists like you & your little gang of grade school mentality wanna be bullies here. You don't mind making a dishonest point, using sophist tactics, jumping on personal shit to try to impeach persons when your ideas don't cut it.
@omegahpla "Sophist tactics" to Omega means not lying and compromising your principles to appeal to Omega's god Bush. Instead of being an "Empiricist" like he claims Omega is just an Apologist .
@johnrainrules Your own language offends your own image, and you don't even understand that, what a childish fool, lol. Your God Bush? Just God?, couldn't you think of something stupider? probably not, I think you hit the bottom of barrel & are pretty well saturated with the g slime (g short for garbage, I call the garbage guys the g men, it's funny)
@omegahpla "I call the garbage men g men, it's funny)" Not only do you not know what sophist means, but now I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word funny means.
@omegahpla This coming from someone who claims that he's a Peter Schiff fan, but is pro-inflation. Why don't you diarrhea all over his comments section how you think inflation lowers taxes, and how Bush was a great President.
@johnrainrules You should enter a contest for the most prolific use of opportunistic insipid assumption to support mis-characterization for purpose of extreme drivelation. You'd probably do pretty well. They could call it the frothing idiot award, Congratulations!
@johnrainrules You won't mind if I just leave you to your own foaming & nose bubbles now, will you. I'm sure you can manufacture your own idiocy as you don't really use much thats actually conveyed anyway.
@shanedk You engaged in sophistry in the ways I've been complaining about for a few days when I was trying to really see what you were talking about & why. It's become evident you're a sloppy immature punk who doesn't mind making a dishonest point to back a theme you want to push, it fits in with the whole defamatory idiocy you developmentally delayed slip into on a knee jerk. I knew that was a bad sign, but you seem to have intelligent stuff going on & I like to find nuggets I can in the slag.
@omegahpla In order to be sophistry, it must be two things: 1) it must be fallacious, and 2) it must be deliberately misleading. You haven't done the FIRST FUCKING THING to even show #1, let alone #2. So this is just a bald assertion on your part, and an ad hominem at that.
@shanedk Oh Jesus, it's just a word that means making disingenuous arguments or other variations of that. An argument that sounds convincing but is deliberately misleading as half truths. If you want start asking for evidence on every word ask your child john blaugh blaugh blaugh to prove Bush is my God, he didn't prove that
I can't PROVE your intent, I'm saying it. I've seen enough to understand that you're much more concerned with your pretext of everything is the same than specific accuracy
@shanedk Also, defamatory bull shit to obfuscate the point or information someone brings up is a sophists tactic, anything to knowing mislead or obstruct fact, as that is the goal. I don't know what your dictionary says, I know how it's been used for a very long time, I don't need to argue semantics. If you don't like the word I used then sub something else with the same meaning, who the fuck cares? How this has anything to do with the point is as beyond rational processes as the to too fn thing
@omegahpla You know, I just thought of the obvious. You're probably reading someone else's shit you don't fully understand. That's the difference in your videos that have seemed pretty intelligent, from the level & intelligence (lack of) used in your adolescentesque discourse.
I don't believe I've spent all this time arguing with you fucking idiots in this fucking cyber romper room, ya got me, now all of your fucking pea brained morons can just go fuck yourselves. I hate wasting my fucking time
@johnrainrules Yeah, I said I did know. Bush brought Obama in & followed his recommendation on something very substantial, but I fogged on what it was, which was a great victory for the little lord of the flies gang that hangs here, which is sad. Ideas are important to people of substance, not spelling lol, not jumping on someone who forgot something & self corrected admitting the mistake on his own, not trying to hide it or fore flush, like you fools do on a knee jerk.
@omegahpla That's projection on your part, only replace debt with taxes from a president you don't like. Shane has been very consistent in calling out Obama and Bush for bad monetary policy and too much debt, among other things. Including in this very video.
@shanedk Taxes were cut, people paid a lower rate than they would have, it's a fact. They paid more taxes, because of WHAT? Cause the president sucked? Magical suckiness just messed everything up and a different guy would make magical unsuckiness? I agree less spending is very important, it would help mucho, but for the love of God, how about dealing with facts in stead of hedging to set up some absolutist scenario?
The increase in income explains the increase in % of GDP because of tax rates
@omegahpla "Taxes were cut, people paid a lower rate than they would have, it's a fact. They paid more taxes, because of WHAT?"
The "rate" cut was just an accounting trick, something they did on paper to make it look good. In reality, it was just a reshuffling of the tax burden. This is NOT magic, it's just economic reality. The increase in income was a phantom effect of inflation and a financial bubble.
@shanedk lol, sounds like reverse engineering to me. Post Hawk blablabla as your cool phrase dropping friend would say. Lower tax rates means you have a better chance at black instead of red. Which means your business has a better chance of succeed, less chance of fail. It's REAL. It doesn't mean there isn't a better alternative than both of them, but it does mean THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! You're driven me nuts with this shit! lol
@omegahpla "Lower tax rates means you have a better chance at black instead of red."
No, it doesn't, because it's a Multiplier Effect. Whatever benefit you might gain gets eaten up by inflation. So it appears that you have more money, but all of a sudden everything is more expensive. And since your wages are going to lag behind that, you'll be WORSE off.
@johnrainrules Yep, the real estate bubble corrected, that's very true, not exactly the same as companies with NO intrinsic value blowing up like a balloon with hot air and going back to nothing, but I think the housing bubble added a good 20% above reasonable value on average. If that was a stand alone case of tax cuts increasing GDP then I'd question it, but the housing bubble wasn't enough or timed to be the main factor in the GDP boost
I contend that fuel & mortgages were used, deliberately
@omegahpla Of course it is not the same. A lot of great technology emerged after the tech bubble. Some of that capital went to productive use. The poor monetary policy used to give the U.S. economy a boost in 2001 to now was like doing a line of coke. All stimulation no practical benefit. Pretty much a giant circle jerk.
@johnrainrules "A lot of great technology emerged after the tech bubble."
There's no reason to think that this technology wouldn't have come about absent the bubble. Remember how a bubble works: things get overvalued, and when the bubble bursts and the recession hits things get valued back to where they should be. So anything that survives from a bubble must have had a genuine value (unlike all the worthless websites etc. that came out of it). Amazon etc. continued to do great for that reason.
@shanedk Actually, I've seen rather worse outcomes than that.
For instance, one of the later casualties of the .com crash was @Home, a company anyone who had cable internet service before about 2001 is likely to recall (likely with annoyance). They made some BAD investments. For instance, they lost something like $700 million on Blue Mountain Greeting Cards. As they were about $1 billion in the red at collapse, avoiding that and one other similarly bad decision and they might still be here.
@evensgrey Yes, because they had a sucky business model. But look at all of the others that had sound business models that came out of that era, such as Amazon and eBay. They're still going strong.
@shanedk Yes, but did they manage to put themselves into that kind of financial hole because they made too many bad decisions at the same time?
I can also tell you, on the basis of the kinds of technical problems they had in the last year before they went under, that the writing was clearly on the wall for a long time. A major ISP should not have misrouted IP blocks that loop. It happened often enough under @Home that we have a standard reporting procedure for it.
@shanedk But the question I'm asking is if companies like Amazon and eBay made bad investment decisions on the scale of Blue Mountain Greeting Cards to the extent that they ended up with 10 digits of red ink. It seems implausible that they could have survived if they had.
BTW, the business model they had wasn't actually all that bad. They did all the data networking stuff for being a cable modem ISP. Of course, getting the people to do that got easier after the .com bubble burst.
@shanedk I think that badly overpaying for a company does make it a bad investment. A good investment is, in very rough terms, one that makes you a net profit. A bad investment is one that makes you a net loss.
Of course, when a bubble bursts, those who have a fair amount of liquid cash and have done their homework to figure out which companies are really worth something in the area can make out like bandits. A bubble bursting almost always drops stock price well below where they should be.
@evensgrey The same is true for the housing bubble, which overvalued homes. It was also true of the S&L bubble, which overvalued S&L assets and made them seem more secure than they really were. It's just what happens with bubbles.
@johnrainrules So you're saying we should be at a constant state of War because the tech advances are great! You're getting boring with this bullshit, but I'll give you the point that the tech advances were serious. Time will tell how that works out. Now everyone is FAT! lol
@vspqbd He didn't, he said the tech bubble was great because we advanced technologically. I equated that with War because we make huge tech advances during war ... being a smart ass, but making the point that good & bad can come out of must situtations. basically that I thought his argument was lame ass : )
@omegahpla I said the tech bubble was better than the real estate bubble because there was more spin off tech. I did not say it was great. Bubbles that are the result of bad monetary policy are always bad. Of course the Real Estate bubble was caused by a more debt ridden, low interest rate policy than the Tech Bubble.
Also the technology that comes out of periods of war is not as impressive as those that come out of peacetime entrepreneurship.
@johnrainrules The reason why the bubble went to the tech sector is because it WAS producing real wealth, and this was attractive to investors. But with the housing bubble, the attraction to housing wasn't due to the increasing wealth in the housing market, it was because of the illusion of this due to Fannie and Freddie.
There's no reason to think the wealth that came out of the tech bubble wouldn't have happened anyway. In fact, there likely would have been more.
@shanedk Yeah, Omega claimed the Real Estate bubble was somehow superior to the tech bubble, I stated the tech bubble had some spin off technologies and the housing bubble was simply a circle jerk.
Of course I made it clear both bubbles were chock full of mal-investment due to poor Fed policy among other things and Omega simply heard tech bubble good, real estate bubble bad.
He seems to think because I'm not a Bush supporter that I must think everything Clinton did was swell.
@shanedk You have the mindset of a dogmatist if anyone does. You're all about trying to push things to say both sides were the same, that's ridiculous. You're whole pigeon holing thing of those who don't think your arguments have merit is a symptom. You're not making reasonable arguments ... you say it's just all the same, that's what you cling to. That's your political point you wrap all your arguments around, when it should be the other way.
@johnrainrules Don't speak for me especially when you just bastardize what I say. What are ya a zit faced 13 year old punk? The real estate values were based on real assets. Much of the tech was absolutely devoid of value. The actually effect of the housing bubble was much worse, but Bush wasn't even much of it's cause, that's just a fact. Clinton didn't cause the tech bubble either, but he rides it like it was a +. Bush tried to rein in Freddy & Fannie & Dems acted like the world was ending
@shanedk Oh good greif, the tech bubble is one of the easiest phenomena to track because companies rose to billions in "value" on pure hot air, with no physical assets, without serious people behind them or much of a plan. Tech bubble was seriously full of air. The housing bubble was inflated assets probably by about 20% average over value. Real Estate didn't pop & leave NO value. The biggest problem was it's use as securitized bundled assets used for the largest category of collateral by far.
@omegahpla Actually the tech advances during the computer boom of the 90's had nothing to do with war. In fact it was your favorite president that started two wars and ran us into more debt, so if anyone supports a constant state oof war it is neo-conservatives like omega.
@johnrainrules Well if Bush is my favorite president the Chairman Mao is yours, idiot. Can't you deal with information? Are just just puking propaganda?
It may seem I'm touting Bush, when what I am touting is REALITY, TRUTH, HONEST EVALUATION, SHIT LIKE THAT. Because the Truth will set you free, Bullshit you just get stuck in and drown in the shit if it's as deep as you've been pushing
The Democrats were in on the Wars idiot, louder than the Administration in many cases. Clinton made it policy
@omegahpla Bush and Chairman Mao have a lot in common, including secret prisons.
If the Democrats were "in on the wars", does that make you a Democrat? Of course people like Ron Paul were against the wars and the spending no matter who was in power. Showing that Omega has no principles, situational ethics, and bad post hoc reasoning.
Omega has stated Clinton, Obama, and Bush all did the exact same things, but he supports Bush and opposes Clinton and Obama. Go figure.
@omegahpla "The semantical obfuscation about who "makes money"?"
It's NOT semantical obfuscation--it's something people need to understand. When they do, they'll see how things like "stimulus" and "bailout" don't do anything except line the pockets of the politically-connected.
@shanedk I meant, I wasn't talking about creating wealth when I said making money, I was talking about receiving revenue. Why can't the meaning be what I said in stead of going off into some different subject? That's just blowing smoke ... I agree with your point, but you brought oranges to an apple ... thing lol
Is there some reason you don't want to stick to the numbers you were talking about? It's not usually a good sign when someone deliberately throws smoke into the mix, smells like, smoke
@shanedk About 40% of the pop. don't pay income tax, many get paid money from the coffers, so they not only don't pay, they take out of the system.
Next you'll be preaching the doctrine of same, so vote for ____ . Just equalizing the Obama Budget with the Bush Budget, when they are not the same. Until we demand the flippin truth it doesn't matter who we have. Someone willing to lie to us is someone driven by bad motives, and they will stab us in the back. We need a president who doesn't want it
@shanedk lol, no, they don't. They don't make enough to pay taxes. Even if they did "pay taxes" it wouldn't be taxes, in reality it would just be making less. How can you pay on what you were given? They didn't work for it, it came strait from the Government, if some of it goes back it just means they got that much less
Quite different from money earned by creating wealth, quite a bit different, but your using that does serve a purpose. It shows your intent is first to prove "it's all the same"
@omegahpla They don't pay social security taxes? They don't buy any items that are taxed? No phone or cable service? No gas for their cars? Also since the poor keep their money in cash none of their wealth was inflated away?
@johnrainrules You know why you have to keep pulling bullshit in while I was talking about income tax? Because you have no good point. Nice obfuscation, what a fucking crock.
@omegahpla "Someone willing to lie to us is someone driven by bad motives, and they will stab us in the back."
Then why do you support G.W. Since he even lied about cutting taxes. Or like most slavish adherents to the two party system is it only lying when the other party does it.
@johnrainrules Don't be an idiot, Bush did cut taxes. If there was some scheme to "make everything exactly the same" it wasn't Bush designing it. Now if you want to talk about which president was worse, we can talk about stolen FBI files. The Clinton Gorelick Wall to let the Chinese who were supporting Clinton steal our tech while we were blinded & the Terrorists got in because law enforcement couldn't talk to intelligence. Going around channels to sell China dangerous missile tech, ect ...
@shanedk take a good look at yourself lol, Are you saying they didn't steal nearly 1000 fbi files on Republicans? It was all in the news. They didn't use Ron Brown to go around the dept of defense to get China Missile Guidance Tech? From the corp of an associate of Clinton? Ron Brown didn't get in some shit, start threatening to say some things unless Clinton got him out of it & end up dead in a "plane crash"? With a neat hole in his skull that took a high speed projectile to create? No Wall?hum
@shanedk Clinton didn't get campaign contributions from the Chinese then the Democrats refused to turn in their contribution statements before the 1996 elections? Funny, I was there & it was in the news for a blip. Gore was never videoed coming out of a Chinese monastery with bags of cash? lol You know Clinton's records of contributions are missing from Arkansas too? Funny, then his chief of staff Sandy Berger stuffed records from the National Archives in his undies to steal them & got no prison
@shanedk Then the dept of justice didn't make him complete his plea deal of taking a lie detector test about what he took & why? Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it? I mean gee, if knowing what's gone on & is going on makes someone a kook, I guess you're not a kook ... just a 2 bit hedger pushing a simple line of bullshit ignoring reality to push YOUR candidate. See they have to be the same or one would be better than the other right? Well, I've been independent since I voted Perot, BIG MISTAKE
@omegahpla No way Clinton would have won without Perot, and that's when Clinton started putting together the destruction of the banking industry. Do you know who he appointed as CEO for Freddy & Fannie? You know that Clinton Gorelick Wall? Yeah, Gorelick. Frank Reins, the SOB who cooked the books & walked away from Fannie with an ity bitty 90 million $ bonus he didn't earn, and was never prosecuted for fraud, then Obama used his as a Chief economic adviser after all that until people had a SHIT
@omegahpla Didn't even talk of Al Gore, he's all in the middle of the Global Warming scam, while he invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange, made that bullshit movie, won his bullshit awards ... ect
You don't think bringing the banking / credit industry down & Global Warming scam & Chicago Climate Exchange ... the fuel prices being driven up by speculators / investment advisers involved? To many of the same damned people ... linked back to Soros & other Fabian Bankers
@omegahpla And another CEO? Mayor Dailys Brother, the Mobster From Chicago, also mayor, lol, his brother. These guys set up secodary loan market requirements, what they would buy, and they dictate the government loan standard by what they buy ... and the News blamed it on Bankers! LOL! The bankers they are talking about are governments BITCHES, they can put them out of business any time & the government likes it that way. They allow them to operate outside the rules so they can use those rules.
Taxes per household is an awful measure considering households are distorted by number of people and employment affects who pays taxes.
Like if there was 10% unemployment taxes per household would drop since no one is working and paying their income tax.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
The tax policy center has a chart of the effective federal tax rate for all households from 1979 to 2007. On the years in the chart, the highest effective tax rate was in 2000 at 23%, it reached its low in 2003 with 19.8%, in 2007 it was 20.4%. So although its true that taxes went up from 2003, they went way down from 2000.
donttreadonmyass 10 months ago
According to the "Taxes per Household" graph the tax rate increased 46.5% under Clinton from $15,801 to $23,151. While Clinton did raise taxes with the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 by raising the rate from 36% to 39.6% on the top 1.2% of wage earners that certainly wouldn't account for the numbers you've shown in your graph. Can you please explain this discrepancy?
davwhitt 11 months ago
@davwhitt I know this comment is 3 weeks old, but whatever.
In 1993 the richest 1% had an average income of $807,900, in 2000 it was $1,551,000, in inflation adjusted dollars. The amount they paid in taxes went from $278,000 to $512,000. Considering that the richest 1% make up 1% of the population, this corresponds to an "Average" of a $2,400 tax increase from the richest 1% alone.
donttreadonmyass 10 months ago
@donttreadonmyass
I still don't understand your math here. Your graph indicates a 46.5% average tax rate increase per household between 1993 and 2000. Your response only mentions the top 1% leaving out the other 99% which I assume is calculated in that average for the graph you posted. But since you've mentioned the top 1% based on your numbers their income increased by 92% while their taxes paid increased by 84% meaning an 8% drop (807,900/278,000 > 1,551,000/512,000).
davwhitt 10 months ago
Comment removed
davwhitt 10 months ago
Two years later, however, Obama is in office. And he's screwing USA upside down, alright.
Denon333dash888 1 year ago
Moral of the story: Tax cuts are when the state claims to and takes one bullet of the the gun, but puts two in its place.
Just like government "deregulation".
vspqbd 1 year ago 14
I deleted my fucked up insulting post, hope you don't mind. It was a shitty post made too quickly without enough thought & it was pretty rude.
omegahpla 1 year ago
Comment removed
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla It doesn't ALWAYS happen, IDIOT. Look at the Laffer Curve. The idea (as I SAID IN THE VIDEO--one of these days the ignorant dogmatists will actually pay attention) is that the lower tax rate spurs economic growth, raising revenues. But that doesn't understand why revenues increased AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. Even in an ideal scenario, the real revenue increase would just be an equal percentage of GDP.
In short: you're a moron.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I think the reason revenue increases as a % of GDP is that higher tax rate payers pay more as they are cycling their income, as opposed to the lower rates who have jobs who don't tend to cycle their incomes through as much, the people with more money tend to be more active & make even more when the economy is hot. I can only back that with educated theory, that is what occurs, so that should explain it.
I was a real dick though, I apologize. I also don't give a fuck about spelling ; )
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Except you've got it exactly backwards: it's the lower-earners who cycle through a greater percentage of their income since that's what's required for them to continue their lifestyle. People with more money invest more, partially arresting the cycle.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Well I would have it backwards except we are talking about the shift. What you say is correct, but you know that when the economy rages it's not the lower tax brackets that kick up in volume, it's the higher ones. That results in a higher ratio of higher % tax rate on average, but I don't think you'll hear anyone complain (genuinely) because it does actually bring down their individual tax rates.
Again, the over all ratio to GDP will rise because of the higher ratio of top tax bracket
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Of course there are probably those who get pushed up into high tax brackets as well, but they make more money so they are probably not feeling bad about it.
I know when you study this from one accounting paradigm it's hard to shift, but I've watched some of your vids & I know you look at things logically & I know you'll see what I saw. I don't think you would dispute any single point I made on income / tax % trends
I've seen you're smart, now we'll see if you are mentally agile : )
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Are they earning more, or is inflation pushing them into higher brackets. Remember at the time of these "tax cuts" interest rates were being pushed down artificially as the government was borrowing more and more causing a real estate bubble that popped in 2008.
Also by your and John McCain's argument you could say the Economy in the 90's grew because of Clinton's tax increases. So much for your "Empiricism". There is a term for that. It is called Post Hoc reasoning.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Ahh, that's a more intelligent post. The numbers were adjusted for inflation, but I guess that wouldn't account for the brackets, but then again neither would the inflation levels. There are factors here & there, but it's a fact incomes went up, and it's a fact that they did when adjusted for inflation.
My argument is deeper than one cycle & much as I detest McCain he was right there, not that it was on purpose or anything, lol. That ass will change arguments with the wind anyway
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Inflation levels could easily explain it because wages are stickier than prices. They don't all rise at the same rate. That's why inflation is essentially a tax on the poor and middle class.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The levels were around 3% right? per year? The growth was around 7% per anum? Plus there was a raise in minimum tax tables so less paid income taxes & a shift to people at higher levels making much more of an upward shift than in lower income levels, business dependent incomes rose quicker than salaries I'm saying. My numbers might be off because I'm going from memory. The effect I'm speaking of is real & it had to have some effect on the average tax rates paid, over the cut
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "The levels were around 3% right?"
Not according to independent analysts. The government has been deliberately under-counting inflation for decades. Pretty much none of the things that you actually buy are included in their inflation index.
shanedk 1 year ago
@johnrainrules What popped in 2007 leading to effects in 2008 was more than a bubble, it was a set up. I'm libertarian in philosophy, but I'm a realist & I don't hedge to make anything sound like anything, I'm a "chips fall where they will and the truth will set you freealist" I suppose because much of the "their all the same" bullshit drives me crazy, no they are fucking not the same, they are damaging in different fucking ways ... I'm also kind of a fuckingist sometimes I guess.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla If you mean the bubble itself was a setup, you're correct. Check Paul Krugman in 2002 saying that we need a housing bubble to replace the tech bubble, and proceeding to advocate all the things you need to do to create a bubble. Then, in 2006, he says, gee, I think there's a tech bubble. Oh, really? You must be Sherlock Freakin' Holmes or something...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I'm going way past that out into the wild wild freaky conspiracy jungle lol. If you want I'll send you stuff
Krugman is such a flipin stuffed shirt phony idiot & the man is a liar with no honor. Have you seen him laughing at Peter Shiff saying we were in for a collapse? Paul & Shiff nailed it because they are not tied to the school of kill the economy, which I believe is done purposely to give some more power because a dependent populace is a stronger power base for government leaders.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Actually when I say I'm out in the jungle I'm talking about conventional thought on the subject. I have cause & effect progression that's pretty compelling, at least to myself, about what happened to the housing market, that it was set up, by who, and why. It has to do with fuel, the housing market & their effect on the banking industry / credit market & thus crashing business that used lines of credit or needed credit. That it was done with purpose starting back soon after JFKs death
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Peter Schiff predicted the collapse during the Bush administration because of the bad monetary policy and deficits. By this logic you are "tied to the school of kill the economy" whatever that means.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules lol you need to pay attention, I'm not a big Bush fan. It's just that tax cuts kick up the economy & result in more revenue. The spending & monetary policy & big government I was NOT happy with. I don't hedge, I don't go with a myopic favoring or not of policy because of my view of other policy or a person. Everything needs to be judged on it's merits alone. I'll defend George Soros on some things, though I wish the bastard would drop dead. Even Obama if I could think of something
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla I have seen numerous videos of people laughing or rolling their eyes at Peter Schiff, but not Krugman. Got a link?
donttreadonmyass 1 year ago
@shanedk (Oops, that should be housing bubble, not tech bubble.)
shanedk 1 year ago
@johnrainrules We can't get into all the factors by specific numbers here. I'm not going to all the work to disprove this video that he didn't do the work to prove. Not enough data & the factors I've mentioned are proven EMPIRICALLY we also know that factors effects on the economy take months to decades. We know effects vary by magnitude of cause. If you understand economic conditions you know my theory's much more plausible than "everything's equalized" there's a World of empirical information.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Yet again your post hoc reasoning is not Empirical.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@omegahpla I've studied a lot of economics, and of all the different economic conditions--prosperity, inflation, deflation, recession, depression--I've never heard of the "raging" condition...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Well then I guess you ain't as bodaciously brilliant as you thought are ya? lol ... not because you've never heard of it, but because you made a point of it. All the shit you learned in economics in school isn't all of it. You didn't get "the economics" & there isn't an "approved language" & anal nitpicking is a sign of a mind stuck in someone elses box ... thus not thinking, just parroting. Is that whaz up? (ever hear of whaz up?) or some snotball attempt at cheap argument impeachment?
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Well then I guess you ain't as bodaciously brilliant as you thought are ya? lol ... not because you've never heard of it, but because you made a point of it."
That was sarcasm. There is no such economic condition as "raging." All you did was show your own pathetic ignorance.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk to be more responsive to your petty bull shit, raging, as in raging river, movin strong & goin real fast. Google Raging Economy if you have to, I didn't coin the phrase lol. Then you will have heard about it.
In the mean time, in order to show both Democrats & Republicans can take us to a bad place, you don't have to show both are equal in all respects, all the time. Some are worse on this issue, some on that, but very seldom are they the same in their policies effect on any issue.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Here's how I see it. A government with the power to choose winners & losers WILL ALWAYS become corrupt. ALWAYS. Those in power will usually succumb or even if they don't those corrupt individuals will bribe their way to power using promises of advantage to those who can help them gain power.
They KEY, government that is kept within Constitutional constraints enforcing only basic laws such as Fraud, Violence, Ect & civil officials who cycle through, no government careers, no pensions.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "raging, as in raging river, movin strong & goin real fast."
There is no sense of strength and speed in the market. But I figure you're talking about prosperity, which is the REAL term for it. Except that, as I've already told you, a prospering economy works exactly the opposite of the way you describe.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Geez enough with the semantics bullshit ok? lol I'm a rebel, I don't like burea speak, I don't like the pretentious bullshit that leads people to equate language with technical competence. That's Paul Krugman style pretentious bullshit. I'm not going to limit myself, and I'll FART! in your general direction if you try to make me. If an economy is going fast, I'll say it's RAGING, and I'm not the first, so maybe I'll use economic power humping! Pretty sure no one else did How about that?
omegahpla 1 year ago
@shanedk Economic prosperity is a series of waves, ups & downs. It gets to a certain point it should fall, businesses should fail, things should slow down. If people were not idiots & kept resources in reserves that would be ok. It's when the government tries to soften the lows that it becomes a problem. Individual Charity? That's fantastic, Social programs? (I forkin hate the very word program with a passion) social programs are extremely destructive. They give Gov power to dole & put condition
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla You SERIOUSLY need to research Business Cycle Theory. It's not just that government is trying to soften the lows; it's CREATING the need for them to begin with!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Much of what you say about bail outs & screwing with the monetary system I totally agree with. I'm arguing about tax policy & it's effects. I don't like deficits at all, but I don't see the wars as the same as making a pay off to your buddies with our tax money. The Wars were in no way just a "Bush" thing, but after we were in the democrats saw a chance to stab him in the back, after many of them being much louder about it than the administration. Didn't like our post invasion though.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla From this guy's channel page:
"I know to much about to many things"
Yeah, except for the difference between "to" and "too"...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"'to' and 'too'..."
Do you want to use that video, or shall I?
vspqbd 1 year ago
@shanedk Really? you got me wit the too to thing? WOW, you checked out my channel for ammo? WOW! lol I hope you don't mind if I picture you in a baby outfit with the frills on the hood with a big whahhhh & one tooth? You know Grammer requires a very low level of intelligence don't you?
OK I was a dick, was amped from other shit I was into, sorry (2nd time tonight actually). I was also hasty on your video, it's not moronic, it's got a lot of good analysis to it though the conclusion doesn't add
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla
/watch?v=FAg5Q7S-u4w
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Don't waste your grammar crap on me, could care less lol. Albert Einstein didn't give a fork about it either, so you really can't use that to say someone is stupid, unless it's the one using that lame shit, know what I mean? ; )
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla
Now if only your economics were as good as you make them out to be.
Shane just pwned you on economics, I did on grammar.
Butthurt much?
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Shane got me to rewatch & figure out that the higher activity resulted in a higher % of payments made by higher tax brackets caused the phenomena he was blaming on a phantom of tax cuts not being tax cuts really, but still increasing economic activity which made no sense unless you figure out the higher % of higher tax bracket payments, so indirectly he taught me something, yes
I don't really give a flying frogs fat as+s about your grammar heroics of tovtoo, but if you wanna be proud...
omegahpla 1 year ago
@vspqbd Butt, on the subject o butt, Shane is a pretty smart guy if that was his theory, and if he can shake off the shackles of substandard education & think outside the Fabian shit box education has become as he shows promise of doing, he should become very aware & even dangerous ; ) I have to watch more of his vids but it's 3:50 am & I'm dawg tired here spellin nazi boy. You gotta get a better angle or you'll just be an ankle biter or ankle pwnr, like a mini dog humpin people's shoes n shit
omegahpla 1 year ago
@vspqbd ... butt still, people have to understand even if you don't understand why something works the way it does, you have to go with empiricism. Even if Bush tax cuts didn't cut taxes (but they did) they still increased economic activity, which is the goal because it helps the economy ... so even if for some math magical reason it wasn't really a tax cut, it still means McCain's (I really hate McCain too) argument was true while Obama's wasn't & they are not equally dirtball/incompetent.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla I'm not sure the word empiricism means what you think it does.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules It does, it's also used in diverse study. There were economists who take more from the Austrian disciplines who touted empirical evidence. They labeled themselves empiricists. My spelling could be off, as it's been shown I'm not a huge anal source of grammatical correctness, butt I knows what I'z talkin bout!
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Empiricism: The practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences. A theory that all knowledge comes from experience.
Apologetics: Systemic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine).
Given these two definitions, which one of these do you think your doing right now.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules I think I'm reading feckless drivel right now. I explained the meaning (applying empirical data to economics) who used it, how it applies. You obviously don't even understand the word empirical, so get a clue, or STFU fool
shanedk may be engaged in Apologetics, maybe an agenda to paint "both sides the same" is more important than realistic argument or maybe it's pride. He can't / won't explain the effect of higher tax brackets & less paying in lower on the GDP to tax relationship
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Even if Bush tax cuts didn't cut taxes (but they did) they still increased economic activity,"
This has most certainly NOT been supported by any evidence.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk lol, well since you said it did I didn't think I'd get any argument about that point. Unless you're speaking of the [(but they did)] comment. As an aggregate you are absolutely correct, taxes didn't get cut. I can't say you are wrong there, your point is a good one
Until you get to the part about people's taxes not being cut, maybe you're technically correct there, but all things being same if no ones incomes went UP it would have been tax cut. They paid higher % because they made more
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "lol, well since you said it did"
No, I never said it did.
And look, even if you were to convince me about the actual cuts, they still wouldn't have had any effect because of the massive amounts of deficit spending. Tax cuts are meaningless unless they are met with spending cuts, and these most decidedly weren't.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk And again, while you are technically correct, when you attached that to th tax cuts making no difference in our lives? That statement wasn't quite on, if you concede that people care more about how much they make to take home, than what % they pay in taxes. I don't think many would argue against that point. Would you? Maybe we could do a survey? lol
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla That's fallacious reasoning. Granted, it's fallacious reasoning the government counts on, but that doesn't change the fact that people on the whole were not taking home as much money as they would have.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Fallacious Reasoning? You mean people were making more money, keeping more money, but shouldn't have been happy with that because the government was getting more money too? That would be fallacious reasoning in my book.
I'm sorry man, it seems pretty cut & dried which benefits the people most. More money to people & government is a win win in my book. If it's not then that's some strange rules.
I don't see much use for propaganda to prove a point, I'm more into truth will set you free
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "You mean people were making more money, keeping more money, but shouldn't have been happy with that because the government was getting more money too?"
Government does NOT make money. (Well, it prints it, but that's not the same thing.) PEOPLE were making that money and government was just TAKING it. Pretending that that money is the government's is perverse; claiming it's a tax CUT is just plain dishonesty.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk haha, either you're confused or you're blowing smoke. The semantical obfuscation about who "makes money"? blagh ect ... They got more revenues because the GDP expanded and the smaller % they were getting was offset in excess of the cut. In very simple terms, 20% of a 10 lb pie is more than 30% of a 5 lb pie.
The relation to GDP is explained by more money being made @ higher tax brackets. In fact in Bushes case 40% or so paid NO taxes.
You can toss in what you want, but that's solid.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla I mean after the Bush cuts many more people paid nothing in income taxes. Whatever ... the tax cuts brought in more revenue & the economy ramped up. The history on this is clear, unless you listen to the smoke screeners who obfuscate the numbers or the bone head sheep who fall for anything the herd thinks they should.
There are anomalies like the tech bubble, but they correct. The constant is that the economy grows with tax cuts, since Coolidge not long after they started income tax
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Whatever ... the tax cuts brought in more revenue & the economy ramped up."
Oh, yeah, we're really flying high now...
"The history on this is clear"
Yes: it was a financial bubble, and we're paying the price now. If only we'd listened to the people who saw it coming!
These bubbles are NOT anomalies--they're the inevitable result of government policy.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk ... so your point is that tax levels don't matter? Unless someone you like is President, maybe? This is starting to smell like an argument worked backwards from an agenda & it's taking smoke & gyrations. I don't want to see it that way. I like about all of what you have to say, watched a few of your vids & subscribed. I have no tolerance for hedging on reality to set things up perfectly for a pre selected solution. If it's a good solution it can stand on pure fact & nothing is perfect
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "so your point is that tax levels don't matter?"
Not as long as spending remains the same or--as is really happening--keeps increasing.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Lower tax levels kick up activity, but spending does damage. It's not like it doesn't matter, it does, both actions do in their own way. They have the effects they have, and it's NEVER the same, or extremely rarely. All things being equal, lower taxes are better 2 ways. The economy grows & government has less control. The point of government control isn't how much they have, but how much the people have. People who have more are less dependent & less controllable. That's good.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "All things being equal, lower taxes are better 2 ways. The economy grows & government has less control."
That's only true if spending is reduced as well.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk All things being equal I said, did you read that? Yes, spending being reduced helps, but you're talking as if amounts don't matter, and they do. The more I probe this thing the more it's sounding like a religion than economics. Are you starting the Church of "It's all the same"? Is this some simple propaganda to feed idiot sheep to get them to vote for a certain guy? Did you ever calculate out the inflation numbers vs the spending vs cuts? General Hog Wash doesn't mean anything real.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "All things being equal I said, did you read that?"
Yes, and if all things are equal--INCLUDING SPENDING--then spending HASN'T DROPPED.
Inflation is, in effect, a tax. And it's a very regressive tax that takes from the poor and middle class disproportionately. So if you reduce taxes without reducing spending, the resulting inflation means that the money spent represents wealth taken from them. That's a basic economic fact.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I've heard arguments about deficit spending not increasing inflation, but the way I figured it, it would still decrease economic growth and prosperity.
TANSTAAFL.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd I figured the worse thing about deficit spending is that it takes capital away from productive investment.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules
"I figured the worst thing about deficit spending is that it takes capital away from investment."
Which the government then claims is reason for government subsidies in big capital projects like power plants.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd True, I just have to wonder if the Government wasn't $13 trillion or so in debt what sort of capital assets would people have invested in instead? Maybe that's why we don't have flying cars and 4 second ready dehydrated pizzas like they promised in Back to the Future 2 :)
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules That's one of the worse things, but I think the worst is that it takes wealth regressively from the poor and middle-class and gives it to banks and politically-connected corporations.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Plus some of that money taken from the poor and middle class may have gone into capital assets so they aren't just stealing whatever they took from the poor and the middle class, but also any potential profits they would have made.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@shanedk No, if you reduce revenues without reducing spending that leads to inflation if they monetize. Reducing tax doesn't reduce revenues, increasing tax reduces revenues. Revenues we need to pay down the debt WHEN we reduce spending. I'm as big on reducing spending as you are, but you're dishonest or stupid about who you blame for debt. Bush reduced spending except for the Wars, and Republicans were not along pushing for war so you can pin all that on Bush and be honest at the same time.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla meant Republicans were not ALONE is pushing for war, so you CAN'T pin all that on Bush & be honest at the same time.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Nope, but since Libertarians opposed Bush, Clintons, and Obamas military actions, and Omega supports Bush and opposes Clinton and Obama for doing the exact same thing, that just shows Omega supports a large Government if a Republican is in charge.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Reducing tax doesn't reduce revenues" , cool , why don't we set tax rates to negative 1,000,000 % and have the Fed reduce the prime rate to negative 100% and then we can borrow and get money from the Government and then everyone will be rich and no one will ever have to work again.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Bush reduced spending except for the Wars"
This is just wrong. The prescription drug benefit cost a ton of money adding to the colossal spending of Medicare.
George W. Bush increased non-defense discretionary spending more than any previous President.
He also proposed TARP. John McCain and Obama both voted for it in the Senate and in 2008 Sarah Palin stated that "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in"
Yet according to Omega only Obama should be condemned.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Obama was given his choice of direction & Bush respected it as he was coming in. Obama signed tarp, not only that Obama chose tarp. Bush couldn't have dictated anyway as he was a lame duck with an incoming massive majority of democrats & the democrat president. Bush just helped them expedite what they wanted to do because he was more into what is good for the country than the idiotic petty ass holes the democrats have put in office for the last few decades, since JFK.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Humm, wait, not sure about that. I have to go and read up again. My memory is a little fuzzy about all that went on. Bush did Consult Obama on how he wished to proceed & went with what Obama wanted to do, just not sure who signed what. Bush did the AIG bailout ... I'm pretty sure, ahh. I have to read up & I don't have time right now. Didn't want to leave bad info out there. The truth will set you free man : )
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Your memory is fuzzy about a lot of things. You claimed your idol George W. cut non-defense spending when he increased it more than any previous President. You claimed Bush signed TARP after the election when he and his Treasury secretary proposed it when Obama and McCain were neck and neck in the polls.
If the truth will set you free, then why do you make so many grossly inaccurate statements?
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules lol, you idiots are like arguing with 3rd graders. I admit to a mistake and you're all over it as if desperate to win a personal argument & the substance is secondary. That doesn't help your point, defamation against an opponent to reduce their credibility is a sophist trick, and sophists are pathetic & contemptible lower life forms, is that your goal? Being a great sophist? That's pathetic
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla It is apparent from this post Omega doesn't know what a sophist is. The only thing that is pathetic is Omega crying when he is caught being factually wrong about everything, but only every single time.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@omegahpla You can't have done MUCH "reading up," or you would have known that Bush signed TARP into law on 5 October 2010, a month BEFORE Obama was elected.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Great win, I admitted I'd been fuzzy on something & you won! Yeaaa Good for you, along with searching my profile & finding a typo. You must be just proud as punch of yourself, lol.
You know my big problem with Ron Paul? He attracts immature sophists like you & your little gang of grade school mentality wanna be bullies here. You don't mind making a dishonest point, using sophist tactics, jumping on personal shit to try to impeach persons when your ideas don't cut it.
You're pathetic
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Sophist tactics" to Omega means not lying and compromising your principles to appeal to Omega's god Bush. Instead of being an "Empiricist" like he claims Omega is just an Apologist .
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Your own language offends your own image, and you don't even understand that, what a childish fool, lol. Your God Bush? Just God?, couldn't you think of something stupider? probably not, I think you hit the bottom of barrel & are pretty well saturated with the g slime (g short for garbage, I call the garbage guys the g men, it's funny)
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "I call the garbage men g men, it's funny)" Not only do you not know what sophist means, but now I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word funny means.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules you are one seriously unintelligent fool
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla This coming from someone who claims that he's a Peter Schiff fan, but is pro-inflation. Why don't you diarrhea all over his comments section how you think inflation lowers taxes, and how Bush was a great President.
johnrainrules 1 year ago 3
@johnrainrules You should enter a contest for the most prolific use of opportunistic insipid assumption to support mis-characterization for purpose of extreme drivelation. You'd probably do pretty well. They could call it the frothing idiot award, Congratulations!
omegahpla 1 year ago
@johnrainrules You won't mind if I just leave you to your own foaming & nose bubbles now, will you. I'm sure you can manufacture your own idiocy as you don't really use much thats actually conveyed anyway.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "You know my big problem with Ron Paul? He attracts immature sophists like you"
In what way are we engaging in sophistry? Or did you just learn a new 50-cent word and thought you'd use it to try and look smart?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You engaged in sophistry in the ways I've been complaining about for a few days when I was trying to really see what you were talking about & why. It's become evident you're a sloppy immature punk who doesn't mind making a dishonest point to back a theme you want to push, it fits in with the whole defamatory idiocy you developmentally delayed slip into on a knee jerk. I knew that was a bad sign, but you seem to have intelligent stuff going on & I like to find nuggets I can in the slag.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla In order to be sophistry, it must be two things: 1) it must be fallacious, and 2) it must be deliberately misleading. You haven't done the FIRST FUCKING THING to even show #1, let alone #2. So this is just a bald assertion on your part, and an ad hominem at that.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh Jesus, it's just a word that means making disingenuous arguments or other variations of that. An argument that sounds convincing but is deliberately misleading as half truths. If you want start asking for evidence on every word ask your child john blaugh blaugh blaugh to prove Bush is my God, he didn't prove that
I can't PROVE your intent, I'm saying it. I've seen enough to understand that you're much more concerned with your pretext of everything is the same than specific accuracy
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla There you go, rewriting the dictionary again when you're shown to be an ignorant fool.
You demonstrated quite well that Bush is your God--or, at least, your cult leader--in all of your comments.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Also, defamatory bull shit to obfuscate the point or information someone brings up is a sophists tactic, anything to knowing mislead or obstruct fact, as that is the goal. I don't know what your dictionary says, I know how it's been used for a very long time, I don't need to argue semantics. If you don't like the word I used then sub something else with the same meaning, who the fuck cares? How this has anything to do with the point is as beyond rational processes as the to too fn thing
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla You know, I just thought of the obvious. You're probably reading someone else's shit you don't fully understand. That's the difference in your videos that have seemed pretty intelligent, from the level & intelligence (lack of) used in your adolescentesque discourse.
I don't believe I've spent all this time arguing with you fucking idiots in this fucking cyber romper room, ya got me, now all of your fucking pea brained morons can just go fuck yourselves. I hate wasting my fucking time
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla You do know that Bush proposed TARP in the first place and that the vote for TARP happened BEFORE the election did.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Yeah, I said I did know. Bush brought Obama in & followed his recommendation on something very substantial, but I fogged on what it was, which was a great victory for the little lord of the flies gang that hangs here, which is sad. Ideas are important to people of substance, not spelling lol, not jumping on someone who forgot something & self corrected admitting the mistake on his own, not trying to hide it or fore flush, like you fools do on a knee jerk.
I thought Shane was more
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Ideas are important to people of substance" and yet you get them 180 degrees wrong.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@omegahpla That's projection on your part, only replace debt with taxes from a president you don't like. Shane has been very consistent in calling out Obama and Bush for bad monetary policy and too much debt, among other things. Including in this very video.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@shanedk Taxes were cut, people paid a lower rate than they would have, it's a fact. They paid more taxes, because of WHAT? Cause the president sucked? Magical suckiness just messed everything up and a different guy would make magical unsuckiness? I agree less spending is very important, it would help mucho, but for the love of God, how about dealing with facts in stead of hedging to set up some absolutist scenario?
The increase in income explains the increase in % of GDP because of tax rates
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Taxes were cut, people paid a lower rate than they would have, it's a fact. They paid more taxes, because of WHAT?"
The "rate" cut was just an accounting trick, something they did on paper to make it look good. In reality, it was just a reshuffling of the tax burden. This is NOT magic, it's just economic reality. The increase in income was a phantom effect of inflation and a financial bubble.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk lol, sounds like reverse engineering to me. Post Hawk blablabla as your cool phrase dropping friend would say. Lower tax rates means you have a better chance at black instead of red. Which means your business has a better chance of succeed, less chance of fail. It's REAL. It doesn't mean there isn't a better alternative than both of them, but it does mean THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! You're driven me nuts with this shit! lol
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Lower tax rates means you have a better chance at black instead of red."
No, it doesn't, because it's a Multiplier Effect. Whatever benefit you might gain gets eaten up by inflation. So it appears that you have more money, but all of a sudden everything is more expensive. And since your wages are going to lag behind that, you'll be WORSE off.
shanedk 1 year ago
@omegahpla "There are anomalies like the tech bubble, but they correct" , like the Real Estate bubble did.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Yep, the real estate bubble corrected, that's very true, not exactly the same as companies with NO intrinsic value blowing up like a balloon with hot air and going back to nothing, but I think the housing bubble added a good 20% above reasonable value on average. If that was a stand alone case of tax cuts increasing GDP then I'd question it, but the housing bubble wasn't enough or timed to be the main factor in the GDP boost
I contend that fuel & mortgages were used, deliberately
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Of course it is not the same. A lot of great technology emerged after the tech bubble. Some of that capital went to productive use. The poor monetary policy used to give the U.S. economy a boost in 2001 to now was like doing a line of coke. All stimulation no practical benefit. Pretty much a giant circle jerk.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules "A lot of great technology emerged after the tech bubble."
There's no reason to think that this technology wouldn't have come about absent the bubble. Remember how a bubble works: things get overvalued, and when the bubble bursts and the recession hits things get valued back to where they should be. So anything that survives from a bubble must have had a genuine value (unlike all the worthless websites etc. that came out of it). Amazon etc. continued to do great for that reason.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Actually, I've seen rather worse outcomes than that.
For instance, one of the later casualties of the .com crash was @Home, a company anyone who had cable internet service before about 2001 is likely to recall (likely with annoyance). They made some BAD investments. For instance, they lost something like $700 million on Blue Mountain Greeting Cards. As they were about $1 billion in the red at collapse, avoiding that and one other similarly bad decision and they might still be here.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Yes, because they had a sucky business model. But look at all of the others that had sound business models that came out of that era, such as Amazon and eBay. They're still going strong.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Yes, but did they manage to put themselves into that kind of financial hole because they made too many bad decisions at the same time?
I can also tell you, on the basis of the kinds of technical problems they had in the last year before they went under, that the writing was clearly on the wall for a long time. A major ISP should not have misrouted IP blocks that loop. It happened often enough under @Home that we have a standard reporting procedure for it.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Yes, that's what bubbles do. They send false signals into the economy and create malinvestments.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk But the question I'm asking is if companies like Amazon and eBay made bad investment decisions on the scale of Blue Mountain Greeting Cards to the extent that they ended up with 10 digits of red ink. It seems implausible that they could have survived if they had.
BTW, the business model they had wasn't actually all that bad. They did all the data networking stuff for being a cable modem ISP. Of course, getting the people to do that got easier after the .com bubble burst.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey But Amazon and eBay had business models that avoided that.
Blue Mountain wasn't a bad investment--they're still around. They just grossly overpaid for it. That's exactly what happens with a bubble.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I think that badly overpaying for a company does make it a bad investment. A good investment is, in very rough terms, one that makes you a net profit. A bad investment is one that makes you a net loss.
Of course, when a bubble bursts, those who have a fair amount of liquid cash and have done their homework to figure out which companies are really worth something in the area can make out like bandits. A bubble bursting almost always drops stock price well below where they should be.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey The same is true for the housing bubble, which overvalued homes. It was also true of the S&L bubble, which overvalued S&L assets and made them seem more secure than they really were. It's just what happens with bubbles.
shanedk 1 year ago
@johnrainrules So you're saying we should be at a constant state of War because the tech advances are great! You're getting boring with this bullshit, but I'll give you the point that the tech advances were serious. Time will tell how that works out. Now everyone is FAT! lol
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla
When did johnrainrules say we need war?
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd He didn't, he said the tech bubble was great because we advanced technologically. I equated that with War because we make huge tech advances during war ... being a smart ass, but making the point that good & bad can come out of must situtations. basically that I thought his argument was lame ass : )
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla mUst situations = mOst situations
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla
For your benefit: /watch?v=TnsLFVGOU4Y&feature=&p=8A0FEBB6E746ED80&index=0&playnext=1
Long story short, every dollar of public spending on science crowds out $1.25 of private sector spending on science.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Yeah, that's called raw theory : ) Not that I totally disgree, but lets see you account for that one.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla I said the tech bubble was better than the real estate bubble because there was more spin off tech. I did not say it was great. Bubbles that are the result of bad monetary policy are always bad. Of course the Real Estate bubble was caused by a more debt ridden, low interest rate policy than the Tech Bubble.
Also the technology that comes out of periods of war is not as impressive as those that come out of peacetime entrepreneurship.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules The reason why the bubble went to the tech sector is because it WAS producing real wealth, and this was attractive to investors. But with the housing bubble, the attraction to housing wasn't due to the increasing wealth in the housing market, it was because of the illusion of this due to Fannie and Freddie.
There's no reason to think the wealth that came out of the tech bubble wouldn't have happened anyway. In fact, there likely would have been more.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Yeah, Omega claimed the Real Estate bubble was somehow superior to the tech bubble, I stated the tech bubble had some spin off technologies and the housing bubble was simply a circle jerk.
Of course I made it clear both bubbles were chock full of mal-investment due to poor Fed policy among other things and Omega simply heard tech bubble good, real estate bubble bad.
He seems to think because I'm not a Bush supporter that I must think everything Clinton did was swell.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules That's the mindset of the dogmatist.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You have the mindset of a dogmatist if anyone does. You're all about trying to push things to say both sides were the same, that's ridiculous. You're whole pigeon holing thing of those who don't think your arguments have merit is a symptom. You're not making reasonable arguments ... you say it's just all the same, that's what you cling to. That's your political point you wrap all your arguments around, when it should be the other way.
You're a smart guy, but that's a real mess.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Don't speak for me especially when you just bastardize what I say. What are ya a zit faced 13 year old punk? The real estate values were based on real assets. Much of the tech was absolutely devoid of value. The actually effect of the housing bubble was much worse, but Bush wasn't even much of it's cause, that's just a fact. Clinton didn't cause the tech bubble either, but he rides it like it was a +. Bush tried to rein in Freddy & Fannie & Dems acted like the world was ending
omegahpla 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh good greif, the tech bubble is one of the easiest phenomena to track because companies rose to billions in "value" on pure hot air, with no physical assets, without serious people behind them or much of a plan. Tech bubble was seriously full of air. The housing bubble was inflated assets probably by about 20% average over value. Real Estate didn't pop & leave NO value. The biggest problem was it's use as securitized bundled assets used for the largest category of collateral by far.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Actually the tech advances during the computer boom of the 90's had nothing to do with war. In fact it was your favorite president that started two wars and ran us into more debt, so if anyone supports a constant state oof war it is neo-conservatives like omega.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Well if Bush is my favorite president the Chairman Mao is yours, idiot. Can't you deal with information? Are just just puking propaganda?
It may seem I'm touting Bush, when what I am touting is REALITY, TRUTH, HONEST EVALUATION, SHIT LIKE THAT. Because the Truth will set you free, Bullshit you just get stuck in and drown in the shit if it's as deep as you've been pushing
The Democrats were in on the Wars idiot, louder than the Administration in many cases. Clinton made it policy
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Bush and Chairman Mao have a lot in common, including secret prisons.
If the Democrats were "in on the wars", does that make you a Democrat? Of course people like Ron Paul were against the wars and the spending no matter who was in power. Showing that Omega has no principles, situational ethics, and bad post hoc reasoning.
Omega has stated Clinton, Obama, and Bush all did the exact same things, but he supports Bush and opposes Clinton and Obama. Go figure.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules blaugh blaugh blaugh what are you 3? lol That's some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard in my life, have some pride man.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "The semantical obfuscation about who "makes money"?"
It's NOT semantical obfuscation--it's something people need to understand. When they do, they'll see how things like "stimulus" and "bailout" don't do anything except line the pockets of the politically-connected.
"In fact in Bushes case 40% or so paid NO taxes."
Bullshit, as I showed.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I meant, I wasn't talking about creating wealth when I said making money, I was talking about receiving revenue. Why can't the meaning be what I said in stead of going off into some different subject? That's just blowing smoke ... I agree with your point, but you brought oranges to an apple ... thing lol
Is there some reason you don't want to stick to the numbers you were talking about? It's not usually a good sign when someone deliberately throws smoke into the mix, smells like, smoke
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Is there some reason you don't want to stick to the numbers you were talking about?"
The numbers I showed show EVERYBODY paying more taxes. Your 40% DOES NOT EXIST.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk About 40% of the pop. don't pay income tax, many get paid money from the coffers, so they not only don't pay, they take out of the system.
Next you'll be preaching the doctrine of same, so vote for ____ . Just equalizing the Obama Budget with the Bush Budget, when they are not the same. Until we demand the flippin truth it doesn't matter who we have. Someone willing to lie to us is someone driven by bad motives, and they will stab us in the back. We need a president who doesn't want it
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla
"About 40% of the pop. don't pay income tax, many get paid money from the coffers, so they not only don't pay, they take out of the system."
One more reason to abolish government.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@omegahpla
"We need a president who doesn't want it."
One of the many reasons Shane supports candidates like Ron Paul and Mary J. Ruwart.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd And my friend Lee Wrights. He's announced his candidacy in '12.
shanedk 1 year ago
@omegahpla Um, you DO realize that people who receive transfer payments such as welfare have to pay taxes on what they receive, right?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk lol, no, they don't. They don't make enough to pay taxes. Even if they did "pay taxes" it wouldn't be taxes, in reality it would just be making less. How can you pay on what you were given? They didn't work for it, it came strait from the Government, if some of it goes back it just means they got that much less
Quite different from money earned by creating wealth, quite a bit different, but your using that does serve a purpose. It shows your intent is first to prove "it's all the same"
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "lol, no, they don't. They don't make enough to pay taxes."
Just keep telling yourself that; it'll make it easier to support your cult leaders.
shanedk 1 year ago
@omegahpla They don't pay social security taxes? They don't buy any items that are taxed? No phone or cable service? No gas for their cars? Also since the poor keep their money in cash none of their wealth was inflated away?
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules You know why you have to keep pulling bullshit in while I was talking about income tax? Because you have no good point. Nice obfuscation, what a fucking crock.
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla "Someone willing to lie to us is someone driven by bad motives, and they will stab us in the back."
Then why do you support G.W. Since he even lied about cutting taxes. Or like most slavish adherents to the two party system is it only lying when the other party does it.
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@johnrainrules Don't be an idiot, Bush did cut taxes. If there was some scheme to "make everything exactly the same" it wasn't Bush designing it. Now if you want to talk about which president was worse, we can talk about stolen FBI files. The Clinton Gorelick Wall to let the Chinese who were supporting Clinton steal our tech while we were blinded & the Terrorists got in because law enforcement couldn't talk to intelligence. Going around channels to sell China dangerous missile tech, ect ...
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla What a relief; until now, I was afraid you might be a kook...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk take a good look at yourself lol, Are you saying they didn't steal nearly 1000 fbi files on Republicans? It was all in the news. They didn't use Ron Brown to go around the dept of defense to get China Missile Guidance Tech? From the corp of an associate of Clinton? Ron Brown didn't get in some shit, start threatening to say some things unless Clinton got him out of it & end up dead in a "plane crash"? With a neat hole in his skull that took a high speed projectile to create? No Wall?hum
omegahpla 1 year ago
@shanedk Clinton didn't get campaign contributions from the Chinese then the Democrats refused to turn in their contribution statements before the 1996 elections? Funny, I was there & it was in the news for a blip. Gore was never videoed coming out of a Chinese monastery with bags of cash? lol You know Clinton's records of contributions are missing from Arkansas too? Funny, then his chief of staff Sandy Berger stuffed records from the National Archives in his undies to steal them & got no prison
omegahpla 1 year ago
@shanedk Then the dept of justice didn't make him complete his plea deal of taking a lie detector test about what he took & why? Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it? I mean gee, if knowing what's gone on & is going on makes someone a kook, I guess you're not a kook ... just a 2 bit hedger pushing a simple line of bullshit ignoring reality to push YOUR candidate. See they have to be the same or one would be better than the other right? Well, I've been independent since I voted Perot, BIG MISTAKE
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla No way Clinton would have won without Perot, and that's when Clinton started putting together the destruction of the banking industry. Do you know who he appointed as CEO for Freddy & Fannie? You know that Clinton Gorelick Wall? Yeah, Gorelick. Frank Reins, the SOB who cooked the books & walked away from Fannie with an ity bitty 90 million $ bonus he didn't earn, and was never prosecuted for fraud, then Obama used his as a Chief economic adviser after all that until people had a SHIT
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla Didn't even talk of Al Gore, he's all in the middle of the Global Warming scam, while he invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange, made that bullshit movie, won his bullshit awards ... ect
You don't think bringing the banking / credit industry down & Global Warming scam & Chicago Climate Exchange ... the fuel prices being driven up by speculators / investment advisers involved? To many of the same damned people ... linked back to Soros & other Fabian Bankers
Lot of connections buddy
omegahpla 1 year ago
@omegahpla And another CEO? Mayor Dailys Brother, the Mobster From Chicago, also mayor, lol, his brother. These guys set up secodary loan market requirements, what they would buy, and they dictate the government loan standard by what they buy ... and the News blamed it on Bankers! LOL! The bankers they are talking about are governments BITCHES, they can put them out of business any time & the government likes it that way. They allow them to operate outside the rules so they can use those rules.
omegahpla 1 year ago