Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I rest my case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Don't ANY of you realize the signficance of not adjusting for inflation? Even at a modest 3% per year, the final value on the chart in 2000 dollars is $1.8 trillion- LESS than what was collected in 2000! Everything else is just bullshit.

Oh, and BTW Auraptor, you have STILL not answered my question about that apparently higher tax rate you seemed to be crowing about.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

That can't be remotely right. Check your numbers again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's see...

3%/yr * 5 yr = 15%
$2.15 trillion - (2.1.* 0.15)= $1.83 trillion

Yep, artithmetic still works!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

You know what ? Screw it. I win, you lose.

---

Quote:

---

Sig..Sorry, but you CHANGED the question and what I was talking about. I won't fucking answer anything I didn't bring up. You can act like a child all you want, but what does it really matter?

---

Quote:

---

As a share of GDP FY07 receipts are projected to be above their 40-year average. (Last updated: July 13, 2007

---

Quote:

---

Tax receipts rose 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) on top of FY05's 14.6 percent increase

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Don't ANY of you realize the signficance of not adjusting for inflation?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Chrisisall- Auraptor's beliefs are not helping him get along in his life any more than heroin or meth would. He needs to let go.

---

Quote:

---

As a share of GDP FY07 receipts are projected to be above their 40-year average. (Last updated: July 13, 2007

---

Quote:

---

You have a problem w/ what the stats say ? Bring it up w/ them. Those words dind't originate from me. So sorry.

---

Quote:

---

Drop your crazy ass sig. I answered your damn question. I didn't come up w/ the stats, I just passed them on in my post. They weren't MY words. Get over it.

---

Quote:

---

Hey Sig,already answered the question.-Auraptor

---

Quote:

---

That's right, because you came up with it out of your ass. It wasn't an issue of mine

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, you can ask ME a question about economics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Does not compute leadb.

If last year 3 people earn 100,000, the total GDP would be 300,000 and the rate would be 25 %.

If THIS year 4 people earn 99,000, the total GDP would be 396,000 and the rate would be 24 %.

In the first case, the GPD is lower but the tax share is higher. In the second case the GDP is higher but the tax share of GDP is lower. What this quote seems to be saying is that government revenue, as a SHARE of the GDP, is higher than the 40-year average. Not the TOTAL revenue the SHARE of revenue as a percent of GDP.

In general, if unemployment is up, you might expect it to be up at the lower income levels. And since lower incomes generally pay way lower tax rates, GDP would be increasing faster than collected taxes, leading to a lowered govt revenues as a SHARE of the GDP. But this is the other way around.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, you can ask ME a question about economics.

---

Aren't you glad we have real growth under Bush rather than the phony crap that Clinton's administration touted from the Dot Com charade ?

I am.

---

Quote:

---

Tax Revenues: Tax receipts rose 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) on top of FY05's 14.6 percent increase.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
all your fussing makes you look like an ass.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Those who want 'real considered response' from others don't call them 'cowards' for not answering ridiculous, made up and irrelevent questions.

---

Quote:

---

Ah dang. I see your point regarding the % of GDP. Unfortunately, the tax code is very complex. A few factors to keep in mind;
Income tax is only fraction of the total revenue. Lets take the example above; we've increased the GDP by about 30%; lets say that some of that money was spent on gasoline which has significant federal tax; assume the gasoline is imported, thus the production is neutral to GDP. If enough is so spent that new tax revenue amounts to $7920 in the 2nd year, that would raise the tax collected for the 2nd year to 26%; thus the tax load for the 2nd year is 26% of GDP.

---

Quote:

---

That's all I meant to convey. That's all that needed to be conveyed, in the context of what was being discussed. I didn't even bother with what else was said, because it wasn't relevent to the argument.

---

Quote:

---

Aren't you glad we have real growth under Bush rather than the phony crap that Clinton's administration touted from the Dot Com charade ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm just commenting on how Clinton's economic plan was more a result of happy fortune of the time, and not so much an active plan, such as cutting taxes to spur on the economy.

Of course Clinton wasn't responsible for the DotCom boom, but he and his folks were sure glad to take what ever credit it yielded for the economy.

Until the bubbble burst.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

That's all I meant to convey. That's all that needed to be conveyed, in the context of what was being discussed. I didn't even bother with what else was said, because it wasn't relevent to the argument.

---

Why didn't you just say so about forty posts ago? and BTW- you are WRONG about the so-called Bush revenue growth. I hope we don't have to go thru that again!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
6ix- Apparenty you have me mistaken for a partisan Dem. Why? I didn't voted for Bill, I'd rather cut off my right hand than vote for Hillary, I think most Dems are cowardly weasels who are so busy triangulating that they're utterly incapable of any action of consequence. The only f*cking partisan here is Auraptor, who is so friggin' in love with his hero that he can't see that GWB is as bad as any Dem in recent memory and in some ways a good deal worse. So don't you go shaking your finger at me, boy. You got me confused with someone else. Aim your sights where they really belong.

---

Quote:

---

[B} By Signy: You know Rap and Jongsstraw, I have a secret for you: You will NEVER EVER be free of the threat of terrorism no matter HOW much effort you put into security.

Wow. Ain't that a bitch?

Look at Israel: they're unconstrained by our "rights" laws, have a universal military draft, issue AND USE internal passports and security checkpoints and (when necessary) curfews, have a wary and vigilant population, they look and sound just like their enemies, they even know the language... hell, they're even walling off a portion of land. They're obsessive about internal and border security. Except for literally locking down the entire country I can't think of anything else for them to do. And guess what? They still get blown up.

All it takes is a half-dozen not-so-smart people with a common grotch and they can blow up a Federal building.

It's obvious that you're mesmerized by the thought of terrorism. You guys will do anything, anything to make that fearful sick helpless feeling go away. And so in your case the terrorists have won 'cause baby, you're terrified past reason.

I know that you prolly think that everyone else is just drinkin' the Kool Aid, that nobody can see what you see, that nobody is responding with the 'appropriate" measure of concern, that we're all sitting around having fun while "they" take us down little by little... like the Eloi in The Time Machine ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi Nothing could be further from the truth. But YOU would do more damage our way of life than "the terrorists" could by ruining our economy and destroying our Constitution for the thought that we might be attacked some day, and badly damaged.

The FF didn't start this nation with the idea that it was going to be a "safe" thing to do, and the settlers and immigrants faced dangers that were every bit as ruinous and deadly as terrorism. So get over your PTSD, learn to live with the thought that not everyone loves the USA, and recognize that there are a LOT of dangers "out there" - many of them far more consequential than the "might maybe could" terrorist bogeymen that dominate your mental landscape.

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor: If we agree that Bush's expansion of the Gov't is bad, then Kerry or Gore's would have been much , MUCH worse. Instead of Homeland Security and Defense, they'd be spending the $$ on Free Cadillacs for unwed minority mothers, or luxury Section 8 Housing for illegals.

---

Quote:

---

Edit: I know it's a bad day when I post something defending Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you define "real growth"? GDP growth? Stock market increase? Employment? Purchasing power? House prices? I can't answer the question until I know what it is.

---

Quote:

---

And unlike SOME folks on the board I've been been influenced by what I read here and have slowly come over to the more anarchic side.

---