Overweight for most of her life, Jessica was caught in a vicious cycle of yo-yo dieting, never achieving her goal of a healthy weight. Photos from a friend’s wedding shower highlighted the dramatic…
(PRWeb April 17, 2012)
Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/gastric_bypass_sanantonio/lap_band_san_antonio/prweb9391787.htm
In less than 10 Years, AMERICA will Spend of Every Dollars on Health care
Image by Leader Nancy Pelosi
health
Most already spend 1 in every 3 Dollars on taxes. She wont be happy till its one of every 2 or maybe 1 of 1.
Most? What taxes are you talking about? Because it’s certainly not Federal. Most Americans pay a rather low Federal tax rate compared to the rest of the industrialized world. And most Americans, including yourself, got a tax cut under the current administration (as well as the previous administration).
If we keep voting for people who tell us government sucks (hint- they have an R after their name), then the government will probably suck.
Would you want to put anti-military people in charge of FORSCOM, AMC, and TRADOC? (I hope not!) Then why do we continue to elect government officials who are anti-government?
Most? What taxes are you talking about? Because it’s certainly not Federal. Most Americans pay a rather low Federal tax rate compared to the rest of the industrialized world
I was referring to all taxes
and for those of us who actually own a home, have investments, run a business pay for our own healthcare and live in expensive cities taxes are our biggest expense.
"And most Americans, including yourself, got a tax cut under the current administration"
Actually my tax liability hasn’t moved and most Americans didn’t get a tax "cut", however we did increase tax credits (welfare) to people who have no tax liability. Also his new budget introduces 1 trillion dollars of new taxes over the next 10 years guess who’s really going to be paying for that.
Way to go we transferred taxes from this year until the next what an accomplishment. I mean everything will work out if we just kick the can down the road.
"Would you want to put anti-military people in charge of FORSCOM, AMC, and TRADOC? "
What you mean the things the constitution actually authorizes the government to be in charge of? Its also not anti-government its limited government and Republicans haven’t been that in a while (see last 10 years), but keep spouting DNC talking points its entertaining.
I take it from your name that you serve (or have served) the country. Thank you.
On the tax topic, under ARRA individuals up to $75K got a tax cut. Joint filers up to $150K got a tax cut. The child credit and the EIC (a Reagan program, btw) expanded. If you didn’t get a cut, good for you! That means you enjoy quite a nice income. And I’ll make a nice assumption: I bet you earned it. That’s respectable and commendable.
My liability has varied over the last decade. But I certainly benefited from the Bush cut in 2003. I just don’t think the country as a whole benefited from it. Along with the Medicare giveaway, these two cuts added a "lot" to our deficit. The wars were run "off the books". Which means they didn’t show up in the yearly budget. And, to be consistent, I don’t agree with the income tax cut from Obama. There were other things he could have done. The tax cut still ends up affecting the deficit just like the Bush cuts did. While I agreed that we needed some so-called stimulus, and some of the bill’s contents were good, I think there were a lot of giveaways and favors (pork).
I did not benefit from Obama’s ARRA tax cut because my income is too high. And I’m okay with that. Below shows the rather significant effect the ’03 cut had for me and my wife.
2002 AGI $139,932
Effective Tax Rate 17.81 %
2003 AGI $120,761
Effective Tax Rate 14.90 %
I truly don’t understand how you can talk about kicking the can down the road when you admitted already that Reagan and Bush deficits were caused by tax cuts that also kicked the can down the road. If the deficits now are bad, then they were bad under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. If you were just as vehemently against their deficits, then fine. That would show you are consistent. But I doubt you were.
If you want to assume I get my reading list from DNC, go ahead. I suppose I could assume you get yours from FNC. But assuming things about someone you don’t know isn’t very productive. Especially if you need to pretend that I’m some sort of welfare mooch soaking up "hard working Americans’" tax dollars and spouting DNC taking points. You could have asked.
I truly don’t understand how you can talk about kicking the can down the road when you admitted already that Reagan and Bush deficits were caused by tax cuts that also kicked the can down the road.
Reagan deficit was coupled with an increase in tax revenue due to tax cuts we have less revenue coming in now compared with continued spending. Even Keynesians are beginning to notice that the current spending isn’t what Keynes had in mind.
"Especially if you need to pretend that I’m some sort of welfare mooch soaking up "hard working Americans’" tax dollars and spouting DNC taking points. You could have asked."
Funny considering you assumed I benefited from the new "tax cuts"
I at no point implied you were a welfare mooch. However if your beliefs are that others should be forced to provide for what you feel is "the common good" without having a say in it then yes you are a mooch soaking up hard working americans tax dollars. Also you have been spouting DNC talking points.
When you say things like "those of us who own houses and run businesses" I think it’s reasonable to infer that you were drawing a line with the other person in the discussion. Do you agree?
Throughout the history of America we have re-distributed wealth for the common good. Ironically, even during the Red Scare, the top tax rate was as high as 92%, but I don’t see historical notes about us being socialists back then. I mean heck, talk about being "forced to provide"? We essentially has a $2 to $4 million salary cap in the US.
And if anything, that time was viewed as the golden years here in the States. The top marginal rate was still 70% in through the 70s and 50% for more than half of Reagan’s 8-yrs. Now we act like going back to the same level Clinton had (39.6%) makes us commies.
The supposed "tax increase" on the top tier is a misnomer. The tax cut passed in 2001 had an expiration date. So the bill was written by Republicans and signed by a Republican, but now somehow it’s the liberals who are raising taxes. In reality it’s the Republicans "raising taxes". It was their bill.
When it comes down to it, we pay for other poeple’s stuff all the time. I have no kids, but 85% of my property tax goes to the local schools (which are administered locally, not by the Feds; just like the public schools in Germany). So should I get a refund? Or should I understand that I am helping the community maintain a certain standard? I prefer the latter. If you don’t agree that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think it makes me an idiot. (Not that you said I was… but it certainly seems implied)
I pay for the Earned Income Credit my friends get. I pay for their child credit. My taxes go to all sorts of Federal agencies that I don’t benefit from. My group insurance premium pays for my co-workers’ sick kids since I rarely have an illness.
And I’m okay with it. If that makes me a socialist, then we have been a nation of socialists for about 100 years now.
Anyway, the content and tone of your latest posts has been more enjoayble than the earlier ones. I appreciate that you have provided links on some other comments.
Maybe we just agree to disagree, but I don’t think the US can maintain a world leadership position without our social structure, even if that means the well-off citizens pay a bigger share. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt is McCain’s hero and he thought this way. I know a heck of lot of my conservative friends revere Teddy in spite of that fact (and all the other things he did that would be labeled as socialistic if done today).
Thanks for the chat. I may not get back to this today, though, but I’ll check in soon.
Sorry, one more before I go.
It’s a common argument from conservatives that tax cuts increase tax revenue.
Like this, from the Bush Admin: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue growth.jpg
Unfortunately, this is not what it seems. You have given me the condenscending tone about not understanding what is accepted by everyone… the problem is that by *everyone* you generally mean conservatives. Every conservative blog on the net, and I read a lot of them, praised this chart as proof that the tax cuts work.
Yet not one of them bothered to ask 1) if these were current or adjusted dollars and 2) what are these numbers as a % of GDP.
The only proper way to look at federal receipts is as a percentage of GDP. *Everyone knows that.* (my own condescension)
Reagan’s cuts were portrayed as increasing revenues – of course they did! But receipts as a percentage of GDP actually went down.
The same happened with Bush’s tax cuts. The chart linked above is doubly deceiving because in terms of % of GDP, Bush’s tax cuts coincided with the two lowest years of federal receipts since 1959.
Here are the tables. Go to pages 26-27 (which are pages 30-31 of the pdf). Third column from the right is the important one.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
You’ll also see that Reagan-Bush I spent around 21-23% of GDP on federal outlays. Clinton drecreased it throughout his term. Then Bush increased spending in his very first budget (FY2002) while simultaneously cutting taxes.
So in reality, conservatives spend more. Even Reagan.
But we’ve been told all our lives that Democrats spend more. The actual budget numbers, when *correctly* viewed as a % of GDP, show the opposite to be true.
//When you say things like;"those of us who own houses and run businesses"; I think it’s reasonable to infer that you were drawing a line with the other person in the discussion. Do you agree?//
Not really because if you actually do fit into the category I mentioned then you would be included in the statement because taxes would automatically be your largest expense.
//"Throughout the history of America we have re-distributed wealth for the common good"//
In the words of Samuel Alito ";Thats simply not true";, with the exception of defense spending wealth was not ”re-distributed"; until the early 1900′s with the addition of the income tax.
//Ironically, even during the Red Scare, the top tax rate was as high as 92%, but I don’t see historical notes about us being socialists back then. //
Hmmm I guess you never heard of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan’s"time for choosing speech";, John F Kennedy’s tax cuts etc.
(BTW JFK was a conservative or classical liberal at the time)
//I mean heck, talk about being ";forced to provide:;? We essentially has a $2 to $4 million salary cap in the US. //
Which is why JFK instituted supply side tax cuts
//And if anything, that time was viewed as the golden years here in the States. The top marginal rate was still 70% in through the 70s and 50% for more than half of Reagan’s 8-yrs//.
Yes you’ll also notice that the majority of that time was stagflation and a recession to include the recession pre-JFK .
//Now we act like going back to the same level Clinton had (39.6%) makes us commies. //
There’s one of those DNC talking points again, the point isn’t the most recent increase. The point is the continuous increases that are to come with no cap on spending and no plan to cut back. So does the constant class warfare angle played by Democrats even though we’re a nation without static classes. Plus the constant 2 minutes of hate…Boo the Oil industries…boo the bankers, boo the insurance… ..boo the Republicans…. nevermind that the first 3 have done more for the American people than government ever has.
//The supposed ";tax increases" on the top tier is a misnomer. The tax cut passed in 2001 had an expiration date. So the bill was written by Republicans and signed by a Republican, but now somehow it’s the liberals who are raising taxes. In reality it’s the Republicans "raising taxes". It was their bill.//
Now you sound like Bartlett or Think Progress.
Actually the Republicans were forced to use reconciliation to enact the tax cuts due to Democrat filibusters (oddly most of the same ones complaining now that Republicans are doing the same thing) a sunset provision was required because there was no way to get the democrats on board. Honestly I don’t believe they should have been permanent either. The fact that they are expiring was due to a Republican congress the oncoming tax increases that will only help the extend the recession belongs completely to this Dem. congress that chose to let them expire in the middle of a recession.
When it comes down to it, we pay for other poeple’s stuff all the time. I have no kids, but 85% of my property tax goes to the local schools (which are administered locally, not by the Feds; just like the public schools in Germany). So should I get a refund? Or should I understand that I am helping the community maintain a certain standard? I prefer the latter. If you don’t agree that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think it makes me an idiot. (Not that you said I was… but it certainly seems implied)
Not at all, I think we should help out which is why I also donate to charities I am however against things that would cripple or hinder our economy, social programs continue to be failure while the free market has provided in all areas its gone with the least restricition.
I’m for tax cuts because they improve the economy, increase employment and lead to innovation.
And I’m okay with it. If that makes me a socialist, then we have been a nation of socialists for about 100 years now.
Doing with your money what you will is your perogative, forcing others to pay is socialism and a violation of rights.
Maybe we just agree to disagree, but I don’t think the US can maintain a world leadership position without our social structure, even if that means the well-off citizens pay a bigger share.
Already do, nevermind that while they’re paying a bigger share they also provide jobs, paying payroll tax/fica tax (which otherwise could be income for the same employee or income for another employee) and create the innovations that have made our lives easier and make it so that the poor in this country make more than the middle class of most other countries.
Hell, Teddy Roosevelt is McCain’s hero and he thought this way. I know a heck of lot of my conservative friends revere Teddy in spite of that fact (and all the other things he did that would be labeled as socialistic if done today).
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive (which is socialistic/fascistic) and McCain is a modern Liberal.(except for election time) while we’re on it Bush was a centrist not a conservative.(Although he was a social conservative…which I am not)
//The only proper way to look at federal receipts is as a percentage of GDP. *Everyone knows that.* (my own condescension)//
Considering that’s wrong don’t know why you would be condescending, tax revenues are counted in actual dollar amounts, comparing it by percentage of GDP has no reason except to make it seem like less revenue. The goal is to pay off debt in a boosted economy not increase percentages.
By your logic if we had a gdp of 10 trillion and taxes revenue was 40% of GDP you would find that better than if GDP was 20 trillion and revenue made up 25% even though in the second scenario you have 1 trillion more in tax revenue. (Also ignoring that the GDP would have increased because of lowered taxes) Even hacks like Paul Krugman don’t try to play with math that intentionally misleading.
//Reagan’s cuts were portrayed as increasing revenues – of course they did! But receipts as a percentage of GDP actually went down.//
You obviously realize when taxes are lowered GDP increases and that when said GDP increases those lower taxes result in being counted as a smaller percentage of GDP. Its a smaller percentage of a greater number not a dollar amount.
That actual dollar amount revenues are higher because of the cuts, exception being Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 because he gave out increased "tax credits"; to those without tax liability (i.e. he dropped revenue while spending more) along with a dotcom recession and 9/11, the second time it was done was in 2003 in the middle of 2 wars.
//But we’ve been told all our lives that Democrats spend more. The actual budget numbers, when *correctly* viewed as a % of GDP, show the opposite to be true. //
Yes when you play fools math the numbers make the most recent democratic president who had a republican congress look great, but as mentioned viewing it as a percentage of GDP does nothing because the point is to balance the budget and pay off debt not take as much out of the economy in taxes as possible which is counterproductive because increased taxes have the opposite effect on the economy. Also if you want to play partisan games you’ll notice the largest deficits have always been under Democrat congresses.
The main thing you leave out is that the prosperity and the innovation of the 90′s was the result of Reaganomics not anything that Clinton did (well except for finally signing Welfare reform)
Great Society programs and Nixons Keynesian habits are what increased the national debt in the first place along with Carters economic ineptitude which we are currently witnessing the sequel of.
If you don’t want to admit that % GDP is the only relevant way to make comparisons, okay, we’ll play that game,
Year on year:
Reagan ran a deficit 8 of 8 years
Reagan increased the deficit 6 of 8 years in current dollars
Reagan increased the deficit 6 of 8 years in adjusted dollars
Bush I ran a deficit 4 of 4 years
Bush I increased the deficit 3 of 4 years in current dollars
Bush I increased the deficit 3 of 4 years in adjusted dollars
Clinton ran a surplus 4 of 8 years
Clinton *decreased* the deficit in 7 of 8 years in current dollars
Clinton *decreased* the deficit in 7 of 8 years in adjusted dollars
Bush II ran a deficit 8 of 8 years
Bush II increased the deficit in 4 of 8 years in current dollars
Bush II increased the deficit in 4 of 8 years in adjusted dollars
28 years of Republican budgets, 28 years of yearly deficits. Regardless of how we look at it. You now have no excuse.
By your own logic, you would be forced to admit that Clinton raised Federal receipts every year between 1994 and 2000 in current dollars and adjusted dollars. Which would mean, by your logic, that both tax increases and tax cuts increase federal receipts. Wow.
By your logic you would be forced to acknowledge that Bush took until 2006 (his fifth budget) to just get back to the level of Federal receipts in adjusted dollars in Clinton’s last budget. And Bush did not cut sepnding to match, with or without the wars that were not on the books. That’s pathetic no matter what inappropriate method you think is correct.
By your logic the fact that federal receipts have ranged from 16.1% of GDP to 20.9% of GDP since Eisenhower’s adminsitration is irrelevant.
By your logc, if only the raw dollar mattered, then the % of GDP of every indicator should go down every year. But it doesn’t. It fluctuates in that range. If you don’t get that then this is worthless. (It should especially go down when conservatives author the budget… but it doesn’t)
And no matter what your excuse, you cannot come up with one for the fact that Reagan, Bush, and Bush spent more than they took in. Even if the world aligned your way and tax cuts magically increased revenue, you would still be forced to admit that Reagan, Bush, and Bush spent more than they took in. Period.
In other words, no matter what your pathetic excuse you simply cannot deny that these so called conservatives ran a deficit every single year.
Your words were "By your logic if we had a gdp of 10 trillion and taxes revenue was 40% of GDP you would find that better than if GDP was 20 trillion and revenue made up 25% even though in the second scenario you have 1 trillion more in tax revenue. " Um, yes. That was the point. Like stated above, in your world the % GDP would have steadily decreased over time as the GDP increased. So why didn’t it? Even as Clinton lowered the deficit and ran a surplus, the % of GDP remained in the same range. And Krugman absolutely looks at it that way. Those Nobel Prize winning whack jobs are like that. And they only win the Nobel Prize because Scandinavians aren’t as smart as us Murkins.
Thanks for bringing up Reagan’s speech. I wish today’s conservatives were more like him. And more like Buckley. Let’s take a look.
"I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right." I agree.
"Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path." Hello, Patriot Act? Reagan would have been against it.
"We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments…."
That means he agrees with the idea of social security. He just didn’t want to be criticized for making changes to it. But it’s rather clear that he was in favor of the social safety net for retirement. As opposed to today’s conservative who are on record with their desire to get rid of it.
"We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him…. But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure" This one is more in line with what you are saying.
"Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector’s share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp."
Since Republicans passed every bill they wanted in Bush’s first 6 years, why didn’t they "fix it"? Seriously. they used reconciliation for other things. Why not the tax code?
And can you explain the Earned Income Credit? "Almost 21 million American families received more than $36 billion in refunds through the EITC in 2004." A program that was enacted under Nixon and expanded under Reagan. People get paid for having kids. I’m told by my conservative friends how this is such bullshit…. but only when the money goes to welfare people. Most of the guys I golf with are Republicans and get a credit for having kids, but it’s somehow different for them,
Reagan went out of his way to ensure the expansion of the EIC. I don’t have a problem with it, but you should.
You have a very cartoonish view of the Economy as if you lack the ability to think 4th dimensionally and that all deficits are created in the present as well as surpluses. You completely disregard the cause and effect of Reaganomics that created the prosperity of the 90′s that gave Clinton the revenue for the reduced deficit.
//Year on year:
Reagan ran a deficit 8 of 8 years
Reagan increased the deficit 6 of 8 years in current dollars….etc etc//
Nevermind that every President from JFK to Obama has run a deficit
Or that Clinton’s projected "surplus" never reached zero let alone a positive surplus number (meaning it never existed) or that Clinton’s last budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2001, which ended at the end of September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in Bush’s first year thus no surplus let alone the BS 4 years you’ve claimed.
you cannot come up with one for the fact that Reagan, Bush, and Bush spent more than they took in.
Its funny how you think the President and the president alone is responsible for spending. Also I’m not a partisan I’m a conservative who votes Republican because the alternative always sucks more. Reagan did try to limit spending but was halted by congress, Bush raised taxes to pay off debt and try to balance the budget and was lambasted for it by Democrats come election time even though they supported it originally. The problem isn’t revenue the problem is the spending, whenever spending cuts are attempted libs cry bloody murder.
//Um, yes. That was the point. Like stated above, in your world the % GDP would have steadily decreased over time as the GDP increased. So why didn’t it? Even as Clinton lowered the deficit and ran a surplus, the % of GDP remained in the same range.//
Two things You’re using GDP as an actual cash value amount rather than as a barometer of economic activity. Government spending that isn’t taxed is still included in GDP along with other non-taxable transactions.
You also seem to be relying on the false notion that tax revenues correlate with income tax rates. I also think its funny that you don’t seem to think our government can run on current revenues and constantly like a drug addict needs to increase the dosage. I’m actually for tax increases when the economy is booming to pay off debt.
//And Krugman absolutely looks at it that way. Those Nobel Prize winning whack jobs are like that. And they only win the Nobel Prize because Scandinavians aren’t as smart as us Murkins.?
The only time Krugman mentions percentage dropping
Yeah you know like economist like Nobel prize winning Milton Friedman who aren’t political hacks like Krugman who change their opinion based on what party is in the White House.
//"I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right." I agree.//
I love how you enjoy taking things out of context, the next line is "there is only up or down up to man’s age-old dream the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Meaning the conservatism (i.e. individual liberty) vs liberalism (i.e. statism) Much like Cheney (an actual conservative) I’m for individual liberty which is why I support gay marriage, in reality I support getting the government out of the business of defining marriage altogether.
Hello, Patriot Act? Reagan would have been against it.
Doubtful as it didn’t violate rights. Its hilarious when those on the left argue against the PATRIOT act as if it was some right-stealing boogey man. Nevermind that 90% of the policies listed in the PATRIOT act where ALREADY in use by the federal government under Clinton some were even from the Nixon administration. The PATRIOT act only made public what was already happening and was more of a security blanket to make people think they were safer, kind of like TSA. However it did ease communication between local law enforcement and federal agencies . But if you want to channel Reagan at your computer go ahead if it makes it seem more legitimate to you. Its funny how your for the government being in everything yet against them doing a fundamental responsibility which is the "common defense". Before you say I’ll mention again I’m not against the government I’m for limited government, (Rule of Law)
//That means he agrees with the idea of social security. He just didn’t want to be criticized for making changes to it.//
No it doesn’t he’s criticizing critics of conservatives who use hyperbole to claim conservatives want to cut payments to those receiving it. The conservative stance is and always has been to ween off the younger population into doing with their money what they will, while making budget cuts to pay for those who already paid into the system and were promised their receipts.
Since Republicans passed every bill they wanted in Bush’s first 6 years, why didn’t they "fix it"? Seriously. they used reconciliation for other things. Why not the tax code?
Here it seems you missed the part about the fact that they DID use reconciliation for the tax cuts. Also if you haven’t noticed the base of the Republican party (conservatives) have been at odds on most issues with the national level Republicans for years, unlike libs we don’t make gods of our leaders. I like Reagan and think he’s the closest to a real conservative we’ve ever had as a president but I don’t pretend everything he did was terrific (although in comparison to all that followed him he’s pretty high up there.) Bush Jr was not a conservative, although I liked him and he was my Commander and Chief for all of my 5 combat deployments. Hes a descent human being and had class, but I don’t pretend he didn’t make mistakes with the budget and attacked his spending then as I have on these posts also. Whats funnier is when libs demonize him and then complain about spending that they would have supported under a democrat president as they are now. I supported his policy on Iraq and Afghanistan as I do Obama’s continuation of those policies.
Reagan went out of his way to ensure the expansion of the EIC. I don’t have a problem with it, but you should.
I guess you haven’t been paying attention I’ve denounced the tax credit for those who have no liability repeatedly, I also think its stupid to tax a single person more than a married couple even if both are working.
Seems we agree on the social issues.
Your responses on the fiscal matters indicate that you didn’t read what ws actually there. So this seems pointless.
Nice pull from Steiner, though. I already understand that the yearly budget is not reflective of the true effect on the total debt. I’ve read all the things, years ago, about how the surplus is (er, was) a myth. Largely it is. I get this stuff from my friends all the time – I’m actually exposed to contrary views frequently. It hurts my little brain. Owie.
Nonetheless, with the part of the budget the President *can* control, Clinton still managed a surplus. Even Steiner notes that Clinton couldn’t do anything abou tthe IG debt going up. The actual budget numbers had a surplus, though. If you want to claim he was lucky, because of the .com bubble, okay. Then 28 years of Republicans never experienced any luck. Poor guys.
I like how Steiner snuck in the obligatory "I don’t agree with Bush’s debt." Mmmhmmm. That’s why I saw such revolt among Republicans during Bush’s 8 years. It’s only the Dems that march lockstep, though. Isn’t that why Obama has gotten every bill he’s wanted? Oh, he hasn’t? Wait, let me predict: That’s because they can’t get their act together, right? Okay, but that’s at odds with marching lockstep. It can’t be both ways. It’s like my friends who mock me by saying "Where’s the change?" and then 5 minutes later complain about all the change. Brilliant.
Let me know how you do. Don’t cheat! This is closed-book. Answer ‘em wthout looking up the answers.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
I get Civics. I guarantee I understand Civics in the 99th percentile of all Americans. I know how bills get passed, including the budget. I know the branches and their respective responsbilities. I even have a brain. But you prolly think I don’t use it. That’s your prerogrative. I’ll just keep enjoying life as I wander aimlessly and cluelessly.
Nice pull from Steiner, though.
Actually its from the treasury http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway, which is where Steiner gets his numbers from.
you choose to use projections as if they’re hard fact, rather then hard numbers. Projections have rarely ever been right.
//I get this stuff from my friends all the time – I’m actually exposed to contrary views frequently.//
Me too I live in the most liberal city in the country, and most of my friends are limousine liberals, I also enjoy reading liberal authors and liberal media in general (I especially enjoy watching Keith Olbermann because I’m waiting for his head to explode, also because its fun to fact check [he's normally wrong and using just pure hyperbole], I don’t like being surrounded by likeminded people. I have a bit of an Oscar Wilde mentality "when people agree with me I tend to wonder if I’m wrong"
I like how Steiner snuck in the obligatory "I don’t agree with Bush’s debt." Mmmhmmm. That’s why I saw such revolt among Republicans during Bush’s 8 years.
Weird because they did the entire time
articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/12/opinion/op-drezner12
articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/12/opinion/op-casse12
It was mainly conservatives who first made the issue about the deficit, Iraq war, and you seem to not be able to differentiate party from ideology…let alone differentiate neocons and moderates from conservatives/libertarians.
Guess you never heard of the Cato institute either. It’s impossible to post all of the Bush attacks by conservatives but go ahead and just type his name in the search engine
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184
It’s only the Dems that march lockstep, though. Isn’t that why Obama has gotten every bill he’s wanted?
You mean like the healthcare bill they were trying to ram through that passed on party lines, Porkulus bill again mostly through party lines, Cap and Trade, most appointments (thats all pretty lockstep) When Bush was Pushing NCLB he had to twist the arms of the few conservative Republicans in congress, going as far as lying to conservatives like Jim Demint. He also had an uphill battle with conservatives over Medicare expansion.
//Oh, he hasn’t? Wait, let me predict: That’s because they can’t get their act together, right? //
No that’s because they know that there’s a majority of Americans who don’t like what they’re doing and its an election year and that Obama lacks the ability to actually lead. Reagan was hands on when it came to his tax cuts, as was Bush with NCLB. Obama has wasted his political capital and allowed it to wrest in the hands of goons in congress who nobody really trusts. This has made people ask questions and they’re not enjoying the answers they get.
However last year they were pretty much ramming things through.
Let me know how you do. Don’t cheat! This is closed-book. Answer ‘em wthout looking up the answers.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz. aspx//
You answered 33 out of 33 correctly — 100.00 %
It was shorter than it should have been, also I don’t know why they through economics questions in a civics test.
the one that bugged me was and I answered as a Keynesian
30) Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession?
A. increasing both taxes and spending
B. increasing taxes and decreasing spending
C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending
D. decreasing both taxes and spending
I answered C and got it correct but 1. its an economics question 2. there are many schools of thought on the subject and 3. Ignores the idea that the government doesn’t have a role in "stimulating the economy." From some of the questions it seems like this test is conservative leaning.
But you prolly think I don’t use it. That’s your prerogrative. I’ll just keep enjoying life as I wander aimlessly and cluelessly.
Why do you guys have to take things personally. This is actually one of the more civil debates I’ve had with a lib (or are you a moderate) usually they end up with nothing but ad homminem responses or Bush=Hitler or conservatives are evil, stupid, redneck which makes me feel out of place considering I’m an Civil, educated Hispanic.
Yep I was right about the civic test they’re conservitive
here’s their main website
http://www.isi.org/homepage.aspx
One wonders why they didn’t go full on ideological and make the claim that the government should reduce taxes and reduce spending to stimulate the economy…probably because no conservative or psuedoconservative president has ever done it so it would look pretty bad.
Maybe I’m being to negative, maybe they just wanted to make it as impartial as possible, then again why include economic questions at all
Nice. Also got 33 of 33. That is also the same question I paused on. and I wondered the same thing about the answer since they are a conservative group. A little odd to admit that we were thinking the same way. Will we survive???? Just kidding.
There is prolly common ground here, as I find when I have rational discussions with my friends, all of whom call themselves conservatives. (only 1 of my golf buddies is a Dem, but he votes R)
There was no grass roots revolt against Bush. I readily admit there were think tanks who had issues with him (and why do you keep assuming I’ve never heard of anything, like Cato; seriously, do you think I am that much of an idiot?) Anyway, there were no "tea party" style protests from conservatives against Bush. There were no middle-class protests. And my friends gave me the same old spiel about the deficit… "well, I don’t like it but what can we do about it?"
Yes, there were murmurs from the hardline conservatives, but no talk from an organized middle-class conseervative base about "mortgaging our future". No giant protests, no national conventions. And the LA Times articles are not about monetary issues. The first one even says that R’s marched lockstep through Bush’s first term… only turning on him after his approval tanked.
Interestingly, when I sent that civics test to my buddies there was only one person that scored over 30. Me. The next highest was 29, the Dem who votes R. One guy got a 27, that was the highest R and he happens to be an Army vet that I have a lot of good convos with even though we disagree. All the rest were pretty sad, down to 15 from the guy that is the biggest gasbag when it comes to this stuff. i realize the n is small, but it’s been consistent for me. You are the outlier. Again, good for you.
I admit I expected you to do poorly, maybe a 26. So nice job, bad on me.
I still have fundamental differences of opinion with you, and I don’t think you carefully read some of the things I wrote, and you’ve changed your "answer" to certain questions across posts. And I think ypu make a lot of excuses that I find laughable (I;m sure you feel likewise). But you clearly have put thought into this and have a better understanding of civics and govt than most. Just wondering if you’ll come to realize that I do, too. One of thing I’ve noticved is that while I’m willing to concede that you are versed, even if we disagree, you have done no such thing in return. That leads to an impression that you are, in your mind, never wrong. It may not be true, but that is definitely the impression.
Best wishes. I prolly won’t be back on here today. Gotta work.
As usual, forigve any typos.
There was no grass roots revolt against Bush. I readily admit there were think tanks who had issues with him (and why do you keep assuming I’ve never heard of anything, like Cato; seriously, do you think I am that much of an idiot?)
No its sarcasm sorry if it doesn’t come over well in text. You claimed there was no conservative opposition I presented some.
Anyway, there were no "tea party" style protests from conservatives against Bush.
That’s because a lot of the tea party people, are independents who weren’t that involved in government, a lot of conservatives are just people who want to just live their lives and be left alone, Now with the Internet, cable news and social sites all over the place people are seeing what the government has been doing for years and they don’t like it. ( Theres a reason they hate Republicans as much as Democrats)
I’ve actually gone to one in the city and I was surprised to find out how many of them were actually democrats and who also voted for Obama.
//There were no middle-class protests. And my friends gave me the same old spiel about the deficit… "well, I don’t like it but what can we do about it?" //
The difference is the scope of federal involvement, Bush increased the size of government too but it wasn’t major power grabs. Also Bush wasn’t President during the really bad part of the recession so he didn’t get the same beating. Not to mention this administration leaves his spending in the dust along with even worse economic policies. Also there wasn’t the anti-capitalism sentiment that permeated through the beginning of 2009 which the tea-party became the reaction to. On top of it all Bush wasn’t as partisan or as arrogant as Obama which gets under peoples skin as well.
//I still have fundamental differences of opinion with you, and I don’t think you carefully read some of the things I wrote, and you’ve changed your "answer" to certain questions across posts//
Not sure which "answers" you’re referring to. I’ve noticed you continue to change your answer, you went from claiming a huge surplus to admitting that there wasn’t really a surplus. You also credit Clinton with 4 years of a decreasing deficit ignoring that those 4 years were after the 94 conservative take over of congress. You also ignore (maybe intentionally) that it was a strong economy that was creating new tax revenues coupled with shrinking military budget that was actually balancing the budget.
//That leads to an impression that you are, in your mind, never wrong. It may not be true, but that is definitely the impression.//
Not at all, I’ll concede my mistakes but you haven’t "proven" me wrong, you’ve thrown numerous off topic comments and when I counter your argument (like the Reagan speech) you fall silent on them and bring up another subject. You’ve yet to mention anything that Clinton did on his own to balance the budget.
The main thing is that your making assumptions of me based on stereotypes that you have of "conservatives" my assumptions of you are based on what you’ve written. You’re shadowboxing and accusing me of arguments I never made and ignoring the ones I do make. You want to believe your arguing with an "America F*** Yeah!!, Go Bush Go Neocon" and intentionally ignore my criticisms of Presidents of both parties. Excuses I’ve made on behalf of anyone are logical and based on fact rather than using the myopic approach you choose to use for Bush’s spending along with the same tunnel vision you hold for Clinton pretending that he balanced the budget leaving out that he had next to nothing to do with the increase in revenues and policies that caused the reduction. Also Ignoring that the majority of spending that occurs that causes the deficit come from liberal policies and programs that have been in place for years.
Sorry that I don’t commend your knowledge of the issues, I usually treat it as implied by the continued conversation. You do have a larger grasp of them then most people I have these conversations with who tend to stick to talking points or internet memes.
//As usual, forgive any typos. //
Not a problem I’m not a grammar nazi as can be seen from my own typos, I usually find that people who point out spelling errors and typos in a debate tend to lack an actual argument.
Thought you’d find this funny a republican friend of mine found this and thought it was great, I thought different.
Survey Says: Republicans Know More Than Democrats
http://www.livescience.com/culture/public-news-quiz-100129.html?...: Livesciencecom (LiveScience.com Science Headline Feed)
From what I gathered from the same survey was that over 80% of both Republicans and Democrats polled didn’t really know S***. So Its kind of like being the fastest runner in the Special Olympics, Yeah you won but in the end you’re still a retard (and no I’m not Rahm Emanuel)
I know what you mean. Thanks for sharing.
First off, your preference to raise taxes when times are good is in line with my preference = Pay down the debt. When we (the wife and I) took in more salary we made it a priority to pay off all debts except the mortgage. (So we may have like 2 whole things where we can find common ground). Though I take it from your earlier post that you would really prefer to replace the progressive marginal tax system. I’m always open to ideas.
But back to the debt / revenue comparisons: I’ve done a lot of research into the PR campaigns for tobacco, asbestos, lead, etc., and these industries published some pretty convincing reports and "scientific papers" that claimed these harmful substances were not harmful (in some cases with tobacco they went as far as to say cigarettes were "good" for people). And people at the time believed them, or they generated enough doubt that peoiple remained in harm’s way for years after the real scientific consensus said they were dangerous. But I still know smoking isn’t good for a person. I still don’t want kids ingesting lead via old paint or via car exhaust from leaded gas (both practices have ended). I wouldn’t work around raw asbestos fibers without proper equipment. So no matter how convincing their arguments, no matter what scinece or evidence they claimed to be rooted in, the truth was still there.
It’s no different here. We can make anything sound plausible. We can put a doubt in someone’s mind about virtually any topic. Ultimately if you choose to ignore inflation adjustments that is, again, your prerogative and part of the freedom you fought for. You also fought for others’ right to disagree and to vote according to their own opinion. Even if said persons happen to be dimwits.
It’s tough to find a summary / opinion that isn’t biased, as you know. This one is about McCain but it covers the issue, albeit briefly, and cites R and D sources. Not perfect, but nice and brief and to the point.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
If you want to make the argument that tax cuts stimulate the economy, I’ll hear you out. And I think there is evidence for that (yet a third point of agreement?). But I maintain that they don’t increase revenue as a % of GDP, and I maintain that’s the proper way to compare.
The example I provided was about the disingenousness of saying that Bush’s tax cuts resulted in record federal receipt (I provided a chart that claimed that).
I stand by my statement that it’s not true. It’s most appropriate to look at % of GDP when making comparisons since the economy grows. This *really is* the correct way of doing and I was rather surprised that you disputed it. Maybe you’re messing with me.
It’s easy to make an argument for just about anything. How else could it have taken until 1986 to get lead out of gasoline? So while I acknowledge that there are hundreds of articles that claim tax cuts increase revenue, that doesn’t make it true. Maybe I’m wrong, but as a scientist (by profession) I don’t see the empirical data to back up that conclusion. You say I haven’t "proven you wrong." While I say the same, vice-versa. Maybe the answer is somewhere in between.
For non growth comparisons, such as yearly income, I would like to know if you believe in using inflation adjusted dollars for year to year comparisons. Or did you mean something else when you asked why I fall back on adjusted dollars? Again, maybe you’re just messing with me and you know better.
I’ll stop posting now. I think we have unfairly monopolized the space here.
I’ll just hit the main issue since we are eating a lot of space.
You’re arguing that the percentage of gdp didn’t grow is fine for seeing revenue amounts. If the percentage is the same but the GDP number is higher its a higher dollar amount. At no point did I criticize you for adjusting for inflation. Adjust for inflation all you want tax revenues under Reagan more than doubled from 500 billion to over 1 trillion. The percentage of GDP stayed the same throughout but revenue did increase.
As for tax cuts boosting the economy when done correctly
Here are some facts
Economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years
vs 2.7 percent for Ford/Carter years and
2 percent under Bush Sr and Clinton years.
Real median income grew by over 4,000 in the Reagan era after originally experiencing no growth in the preReagan years. "Oddly" it experienced a loss of of over 1400 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
I stand by my statement that it’s not true. It’s most appropriate to look at % of GDP when making comparisons since the economy grows.
Your acting as if that percentage (by that I mean the actual revenue) doesn’t increase along with the growth in GDP. Its a percentage of a larger number even counting for inflation its still a larger dollar amount.
It’s easy to make an argument for just about anything. How else could it have taken until 1986 to get lead out of gasoline?//
Mainly because of the costs of doing so and the increase of the cost of vehicles as well as the burden it placed on the economy. Those for central plannings have a habit of not thinking about unintended consequences of their policies. Much like CAFE standards have produced cars that are less safe for the sake of the nanny state.
Or just take a look at the idiocy that is ethanol that raises the price of food, cost more to produce and damages catalytic converters.
For non growth comparisons, such as yearly income, I would like to know if you believe in using inflation adjusted dollars for year to year comparisons.
Again I don’t know where you got that from. Of course I believe in using inflation adjusted dollars, you’ll see from my other post on the other board that I used inflation adjusted dollars to point out how the Iraq war was actually cheaper than the Vietnam war.
You also seem to be relying on the false notion that tax revenues correlate with income tax rates.//
Nowhere did I criticize the use of inflation adjusted dollars. Again I think you’re shadowboxing
Correction It wasn’t you I was talking to about Iraq vs Vietnam spending, sorry for the confusion.