They all have boats and cars and other stuff I do not yet have.  KILL THEM ALL AND TAKE THEIR STUFF!

You have no idea how close that statement is to what a LOT of liberals think.

You kidding? ever read over @ the TNF, heck its every other thread sometimes. Of course I see Prop over there calling some folks here ignorant, guess cause not ever one sees his liberal views..lol.. Funny thing tho I see he is still here posting.

THe effect of the BushIIe Tax Cuts for the Wealthy have caused the national debt to increase by $1.5Trillion over the last 10 years.   Repeal them now and it will take 20 years to recover from that debt.  Plus, the debt incurred by Medicare Part D will be even greater than that caused by the tax cuts, yet no Repube even mentions repeal of that legislation as they know it will mean Florida will vote Dem in 2012. 

Just for fun, google the wealthiest congressmen and senators.

Ditzy,

 

As shown again and again, as the tax rate was cut, the taxes collected increased.  Therefore, the tax cut did not contribute to the deficit -- overspending did! 

 

And, don't cite that taxes revenue increased as a percentage of GDP.  It was the tax cut that contributed to the rise in GDP. 

 

Lefties have to be the original two-dimension beings.  They fail to grasp that there are consequences to actions that affect the entire economic environment.  Learn to think in at least four dimensions! 

 

At $1.5 trillion over ten years, that would cover 10 percent of the deficits forecast by Obama;s economic team. 

Why do you go there Bo?  When i posted there, every time you came on, it was a massive assault, no matter what you said. I was LMM over there.

 

And yes, all the liberals on that one would shoot the rich and take their stuff.

 

Sorry, I thought for sure the person was named Bo.  My mistake.

 

Yep, I'm the one WIP hates.

Year  Revenue

 

2000   $2,025.2 Trillion
2001    1,991.1
2002    1,853.1
2003    1,782.3
2004    1,880.1

2005    2,153.6

 

"And, don't cite that taxes revenue increased as a percentage of GDP.  It was the tax cut that contributed to the rise in GDP."

It's also been pointed out again and again that both total tax revenue and income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP decreased under Bush.  You can't just credit a tax cut for revenue increases when all the evidence suggests that GDP growth resulted in some increased revenue, but not as much as the previous tax rates would have predicted.

 

 

If I put 100% of my annual income toward my mortgage payment, that wouldn't be paid off, either.

But an additional 5% payment toward the principal each month will pay it off just that much quicker. 

 

 

See my post above.

 

 

Somebody has to be the sane one of the bunch. Watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest sometime. It might look familiar.

Are you Nurse Ratched, or McMurphy?

 

My favorite was the Indian chief.

 

 

How about that time they stole the bus and went on a fishing trip? That's probably the most fun those guys have had since they entered therapy.

 

I would have said a favorite part was at the end, when the girls were brought in. But it ended with the nurse applying the mental torture of saying to one patient that she was going to tell his mother what he had been doing, and he was found a few minutes later in the closet dead of suicide. 

I think that was the moment when Nurse Ratched became the most hated character in history.

 

Mine, the chief taking the gum from McMurphy. Then he knew that the old chief had been just playing along.

And ripping up the water fountain, of course.

Ditzy,

 

You need to apply for work during the harvest season.  You'd make a good cherry picker.

 

The actual story:

 

 

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue...;color=c&local=s

 

The initial drop was caused by the dotcom bomb bubble, of course, which started during the Clinton administration.   

        Sorry, I thought for sure the person was named Bo.  My mistake.

Yep, I'm the one WIP hates.

I wouldn't take it too personally b, I've never been to TNF but when she was on here she appeared to hate everyone except herself.  LOL

 

Year   Percentage of GDP of Federal Revenues

 

1997   19.2
1998   19.9
1999   19.8
2000   20.6
2001   19.5
2002   17.6
2003   16.2
2004   16.1
2005   17.3
2006   18.2
2007   18.5
2008   17.5

 

Long Live King Clinton!!!!

Ditzy,

 

As may clearly be seen, from your post and mine, federal revenue increased substantialled while being a lesser percentage of a larger GDP.  Thus, proving my case! 

 

Thanks!

If your point was that decreasing federal income tax rates produces huge deficits, then yes, the BushIIe Tax Cuts for the Wealthy was a success.  After all, deficits dont matter, we can print more money. 

Ditzy,

 

Are you the product of late 20th century education?  If so, that explains much!  As may clearly be deduced from the tables you and I posted, after taxes were reduced, revenue increased.  In fact, from 2005 to 2008, revenue increased to a greater level than ever collected. While GDP increased (in part due to increased funds in the hands of the taxpayers), tax revenue as a percentage of GDP decreased.  However, actual revenue increased -- once more, at a higher amount than anytime in history.

 

Increasing revenue doesn't cause deficits, spending more than the amount of revenue causes deficits!  Obviously, your teachers did not provide the mental tools to allow you take two seperate pieces of information and come to a new conclusion.  Its rather sad! 

 

Annual Federal Rev as a percentage of GDP

 

1991   17.8

1992   17.5
1993   17.5
1994   18.0

1995   18.4
1996   18.8

1997   19.2
1998   19.9
1999   19.8
2000   20.6

 

Clinton raised taxes and revenues increased every year, in actual dollar amounts, and as a percentage of GDP.  You. Lose. Again. 

 

 

Reagan proved that deficits dont matter, and that federal spending is the key to prosperity.  BushIIe did his best to emulate Reagans policies, but only managed to double the national debt, while Reagan was able to TRIPLE it.  BushIIe's lack of spending is what created the collapse of 2008.  Mr. Obama will need deficits of at least $1.7Trillion per year to triple the national debt. 

Ditzy,

 

Unfortunately, you've proved my point. You are incapable of interpolating data to arrive at an original conclusion.  You parrot the percentages against GDP without considering the product produced -- increased revenues with small percentages of GDP.  Left in their own hands, citizens produced more wealth than existed before.  This had the effect of producing more tax revenue than existed before, even if as a smaller percentage of GDP.

 

Of course, deficits matter, in time no amount of tax revenue will be able to cover the debt.  Usually hyper inflation is the result. Which destroys a nation's currency for decades.  End result, second world status, most savings destroyed, pensions near worthless, and entitlements become a joke, at best. 

 

      

 

If federal expenditures are going to continue to increase 4% every year, federal revenues must be increased.  Clinton proved that raising taxes increases revenues. 

Whatever else you have to say is not relevant. 

Clinton raised taxes and revenues increased every year, in actual dollar amounts, and as a percentage of GDP.  You. Lose. Again. 

Taxes come from the profits of business; profits are from selling stuff. The 90's were a rare confluence of factors such as the end of the Cold War (Peace Dividend) and the commercialization of microprocessor technology  created by military research ("Star Wars"). During the 90's the US had a tech monopoly that no longer exists because of sleepovers in the Clinton White House,  reverse engineering, industrial espionage, and love offerings from Buddhist temples. The tax from the sale of products to the rest of the world  which used to profit the US Treasury now funds Chinese ambitions. I don't think even the cretin we now have as President could skiroo-up that kind of economy.

 

Also remember that the 90s' was a bubble economy. The returns were artificially inflated and were erased by the bursting of that bubble. 

 

 

 

GDP was increased due to the rise of the massive terrorism-industrial complex after 9/11 and the widespread use of outside contractors for two wars. All of that brought in additional income tax revenue, along with the expected business cycle upturn. Thousands of new businesses sprang up to fulfill the government's need for stuff. Now that's real job creation!  

 

Unfortunately, it was all done with federal (taxpayers on the hook for the bill) deficit spending. 

 

The dotcom bubble is a myth.  There was no loss of wealth for 98% of Americans.  What did happen was the astounding growth of wealth that started in 1994 leveled off.  The slump after 9/11 was significant, but nothing like what we are experiencing today.  

Clinton was an economic genius, AND he did well with the ladies.  Thats why the Repubes hated him.  

BushIIe was good at clearing brush. 

OH-DEAR-LORD! that is the funniest thing I have seen in a while! Thanks for the laugh, I really needed that!

<chortle>

The dotcom bubble is a myth.  There was no loss of wealth for 98% of Americans.

 Only in the Obamanation era would the loss of $5 Trillion in value be considered no loss of wealth! 

 

The Nasdaq 100 peaked on March 10, 2000. Over the next two and a half years, it lost 78% of its value, and many of the internet companies that survived still sell below their all-time highs. In this anniversary series, we ask what we've learned over the past ten years.

In the battle of the bubbles, the dot-com disaster may have been less devastating than the recent financial fiasco and housing hullabaloo, but it still destroyed about $5 trillion in value.

Too many of us spent too many precious dollars chasing the next eMeringue.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/...t-us-about-tech.aspx

As to the ladies, his conquests included a rather chubby infatuated intern.  She was one of the better of the lot.

 

Compared with JFK whose paramours included Marilyn Monroe and Marlene Dietrich, that's really sad.

The myth lives on.

Go to Google Finance and look at the complete history of the DJIA. 

There were no significant drops until 9/11. 

The dot.com implosion killed many investors, but on the whole the average American had no impact.

Dang ditto, I'm embarassed for you. Yikes!! It had no impact on the average american???

Ditzy shows his incompetence as to business, once again.

 

The NASDAQ is the main trading platform for IT stocks, not the Dow Jones.

 

The NASDAQ went from a high of 5,132.52 to well under 2,000 and is still hovering under 2,500.

 

The 2000 to 2002 resulting crash caused the loss of about $5 trillion in the marker value of IT stocks.  That represents a lot of people's retirement accounts as well as investment for the future. About half of the new IT companies folded by 2004.

 

Some, no impact. 

My bad.

I just assumed people would be diversified beyond one sector. 

I should have said the average informed investor lost no money.

If, the average informed investor spread out his investments, he certainly took a shower, if not a bath, in IT stock losses.