Absolutely right

John Hitchcock, on Truth Before Dishonor, quotes Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA 3rd):

I’m trying to understand the criticism of Mr. Ryan’s budget from the side that didn’t even have the courage to pass a budget. To sit there now and rail about Mr. Ryan’s budget, about how it’s so ineffective and how it doesn’t work is, to me, the greatest, most hypocritical statement I’ve heard since coming here.

Yup!

101 Comments

  1. “I’m trying to understand the criticism of Mr. Ryan’s budget from the side that didn’t even have the courage to pass a budget. To sit there now and rail about Mr. Ryan’s budget, about how it’s so ineffective and how it doesn’t work is, to me, the greatest, most hypocritical statement I’ve heard since coming here.”

    That is an ignorant statement! Anybody can put a proposed budget on the table, but it has to be serious to be considered much more than a waste of time.

    Any budget that dumps Medicare as we know it, and does not consider the revenue side along with the spending side, is next to useless, which is why the Ryan plan seems to be going nowhere, and even some in his own party are disengaging from it.

    A budget plan is being worked out as we speak as part of the debt ceiling debate, with both parties participating, except that an important Repub just walked out in protest of considering revenue increases as part of the package.

    So as usual, there are some Repubs who continue to wish to put the burden of deficit reduction on those who can least afford it, not onto those who can afford it. Whatever happened to the idea of a shared burden? That’s my question, which the above statement fails to address!

  2. Whatever happened to the idea of a shared burden?

    Aside from being a Socialist Utopian idea (from each, to each, soak the rich), it is also not in any way, shape, or form the position of the Left, nor has it ever been. For proof, I give you the bottom 50 percent of the income earners who pay basically zero — they get a free ride when it comes to expenses to run the government.

  3. “Aside from being a Socialist Utopian idea (from each, to each, soak the rich), it is also not in any way, shape, or form the position of the Left, nor has it ever been. For proof, I give you the bottom 50 percent of the income earners who pay basically zero — they get a free ride when it comes to expenses to run the government.”

    First of all, the burden has hardly been shared in recent years, as judged by the after tax incomes and resultant redistribution of the nation’s wealth upwards. Do you dispute that, John?

    Secondly, the bottom 50% pay little to no federal income taxes, because the make so little money. Moreover, you Righties never mention the taxes that the lower 50% do pay: SS tax, sales taxes, state/city income taxes, property taxes, personal property taxes, …. These are all taxes, John; why did you not mention them? Answer: You are just repeating by rote what you hear and read in the right wing media. You are not hearing the whole truth, John.

    You are unemployed and living a cloistered life in difficult circumstances. I am surprised that you are not very much in touch with that which is really going on to challenge the lives of working people. Are you not getting out there and talking to people? You show no empathy for them! Or maybe it is mainly military people with whom you are in contact, all of whom are employed and have enough for the basics, at least.

  4. First of all, the burden has hardly been shared in recent years, as judged by the after tax incomes and resultant redistribution of the nation’s wealth upwards. Do you dispute that, John?

    Yes, I do dispute that, Perry. First of all, there you go again with your redefining a term to mean its opposite: redistribution. Second, there is no sharing if half the people don’t even bear any of the burden.

    Moreover, you Righties never mention the taxes that the lower 50% do pay: SS tax, sales taxes, state/city income taxes, property taxes, personal property taxes

    Very few of the lower 50 percent own property upon which a property tax is levied. Many states don’t have personal property taxes, and no states should. There is a large segment of the lower 50 percent who get enough of an income tax return to return the entirety of their Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, Income taxes, and get more money on top of that. It’s in the Income Tax code. Not one red cent in sales tax goes to the Federal government; therefore, not one red cent in sales tax goes to spread the burden of the Federal government. And do me a favor, will you? Quit answering for me since you are so dad-blame ignorant.

    You are not hearing the whole truth, John.

    That’s hilarious coming from someone who doesn’t believe in “Truth,” only “your truth and my truth.” Your own words are your undoing. And trust me on this, you can’t handle the Truth, as you have so often proven yourself to be incapable of recognizing it.

  5. Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    Moreover, you Righties never mention the taxes that the lower 50% do pay: SS tax, sales taxes, state/city income taxes, property taxes, personal property taxes

    Very few of the lower 50 percent own property upon which a property tax is levied.

    I disagree with that. While renters, technically, don’t pay property taxes, the landlords do, and those property taxes are paid for out of the rents they receive.

    Just as I have said that corporations pay no taxes at all, but simply collect taxes from the end users of their products, so I will also say that the end consumers of everything pay all of the taxes heaped upon all of the goods and services they buy, from property taxes to utility taxes to unemployment taxes to diesel fuel taxes.

    Income taxes are special, in that they are taxes levied only on the harder workers, but everybody pays all of the rest of the taxes.

  6. Dana, I agree with your absolute position regarding renters being the ones who pay the property tax on the residence through their rent. But the point was direct taxation and Perry opened his mouth and inserted both feet in his wrong-headed effort to make a provably false declaration.

  7. “Income taxes are special, in that they are taxes levied only on the harder workers, but everybody pays all of the rest of the taxes.”

    And exactly what is the basis for that preposterous statement, Dana? I suspect that it is just one more ideological myth.

    And John, it we are going to talk about tax burden on individuals and families, you must consider all taxes, not just the federal taxes. I know that you dishonestly don’t want to do that, because you then lose your point. Let us focus on telling the truth as best we can, you too John!

  8. And John, it we are going to talk about tax burden on individuals and families, you must consider all taxes, not just the federal taxes. I know that you dishonestly don’t want to do that, because you then lose your point. Let us focus on telling the truth as best we can, you too John!

    Perry, you’re so full of yourself that it’s a wonder you ever have to eat. Now go do something anatomically impossible, and you do know what I mean.

    The Federal tax burden on individuals only needs concern Federal taxes, not state and local taxes. But you knew that already. You had to muddy the issue in order to try to pretend to make a cogent point because your absolutely dishonest ass pulls have nothing to do with reality, facts, or Truth (which you don’t believe in anyway).

    The day you decide to be totally honest and ass pull free will be a very unique experience for you: it hasn’t happened before.

  9. “Also, property tax, personal property tax has nothing to do with the Federal government, so your claims on those are also non sequiturs.”

    Whether or not any particular tax has anything to do with the Federal Government is immaterial, because we need to discuss the total tax burden. To me that is obvious, to certain ideologues, it does not convey the desired ideological message.

    The purpose of the Obama/Dem moratorium on SS taxes is a policy to lift some of this tax burden from those least able to carry that burden, 2% on employees for t/y 2011.

    A further change I favor is to reimpose the 6.2% SS tax on all those with income over $250K. I would not impose the matching tax on employers per se. 6.2% on these people is more affordable than 6.2% is on those earning up to $106,800, the current income cap for the tax.

  10. “The Federal tax burden on individuals only needs concern Federal taxes, not state and local taxes.”

    Everyone understands that, John, but Federal taxes are not the whole story. Isn’t that obvious to you, or are you going to continue to play this dishonest, stubborn game of yours. Note to John: Other folks are watching and can see through your smoke screen. Time for you to give up smoking, John! ‘Tis a stinky habit and not good for your mental health!

  11. Perry, shut the hell up until you can learn to debate honestly. That means you’ll never again be able to post anything. Because you are never honest in your debate.

    That “people can see you” bit is hilarious coming from you, since every single Conservative and Libertarian commenting on this site has called you out on numerous occasions. Yes, that includes Dana. So, shove your passive-aggressive bullshit up your ass.

  12. First of all, the burden has hardly been shared in recent years, as judged by the after tax incomes and resultant redistribution of the nation’s wealth upwards. Do you dispute that, John?

    The rich are already in the highest tax brackets, Perry.

    What more do you want?

  13. Perry says:
    26 June 2011 at 12:15

    “I’m trying to understand the criticism of Mr. Ryan’s budget from the side that didn’t even have the courage to pass a budget. To sit there now and rail about Mr. Ryan’s budget, about how it’s so ineffective and how it doesn’t work is, to me, the greatest, most hypocritical statement I’ve heard since coming here.”

    That is an ignorant statement! Anybody can put a proposed budget on the table, but it has to be serious to be considered much more than a waste of time.

    To remind Perry, when the Dem/Libs/Progressives had the majority in FY 2010. The year without a budget. In case you forgot that is the reference in BOLD above.

  14. The rich are already in the highest tax brackets, Perry.

    What more do you want?

    Well, firstly:

    i, that highest tax bracket to be where it was at the start of the Reagan administration
    ii, OR that highest tax bracket to be sufficient such that the US wasn’t drifting further and further into inequality.

    You know, there’s something you w1ngnuts never seem to address. With all your whining about how paying progressive taxation is “unfair”, the fact is America is becoming more and more unequal. So the thing you never seem to deal with are what are the consequences of that, and where does it stop?

    I have to conclude that you actually WANT a neo-feudal society, millions of starving peons begging for scraps from the uber-rich elite.

  15. “To remind Perry, when the Dem/Libs/Progressives had the majority in FY 2010. The year without a budget. In case you forgot that is the reference in BOLD above.”

    But Yorkshire, there was a F/Y 2010 budget, and here it is.

    [Added: My mistake, Yorkshire, the link I gave was for Obama's proposed F/Y 2010 budget. There never was a final budget passed by Congress. So you are correct.]

  16. Perry, the Democrats refused to even attempt to pass a budget. No budget has been passed in approaching 800 days. Since you have such a difficult time understanding things, that’s over 2 years. The Democrats didn’t even try to pass a budget. “Deeming” something passed is not passing something. But you already knew that. You’re just fishing in the latrine as usual.

  17. And, Perry, learn about dates in FY. You’ll possibly look less ignorant. You might even fool people into thinking you aren’t ignorant of the facts before speaking.

  18. “The rich are already in the highest tax brackets, Perry.

    What more do you want?”

    I simply want the tax brackets to be where they were in the Clinton/Repub years. Also I want capital gains and dividends to be taxed according to these brackets. That way the revenue burden can be more fairly distributed, the federal revenue will increase causing the deficit/debt to decrease. Is that asking too much, Eric?

  19. “Perry, shut the hell up until you can learn to debate honestly. That means you’ll never again be able to post anything. Because you are never honest in your debate.

    That “people can see you” bit is hilarious coming from you, since every single Conservative and Libertarian commenting on this site has called you out on numerous occasions. Yes, that includes Dana. So, shove your passive-aggressive bullshit up your ass.”

    Another vile outburst from Christian John H. I don’t believe you are, John, because you simply don’t behave like one.

    How about an example of my dishonesty, John? You continue not to understand how to discuss and debate. Take Dana as your example.

  20. Yes, do take Dana as an example.

    “Progressives are the enemies of Freedom; Liberalism is the enemy of Liberty.”

    And by the way, Perry, I give you far more respect than you deserve in every one of my comments directed to or about you. Take that to the bank.

  21. So what’s new, John? Take note: “Hoyer this spring noted that the GOP-led Congress didn’t pass a final resolution in 1998, 2004 and 2006.”

    You failed to make note of the fact that the House has been having difficulty passing a final resolution budget, which probably reflects the political polarization making Congress dysfunctional.

    However, you are correct. Congress passed a Budget Resolution on the Obama proposal on April 29, 2009, for F/Y 2010, planning to pass the final budget later, which never happened, just one more example of our dysfunctional Congress.

    Obama did present his F/Y 2010 budget proposal to Congress; the best they could do

  22. Perry wrote:

    That is an ignorant statement! Anybody can put a proposed budget on the table, but it has to be serious to be considered much more than a waste of time.

    “Anyone,” apparently, is a group which does not include the Democrats in the House of Representatives or the Senate. They passed the FY2010 budget fairly quickly, but never even proposed the FY2011 or FY2012 budgets. Why? Well, Mr Hitchcock said, on his own site, it was because the public were so fed up with over-spending that the Democrats knew that if they did propose a budget, it would be used to retire many of their members . . . which happened anyway. The Democrats put politics ahead of their responsibilities.

  23. “And by the way, Perry, I give you far more respect than you deserve in every one of my comments directed to or about you. Take that to the bank.”

    Really, John? That statement right there speaks volumes about your dysfunctional thinking. You are not in touch with reality!

    You and Hube can continue to run on at the mouth. I’m out of your outrageous games, as I should have decided much earlier. You two are not worth the time. Have at it!

  24. You and Hube can continue to run on at the mouth. I’m out of your outrageous games, as I should have decided much earlier. You two are not worth the time. Have at it!

    Translation: I hate people who point out my fabrications, hypocrisy and irrationality.

  25. Perry wrote:

    However, you are correct. Congress passed a Budget Resolution on the Obama proposal on April 29, 2009, for F/Y 2010, planning to pass the final budget later, which never happened, just one more example of our dysfunctional Congress.

    Obama did present his F/Y 2010 budget proposal to Congress; the best they could do

    And just who controlled the Congress then? Heck, who had a filibuster-proof majority for a good part of that time? If the Congress was dysfunctional, it was due to the Democrats!

    There is, of course, no filibuster in the House of Representatives, yet the House never passed an overall budget blueprint, and passed only two of the twelve annual appropriations bills. The House did not pass a budget until the Republicans took it over!

    It seems that the only functional part of Congress is the Republican part.

  26. Perry says:
    26 June 2011 at 19:05

    “To remind Perry, when the Dem/Libs/Progressives had the majority in FY 2010. The year without a budget. In case you forgot that is the reference in BOLD above.”

    But Yorkshire, there was a F/Y 2010 budget, and here it is.

    [Added: My mistake, Yorkshire, the link I gave was for Obama's proposed F/Y 2010 budget. There never was a final budget passed by Congress. So you are correct.]

    It all ended in an abortion of a spending agreement no one liked.

  27. Pingback: Think he’d do it? And would the Democrats approve? « Common Sense Political Thought

  28. ““Anyone,” apparently, is a group which does not include the Democrats in the House of Representatives or the Senate. They passed the FY2010 budget fairly quickly, but never even proposed the FY2011 or FY2012 budgets. Why? Well, Mr Hitchcock said, on his own site, it was because the public were so fed up with over-spending that the Democrats knew that if they did propose a budget, it would be used to retire many of their members . . . which happened anyway. The Democrats put politics ahead of their responsibilities.”

    That’s some statement there, Dana. Apparently you have forgotten that the Republicans rendered the US Senate to be a useless body, using the filibuster threat a record number of times. Who put “politics ahead of responsibilities”, did you say? And what about increasing spending, even off budget, and cutting taxes. Who put “politics ahead of responsibilities”, Dana?

    Like I’ve been saying, we are all hypocrites. Until we realize that and proceed to get our act together, like on raising the debt ceiling, we will continue to be “putting politics ahead of responsibilities”.

    On the debt ceiling, Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of Pimco, the world’s biggest bond trader, was a guest on Fareed Zacharia’s program today. He is an expert on global finance. One point he made is the US is in no way like Greece, saying that we still have time to stimulate the growth of our economy. He also pleaded with the Repubs and Dems to get together on the debt ceiling, because if we default, the markets will suddenly be rattled about being in unknown territory. Yet the Repubs want to play chicken with the issue, refusing to put revenue increase on the table with spending cuts. Now who is “putting politics ahead of responsibility”, I ask again? You can watch the show right here.

  29. “The House did not pass a budget until the Republicans took it over!

    It seems that the only functional part of Congress is the Republican part.”

    You are right about the former, but wrong about the latter. One can hardly call their budget functional if it attempts to reduce the deficit solely on the backs of the middle class. And btw, as far as I can tell, that’s you, Dana. Yet you’re all for it! I cannot figure you out!

  30. It’s kind of difficult for you to blame the Senate Republicans for filibustering bills which never even got there from the House of Representatives. The filibuster exists one place only: on the Senate floor. It does not exist for committee votes. Yet the House Democrats passed only two of the twelve annual appropriations bills, and neither of those ever made it out of the Senate committees to the floor where they could be filibustered.

    You’ll recall that we’ve condemned the Republicans overspending when they were in control of the Congress, and it’s been noted here that that over-spending was a large part of the reason the GOP got spanked in the 2006 elections; they deserved it. But cutting taxes was what they campaigned on, and what the voters elected them to do, so I can’t — and won’t — complain about that.

  31. Perry noted:

    On the debt ceiling, Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of Pimco, the world’s biggest bond trader, was a guest on Fareed Zacharia’s program today. He is an expert on global finance. One point he made is the US is in no way like Greece, saying that we still have time to stimulate the growth of our economy.

    Perry, think about what you just said: you are citing as evidence a man who stands to profit if the debt ceiling in increased and we go for even more borrowing, and who stands to lose money if the debt ceiling isn’t raised and there is a default. Of course he’s going to say that!

  32. “Perry, think about what you just said: you are citing as evidence a man who stands to profit if the debt ceiling in increased and we go for even more borrowing, and who stands to lose money if the debt ceiling isn’t raised and there is a default. Of course he’s going to say that!”

    When you don’t like the message, Dana, then you question the integrity of an expert. I doubt if you heard the entirity of El-Erian as accessible from the link I provided, about two thirds through the show. I suggest you make it a point to hear it, since in the least it might impact your investment decision thinking.

    And btw, how’s the UK doing with their austerity program? Well it shrank by 0.5% in 4Q10, and is forecast to shrink for the entire 2011 year. Is this outcome what you wish for us, Dana?

    I see no way where austerity alone will restore our economy to growth. It is necessary to stimulate job creation as well, as Clinton did, and as FDR did, in order to create the demand necessary to initiate a turn-around in the economy “stupid”. The Clinton years are proof of that, as has been pointed out on here on numerous occasions, albeit ignored by you, as you make up your own untested solution according to your ideology which you accept by faith as though it were a religion. That approach does/will not fly, Dana, in my opinion.

  33. “Yet the House Democrats passed only two of the twelve annual appropriations bills, and neither of those ever made it out of the Senate committees to the floor where they could be filibustered.”

    Yes, Dana, the threat of filibuster has far reaching effects, enough to make for a dysfunctional Senate, which has an impact on the workings of the House as well.

    You Repubs made sure you would disrupt the workings of an elected majority, yet you turn around and argue that an elected majority in the House should prevail on taxes!

    This is an example of your hypocrisy, Dana. Welcome to the crowd of hypocrites on this here CSPT!!! :)

  34. And btw, how’s the UK doing with their austerity program? Well it shrank by 0.5% in 4Q10, and is forecast to shrink for the entire 2011 year. Is this outcome what you wish for us, Dana?

    Gosh, Perry, don’t throw facts at them when they’ve built such a lovely house of cards based on ideology

  35. i, that highest tax bracket to be where it was at the start of the Reagan administration

    Great. So we should return to the Carter years, that hotbed of economic activity.

  36. You are right about the former, but wrong about the latter. One can hardly call their budget functional if it attempts to reduce the deficit solely on the backs of the middle class. And btw, as far as I can tell, that’s you, Dana. Yet you’re all for it! I cannot figure you out!

    Great. So you are mystified that Dana doesn’t think like a Democrat, i.e., in terms of how much free stuff he can get from the government. Instead, he thinks like a Republican, meaning he worries about who’s gonna pay for it all.

    I guess what you libs can’t grasp is that there are people in this country who put principle over selfish greed.

  37. I simply want the tax brackets to be where they were in the Clinton/Repub years

    If Democrats could absolutly, positively agree to dramatically cut spending, and then stick to that agreement, then there might be an argument to be made for raising taxes, albeit temporarily. But we all know the truth from experience. As soon as taxes are raised, the Democrats will find a way to spend that money and the deficit will be the same as before.


  38. You are right about the former, but wrong about the latter. One can hardly call their budget functional if it attempts to reduce the deficit solely on the backs of the middle class. And btw, as far as I can tell, that’s you, Dana. Yet you’re all for it! I cannot figure you out!

    Great. So you are mystified that Dana doesn’t think like a Democrat, i.e., in terms of how much free stuff he can get from the government. Instead, he thinks like a Republican, meaning he worries about who’s gonna pay for it all.

    I guess what you libs can’t grasp is that there are people in this country who put principle over selfish greed.”

    “Put principle over selfish greed.” That’s a classic, Eric, coming from a person who clearly supports the deregulation that produced the greedy Wall Street shenanigans that brought our nation to her knees. Not only that, but to think that you consider that government efforts to try to share the burden in lifting our economy is “selfish greed”. I don’t think that either you or Dana believes in shared burden.

    No way do I agree with your statements, statements that confound me that anyone with principles would ever make!

  39. I simply want the tax brackets to be where they were in the Clinton/Repub years

    If Democrats could absolutly, positively agree to dramatically cut spending, and then stick to that agreement, then there might be an argument to be made for raising taxes, albeit temporarily. But we all know the truth from experience. As soon as taxes are raised, the Democrats will find a way to spend that money and the deficit will be the same as before.

    Right, Eric, this coming from a person whose party recently behaved much worse, that is, cut taxes and raised spending, much of it off budget. That is exactly what your party did, a major contribution to the Great Recession we’ve had to endure!

    Moreover, please answer this question: Cite the time when Dems raised taxes and spending alike, and produced a deficit as a result?

  40. Cite the time when Dems raised taxes and spending alike, and produced a deficit as a result?

    Under Reagan. And, in addition to raising taxes and spending, they lied about it. They had promised to reduce spending if Reagan agreed to raises taxes, then they reneged on the deal. And of course the result was continued deficits.

  41. Right, Eric, this coming from a person whose party recently behaved much worse, that is, cut taxes and raised spending, much of it off budget. That is exactly what your party did, a major contribution to the Great Recession we’ve had to endure!

    PS Cite the average deficit under Bush. Then cite the average deficit under Obama.

  42. Right, Eric, this coming from a person whose party recently behaved much worse, that is, cut taxes and raised spending, much of it off budget. That is exactly what your party did, a major contribution to the Great Recession we’ve had to endure!

    PS Cite the average deficit under Bush. Then cite the average deficit under Obama.

    Sure, the Bush-Obama deficit was higher, but when Obama took office we had a collapsing economy in the throws of a Great Recession, possibly heading into a Great Depression II. We were in a near panic, as was the globe at the time. How short our memories are.

    Obama’s fiscal policies quelled the panic and prevented Great Depression II, yet gets no thanks only ridicule from the very Repubs whose policies were major causes of our malaise. Do you dispute any of this, Eric?

    Of course now we have the very difficult task of getting growth back into our economy, with very little help from the Republicans, who want that 2012 prize more than diligently working on the economy. And you call yourselves patriots?

  43. with very little help from the Republicans, who want that 2012 prize more than diligently working on the economy. And you call yourselves patriots?

    Example #39876 of Herr Fossil’s outrageous hypocrisy. Just imagine Herr Fossil’s reaction if someone questioned his patriotism due to his opposition of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

    Unreal.

  44. Cite the time when Dems raised taxes and spending alike, and produced a deficit as a result?

    Under Reagan. And, in addition to raising taxes and spending, they lied about it. They had promised to reduce spending if Reagan agreed to raises taxes, then they reneged on the deal. And of course the result was continued deficits.

    Without a citation, Eric, I don’t know where your information comes from, and frankly, I don’t believe it. Anyway, I will do some research for you that will call to question your comment:

    Reagan instituted two tax increases,
    in 1982 and 1984, at which time he had the 97th and 98th Congresses, both of which had Republican majorities in the Senate. In fact: “Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together “constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime, ….”

    Did you know these facts, Eric? Do you still wish to stick with your comment? If so, you will need a citation to back if up.

  45. Cite the time when Dems raised taxes and spending alike, and produced a deficit as a result?

    The Carter Years, beginning and ending.

    Hube, not only does your cite not support your claim about Carter, but is is pretty damning about Repub Presidents over recent decades wrt their fiscal responsibility.

    On the Change in Deficit per Capita/Change in Spending per Capita chart, Carter shows as having “increased spending and decreased the deficit”.

    Further on down the Presidents, Carter is seen to have raised taxes, but to have also reduced both spending and the deficit overall. There is a bit of a discrepancy on the two statements about spending which I don’t quite understand. However, decreasing the deficit is the key conclusion.

    So your point is not valid, Hube.

    Furthermore, if you scroll down to Reagan, Bush-41, and Bush-43, all three had fiscal policies that produced large deficits. Now compare them to Clinton, and you will see a striking improvement in fiscal policy, including the surplus at the end of his term, which Bush-43 returned back to a deficit pretty quickly. No wonder you folks now have a TEA Party wing.

    I like that chart and have bookmarked it. Thanks, Hube!

  46. Hube, not only does your cite not support your claim about Carter, but is is pretty damning about Repub Presidents over recent decades wrt their fiscal responsibility.

    Actually, it does. You need to look at this chart: http://conceptualmath.org/philo/budget/fbd_carter011.gif
    and then this chart: http://conceptualmath.org/philo/budget/fbp_carter012.gif

    Notice I said “beginning” and “ending,” which those two charts taken in conjunction do show. The deficit line in the second chart goes up a tad as Carter assumes office, drops in his mid-years, then increases again in his later years. The first chart shows that taxes and spending continued to rise throughout his term. Once again, you asked “Cite the time when Dems raised taxes and spending alike, and produced a deficit as a result?” These charts back it up. The chart you refer to is probably be the total result of the Carter years, although the second chart above appears to make it a net draw.

    And even though, as usual, you resort to the usual “But the Republican presidents don’t do so well!!” the issue you cited was regarding a Democrat. Truman, LBJ and Kennedy, along with Carter (though, overall Carter fares best for the specific issue at hand), fill the bill. Nevertheless, Reagan, Ike and Nixon fare better than these three Democrats. Of course, one has to look, as you noted, at complete governmental control by a single party, which was the case with Carter, LBJ, and I believe, Kennedy and Ike (first term).

  47. OK, Hube, let me walk you through how I read this chart. Comparing Carter from the beginning to the end of his term, he:

    * Lowered taxes
    * Increased spending
    * Reduced the deficit

    My challenge was: “Cite the time when Dems raised taxes and spending alike, and produced a deficit as a result?

    My wording was poor. I should have written: “Cite the time when Dems raised taxes and spending alike, and reduced the deficit as a result?

    So with the revised wording, I don’t think Carter would be the one.

    Now on a comparison of the fiscal performance under the various Presidents, this chart is the easiest to interpret, looking at Carter first:

    Now look at Reagan:

    The deficit is represented by the gap between the “spent” and the “taxed”, which became suddenly wider for Reagan than the deficit he inherited from Carter at the outset of his term. He was not able to significantly reduce that gap throughout his term.

    Bush Sr. had a similar problem, which would have worsened if he did not “read his lips and raise taxes”, which cost him a second term.

    Now,look at Clinton:

    His success was in being able to turn his inherited deficit into a surplus. Note that the vertical scale has been compressed compared to Reagan, which is why the gap appeared to suddenly contract.

    Finally, look at GW Bush:

    The vertical scale here is the same as that for Clinton. His mistake was to lower taxes while having to finance two wars, so you can see what happened to the deficit which Obama inherited from him. Note that need to double the gap to compare GW to RR; you can see that GW had the largest deficit of all these Presidents.

    Now granted, this is a somewhat simplistic way to compare Presidential performance wrt fiscal responsibility, but it certainly is a strong indicator. Thus, I’m sure you will agree that the Dems appear to have been more fiscally responsible than the Repubs.

  48. Perry,

    My point was that you have to look at both charts in conjunction. The first chart notes that spending and taxes increased throughout Carter’s term. The second deals with the percentages of both, along with the deficits. If you look at the deficit line on Carter’s chart, you’ll note it first goes up a bit, then dips, then goes up again, ending right about where it began.

    Second, you initially said Democrats which means when that party had exclusive realm of government — presidency, House and Senate. Carter falls into this category, as well as those I mentioned in my previous post. You cannot compare these to Reagan or Bush I, for example, or Clinton. Carter should be compared to Bush II, or JFK, or Johnson. And I made similar comparisons that you did on those presidencies, based on the Deficit per Capita/Change in Spending per Capita chart that you noted previously.

  49. As has already been stated, if you had had the economic performance of Carter instead of every other President until 2008, the US would be 7.5% richer than it is now.

    From Phoeny’s link:

    Here are the individual performances of each president since 1948:

    1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
    1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
    1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
    1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
    1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
    1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
    1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
    1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%

    1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
    1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
    2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
    2009 (Barack Obama, Democrat), -2.6%

    Perhaps you could explain those “maths” since Carter’s performance is beaten by Reagan and Clinton. In addition, your link states

    Democrats have occupied the White House in 26 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth in the country over those 26 years has been 4.01%.

    Republicans have occupied the White House in 36 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth over those 36 years has been 2.75%.

    Of course, such statements are really meaningless if it does not take into account who controls the other branches of government. You’re quite fond of criticizing presidents who act like dictators; presuming the chief exec has monolithic control of economic growth falls along that line of thinking.

  50. BTW, based on my previous post (and going by memory here), total party control would apply to Carter, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower (most of his 2 terms) and Bush II (most of two terms).

    Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

  51. Perry wrote:

    “Yet the House Democrats passed only two of the twelve annual appropriations bills, and neither of those ever made it out of the Senate committees to the floor where they could be filibustered.”

    Yes, Dana, the threat of filibuster has far reaching effects, enough to make for a dysfunctional Senate, which has an impact on the workings of the House as well.

    Oh, good Lord, Perry! Now you are blaming the potential of a Republican filibuster in the Senate, when the Democrats had either 59 or 60 seats in the Senate — depends on the date — for the Democrats in the House of Representatives not even reporting ten of the twelve annual appropriations bills out of committee. It’s not “the dog ate my homework,” but “if I had done my homework, the neighbors dog might have eaten it, so I was justified in not doing it.” Even you aren’t partisan enough to believe what you have written.

    Unless, of course, that was just your way of saying that the Democrats are totally spineless.

  52. Perry wrote:

    “Perry, think about what you just said: you are citing as evidence a man who stands to profit if the debt ceiling in increased and we go for even more borrowing, and who stands to lose money if the debt ceiling isn’t raised and there is a default. Of course he’s going to say that!”

    When you don’t like the message, Dana, then you question the integrity of an expert. I doubt if you heard the entirity of El-Erian as accessible from the link I provided, about two thirds through the show. I suggest you make it a point to hear it, since in the least it might impact your investment decision thinking.

    Dude, if I had presented an “expert” with such a vested interest in the outcome, you wouldn’t accept it, either. The man is clearly not objective.

  53. Eric wrote:

    You are right about the former, but wrong about the latter. One can hardly call their budget functional if it attempts to reduce the deficit solely on the backs of the middle class. And btw, as far as I can tell, that’s you, Dana. Yet you’re all for it! I cannot figure you out!

    Great. So you are mystified that Dana doesn’t think like a Democrat, i.e., in terms of how much free stuff he can get from the government. Instead, he thinks like a Republican, meaning he worries about who’s gonna pay for it all.

    I guess what you libs can’t grasp is that there are people in this country who put principle over selfish greed.

    Thing is, I don’t see how we can keep taking and taking and taking from the people who produce and just giving and giving and giving it to those who don’t. There is no free lunch!

  54. Tell ya what Perry, you guys can raise my tax rate to 50% the day you start collecting at least 20% from the 47 million voters who currently pay ZERO in federal income tax. Either that or take away their right to vote. Why should millions of folks with no dog in the race get to pick idiots who tax other people to buy their votes? That’s bull. And if you believe you’re being humane and compassionate by taking my money and giving it to a guy YOU think deserves it more you’re not. You’re being a thief. Wanna be humane and compassionate? Give him your money. Just because I do good business and make sound investments does not give you guys the right to give my profits to those who do neither.

    Hell, I give thousands to charities each year and hundreds of hours of my time and all I ever hear from you clowns on the left is how “greedy” I am. Keep pushing and guys like me will move everything overseas and you’ll be left with Greece, half on the dole and half working for the state. With you guys everyone who makes a dime more than you did it “on the backs of the poor and middle”. That old commie mantra won’t hold water move to Cuba if that’s what you want. I hear they have some real spiffy ’55 Chevys over there cause they’re so productive.

    [retrieved from moderation - pH]

  55. Perhaps you could explain those “maths” since Carter’s performance is beaten by Reagan and Clinton.

    I’ll try to make it simple enough for even a wingnut to understand.

    As a quick BoE calculation, the 28 years post Carter represent 8 years Reagan, 4 Bush, 8 Clinton, 8 Shrub. During those 28 years, the economy grew (1.034**8)*(1.0217**4)*(1.0388**8)*(1.0209**8), or by a factor of 2.278, a rise in real GDP of 127.8% over 28 years.
    If those 28 years had been spent at Carter’s rate of growth, this would have been a factor of (1.0325**28) or 2.449, a rise in real GDP of 144.9% over 28 years. 2.449/2.278 = 1.075.

    Of course, such statements are really meaningless if it does not take into account who controls the other branches of government

    Once again we see the wingnut shuffle in all its pathetic glory.

    Wingnut1: “Sneer – ‘Carter years’ sneer sneer”
    Member of the Reality-based community: “Better than the years post-Carter. Here’s the proof.”
    Wingnut2: “But Congress counts more! Why did you bring up Carter, silly Commie?!?!?”

  56. Thing is, I don’t see how we can keep taking and taking and taking from the people who produce and just giving and giving and giving it to those who don’t.

    I agree. That’s why I think the people who work for a living (i.e. producers) should get more, and teh people who make a living off capital (i.e. capitalists) should get less.

  57. Perry, admit you’re an idiot. And then go do that anatomically impossible thing.

    What a shining example of Christianity you are.

    Truly, a marvellous example of everything the American religious right stand for.

    [retrieved from moderaion - pH]

  58. Once again we see the wingnut shuffle in all its pathetic glory.

    Or, more accurately, we see someone who yet again demonstrates ignorance of basic American civics.

    Wingnut1: “Sneer – ‘Carter years’ sneer sneer”
    Member of the Cherrypicked-based community: “Better than the years post-Carter. Here’s the proof.”
    Wingnut2: “Oh, sure. It is interesting how you select whatever scenario to “prove” your “point.” For instance, instead of comparing it directly to one other president, like Reagan against whom Carter fairs unfavorably, let’s instead compare Carter’s lone four years to the average of all those after him, not to mention making the magically ambitious extrapolation of a sustained 3.25% rate over 28 some years.”

    Nevertheless, thank you for the calculations. Based on these #s, we also could conclude that if we sustained Reagan’s growth rate over the last 24 total years (excluding 1981-88 but including Carter’s four years), we’d be better off too. (2.231 vs. 2.111.) Maybe we ought to pick just Reagan’s best four years? Three? Five?

    See, I can cherrypick as well.

  59. <i.Wingnut2: “Oh, sure. It is interesting how you select whatever scenario to “prove” your “point.” For instance, instead of comparing it directly to one other president, like Reagan against whom Carter fairs unfavorably, let’s instead compare Carter’s lone four years to the average of all those after him, not to mention making the magically ambitious extrapolation of a sustained 3.25% rate over 28 some years.”

    Ah, yet again with the Wingnut shuffle. Carter compares unfavourably to Reagan – but reagan compares unfavourably to Clinton (and, indeed, to Democrat Presidents on average). I showed that Carter’s years were superior to the post-Carter years considered as a whole, which was my goal. Thems the facts; deal with them.

    Nevertheless, thank you for the calculations. Based on these #s, we also could conclude that if we sustained Reagan’s growth rate over the last 24 total years (excluding 1981-88 but including Carter’s four years), we’d be better off too. (2.231 vs. 2.111.) Maybe we ought to pick just Reagan’s best four years? Three? Five?

    Or perhaps you can stick pick one topic logically and stick to that.

    I showed that Carter’s years were superior to the post-Carter years considered as a whole, which was my goal. Thems the facts; deal with them.

  60. Sure, the Bush-Obama deficit was higher, but when Obama took office we had a collapsing economy in the throws of a Great Recession, possibly heading into a Great Depression II. We were in a near panic, as was the globe at the time. How short our memories are.

    Obama’s fiscal policies quelled the panic and prevented Great Depression II, yet gets no thanks only ridicule from the very Repubs whose policies were major causes of our malaise. Do you dispute any of this, Eric?

    Of course now we have the very difficult task of getting growth back into our economy, with very little help from the Republicans, who want that 2012 prize more than diligently working on the economy. And you call yourselves patriots?

    Obama has worked on the economy all right – and made it worse. Of COURSE any reasonably competent Republican is going to look better by comparison.

    The rest of your post is just self serving partisan twaddle. You know Obama has sucked at the economy, but rather than admit this obvious truth, you just keep making more excuses.

  61. I showed that Carter’s years were superior to the post-Carter years considered as a whole, which was my goal. Thems the facts; deal with them.

    You neglected to mention the totality of Carter’s economy, such as sky high interest rates and God-awful inflation. Both of which Reagan cured, and fixed permanently.

  62. You neglected to mention the totality of Carter’s economy, such as sky high interest rates and God-awful inflation.

    The figures were discussing real GDP. Likewise, you forgot to mention the ballooning deficit which started to get out of control with Reagan.

    You know, the deficit? The thing you guys are screaming about endlessly now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office?

  63. “Tell ya what Perry, you guys can raise my tax rate to 50% the day you start collecting at least 20% from the 47 million voters who currently pay ZERO in federal income tax.”

    Hoagie-John, aren’t you conveniently forgetting the taxes that the 47 million do pay: sales taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, utility taxes, telephone taxes, property taxes (through either rental or home ownership), …. Why do you Righties continue to ignore this, when it has been pointed out to you multiple times?

    Moreover, since these 47 million earn so little as it is, these aforementioned taxes, on a percentage of income basis, impact them more than your federal taxes and all the rest impact you, Hoagie-John. Have you ever looked at it that way? No, you have not!

    You are just continuing to repeat the Rightie party line on taxes with your careful selection of federal taxes, ignoring all the rest, which is both inaccurate and wrong. Why do you do that, Hoagie-John, even after your fallacy has been pointed out to you multiple times? So please stop your incessant whining over this fallacy, will you?

  64. “You neglected to mention the totality of Carter’s economy, such as sky high interest rates and God-awful inflation. Both of which Reagan cured, and fixed permanently.”

    Your grade is ‘Incomplete’, Eric! Bet you got a lot of ‘incompletes’, or should have, based on your performance here.

    You neglected to mention that the “sky high interest rates and God-awful inflation” were due to the oil crisis produced by OPEC in their manipulations of oil supply in order to raise the price of oil. And, you neglected to mention that Reagan used the government to stimulate the depressed economy with his massive deficit spending, of which you criticized Obama for stimulating a depressed economy in a similar manner.

    What you are attempting to do is to propagandize using selected information which supports your extremist party line, Eric. Hitchcock does exactly the same thing. However, it is not working, due to due vigilance by folks on here who know better.

  65. I’m not ignoring anything Perry. I pay all those other taxes too and a lot more than they do. You’re giving “some” Americans a free pass on income tax because you beleive “other” Americans should pick up their bill. That sir is the fallacy. That you believe that some Americans should get a free ride on other Americans dime but still enjoy all the rights and perks of the rest of us. And who are you to determine which of us should or should not contribute to the manintenance of our government? Is that equal justice under law? With rights come responsabilities and I think it’s high time that 47% were held accountable for theirs.

    BTW, I’m not asking that as you would call them “the poor” or even “the middle” pay 50% income tax, but how about 10%, 5% or is any acceptence of duty only apply to guys like me? So you’ve said I’m unpatriotic for legaly avoiding taxes but they are patriots for paying none? Holy cow you can be back-asswards.

  66. Thing is, I don’t see how we can keep taking and taking and taking from the people who produce and just giving and giving and giving it to those who don’t.

    I agree. That’s why I think the people who work for a living (i.e. producers) should get more, and teh people who make a living off capital (i.e. capitalists) should get less.

    Exactly, PiaToR. Moreover, Dana has no basis whatsoever for making that statement, except his ideological doctrine. That’s not convincing at all, except to another Rightie oligarch!

  67. I’m beginning to understand why Hube, Hitchcock and Yorkshire call you a hyppocrite Perry. You seem to feel it is somehow nobel for half of America to not feel the sting of taxes while at the same time calling those of us who pay the lion’s share greedy, unpatriotic and undertaxed.

    And “all those other taxes” are also supported by high earners. Hell, last year I paid $5200 sales tax on ONE CAR. How many of your beloved poor or even the middle class pay that amount per year on sales tax let alone one purchase? As I’ve tried to show, I’ll share the burden and I’ll share the pain. But I’ll be damned if I’ll carry the burden and carry the pain. Then be called names to boot.

  68. “I agree. That’s why I think the people who work for a living (i.e. producers) should get more, and teh people who make a living off capital (i.e. capitalists) should get less.”

    Proving Pho has no concept of the labor and risk which goes into capital formation. Not supprised, most commies don’t that’s why they continue to believe the fallacy that there would be “workers” without capitalists. We’ll either work for a business or work for the state. Neither is perfect but the latter dosen’t seem to work out too well. Okay, maybe it does for Pho, eating out of the rice bowl of the state, but for some of us the opportunity to risk everything to build something is what drives us.

  69. “That you believe that some Americans should get a free ride on other Americans dime but still enjoy all the rights and perks of the rest of us.”

    Hoagie-John, you continue to ignore the point I just made. To only focus on federal taxes is meaningless. The total tax picture has to be considered, as well as the tax impact on individual families based on the percentage of income that their total taxes are.

    You know well that I respect your entrepreneurial endeavors and successes. Moreover, of course you are free to invest now wherever and whenever you wish. I just hoped that you would find prospects right here in the good old USA, where the need is so great. Probably I was off base to bring up the patriotism word. However, it does worry me to see so much American money and jobs going overseas when there is so much need for same right here.

    Finally, I don’t think you are appreciating how little income the lower 50% of Americans live on. Look at this:

    Reading from this graph, the 50th percentile worker is earning about $27,000 per year. All workers below this 50th percentile earn less. This indicates to you how poorly the so-called “middle income” worker is doing. They are now far from being our traditional middle income. I don’t think you Righties realize this deterioration in income for workers who are presumably working just as hard, if not harder, than they were thirty years ago when this slide in income began under Reaganomics.

    This is 2009 data. It’s even worse now in 2011 for the middle and poor!

    This situation is unsustainable, Hoagie-John, and is beginning to lead to serious instability. Creating jobs in America now is critical.

  70. ” Dana has no basis whatsoever for making that statement, except his ideological doctrine.”

    He sure as hell does Perry. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. If we ” keep taking and taking and taking from the people who produce and just giving and giving and giving it to those who don’t” sooner or later those who produce will either stop producing or move their production elsewhere. And you’ll be the first one to call them names for trying to preserve the fruits of their labors. Oy! You’ll never get it. You’ve turned to the collective Dark Side.

  71. “Oy! You’ll never get it. You’ve turned to the collective Dark Side.”

    No, Hoagie-John, you have your head buried in the sand. See my just posted post with the graph, then tell me what you think. And again, you continue to base your argument on federal taxes only. That’s not kosher!

    You need to talk to other than your Chamber of Commerce buddies, because they are giving you the maximizing profits angle, and completely forgetting the problems we face right here in the good old USA.

  72. First off Perry I don’t know the source (that is the people, organization, agenda or means of calculating) the graphs you cite. In our stat class we used to have to create fallicious charts to support off-the-wall arguements so without having the time and wherewithall to determine the methodology and formulations that made this chart, I have now way of agreeing nor disagreeing with it’s conclusions. I do wish I had time to research all the citations here but I just don’t. Which is why I tend to look at then ingnore most of them, including those on the right (and especially Blubonnets). Just don’t have the time, sorry.

    But, that being said you stated above that you’d ” just hoped that you would find prospects right here in the good old USA, where the need is so great”. If we as a nation and you as an individual really want entrepreneurs to look for prospects right here then stop attacking them at every turn. Stop with the constant threats of confiscatory taxation and over-regulaton. Make it easier to invest in America than in Poland for god sake. If I discovered a new employee who I believed to have good leadership qualities I would put him on “the fast track”, meaning make rising in the ranks through initiative very attractive. Then I’d sit back and see what he did with it. Is there no way we can put business and investment on the fast track? Must road blocks be erected at every juncture to dissuade investment for fear some will win and others loose? That’s life Perry, some win some loose. I just don’t think our government should be in the business of picking who’s who. Let the market sort it out. That way you eliminate croneyism and let the people vote with their dollars.

  73. Dana has no basis whatsoever for making that statement, except his ideological doctrine.

    He sure as hell does Perry.

    Then please tell me Dana’s basis, since he did not give any himself.

    Anecdotaly, Hoagie-John, in your former restaurant, did your chef work hard and produce? How about your servers? And your clearer and dishwasher, did they work hard and produce? How about your bartender? How about you? I believe you would honestly say that all these people worked hard and produced.

    To put it mildly, Dana is full of it. Right! He is full of his own ideology!!!

  74. Perry, my “Chamber of Commerce buddies” and I weren’t always in the C of C. We actually have ALL had jobs other than working for ourselves so we are quite aware of what a good job is and what constitutes a good boss. And ALL of us want to see the opportunities we took advantage of to transfer from employee to owner continue for the next generation. You seem to think it’s Rockafeller’s and Kennedy’s who are the C of C. It’s not. It’s guys like me who worked their balls off and failed many times before they succeeded who are the C of C. We know both sides of the coin and have been on both sides of the pay check. And we too are consumers and vote with our dollars just like the poorest family in North Philly does.

  75. Now you’re just being obteuse Perry. Yes, all my workers and myself produced (or I’d fire them) but I’m sure to what and whom Dana was referring. Your formula is for wealth transfer not wealth creation. A hand out, not a hand up.

  76. I’ve gotta go. I have to take June’s car to the shop since a lovely lady from Philly crashed into her rear deck on Terwood Rd. last Sunday. Her insurance took full responsability but I have to take it to the adjuster at 11am.

    But in closing, you stated that Dana is “full of his own ideology”. Well, ain’t we all? But I think what Dana is saying (he’ll correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure) is that forcefully taking the fruits of one mans labor and giving it to another man who has not earned it does two things. It makes the first man hostile and the second man dependant. Neither is healthy in a society.

  77. “First off Perry I don’t know the source (that is the people, organization, agenda or means of calculating) the graphs you cite.”

    Hoagie-John, I gave you the source with my link: The US Census Bureau!

    I am sorry to disturb you with some facts, for which you don’t have the time. But you have the time to gripe!

    “Must road blocks be erected at every juncture to dissuade investment for fear some will win and others loose? That’s life Perry, some win some loose. I just don’t think our government should be in the business of picking who’s who. Let the market sort it out. “

    Those “roadblocks” are there to protect workers and consumers from business owners who don’t give a damn, motivated only by their wish to maximize profits. How is it that this is so difficult to understand, Hoagie-John? Why must you conclude that government is your enemy, when in fact government has a responsibility to protect citizens from exploitation and from workplace and product hazards?

    Is it better to take our businesses off-shore where worker and consumer protection standards are lax, done to maximize profits? Is this the track we should be on, seeking a reduction in standards and an increase in undesirable outcomes? The unfettered free market does not work, as we have seen 2001-2009 and beyond, as both our economy and standards and principles deteriorate.

    This is not the America that I want, but it is the America I appear to be getting, along with the rest of the 80% who are losing their well-being as we speak, losing to the greedy and powerful who are taking over our government, supported by people like you and Dana who have so far been unable to break free of your ideological straight jackets!

  78. “Now you’re just being obteuse Perry. Yes, all my workers and myself produced (or I’d fire them) but I’m sure to what and whom Dana was referring. Your formula is for wealth transfer not wealth creation. A hand out, not a hand up.”

    Wrong, Hoagie-John. My formula is for all workers to be paid for producing, not to be penalized for it, which with the deterioration in incomes and the distribution of wealth upwards is coming to pass. Dana wants to neglect these people, and reward only the upper income folks, since he has concluded, wrongly, that they are the only producers. Talk about class warfare, Dana is all for it, taking his nonsensical statement seriously!

  79. “It’s guys like me who worked their balls off and failed many times before they succeeded who are the C of C.”

    Right, and you assume that people like me have not “worked their balls off”. This bias against others is without evidence, only ideology, which you (and Dana) have well demonstrated in our exchange this morning. And then when you are presented with some facts that refute your ideology, you don’t have the time for it! This is not the basis for policy, Hoagie-John.

  80. ana wants to neglect these people, and reward only the upper income folks

    That’s bullshit, left wing propaganda. Dana certainly isn’t “Upper class”, but he most definitely IS a producer and he obviously resents that his taxes are high to support the lazy and the shiftless.

    [released from moderation - pH]

  81. Reading from this graph, the 50th percentile worker is earning about $27,000 per year.

    I’ll wager a lot of those jobs on the lower end of that range are part time jobs or temporary jobs by people like college students or retirees who are simply looking to earn a little extra cash. Lord knows I have worked a number of those jobs myself!

  82. Your grade is ‘Incomplete’, Eric! Bet you got a lot of ‘incompletes’, or should have, based on your performance here.

    Don’t ASS-U-me things, Perry. It just makes an ASS out of U.

  83. You neglected to mention that the “sky high interest rates and God-awful inflation” were due to the oil crisis produced by OPEC in their manipulations of oil supply in order to raise the price of oil. And, you neglected to mention that Reagan used the government to stimulate the depressed economy with his massive deficit spending, of which you criticized Obama for stimulating a depressed economy in a similar manner.

    1. Oil prices aren’t included in the inflation index. Or at least they aren’t now.

    2. Reagan had to spend at least the first two years of his presidency getting the nation to recover from the Carter era stagflation. Absent that, the economic stats for his two terms would have been higher.

    3. Reagan’s deficits went in large part to build up the military, which eventually helped win the Cold War. You libs always talk about government “Investment” (as opposed to government spending), well, that was one government investment that actually paid off!

  84. Your grade is ‘Incomplete’, Eric! Bet you got a lot of ‘incompletes’, or should have, based on your performance here.

    Don’t ASS-U-me things, Perry. It just makes an ASS out of U.

    Ah, rang a bell there, didn’t I Eric?

    I think I have you pegged. Of course, I could be totally wrong, due to this one-dimensional communication medium, but I must say that I have had a few students similar to what I see in you. If I am correct, it’s never too late to work on improvement.

  85. “1. Oil prices aren’t included in the inflation index.”

    They were then. Nevertheless, inflating oil prices inflate the prices of everything dependent on energy, which is just about everything. This was out of Carter’s control, due to our dependency on middle east oil, which he inherited.

    What astounds me to this day is that we have never learned this lesson, as we continuously kicked this problem down the road, in spite of Carter’s efforts to initiate making us energy independent. Now this has come home to roost.

    Interestingly, Europe did respond, such that they have built mass transit infrastructure which vastly reduces their per capita consumption of energy. We, of course, have the largest per capita consumption of energy on earth.

    I basically agree with your other two statements.

  86. ana wants to neglect these people, and reward only the upper income folks

    That’s bullshit, left wing propaganda. Dana certainly isn’t “Upper class”, but he most definitely IS a producer and he obviously resents that his taxes are high to support the lazy and the shiftless.

    I never said he was upper class, although who knows? Assumptions can be incorrect, as I hope you would realize, Eric. My criticism of Dana is based on his own words, in which he himself has made some unwarranted assumptions and based on no evidence. How can he conclude that wealthier folks are the producers, the less wealthy are not, on the contrary the takers? Hoagie-John was spouting the same ideological garbage this morning.

  87. Don’t ASS-U-me things, Perry. It just makes an ASS out of U.

    Ah, rang a bell there, didn’t I Eric?

    I think I have you pegged.

    Perry, if you want to play psychologist, then hang out a shingle. Don’t “Practice” it here, it’s annoying.

    What astounds me to this day is that we have never learned this lesson, as we continuously kicked this problem down the road, in spite of Carter’s efforts to initiate making us energy independent. Now this has come home to roost.

    All he did was create a Dept. of Energy, which, along with the Education Dept., is among the most useless of government bodies.

    Interestingly, Europe did respond, such that they have built mass transit infrastructure which vastly reduces their per capita consumption of energy.

    I very much doubt the “Vastly” part. Where I live, you routinely see buses go by with just a handful of passengers. That wastes energy. Besides, we Americans love freedom. And cars represent freedom. We’re not like the Europeans or the Japanese who cram themselves into trains and basically put up with being treated like sardines.

  88. How can he conclude that wealthier folks are the producers, the less wealthy are not, on the contrary the takers? Hoagie-John was spouting the same ideological garbage this morning.

    By “Producers” he means all people who work, who are productive. By “Takers” he obviously refers to those who don’t work, and who thus sponge off the tax money of those who do. It was a very common sensical statement, and if you failed to understand it, it means you were blinded by your own ideology.

  89. “I very much doubt the “Vastly” part.”

    Eric, here is the data that backs up my “vastly” comment. If you look down the list and compare our per capita energy consumption to prominent European countries, you will see that we’re almost double. Then compare ours to the developing, populous nations, like China, India, and Brazil, and you will see yet a more vast difference.

    Our high per capita consumption of energy is expensive, because we depend on expensive oil which is in great demand. As our future rolls out, this situation will continue to put as at an increasing economic disadvantage compared to our global competition, as we have seen in recent years. If you roll into this the damaging global warming phenomenon produced by our use of fossil fuels, we then have a double whammy here which will hit your children and their children very hard indeed.

    However, you bottom line, visionless, so-called conservatives aren’t conservatives at all. If you were, you would be formulating policy with liberals to offset this gloomy energy future. But no, you folks would prefer not to address these concerns, as your post on this topic is so typical of your genre!

  90. Proving Pho has no concept of the labor and risk which goes into capital formation.

    If the shareholders were abducted by Martians, a firm would continue on just as before, with their only problem being how to disburse dividends.

    If the workers were abducted by Martians, a firm would shut down. Permanently.

    W1ngnuts seem to think the people who get out of bed in the morning, drive to work, and put in eight hours or more are unnecessary. They are not.

    Shareholders are unnecessary – firms could be partnerships rather than LLCs, or even cooperatives or socialist institutions. A LLC is a useful way to organise economic activity, but hardly a law of nature.

    And yet w1ngnut policy is based around channelling more and more wealth to shareholders and less and less to actual workers – as shown by rising inequality in America. Once again, the question begs – with what goal?

    You have to conclude that w1ngnuts want to see America as a feudal nation, with a vast sea of impoverished peons begging for crumbs from an idle aristocracy. The US was born in a revolution against a king; the w1ngnuts want to reinstate kings.

  91. If the shareholders were abducted by Martians, a firm would continue on just as before, with their only problem being how to disburse dividends.

    Lordy, are you ignorant about business basics! How do you suppose a company gets started in the first place without someone to put up the capital?

  92. You have to conclude that w1ngnuts want to see America as a feudal nation, with a vast sea of impoverished peons begging for crumbs from an idle aristocracy. The US was born in a revolution against a king; the w1ngnuts want to reinstate kings.

    We’ve had free market economics in the country for 200 years, yet we have nothing like what you suggest. Indeed, Britain has had a reasonably free market for a lot longer, and they don’t have what you describe, either. This is your usual case of ideology trumping basic facts.

    W1ngnuts seem to think the people who get out of bed in the morning, drive to work, and put in eight hours or more are unnecessary. They are not.

    This is, again, a flat out lie pulled straight out of your ass because your ideology simply trumps reality. Everyone in this group works with the exception of York, who just retired. You really do come up with some crazy stuff!

  93. Lordy, are you ignorant about business basics! How do you suppose a company gets started in the first place without someone to put up the capital?

    Well, let’s see – that someone can be banks or other lenders at interest, sweat equity and contributions by people actually working there, government or other socialist schemes, or limited duration equity.

    And who said anything about companies starting up? Once again we see the w1ngnut shuffle in action. So tell us, Eric, do you really think the majority of stock of publicly traded companies is held by the people who actually started up those companies? Are you really that naive and divorced from reality?

  94. Our high per capita consumption of energy is expensive, because we depend on expensive oil which is in great demand. As our future rolls out, this situation will continue to put as at an increasing economic disadvantage compared to our global competition, as we have seen in recent years. If you roll into this the damaging global warming phenomenon produced by our use of fossil fuels, we then have a double whammy here which will hit your children and their children very hard indeed.

    I trust the free market to resolve this. As the price of oil and gas rises, people will naturally use less of them. That’s why my last two cars have been Honda Civics that get about 30 mpg. Now, I don’t do this to ‘Save the Earth” nor because I’m worried about Glowball scamming warming, but simply because I like putting 30 bucks in the tank at a time instead of a hundred.

  95. Give it up, Pho. It is obvious from your post above (that I responded to) that you are grossly ignorant about business. You let your extremist ideology trump basic common sense. That’s why you stack books instead of being a CEO.

  96. I see that you really are that naive and divorced from reality.

    Sold a million books yet, Eric?

    MEANWHILE, back in the real world.

    States That Cut The Most Funding Lost The Most Jobs: Analysis
    [...]
    Republican governors have touted spending cuts as both fiscally responsible, and economically prudent. But a new analysis casts doubt on that narrative.

    In recent months, Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) and Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) both claimed their budgets, heavy on the spending cuts, would pave the way for job growth in their states, as Think Progress notes.

    Yet according to research performed by CAP economist Adam Hersh and posted on Think Progress, it seems states that cut the most funding lost the most jobs. And according to the site, in fact, the country is split pretty evenly between the 24 states that cut spending between 2007 and 2010, and the 25 that expanded government outlays.

    On average, states that increased spending performed significantly better than cost-cutting states, with their unemployment rates actually dropping by 0.2 percent (as opposed to 1 percent increase in cost-cutting states), private-sector employment increasing by 1.4 percent (as opposed to a 2.1 percent loss) and 0.5 percent “real economic growth” since the start of the recession (as compared to a 2.9 percent economic contraction relative to the national economic trend)

    Now, I know how much the w1ngnuts here shun actual facts. I’m sure they’ll find some way to ignore these.

    [retrieved from moderation - pH]

  97. Pho, I don’t think anyone who said:

    W1ngnuts seem to think the people who get out of bed in the morning, drive to work, and put in eight hours or more are unnecessary

    Has any business attacking anyone else for being “Divorced from reality”. It’s obvious that your extreme left wing ideology completely blinds you to anything happening in the real world.

Comments are closed.