Bush pokes fun at himself

[Pepper]

That's a cleverly deceptive chart for a few reasons:

The total federal tax burden of the wealthy went down during the 80's. By your own admission.

Huh? I'd never admit that. That is clearly untrue.

 

[Pepper]

That's a cleverly deceptive chart for a few reasons:

The total federal tax burden of the wealthy went down during the 80's. By your own admission.

How did the burden shift to the wealthy? Simple. There were more rich people made in the 1980s to pay more taxes. Between 1980 and 1989 the no. of people reporting incomes of $500,000 or more increase from 16881 in 1980 to 183,240 in '89. That's 3% of total fed tax paid v. 14% in 1989.

What's wrong with more rich people?

Here's what's wrong: the 183,240 rich people are less than 1/5 of the richest one percent ('89). The ranks of the rich grew, this growth occurred in a microscopically small group, and didn't even come close to benefiting the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Meanwhile, middle class income stagnated or fell as most of the income gains went to the rich. The top 1 percent increased their share of the national income from about 8 to 12-13 percent in the 80s, an increase of 50 percent. Likewise, their share of all federal taxes paid grew from 18 to 27 percent, also an increase of 50 percent.

Wow. You have to really hate conservatives to even find fault in the rich paying more tax. That is very shakey ground. That is kinda of like me saying the economy under Clinton sucked. It just would make me look silly.

 

[DOMS]

Oh, let us not forget a small accomplishment like winning the cold war.

I don't see how it's possible that the Bush Administration could have spent, in relative dollars, more than Roosevelt Administration. Roosevelt had to fund turning the entire country into a war machine and fielding the largest US army ever sent into war. You can delve into charts all you want, but the basic logic just isn't there.

 

[Pepper]

I don't see how it's possible that the Bush Administration could have spent, in relative dollars, more than Roosevelt Administration. Roosevelt had to fund turning the entire country into a war machine and fielding the largest US army ever sent into war. You can delve into charts all you want, but the basic logic just isn't there.

I think you hit reply to the wrong person, but I agree with you.

I'd find a source to prove that, but Decker would just say it's "misleading."

 

[Pepper]

Here is spending per household in constant dollars:

Biggest spending years
Federal spending is now at a level surpassed only during World War II, after running about $18,000 per year in the 1990s.
Spending per household
1944 $26,445
1945 $25,572
1943 $23,370
2003 $20,399

I think source is the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Decker]

Oh, let us not forget a small accomplishment like winning the cold war.

My cousin is a fellow for the heritage foundation. Their scholarship is not highly credible because they put out the sort of charts that you are using as proof that tax cuts increase tax revenue.

Notice how the 'increases' included 1980 BEFORE Reagan's tax policies were implemented. Also notice how they include the year 1989. One year after Reagan's departure. Why do these things? In '89 the Democrats had control of the house and slashed spending. Such little tricks skew results.

It's little tricks like that which render your Heritage Foundation proof BULLSHIT. HF's statistical juggling is legendary.

Reagan did not win the cold war. Tell me how he did it.

 

[Pepper]

Say what you want about the chart or the HF, but two things are true and I will keep posting stats until you admit it:
1. Tax revenue went up under Reagan
2. The percentage paid by the wealthy went up.

Spin all you want, these things are true.

1989 is included b/c the taxes imposed in 1988 were largely collected in 1989. You know, April 15th and all.

 

[DOMS]

I think you hit reply to the wrong person, but I agree with you.

I'd find a source to prove that, but Decker would just say it's "misleading."

I replied to you because your Cold War reference got me thinking about past wars.

But again, the logic is so basic that, I feel, it's beyond reproach.

 

[Decker]

Wow. You have to really hate conservatives to even find fault in the rich paying more tax. That is very shakey ground. That is kinda of like me saying the economy under Clinton sucked. It just would make me look silly.

Please explain how Reagan left office w/ $300 billion dollar deficits and a trillion dollar debt if Tax Revenues were flowing in like water?

 

[Pepper]

Please explain how Reagan left office w/ $300 billion dollar deficits and a trillion dollar debt if Tax Revenues were flowing in like water?

Easy. Spending.

You can slam him for spending if you want.

You may not slam him on revenue. I have you on that one.

 

[Pepper]

Easy. Spending.

You can slam him for spending if you want.

You may not slam him on revenue. I have you on that one.

You can also argue that the spending increased the econmy and thus the revenues. I may argue you on that, but you'd have a point.

What you DON'T have a point on is over-all revenue and % paid by the wealthy.

 

[Pepper]

Bush is not qualified to hold Reagan's jock.

EDIT: I am going home. I'll check in later with more misleading charts

 

[Decker]

I replied to you because your Cold War reference got me thinking about past wars.

But again, the logic is so basic that, I feel, it's beyond reproach.

You got me there sir. If I said 'spending' then I did mispeak. It's not the spending, it's the borrowing. The 1.05 trillion that he's borrowed in the last 5 years is more than all other administrations combined. I'll look into the spending numbers tonight b/c it's going on 4:30 and I have to go home. But it would not surprise me if Bush was at the top of that list too. Thanks for catching that.

 

[Decker]

Easy. Spending.

You can slam him for spending if you want.

You may not slam him on revenue. I have you on that one.

Not according to my numbers. Your heritage numbers are not credible.

Have a great night Pepper. I'll look over my records too. And we'll continue.

 

[kbm8795]

Actually, I like Decker a lot. He's very intelligent and is fun to debate with. Hell, he's even changed my mind on a few things.

KBM, however, plays the usual games of simply ignoring facts that he doesn't like and blaming everything bad on someone else.

Uh....I think we've seen samples of your idea of "facts". . .but as for the "usual games". .. I'd expect someone who has difficulty identifying simple news bias to project his own deficiencies on others. . .

 

[kbm8795]

Decker is civil. KBM is the one who you really have to watch.

I take that as a compliment. . .especially from someone who gets rattled if there is any contradiction to the official mantra.

 

[DOMS]

Uh....I think we've seen samples of your idea of "facts". . .but as for the "usual games". .. I'd expect someone who has difficulty identifying simple news bias to project his own deficiencies on others. . .

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.

As for the new bias, I simply said that all major news sources are biased, at least to the almighty buck.

 

[kbm8795]

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.



As for the new bias, I simply said that all major news sources are biased, at least to the almighty buck.

. . . why yes. . .we reviewed the example.

 

[DOMS]

You're not quite the word smith that you using are, something wrong?

 

[Pepper]

I take that as a compliment. . .especially from someone who gets rattled if there is any contradiction to the official mantra.

Actually, you have me figured completely wrong. I love debating. I just prefer to debate with people who are actually thinking these things through, even if their opinion differs from mine. It is sad and ironic that you are accusing me of having an official mantra.

I'd bet my house I deviate from the conservative party line twice as much as you deviate from the liberal party line.

 

[Pepper]

What about CATO? http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]

and before you point it out:

Budget Deficit. The budget deficit exploded in the 1980s

and

Federal Spending. The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22 percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by less than 1 percentage point. [21]

 

[Pepper]

Chart:

 

[GFR]

Chart:

Yes and this shows the huge growth in the top 5% and that they are even richer now...

 

[Pepper]

Yes and this shows the huge growth in the top 5% and that they are even richer now....I don't think that was your point but thank you

We can't have wealth creation in America, dammit.

Actually the CHART itself does not say ANYTHING about wealth creation but we never doubted your abilities to add to my posts.

 

[DOMS]

We can't have wealth creation in America, dammit.

Actually the CHART itself does not say ANYTHING about wealth creation but we never doubted your abilities to add to my posts.

I never knew that being poor was cool.

 

[GFR]

We can't have wealth creation in America, dammit.

I have no problem with wealth creation....but creating more wealth for the rich only is not wealth creation, it is just coruption

 

[Pepper]

Decker, I have been looking for something that would consider the impact of the FICA tax increase but can't find it. I am not sure a FICA tax increase can be blamed on the republicans as this is a democratic beast from the get-go..but I digress.

 

[kbm8795]

You're not quite the word smith that you using are, something wrong?

Don't ask me to correct this sentence.

 

[kbm8795]

Actually, you have me figured completely wrong. I love debating. I just prefer to debate with people who are actually thinking these things through, even if their opinion differs from mine.

You know, this thread is the most I have ever read anything that purports to appearing as if you are thinking things through - usually you repeat cliches and then get angry when I throw some cliches back . . .

It is sad and ironic that you are accusing me of having an official mantra.

Nothing sad about it. Try checking out the background of the Heritage Foundation for starters.

I'd bet my house I deviate from the conservative party line twice as much as you deviate from the liberal party line.

What exactly is the "liberal" party line?

 

[DOMS]

Don't ask me to correct this sentence.

Such short sentences. Someone need a hug?