Deficit Shrinks???

[dannybin1742]

don't forget to add in the x hundred billiuong dollars borrowed against social security funds that no one ever talks about, the figure is much much higher, you can thank the busheviks for that

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
JESUS CHRIST!!!

I'm just tossing out numbers as an example of the possibility of how EVERYONE can see an increase but the rich see a GREATER increase! I'm not using numbers with any specific value. These are display-use only.


Geez.

You already showed with your link that the rich are paying the majority of this tax revenue increase. This indicates the rich are paying more relative to past years, it shouldn't matter if the poor/mid class pay a minimal amount more. The deficit needs to be paid down.

 

[Train]

Unemployment down,
Jobs creation in the positive.
Tax revenues up (despite tax cuts),
Spending under control,
Deficit shrinking,
Dollar up,
Exports up,


But dont forget! the sky is falling, and the world is going to end tommorow!!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, let me break this down:

2004
Rich: Pays $1 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $15,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $500 in taxes

2005
Rich: Pays $1.5 million in taxes
Middle: Pays $18,000 in taxes
Poor: Pays $1,000 in taxes


See what I'm saying? It's possible that everyone is paying more but that the rich are paying an even great amount.

Most of the revenue increase came from the rich, as you already stated, the poor's exemption is raised with inflation, therefore the poor's tax would not go up, maybe even less; not 50%. There are far less rich people, therefore the increased burden, which we are discussing was significantly weighted to the rich. Even if taxes rised across the board (which i doubt, we are using arbitrary numbers), the increases were on the backs of the rich, why are you trying to bring it around as if the poor/middle class are getting screwed when they obviously are not in this situation?

JESUS CHRIST!!!

I'm just tossing out numbers as an example of the possibility of how EVERYONE can see an increase but the rich see a GREATER increase! I'm not using numbers with any specific value. These are display-use only.


Geez.

Ok... First. Nobody's taxes were increased. They were decreased. Here, I'll quote myself so I don;t have to type it again...

Tax cuts aren't going to affect the working middle class as much as the wealthy because the wealthy tend derive more income from investments than the middle class do. If your only form of income is your job, a small tax cut will mean you pay a little less in tax. If your income is determined by how much money you have to invest (rich people) then the tax cuts leave you with more liquidity which you can invest in other endevors that make you even more money. (Ergo you make more / you pay more tax)

If someone pays more in tax this year than they did a couple years ago it's only because they are making more money. Not because their taxes went up. The rich wind up paying more tax because of they way their derive their income and their ability to take better advantage of tax cuts than the working middle/lower class to increase their income.

You have to remember that "rich people" by and large are not earning their money by lucking into a job their uncle set them up with at $650/hr. They are investors or business owners.

Depending on how you calculate it, there are 3 - 10 million millionaires in this country. (1 - 3% of the population is a millionaire - again, depending on how you calculate net worth) Throw out the lottery winners and basketball playas (sic) and rock stars etc, (approx 50,000 of those folks make enough at a "job" to be a millionaire) and throw out the "old money" (approx 20% of millionaires inherit their wealth) and what you have left are overwhelmingly small biz owners and private investors. These are people who make money with money. When they get a tax cut, they have more money left over. Since they make money with money (investing), the more they have the more they make. The more they make, the more taxes they pay.

They also don't pay taxes like employees do. The single biggest disadvantge the average worker has is that they have their taxes removed from every paycheck rather than being allowed to keep that money, invest it and pay tax on a quarterly basis thus reaping the time-value of the money. (as a side note - I personally believe that if people paid their taxes like they pay their mortgage or electric bill instead of having it withheld, they would be much more likely to hold their reps accountable for the stupid spending increases we endure every year. )

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
...approx 20% of millionaires inherit their wealth...

That might be an old statistic. I read "Mind of a Millionaire" and "Millionaire Next Door", both pretty recent studies of american millionaires. I'm not sure which one it was, but they stated that 95% of Millionaires are self made, only 5% inherited it from thier parents.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
...approx 20% of millionaires inherit their wealth...

That might be an old statistic. I read "Mind of a Millionaire" and "Millionaire Next Door", both pretty recent studies of american millionaires. I'm not sure which one it was, but they stated that 95% of Millionaires are self made, only 5% inherited it from thier parents.

I read them both too... It's been a while though. If I'm remembering correctly 80% of millionaires are "new money" meaning they did not come from rich families. This includes the rock stars and athletes. 5% were people like the Kennedys and DuPonts who have family legacy money. The other 15% was made of second generation wealth that was usually pissed away by the third generation... but inherited none the less.

I should go crack the book and verify that when I get off work.

Edit: But in any case... the point is that the rich use their money to make money hence tax cuts result in the rich paying more taxes and working middle class people peying less.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Krk3561
As I said before, Reagan's supply side economics (business tax cuts) allowed many of the tech companies (i.e. IBM, Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.) that fueled the 90's to grow, allowed them to hire more people, spend more money on R&D, etc.

Or Moore's law (which was valid far before and far after Reagan, pretty much unchanged by Reagan's policies) finally resulted in products that people wanted/needed. Which to believe - the fact that 16 years ago a president had a policy or the fact that the technology is finally ready. Hmmm.

Huh? Moore's law led to the creation of products?

(môrz lâ) (n.) The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years, the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months, and this is the current definition of Moore's Law, which Moore himself has blessed. Most experts, including Moore himself, expect Moore's Law to hold for at least another two decades.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html

How exactly is this applied to making CPUs? It's an observation.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
JESUS CHRIST!!!

I'm just tossing out numbers as an example of the possibility of how EVERYONE can see an increase but the rich see a GREATER increase! I'm not using numbers with any specific value. These are display-use only.


Geez.

You already showed with your link that the rich are paying the majority of this tax revenue increase. This indicates the rich are paying more relative to past years, it shouldn't matter if the poor/mid class pay a minimal amount more. The deficit needs to be paid down.

Right but that's not why I started down this path. You made a claim the poor/middle were paying less. I'm saying that's not necessarily true unless you show links to reports showing taxes paid by middle and lower classes have dropped.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train
Unemployment down....Unemployment number is obsolete. Look at Labor Force Participation Rate or the U-6 value (which rose slightly)
Jobs creation in the positive....But still not enough to maintain labor force equilibrium
Tax revenues up (despite tax cuts)
Spending under control....WTF are you smoking?!?
Deficit shrinking...But a LONG way to go and no signs of moves to more quickly accelerate paying down the debt
Dollar up....For the first time in 7 days
Exports up..."However, it's exaggerated because we had a large drop in oil prices. I think we'll see a bump up in the trade deficit when we get the June numbers."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=...&sid=a8TmIx.W6YeI&refer=top_world_news]


But dont forget! the sky is falling, and the world is going to end tommorow!!

Corrections in bold.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
Unemployment down....Unemployment number is obsolete. Look at Labor Force Participation Rate or the U-6 value (which rose slightly)
Jobs creation in the positive....But still not enough to maintain labor force equilibrium
Tax revenues up (despite tax cuts)
Spending under control....WTF are you smoking?!?
Deficit shrinking...But a LONG way to go and no signs of moves to more quickly accelerate paying down the debt
Dollar up....For the first time in 7 days
Exports up..."However, it's exaggerated because we had a large drop in oil prices. I think we'll see a bump up in the trade deficit when we get the June numbers."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=...&sid=a8TmIx.W6YeI&refer=top_world_news]


But dont forget! the sky is falling, and the world is going to end tommorow!!

Corrections in bold.

Unemployment rate isn't obsolete, that's your own opinion. Coincidently, you start to believe it's obsolete when it starts to show positives for the economy. Job creation isn't enough to maintain labor equilibrium? Is that why unemployment is lower? The dollar is at 1 year highs.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
JESUS CHRIST!!!

I'm just tossing out numbers as an example of the possibility of how EVERYONE can see an increase but the rich see a GREATER increase! I'm not using numbers with any specific value. These are display-use only.


Geez.

You already showed with your link that the rich are paying the majority of this tax revenue increase. This indicates the rich are paying more relative to past years, it shouldn't matter if the poor/mid class pay a minimal amount more. The deficit needs to be paid down.

Right but that's not why I started down this path. You made a claim the poor/middle were paying less. I'm saying that's not necessarily true unless you show links to reports showing taxes paid by middle and lower classes have dropped.

Take the tax revenues as a pie, where the rich already pay most of it. Now if the pie gets larger on the backs of the rich, the piece of the pie the lower classes account for is indeed less.

 

[conjur]

Ok...but that's not what you said and it still doesn't mean the poor are NOT paying more in taxes than they were last year.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok...but that's not what you said and it still doesn't mean the poor are NOT paying more in taxes than they were last year.

The poor an middle class are not paying more in taxes. Everybody got a tax cut. If they are paying more it's because they got a raise.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
JESUS CHRIST!!!

I'm just tossing out numbers as an example of the possibility of how EVERYONE can see an increase but the rich see a GREATER increase! I'm not using numbers with any specific value. These are display-use only.


Geez.

You already showed with your link that the rich are paying the majority of this tax revenue increase. This indicates the rich are paying more relative to past years, it shouldn't matter if the poor/mid class pay a minimal amount more. The deficit needs to be paid down.

Right but that's not why I started down this path. You made a claim the poor/middle were paying less. I'm saying that's not necessarily true unless you show links to reports showing taxes paid by middle and lower classes have dropped.

Take the tax revenues as a pie, where the rich already pay most of it. Now if the pie gets larger on the backs of the rich, the piece of the pie the lower classes account for is indeed less.

You've almost got it. You just need to address it from a different angle. The rich are creating the bigger tax "pie." While the poor and middle class make modest gains with a tax cut, the rich use the cut to make more. The more they make the more they pay in taxes.

It's not that the tax pie is getting bigger and the "burden" is heavier on the rich. The rich are expanding the pie themselves by virtue of their ability to use the tax cut to grow their wealth. Ergo the tax pie gets bigger and most of the increase is due to the wealthy cashing in on the benefits of their tax cut. The trade off for their success is greater ownership of the overall tax burden.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: conjur
JESUS CHRIST!!!

I'm just tossing out numbers as an example of the possibility of how EVERYONE can see an increase but the rich see a GREATER increase! I'm not using numbers with any specific value. These are display-use only.


Geez.

You already showed with your link that the rich are paying the majority of this tax revenue increase. This indicates the rich are paying more relative to past years, it shouldn't matter if the poor/mid class pay a minimal amount more. The deficit needs to be paid down.

Right but that's not why I started down this path. You made a claim the poor/middle were paying less. I'm saying that's not necessarily true unless you show links to reports showing taxes paid by middle and lower classes have dropped.

Take the tax revenues as a pie, where the rich already pay most of it. Now if the pie gets larger on the backs of the rich, the piece of the pie the lower classes account for is indeed less.

You've almost got it. You just need to address it from a different angle. The rich are creating the bigger tax "pie." While the poor and middle class make modest gains with a tax cut, the rich use the cut to make more. The more they make the more they pay in taxes.

It's not that the tax pie is getting bigger and the "burden" is heavier on the rich. The rich are expanding the pie themselves by virtue of their ability to use the tax cut to grow their wealth. Ergo the tax pie gets bigger and most of the increase is due to the wealthy cashing in on the benefits of their tax cut.

Greater investment = more jobs (which we are seeing)
More wealth = more tax revenue (which we are seeing)

I know, I was dumbing it down for liberals who think money is a fixed amount and cannot grow. ie. Money is either taxed or it isn't.

But I agree with your statements.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
Unemployment down....Unemployment number is obsolete. Look at Labor Force Participation Rate or the U-6 value (which rose slightly)
Jobs creation in the positive....But still not enough to maintain labor force equilibrium
Tax revenues up (despite tax cuts)
Spending under control....WTF are you smoking?!?
Deficit shrinking...But a LONG way to go and no signs of moves to more quickly accelerate paying down the debt
Dollar up....For the first time in 7 days
Exports up..."However, it's exaggerated because we had a large drop in oil prices. I think we'll see a bump up in the trade deficit when we get the June numbers."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=...&sid=a8TmIx.W6YeI&refer=top_world_news]


But dont forget! the sky is falling, and the world is going to end tommorow!!

Corrections in bold.

LOL, youll end up winning this argument on pure relentlessness alone. Pitting a 35 post a day zealot against a 2.5 poster who would barely qualify as a lurker.

1. Employment up. Your just flat out being retarted now, because its already been beat to death in a dozen other threads that 150k is "equilibrium". And we have beat that by over 30k per month on average over the past year and a half.

2. Spending under control. Yep, I would say that. only 7% increase in spending this year while revenues are up 41%. Numbers that are that far apart are difficult to spin.

3. Employment Number is obsolete? Why because you dont like it? So what if it was changed at the start of 2003, even if you invalidate all previous data, its still the lowest its been in over 2 and a half years.

4. Deficit is shrinking. Fact. you even agreed on it. Then threw in the "long way to go" spin. Well "long" is an objective term, but either way, we are ahead of schedule for the 2009 goal.

5. Dollar up... for the 1st time in 7 days, you got me there, but I'm more intersted in the 20% it has gained so far this year against the Euro.

6. Exports up. If you want to factor in high oil here, and use it for your spin, then you'd have to allow it for factoring into the CPI, which you have not in the Wage vs CPI arguments in many of other threads, so sorry pal, cant have your cake and eat it too. Exports are up, period.

It just sickens you that things are getting better doesnt it? You'd rather see the country fall apart to satisfy your partisan rage than to actually see it succeed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Topic Title: Deficit Shrinks???
Topic Summary: Can't be!! And ahead of schedule it appears...

CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Did you look and see why? It has nothing to do with Bush himself.

It was because a lot of the Enron style of fraud has been cut off from the corruption and the Government and States are actually starting to see some of the money that was long overdue.

Reading is a big problem here. Reading is fundamental.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: maluckey
Topic Title: Deficit Shrinks???
Topic Summary: Can't be!! And ahead of schedule it appears...

CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Did you look and see why? It has nothing to do with Bush himself.

It was because a lot of the Enron style of fraud has been cut off from the corruption and the Government and States are actually starting to see some of the money that was long overdue.

Reading is a big problem here. Reading is fundamental.

LOL, it's because of less corruption. That is friggin hilarious. You libbies come up with some of the craziest conspiracy theories ever.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: maluckey
Topic Title: Deficit Shrinks???
Topic Summary: Can't be!! And ahead of schedule it appears...

CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Did you look and see why? It has nothing to do with Bush himself.

It was because a lot of the Enron style of fraud has been cut off from the corruption and the Government and States are actually starting to see some of the money that was long overdue.

Reading is a big problem here. Reading is fundamental.

LOL, it's because of less corruption. That is friggin hilarious. You libbies come up with some of the craziest conspiracy theories ever.

I didn't bat an eye at the conspiracy theory, thats just Dave.

What made me spill my coffee was Dave, albeit not directly, AGREED WITH THE OP!! :Q

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Krk3561
How exactly is this applied to making CPUs? It's an observation.

You really need to read more of a COMPUTER forum than just P&N. Moore's law is the observation that research has led to a doubling of transistor density every 18 months. Reality has kept up quite well with Moore's law. Over the past few decades, transistor density has doubled quite close to every 18 months.

Observation #1: This density pace has NOT been affected by presidential policies. Since we have had wildly different presidential policies since the 1960s, and since the doubling every 18 months has not been affected by any of these policies, I conclude that the policies had no impact on this aspect of technology.

Observation #2: Doubing of transistors goes hand in hand with doubling of performance. While it is true that Moore didn't speak of performance, the reality has shown that his observation holds for performance as well. Performance of transistor chips has grown at a rate that has shown no changes to drastically different presidential policies.

Observation #3: Computers which are too slow do not have a wide user base. When computers were so slow that it took 10 minutes to boot, had no graphics, and had very few applications, there were very few customers. Yes there were some, but not that many. The technology just wasn't yet available.

Observation #4: The technology became available when performance was high enough to run programs that people needed: office software, software for school, and software for entertainment. The location of this performance had nothing to do with presidential policy. If a computer can't do what the user wanted, the user didn't buy it regardless of who was president.

Observation #5: The time when Moore's law gave enough transistors that CPUs could have the performance the users needed was in the mid 1990s. Computer use soared. Nearly every office, school, home, etc had computers. This was due to CPUs that were finally capable of meeting user's needs. Clinton got a huge windfall from this. It wasn't Clinton that caused it. Nor was it Reagan.

Conclusion: If Moore's law was affected by presidential policy, then I would agree with you that Reagan may have impacted the computer revolution. But the facts don't show any link there. I don't give the credit to Clinton either.

 

[Train]

dullard, your forgetting to factor in that not all of the semiconductor industry is within the USA. Very large portions of the research, development, and even more so of the production, are in Asia (and have been for quite some time) Namely Japan and Taiwan, who both rate above the USA as far as economic freedom.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: maluckey
Topic Title: Deficit Shrinks???
Topic Summary: Can't be!! And ahead of schedule it appears...

CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Did you look and see why? It has nothing to do with Bush himself.

It was because a lot of the Enron style of fraud has been cut off from the corruption and the Government and States are actually starting to see some of the money that was long overdue.

Reading is a big problem here. Reading is fundamental.

LOL, it's because of less corruption. That is friggin hilarious. You libbies come up with some of the craziest conspiracy theories ever.

I didn't bat an eye at the conspiracy theory, thats just Dave.

What made me spill my coffee was Dave, albeit not directly, AGREED WITH THE OP!! :Q

Well technically thanks to some of the corruption and I emphasize only some of the corruption, getting knocked down, that a very small fraction of trickle down that only works from the rich to more of the very rich is actually starting to be seen.

Trickle down does not make it down to the common man, never has and never will.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Krk3561
How exactly is this applied to making CPUs? It's an observation.

You really need to read more of a COMPUTER forum than just P&N. Moore's law is the observation that research has led to a doubling of transistor density every 18 months. Reality has kept up quite well with Moore's law. Over the past few decades, transistor density has doubled quite close to every 18 months.

Observation #1: This density pace has NOT been affected by presidential policies. Since we have had wildly different presidential policies since the 1960s, and since the doubling every 18 months has not been affected by any of these policies, I conclude that the policies had no impact on this aspect of technology.

Observation #2: Doubing of transistors goes hand in hand with doubling of performance. While it is true that Moore didn't speak of performance, the reality has shown that his observation holds for performance as well. Performance of transistor chips has grown at a rate that has shown no changes to drastically different presidential policies.

Observation #3: Computers which are too slow do not have a wide user base. When computers were so slow that it took 10 minutes to boot, had no graphics, and had very few applications, there were very few customers. Yes there were some, but not that many. The technology just wasn't yet available.

Observation #4: The technology became available when performance was high enough to run programs that people needed: office software, software for school, and software for entertainment. The location of this performance had nothing to do with presidential policy. If a computer can't do what the user wanted, the user didn't buy it regardless of who was president.

Observation #5: The time when Moore's law gave enough transistors that CPUs could have the performance the users needed was in the mid 1990s. Computer use soared. Nearly every office, school, home, etc had computers. This was due to CPUs that were finally capable of meeting user's needs. Clinton got a huge windfall from this. It wasn't Clinton that caused it. Nor was it Reagan.

Conclusion: If Moore's law was affected by presidential policy, then I would agree with you that Reagan may have impacted the computer revolution. But the facts don't show any link there. I don't give the credit to Clinton either.

Moore's law didnt lead to the creation of CPUs...

Reagan's supply side economics (business tax cuts) allowed many of the tech companies (i.e. IBM, Intel, Sun, Mircosoft, etc.) that fueled the 90's to grow, allowed them to hire more people, spend more money on R&D, etc.

The increase in money spent in R&D is what's important. Reagan produced an economic climate very friendly to business and allowed them to gain the capital they needed to do the research and produce the products.

You think if the economy is in a recession and the businesses are paying VERY high taxes, that will be conducive to growth and expansion? Investors are going to front the money to an unproven tech company in times like that?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well technically thanks to some of the corruption and I emphasize only some of the corruption, getting knocked down, that a very small fraction of trickle down that only works from the rich to more of the very rich is actually starting to be seen.

Trickle down does not make it down to the common man, never has and never will.

I'll call BS on that one. It has more than trickled down on me.

Edit: Perhaps I should elaborate...

The owner of my store recently expanded and opened a second location. I now manage that store. Had he been taxed to the max and lacking in capital, I'd still be passing my days in another store making less than I make now.

Trickle down... In full Effect

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

If only Georgie would include the totals from Iraq/Afghanistan in it. Please add $300B to what it is now and see if that schedule is still working for ya.

From one of your own sources listed:

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004.

That total gets adjusted up to $655B. Doesn't quite look as rosey, now does it?

Those costs associated with iraq and afghanistan are included in the budget numbers.