Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   What was Nixon's tax rate? Which president paid just 7% in taxes? How did Al Gore make $100 million after leaving office? Candidates' tax returns are becoming interesting reading   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 51
    More: Followup, human beings, Al Gore, tax rates, Geraldine Ferraro, Michael Dukakis, Ralph Nader, income taxes, Richard Nixon  
•       •       •

1916 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jul 2012 at 1:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-18 09:45:29 AM  
How did Al Gore make $100mil after leaving office

Being Emperor of the Moon is highly profitable.
 
2012-07-18 09:51:28 AM  
Members of Congress do this too, right?

I would love to compare the charitable giving of the members. Who really cares enough about the poor to use their own money to help them, and how many only care when they are spending our money.


As far as Rommey's taxes he need to dump 5 years.
 
2012-07-18 10:37:59 AM  
I don't see how Ronald Reagan was paying 44% of his income in taxes. Yeah, I'd be pissy about taxes too if that were the case. I thought that, yes, the tax rates were much higher in the past, but I was thinking the past like 1950, not like 1980. Does anybody have a nifty graph of this stuff on hand?
 
2012-07-18 10:43:19 AM  

Via Infinito: Does anybody have a nifty graph of this stuff on hand?


Here you go.

Top marginal rate when he took office was 70% or thereabouts.
 
2012-07-18 11:18:12 AM  

jbuist: Via Infinito: Does anybody have a nifty graph of this stuff on hand?

Here you go.

Top marginal rate when he took office was 70% or thereabouts.


Nice. Thanks for that. Now we just need one that compares the top tax rates to job growth percentages for the same periods...
 
2012-07-18 11:24:45 AM  

Via Infinito: Now we just need one that compares the top tax rates to job growth percentages for the same periods...


Here's a specific one.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-18 11:25:21 AM  

Via Infinito: Nice. Thanks for that. Now we just need one that compares the top tax rates to job growth percentages for the same periods...


That isn't going to work out the way you think it will.

Wars effect stuff.
 
2012-07-18 11:28:59 AM  
So what side is this article taking on this? The republicans want to continue the trickle down theory and lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That doesn't work, it never did. And no, it's not"class warfare" or jealousy. It's just about keep trying to do something that obviously never worked.
 
2012-07-18 11:43:05 AM  

Mugato: So what side is this article taking on this? The republicans want to continue the trickle down theory and lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That doesn't work, it never did. And no, it's not"class warfare" or jealousy. It's just about keep trying to do something that obviously never worked.


I've never understood how someone could believe that effecting a large percentage of the population (double so if they have the wealth) doesn't effect the other part. So do you believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if their taxes are higher? Do you honestly believe that decreasing the potential reward won't effect someones willingness to take on risk?

I know we are all equal and no one is special, but someone somewhere has to sign the dotted line and take the risk to open/increase a business. And that we should help that person. Don't ya think?
 
2012-07-18 11:50:33 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So do you believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if their taxes are higher?


I believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if there is a need for those jobs. They're not just going to create more jobs because they pay less in taxes than everyone else. And wealthy != job creators.
 
2012-07-18 12:02:23 PM  
Nobody is going to create a job unless there is sufficient demand to justify the added expense.

Taxation rates are meaningless in this equation. You could be taxed at 10 percent of 70 percent. If there isn't sufficient revenue to justify the cost of an employee, there won't be a new hire. If the hiring will mean more profits, then you hire.

You don't hire because someone invested in your company. You don't hire for the sake of hiring. If the cost is greater than the profit, you don't do it. Anyone who is wealthy should know this. Investing in a company that doesn't have enough revenue to justify hiring an employee on their own is moronic.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-18 12:06:26 PM  

Via Infinito: jbuist: Via Infinito: Does anybody have a nifty graph of this stuff on hand?

Here you go.

Top marginal rate when he took office was 70% or thereabouts.

Nice. Thanks for that. Now we just need one that compares the top tax rates to job growth percentages for the same periods...


thinkprogress.org
 
2012-07-18 12:07:41 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So do you believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if their taxes are higher? Do you honestly believe that decreasing the potential reward won't effect someones willingness to take on risk?


Risking a new business to make 30 cents on the dollar is objectively worse than risking a new business to make 69 cents on the dollar, but the theory you refer to here predicts that there is a nearly perfect positive correlation between top marginal tax rate and unemployment rate (as one rises, the other should rise, and vice versa).

There is also 30 years of objective empirical evidence showing that no such correlation exists.

The low taxes=low unemployment theory depends on rational actors in the marketplace to work, and there are volumes and volumes of studies indicating that the typical person is far from. See also, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in re: Prospect Theory and the entire field of Behavioral Economics. In a nutshell: humans are hard-wired to make poor economic decisions, and are easily swayed into making such decisions -- even into making choices that are diametrically opposed to each other based simply on how the choices are framed. We are not rational actors, and we cannot depend on a system that assumes that we are. It has nothing to do with intelligence, life experience, or anything else along those lines. It's literally a part of the human condition.

A few years ago I ran the numbers myself, allowing a 2-year lag between implemented top marginal tax rate and employment rate, just to make sure there was enough time for policy to run its course and affect employment. I found that there was, in fact, a slight negative correlation between the two numbers (p=0.65, IIRC) when run over all the data available from Dept. of Labor statistics at the time. In other words, higher top marginal rates correlate somewhat with lower unemployment numbers.

Low taxes=low unemployment is one of those things that passes the common-sense test and sounds like a no-brainer... until you actually put it to action in real-world conditions.
 
2012-07-18 12:10:17 PM  

Mugato: And wealthy != job creators.


Fully agree!!

Not all job creators are wealthy, and not all wealthy are job creators. However all job creators want to be wealthy. Why else take the risk? If you have something you love doing than you can do that without increasing your exposure by bring in employees?! Anytime you open a business and start staffing it you are no longer doing the thing you love you are now a business owner. The person that loves cutting hair and opens a salon is no longer cutting hair they are doing payroll, lining up credit and fighting workers comp. If they are cutting hair the business will fail.

Mugato: I believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if there is a need for those jobs. They're not just going to create more jobs because they pay less in taxes than everyone else


And how do we create the need for those jobs. People who have jobs are more likely to spend money and get the economy growing again, right? And no I'm not going to go out and hire people just on the hope of things getting better. We need a spark, we need a little momentum, we need a little positive. And a President saying you only get stuff if you are lucky/get it given to you isn't going to provide that. We need another "Morning in America" moment. We need something to help us get rolling. Now lower taxes will encourage people to be more optimistic and more likely take a risk.
Lower taxes in and of itself will not jump start the economy. However it will help that spark turn into a flame.
I've seen what President Obama has offered us in the way of encouragement and leadership. I'm ready for someone else to give it a try.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-18 12:26:00 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mugato: So what side is this article taking on this? The republicans want to continue the trickle down theory and lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That doesn't work, it never did. And no, it's not"class warfare" or jealousy. It's just about keep trying to do something that obviously never worked.

I've never understood how someone could believe that effecting a large percentage of the population (double so if they have the wealth) doesn't effect the other part. So do you believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if their taxes are higher? Do you honestly believe that decreasing the potential reward won't effect someones willingness to take on risk?

I know we are all equal and no one is special, but someone somewhere has to sign the dotted line and take the risk to open/increase a business. And that we should help that person. Don't ya think?


Yes. Even if it weren't total nonsense that wealthy people create jobs, I know that people aren't going to say "Oh no, I would rather not make any money than pay a 40% marginal rate". It isn't speculation, we have had higher rates in the past and they didn't impact job creation.

People hire employees because they need them to make money, not because they have some extra money laying around because of a tax cut. Consumer demand creates jobs, not investment.
 
2012-07-18 12:31:05 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lower taxes in and of itself will not jump start the economy. However it will help that spark turn into a flame.
I've seen what President Obama has offered us in the way of encouragement and leadership. I'm ready for someone else to give it a try.


But trickle down economics just doesn't work, it's been tried for 40 years. It's been shown time and again that simply lowering taxes on the wealthy just doesn't do anything but make them hoard that money and tax shelter it to offshore accounts.
 
2012-07-18 12:41:48 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lower taxes in and of itself will not jump start the economy. However it will help that spark turn into a flame.


This is simply not true. If it were, the resigning of the Bush/Obama tax cuts would have done that. The tax cuts that when Bush passed them were the greatest tax cuts in history, but not enough at all when Obama resigned them.

People aren't suddenly gong to go "You know what? Dropping the taxation rates on the highest few percent is exactly what I needed to get a bank loan and start my own business/go out and make a purchase thus stimulating the economy"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-18 12:44:52 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mugato: And wealthy != job creators.

Fully agree!!

Not all job creators are wealthy, and not all wealthy are job creators. However all job creators want to be wealthy. Why else take the risk? If you have something you love doing than you can do that without increasing your exposure by bring in employees?! Anytime you open a business and start staffing it you are no longer doing the thing you love you are now a business owner. The person that loves cutting hair and opens a salon is no longer cutting hair they are doing payroll, lining up credit and fighting workers comp. If they are cutting hair the business will fail.

Mugato: I believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if there is a need for those jobs. They're not just going to create more jobs because they pay less in taxes than everyone else

And how do we create the need for those jobs. People who have jobs are more likely to spend money and get the economy growing again, right? And no I'm not going to go out and hire people just on the hope of things getting better. We need a spark, we need a little momentum, we need a little positive. And a President saying you only get stuff if you are lucky/get it given to you isn't going to provide that. We need another "Morning in America" moment. We need something to help us get rolling. Now lower taxes will encourage people to be more optimistic and more likely take a risk.
Lower taxes in and of itself will not jump start the economy. However it will help that spark turn into a flame.
I've seen what President Obama has offered us in the way of encouragement and leadership. I'm ready for someone else to give it a try.


They would take the risk for the same reason they did before and for the same reason they do in places that have higher taxes than in the US.

I am sure that there is some point where taxes could be high enough to create a shortage of capital, but we know that that point is somewhere north of 70% because rates have been that high in the past.

And the last thing we need is another voodo economics moment.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-18 12:47:17 PM  

Aarontology: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lower taxes in and of itself will not jump start the economy. However it will help that spark turn into a flame.

This is simply not true. If it were, the resigning of the Bush/Obama tax cuts would have done that. The tax cuts that when Bush passed them were the greatest tax cuts in history, but not enough at all when Obama resigned them.

People aren't suddenly gong to go "You know what? Dropping the taxation rates on the highest few percent is exactly what I needed to get a bank loan and start my own business/go out and make a purchase thus stimulating the economy"


It also ignores the economic penalty of the deficits that finance the tax cuts.
 
2012-07-18 01:32:44 PM  
Does Al Gore keep his $100 million in the lockbox?
 
2012-07-18 01:41:48 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Does Al Gore keep his $100 million in the lockbox?


When the Republicans eventually start dipping their grubby little paws into the Social Security fund and bleed it dry to feed their offshore accounts, you're going to wish we had hung onto that lockbox so that someone -- anyone -- could end your suffering existence by smashing your face in with it, instead of leaving you to miserably die in the street when you turn 65.
 
2012-07-18 01:42:31 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mugato: And wealthy != job creators.

Fully agree!!

Not all job creators are wealthy, and not all wealthy are job creators. However all job creators want to be wealthy. Why else take the risk? If you have something you love doing than you can do that without increasing your exposure by bring in employees?! Anytime you open a business and start staffing it you are no longer doing the thing you love you are now a business owner. The person that loves cutting hair and opens a salon is no longer cutting hair they are doing payroll, lining up credit and fighting workers comp. If they are cutting hair the business will fail.

Mugato: I believe that the wealthy will create more jobs if there is a need for those jobs. They're not just going to create more jobs because they pay less in taxes than everyone else

And how do we create the need for those jobs. People who have jobs are more likely to spend money and get the economy growing again, right? And no I'm not going to go out and hire people just on the hope of things getting better. We need a spark, we need a little momentum, we need a little positive. And a President saying you only get stuff if you are lucky/get it given to you isn't going to provide that. We need another "Morning in America" moment. We need something to help us get rolling. Now lower taxes will encourage people to be more optimistic and more likely take a risk.
Lower taxes in and of itself will not jump start the economy. However it will help that spark turn into a flame.
I've seen what President Obama has offered us in the way of encouragement and leadership. I'm ready for someone else to give it a try.


The low taxes we've had for three decades have done very little to fan any sort of flame for most Americans.

It's been spectacular for the top 1%, though.
 
2012-07-18 01:44:23 PM  

James F. Campbell: mitchcumstein1: Does Al Gore keep his $100 million in the lockbox?

When the Republicans eventually start dipping their grubby little paws into the Social Security fund and bleed it dry to feed their offshore accounts, you're going to wish we had hung onto that lockbox so that someone -- anyone -- could end your suffering existence by smashing your face in with it, instead of leaving you to miserably die in the street when you turn 65.


wouldn't a brick or a really stale loaf of bread accomplish the same thing?
 
2012-07-18 01:52:33 PM  

skullkrusher: James F. Campbell: mitchcumstein1: Does Al Gore keep his $100 million in the lockbox?

When the Republicans eventually start dipping their grubby little paws into the Social Security fund and bleed it dry to feed their offshore accounts, you're going to wish we had hung onto that lockbox so that someone -- anyone -- could end your suffering existence by smashing your face in with it, instead of leaving you to miserably die in the street when you turn 65.

wouldn't a brick or a really stale loaf of bread accomplish the same thing?


A metaphor is a lockbox to the face.
 
2012-07-18 02:00:04 PM  
The issue over taxes paid by potential presidential candidates is a 20th-century development.

Considering the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in the 20th Century, this is not surprising.
 
2012-07-18 02:06:32 PM  
Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Richard Lugar, and Ralph Nader didn't release tax returns.

You remember our previous winners: Lugar, Forbes and Buchanan! There they are, basking in the Maui sun, their debts to society paid in pull.
 
2012-07-18 02:10:35 PM  
How did Al Gore make $100 million after leaving office?

Duh! Residuals on his invention, which you're using right now.
 
2012-07-18 02:12:08 PM  

BKITU: Risking a new business to make 30 cents on the dollar is objectively worse than risking a new business to make 69 cents on the dollar, but the theory you refer to here predicts that there is a nearly perfect positive correlation between top marginal tax rate and unemployment rate (as one rises, the other should rise, and vice versa).


I'm sure you read my whole post, but just in case you missed it the first time I said that it was the reason for the economy to get going. To get going we need that spark but once that happens increasing reward would make it more likely for people to hire.

BKITU: A few years ago I ran the numbers myself, allowing a 2-year lag between implemented top marginal tax rate and employment rate, just to make sure there was enough time for policy to run its course and affect employment. I found that there was, in fact, a slight negative correlation between the two numbers (p=0.65, IIRC) when run over all the data available from Dept. of Labor statistics at the time. In other words, higher top marginal rates correlate somewhat with lower unemployment numbers.


you did the math wrong

vpb: Yes. Even if it weren't total nonsense that wealthy people create jobs, I know that people aren't going to say "Oh no, I would rather not make any money than pay a 40% marginal rate". It isn't speculation, we have had higher rates in the past and they didn't impact job creation.

People hire employees because they need them to make money, not because they have some extra money laying around because of a tax cut. Consumer demand creates jobs, not investment.



I'm sure you read my whole post, but just in case you missed it the first time I said that it was the reason for the economy to get going. To get going we need that spark but once that happens increasing reward would make it more likely for people to hire.


Aarontology: This is simply not true. If it were, the resigning of the Bush/Obama tax cuts would have done that. The tax cuts that when Bush passed them were the greatest tax cuts in history, but not enough at all when Obama resigned them.


We had Bush + Bush's Cut = 5% unemployment. We have Obama + Bush's Cuts = 8.2%. Really and truly the only power that a President has over the economy is his ability to motivate the populace. Unless he has control over both house of Congress the President is not much more than a cheerleader. And what has the current President done? Has he motivated? Or has he admitted that his is powerless? You never admit that!


vpb: They would take the risk for the same reason they did before and for the same reason they do in places that have higher taxes than in the US.


For some reason everyone thinks that job creators are just like Michell Dell. Some guy in a garage with a dream. True those guys are out there but most aren't that way. Most people are entering a market that is well established and offering services that are comparable to someone already in the area. They may or may not have an idea on how to do it a little better but it's not ground breaking. These people are not going to jump out there if they think the market isn't going to catch them. They are following the dream of a new product or service they are following the dream of being their own boss. Yes all the inventors get the reality shows, but for people who are actually going to do something it isnt that way.

Now this is 100% about start ups. Established business looking to expand I can't believe anyone thinks that higher taxes dont effect them. And yes most small business are going to be effected by this. The "ma and pa" stores everyone says they want to shop at will be effected the most.

vpb: It also ignores the economic penalty of the deficits that finance the tax cuts.


Yeah!

Wouldn't be cool if they made cuts so that didnt happen?!?
 
2012-07-18 02:13:56 PM  

Aarontology: How did Al Gore make $100mil after leaving office

Being Emperor of the Moon is highly profitable.


I thought it would be royalties from the internets.
 
2012-07-18 02:15:20 PM  

James F. Campbell: mitchcumstein1: Does Al Gore keep his $100 million in the lockbox?

When the Republicans eventually start dipping their grubby little paws into the Social Security fund and bleed it dry to feed their offshore accounts, you're going to wish we had hung onto that lockbox so that someone -- anyone -- could end your suffering existence by smashing your face in with it, instead of leaving you to miserably die in the street when you turn 65.


So...he doesn't keep the $100 mill in the lockbox?
 
2012-07-18 02:19:38 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: We had Bush + Bush's Cut = 5% unemployment.


Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

That's before the crash. Include the crash and you have the worst job AND GDP growth of any administration since Eisenhower.

It's been done. And Romney wants to do it again, except bigger.
 
2012-07-18 02:20:58 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: BKITU: Risking a new business to make 30 cents on the dollar is objectively worse than risking a new business to make 69 cents on the dollar, but the theory you refer to here predicts that there is a nearly perfect positive correlation between top marginal tax rate and unemployment rate (as one rises, the other should rise, and vice versa).

I'm sure you read my whole post, but just in case you missed it the first time I said that it was the reason for the economy to get going. To get going we need that spark but once that happens increasing reward would make it more likely for people to hire.


Except that there is exactly zero empirical evidence backing up your assertion. None. The economy doesn't spark by increasing reward from lowering the top marginal tax rate. No matter how much Voodoo Economists wish and hope and pray for it to be true, it isn't. You're advocating for a delusion.


BKITU: A few years ago I ran the numbers myself, allowing a 2-year lag between implemented top marginal tax rate and employment rate, just to make sure there was enough time for policy to run its course and affect employment. I found that there was, in fact, a slight negative correlation between the two numbers (p=0.65, IIRC) when run over all the data available from Dept. of Labor statistics at the time. In other words, higher top marginal rates correlate somewhat with lower unemployment numbers.

you did the math wrong


Argument from incredulity. How terribly convincing. You must win all the debates.
 
2012-07-18 02:25:32 PM  
Is Al Gore a candidate for something? Who knew.
 
2012-07-18 02:30:12 PM  

Aarontology: How did Al Gore make $100mil after leaving office

Being Emperor of the Moon is highly profitable.


Newt Gingrich abdicated?
 
2012-07-18 02:49:38 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Between the end of the 2001 recession (2001Q4) and the peak of that expansion (2007Q4), the U.S. economy experienced the worst economic expansion of the post-war era.

That's before the crash. Include the crash and you have the worst job AND GDP growth of any administration since Eisenhower.

It's been done. And Romney wants to do it again, except bigger.



Yes I heard that before the Bush Economy was "worst economy since Hoover" and are we better now? Or worse? hummmmm that's an easy question isn't it. President Obama already admitted he can't get it done! But he is "trying". The other guy says he can! If you voted for Hope last election do it again! There is only one guy out there who says he can do it.

BKITU: Argument from incredulity. How terribly convincing. You must win all the debates.


Yes and telling people you did in depth research and you're totally right really brings in the win doesn't it? Well I funded a think tank to crunch the numbers and I can tell you with a 95% confidence level that you're completely wrong. And you dont get enough iron in your diet.
 
2012-07-18 02:55:42 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: BKITU: Argument from incredulity. How terribly convincing. You must win all the debates.

Yes and telling people you did in depth research and you're totally right really brings in the win doesn't it?



I presented my methods (top marginal rate vs. unemployment with 2-year lag). You are free to replicate them and see for yourself. Or you can just keep on playing the "LOL NO" game and remain willfully self-deluded.

I know the latter is more comforting, but it doesn't make you right.
 
2012-07-18 02:59:09 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Yes I heard that before the Bush Economy was "worst economy since Hoover" and are we better now? Or worse? hummmmm that's an easy question isn't it.


Did we lose 750,000 jobs last month? Did GDP shrink 9% last quarter?

We are better. Easy. But we are not where we need to be.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: President Obama already admitted he can't get it done! But he is "trying". The other guy says he can! If you voted for Hope last election do it again! There is only one guy out there who says he can do it.


I'm not sure what any of this means but if you want to support the guy with the same exact economic ideas as Bush and are expecting different results then I can't help you.
 
2012-07-18 03:33:08 PM  
I haven't been keeping tabs on Al Gore since he left office.

Does he still own a big chunk of Occidental Oil, one of the companies that's doing all this fraking?
 
2012-07-18 03:38:54 PM  

BKITU: The Stealth Hippopotamus: BKITU: Argument from incredulity. How terribly convincing. You must win all the debates.

Yes and telling people you did in depth research and you're totally right really brings in the win doesn't it?


I presented my methods (top marginal rate vs. unemployment with 2-year lag). You are free to replicate them and see for yourself. Or you can just keep on playing the "LOL NO" game and remain willfully self-deluded.

I know the latter is more comforting, but it doesn't make you right.


What's your favorite color? You will be farkied soon.
 
2012-07-18 04:41:14 PM  

Via Infinito: What's your favorite color? You will be farkied soon.


Green 4 is a personal favorite. Thanks!
 
2012-07-18 05:37:14 PM  
Al Gore is not a fan of Twisted Sister.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVfuJPPosjM (5:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQgV4lgow9Y

what's the deal with html 5 and time links in youtube. they don't work anymore
 
2012-07-18 07:35:34 PM  
Jimmy Carter paid 12 percent? That's peanuts. Haaaaaaaaaaa
 
2012-07-18 07:52:48 PM  

Cletus C.: Jimmy Carter paid 12 percent? That's peanuts. Haaaaaaaaaaa


*rimshot*

+1 anyway ;)
 
2012-07-18 07:58:51 PM  
Algore wasn't President. Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-07-18 10:47:08 PM  

BKITU: Via Infinito: What's your favorite color? You will be farkied soon.

Green 4 is a personal favorite. Thanks!


Is that the bright green. I like the bright green
 
2012-07-18 11:07:17 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Yes I heard that before the Bush Economy was "worst economy since Hoover" and are we better now? Or worse? hummmmm that's an easy question isn't it.


It's very easy if you look at facts, but I'm guessing you'd rather make up your own.
 
2012-07-18 11:26:23 PM  

MrEricSir: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Yes I heard that before the Bush Economy was "worst economy since Hoover" and are we better now? Or worse? hummmmm that's an easy question isn't it.

It's very easy if you look at facts, but I'm guessing you'd rather make up your own.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm/

Let me sum up for you. Unchanged or slightly up. And before you start jumping up and down screaming "I told you so" understand that the slightly up isn't large enough to cover the increase in population. Try to understand when Bush let office we had a higher number of total jobs and lower unemployment. These are facts. Sorry.
 
2012-07-18 11:36:09 PM  

BKITU: The Stealth Hippopotamus: BKITU: Argument from incredulity. How terribly convincing. You must win all the debates.

Yes and telling people you did in depth research and you're totally right really brings in the win doesn't it?


I presented my methods (top marginal rate vs. unemployment with 2-year lag). You are free to replicate them and see for yourself. Or you can just keep on playing the "LOL NO" game and remain willfully self-deluded.

I know the latter is more comforting, but it doesn't make you right.


We both know I'm not going to take the time to work though the numbers. And to be brutally honest I dont think you took the time either. I could just dismiss your methodology by attacking your concept of a two year lag or just hit you with a wall of text. Instead I'll just redirect you to some people who get paid to do this type of thing.
I've had PhDs in economics work though this and I've made a few converts. Enjoy

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-histo r ical-lessons-of-lower-tax

And I'm sorry. I'm farking from my phone so no poppy for you
 
2012-07-19 03:46:44 AM  
some people who get paid to do this type of thing.

A Heritage link?

*rolls eyes*
 
2012-07-19 10:46:48 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Try to understand when Bush let office we had a higher number of total jobs and lower unemployment. These are facts. Sorry.


Ah, I see the issue: you are willfully ignorant, or at least disingenuous. Going by raw numbers instead of trendlines, cherry-picking points of data instead of looking the direction the data is heading toward, is a sure sign of partisan hackery. You're not interested in where the facts lead, you're interested in finding data-points that jibe well with your preconceived notions.

That, and Heritage links (yes, I'm sure you've got econ professors doing 180s at your command). Couldn't find a World Net Daily link instead?
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report