Thread: the mighty GOP on debt commision make thar offer!

Originally Posted by jpn

Unless you can show me some actual data, I can only assume you're just making it up as you go. That is your and jviehe's modus operandi, after all.

If you are curious about the tax system years ago, go look up the Senate hearings on the appointment of Mr. Nelson Rockefeller to be Mr. Ford's VP.

Originally Posted by a777pilot

If you are curious about the tax system years ago, go look up the Senate hearings on the appointment of Mr. Nelson Rockefeller to be Mr. Ford's VP.

He wants you to do his thinking for him. Liberals ya know, not good at doing their own.

Originally Posted by a777pilot

If you are curious about the tax system years ago, go look up the Senate hearings on the appointment of Mr. Nelson Rockefeller to be Mr. Ford's VP.

I'm not curious about the tax system years ago. I'm curious if adaher can, for once, put some actual data behind his silly, fact-free assertions. Adaher knows how he wants the world, and history to be. The fact that it's not actually that way at all never interferes with his posts.
Of course, he could prove me wrong with some data.

(I won't wait up).

Originally Posted by a777pilot

If you are curious about the tax system years ago, go look up the Senate hearings on the appointment of Mr. Nelson Rockefeller to be Mr. Ford's VP.

He just trolling. Ignore him.

Originally Posted by adaher

The tax system 30 years ago generated the same amount of money as a % of GDP as the tax system of the 90s. The rates were higher, but the loopholes were ridiculous. Even moreso than they are now.

What the tax system in place from 1933 to 1981 did was lower the concentration of wealth, every year.
This is exactly what a "free market" would have done.
What the tax system has done from 1981 to the present is increase the concentration of wealth, this is exactly what a flawed market would do.

The budget was balanced or nearly balanced when taxes collected exceeded 19% of GDP, this was true before Reagan, and before Baby Bush.

Tax rates are simply too low, spending is too high, but putting either one "off the table" is saying "I want deficits, to create a crisis, that I believe I can exploit to seize more power".

Originally Posted by adaher

The tax system 30 years ago generated the same amount of money as a % of GDP as the tax system of the 90s. The rates were higher, but the loopholes were ridiculous. Even moreso than they are now.

Federal Tax as a Percentage of GDP

1980 - 19%
2000 - 20.6%
2002 - 17.6%
2010 - 14.9%

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

The problem with taxes in the 90's was that they were still skewed to favor concentration of wealth, the top rates should have been higher, and the maddle clas should have paid less.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I offered no solution. I was just making a statement regarding the clout of the TP, once millions fall off of the unemployment, and other social safety nets are cut by Repubs.

I am fairly certain the worse is still in our future. I don't believe we have seen anything yet of the great social unrest that is just over the hill.

Yeah isn't that funny, social unrest. Lets not cut any entitlement programs, God forbid, better yet let's just keep borrowing and spending. Hell what's 15 trillion in debt mean anyhow, lets run up the tab to 30 trillion, then lets see if there is any social unrest from those that have to pay it back. But now the left wants it's entitlements, so just keep borrowing and handing out the money.

Originally Posted by goober

Federal Tax as a Percentage of GDP

1980 - 19%
2000 - 20.6%
2002 - 17.6%
2010 - 14.9%

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

The problem with taxes in the 90's was that they were still skewed to favor concentration of wealth, the top rates should have been higher, and the maddle clas should have paid less.

The middle class paid more in the 1970s, about 4 times more than they do today as a percentage of income. The tax system has nothing to do with inequality. The rich paid about what they do now.

Also, your low figures come from recession years. Historically, taxes have been around 18%, although it drops a little in recessions and increases a little in boom times.

Originally Posted by adaher

The middle class paid more in the 1970s, about 4 times more than they do today as a percentage of income. The tax system has nothing to do with inequality. The rich paid about what they do now.

Also, your low figures come from recession years. Historically, taxes have been around 18%, although it drops a little in recessions and increases a little in boom times.

tax-gdp-7.jpg

Exactly. So, were still at spending being the problem.

Originally Posted by adaher

The middle class paid more in the 1970s, about 4 times more than they do today as a percentage of income. The tax system has nothing to do with inequality. The rich paid about what they do now.

Also, your low figures come from recession years. Historically, taxes have been around 18%, although it drops a little in recessions and increases a little in boom times.

The tax system has everything to do with inequality.
From the moment the top rates were lowered from 70% to 50%, the 5 decades long steady decline in the concentration of wealth reversed.
The correlation is exact, what other mechanism could have created the result we see, for over 3 decades now?

Originally Posted by jviehe

tax-gdp-7.jpg

Exactly. So, were still at spending being the problem.

No, the deficits correspond to tax cuts, and if spending were truly the problem, the majorities necessary to pass tax cuts could have passed spending cuts.

The deficits were planned and put in place by the GOP in order to create a "crisis" where they could attack entitlements, as a part of their long term war on the middle class.

Originally Posted by goober

No, the deficits correspond to tax cuts, and if spending were truly the problem, the majorities necessary to pass tax cuts could have passed spending cuts.

The deficits were planned and put in place by the GOP in order to create a "crisis" where they could attack entitlements, as a part of their long term war on the middle class.

Yep, now you liberals classify the middle class as having it's hand out needing entitlements. So the middle class now relies on entitlements to survive and is paid for by who? It sure would not be the middle class or lower now would it. Interesting how this country has become so dependent in entitlements that now the middle class have to rely on them to get by. That means that a very high majority of Americans are receiving entitlement compensation.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Yep, now you liberals classify the middle class as having it's hand out needing entitlements. So the middle class now relies on entitlements to survive and is paid for by who? It sure would not be the middle class or lower now would it. Interesting how this country has become so dependent in entitlements that now the middle class have to rely on them to get by. That means that a very high majority of Americans are receiving entitlement compensation.

ahoy Forplay,

as the baby boomers drop anchor and sail into retirement, this be true, mate.

they paid into social security and medicare all thar lives, and now they feel they be entitled to it.

and no one on USPO disagrees with this, either....at least not if they be ready fer thar own turn at the trough, and this be true whether they be liberals or conservatives.

to the USPO senior citizens, ahoy!!!!

- MeadHallPirate