Frum: How the Tea Party could drive GOP to disaster

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
DucatiMonster696 said:
This point always gets thrown out without the realization that tax loop holes were even larger back then they are today. Yes they paid more takes but you could shelter way more money with greater ease during that time period.
Click to expand...

And you completely ignore the fact that federal tax revenues as a % of GDP are at their lowest point since WW2, as well.

You're right that wealthy people back then could deduct more, but their effective rate on taxable income is now 1/3 less than it was, and their share of national income has doubled.

The other sad truth is that the truly wealthy have the ability to hide in the top 1%, with the top 400 incomes averaging ~1000X that of those at the entry level of the top 1%, ~10,000X that of a median earner.
 
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Jhhnn said:
And you completely ignore the fact that federal tax revenues as a % of GDP are at their lowest point since WW2, as well.
Click to expand...

That is totally irrelivant. Would you be happy if tax revenue were low but a higher % of GDP? A lower % of GDP just means money is circulating more before the Government gets it's hands on it.
 
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
zsdersw said:
You're right.. we can't sustain $1.4 trillion deficits, but unless you cut from the benefits paid out to current retirees you're never going to eliminate the budget deficit... and for all their anti-government rhetoric, they're avoiding cuts to current benefits like it's the plague.

In the end, it's yet another episode of actions-don't-match-the-rhetoric from the Tea Party and their favorite candidates.

Frum's ideological credentials notwithstanding, he is absolutely correct about one thing: nominating a Tea Party favorite almost assures Obama wins, and that doesn't benefit anyone.
Click to expand...

It was only 5 years ago we were at $400 Billion deficit per year. You can't tell me our Government costs $1 Trillion more a year to run.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Matt1970 said:
That is totally irrelivant. Would you be happy if tax revenue were low but a higher % of GDP? A lower % of GDP just means money is circulating more before the Government gets it's hands on it.
Click to expand...

Utterly delusional. The govt spends every dime it gets, while the wealthy are just buying govt bonds atm, stashing it as corporate cash reserves, investing it offshore every chance they get.

That's only a good deal for the wealthy...
 
D

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,662
136
Matt1970 said:
Bush's last budget and Obama's budgets.
Click to expand...

Haha, really.

Give me specific policies and areas that have increased spending in the past few years. There is the stimulus, which accounts for a few hundred billion in each of the past few years. What accounts for the rest?

Again, I want you to be specific. You might be surprised at what you learn if you actually go and look at it. (hint: under any president no matter how conservative, deficits would be quite similar)
 
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Jhhnn said:
Utterly delusional. The govt spends every dime it gets, while the wealthy are just buying govt bonds atm, stashing it as corporate cash reserves, investing it offshore every chance they get.

That's only a good deal for the wealthy...
Click to expand...

Oh of course they are. They never spend money on goods or food or cars. And they point at you and laugh while they do it. You really are clueless.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
eskimospy said:
Haha, really.

Give me specific policies and areas that have increased spending in the past few years. There is the stimulus, which accounts for a few hundred billion in each of the past few years. What accounts for the rest?

Again, I want you to be specific. You might be surprised at what you learn if you actually go and look at it. (hint: under any president no matter how conservative, deficits would be quite similar)
Click to expand...

He doesn't want to look at it, refuses to do so, because any sudden realization of the truth would cause his head to asplode. Pop!

That's obvious from his first lame attempt to dodge the point. His brain won't accept what his eyes tell him, anyway.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,662
136
Jhhnn said:
He doesn't want to look at it, refuses to do so, because any sudden realization of the truth would cause his head to asplode. Pop!

That's obvious from his first lame attempt to dodge the point. His brain won't accept what his eyes tell him, anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he thinks that Obama and those free spending Democrats have somehow unleashed a spending explosion since he took office, and that's the reason for the higher spending and increased deficits. It's a common misconception, but it's one that reinforces what people already want to believe, so I'm sure that nothing you or I say will dispel it.
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Jhhnn said:
And you completely ignore the fact that federal tax revenues as a % of GDP are at their lowest point since WW2, as well.

You're right that wealthy people back then could deduct more, but their effective rate on taxable income is now 1/3 less than it was, and their share of national income has doubled.

The other sad truth is that the truly wealthy have the ability to hide in the top 1%, with the top 400 incomes averaging ~1000X that of those at the entry level of the top 1%, ~10,000X that of a median earner.
Click to expand...

And yet OWS is aiming at those people in the top 1%, most of whom aren't wealthy. High earners, but not wealthy. Wealthy is when you don't have to work. If most of the people in the top 1% stop working they quickly drop to the 99%. Maybe if Democrats and Occupiers would focus on truly massive wealth instead of just sounding like they're envious of high earners, they'd gain a little more traction.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,662
136
BoberFett said:
And yet OWS is aiming at those people in the top 1%, most of whom aren't wealthy. High earners, but not wealthy. Wealthy is when you don't have to work. If most of the people in the top 1% stop working they quickly drop to the 99%. Maybe if Democrats and Occupiers would focus on truly massive wealth instead of just sounding like they're envious of high earners, they'd gain a little more traction.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they don't agree with your made up definition of wealthy.
 
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Jhhnn said:
You're so deep in denial that you offer a chart showing exactly the opposite of what you think is true. Unbelievable.

Revenues exceeded expenditures before tax cut republicans under GWB got control of the budget, started two wars, and sponsored the flimflam of the ownership society.
Click to expand...

Do you not see the last 4 years of that chart ? The massive rise in the Blue line ?????

EDIT: The 2 drops in the red (revenue) is the last 2 stock market crash's and recessions.
 
Last edited:
D

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
BoberFett said:
And yet OWS is aiming at those people in the top 1%, most of whom aren't wealthy. High earners, but not wealthy. Wealthy is when you don't have to work. If most of the people in the top 1% stop working they quickly drop to the 99%. Maybe if Democrats and Occupiers would focus on truly massive wealth instead of just sounding like they're envious of high earners, they'd gain a little more traction.
Click to expand...

Bingo...the "one percent" aren't all at the level of wealth achieved by guys Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. The entire concept is a broad generalization.

Of whom men like the two aforementioned have fundamentally more methods to shelter their money from any sort of earned income tax hike on the rest of the "one percent".
 
RocksteadyDotNet

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
BoberFett said:
And yet OWS is aiming at those people in the top 1%, most of whom aren't wealthy. High earners, but not wealthy. Wealthy is when you don't have to work. If most of the people in the top 1% stop working they quickly drop to the 99%. Maybe if Democrats and Occupiers would focus on truly massive wealth instead of just sounding like they're envious of high earners, they'd gain a little more traction.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom