POLL: 44% of Americans want Dubbya back now

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Patranus

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
nobodyknows said:
What say you p'anus? Cat got your tongue? I see your online right now so debunk these numbers or be forever known as a liar, liar, pants on fire.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot if you think that tax cuts somehow magically spent money.
You are also an idiot if you think that income taxes are the only type of taxes collected by the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Pens1566

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
14,051
11,773
136
Patranus said:
You are an idiot if you think that tax cuts somehow magically spent money.
You are also an idiot if you think that income taxes are the only type of taxes collected by the federal government.
Click to expand...

But there's no "ifs" involved in your diagnosis ...
 
A

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
PokerGuy said:
ORLY? Between 2000 and 2006, Americans certainly did not "suffer" economically, much less "suffer more than any time since WWII". Economically things just kind of meandered along, but there wasn't even a recession.
Click to expand...

Please crawl back underneath that rock you just came out of...
 
H

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Total Receipts (millions of $)

2005 . . . . . 2,153,859
2004 . . . . . 1,880,279
2003 . . . . . 1,782,532 (16.27% of GDP) $555 Billion Debt
2002 . . . . . 1,853,395
2001 . . . . . 1,991,426

2000 . . . . . 2,025,457
1999 . . . . . 1,827,645
1998 . . . . . 1,721,955 (19.69% of GDP) Budget Surplus


GDP (in billions of dollars)

2005 - - - $12,433.9
2004 - - - $11,685.9
2003 - - - $10,960.8
2002 - - - $10,469.6
2001 - - - $10,128.0

2000 - - - $9,817.0
1999 - - - $9,268.4
1998 - - - $8,747.0
1997 - - - $8,304.3


Increases In Federal Debt By Year

2006 - - $574 Billion
2005 - - $554 Billion
2004 - - $596 Billion
2003 - - $555 Billion
2002 - - $421 Billion
2001 - - $133 Billion
2000 - - $18 Billion


Individual income taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. Not surprisingly, FY2010 is the first fiscal year to feel the full impact of the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.

Corporate taxes are at their lowest percentage of GDP since 1937.


Thanks, Anus! Thanks, Republicans!



-
 
Patranus

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
heyheybooboo said:
Individual income taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. Not surprisingly, FY2010 is the first fiscal year to feel the full impact of the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.

Corporate taxes are at their lowest percentage of GDP since 1937.


Thanks, Anus! Thanks, Republicans!



-
Click to expand...

Again, you are somehow equating tax cuts to spending which are not related.
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Americans are even dumber than I thought. But then again, if someone is dumb enough to vote for Dubya in the first place, it's may be too much to expect them to be capable of learning from that.
 
D

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
heyheybooboo said:
Individual income taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950.
Click to expand...

Umm... you do realize that if GDP goes up, while taxes don't go up, the percentage of individual income taxes will go down. That's not a bad thing,that's a good thing. It means the idiots in government need to learn to spend less, and everything would be fine. It means GDP goes up (economy expands), while people's income taxes don't go up.

Corporate taxes are at their lowest percentage of GDP since 1937.
Click to expand...

Again, that's a good thing, not a bad one.
 
IGBT

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,976
141
106
just wait till "Hussein Obama" starts jacking taxes on all you "rich" chumps that voted for him.
 
rpanic

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Patranus said:
You are an idiot if you think that tax cuts somehow magically spent money.
You are also an idiot if you think that income taxes are the only type of taxes collected by the federal government.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't all of the tax cuts really be called tax deferments I am not sure if real tax cuts exist anymore? “Tax cuts” especially since Reagan were just added onto the deficit and never created from reducing government spending.

How is barrowing money to spend and at the same time calling the barrowed money that mostly goes to the rich magical?
 
Patranus

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
rpanic said:
Shouldn't all of the tax cuts really be called tax deferments I am not sure if real tax cuts exist anymore? “Tax cuts” especially since Reagan were just added onto the deficit and never created from reducing government spending.

How is barrowing money to spend and at the same time calling the barrowed money that mostly goes to the rich magical?
Click to expand...

I think you are confused, tax cuts in no way shape for form give money to anyone.
Tax credits (like those that some of the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes receive) do give money to people but I am pretty sure those aren't the rich.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Patranus said:
I think you are confused, tax cuts in no way shape for form give money to anyone.
Tax credits (like those that some of the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes receive) do give money to people but I am pretty sure those aren't the rich.
Click to expand...

That's one of my many pet peeves, this assumption that if government takes less from you then it has given you a gift. This would imply that your income is owned by government and whatever it decides to let you keep is a gift. Somehow this never seems to be extended to those from whom the government takes nothing, or even to those to whom the government actually gives some of other people's money.

I think tax breaks may have run their course due to the Fed. When Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes government revenue rose; when Bush cut taxes revenue dropped, in part no doubt due to the economic effects of 9/11. But the very assumption that cutting marginal tax rates automatically increases overall tax revenue may be outdated. After the runaway inflation of the Nixon/Ford/Carter years the Federal Reserve keeps a much tighter rein on the economy by wielding interest rates as a big hammer, thereby keeping growth at a maximum of 3 or 4%. This keeps inflation low and keeps bankers' profits up, as inflation tends to negate interest paid by devaluing the dollars in which a loan is paid back. If taxes are cut 10% and there is no way the economy will be allowed to grow at anything near that rate, overall tax revenue inevitably goes down. You could still make a moral case for tax cuts, but since roughly the bottom half of wage earners no longer pay any income tax any proposed tax cuts become susceptible to the cry of giving money to the rich. When you factor in that half the wage earners will see no benefit from a tax cut (and a possible cut in government redistribution) and add those people who do not work, a clear majority of people are not predisposed to favor a tax cut. Remove the economic justification and it's hard to see how we keep from being more and more highly taxed to pay for more and more government freebies. Truly depressing.
 
UberNeuman

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Whoozyerdaddy said:
And my problem is what? That I find the whole thing hysterical?
Click to expand...

lol. I find it funny as well - for a whole other set of reasons....

Cheshire_Cat_Tenniel.jpg.png
 
Whoozyerdaddy

Whoozyerdaddy

Lifer
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
UberNeuman said:
\this is obvious.....
Click to expand...

No it's not. I don't see how your assertion applies. I don't want the putz back. I just think it's funny that so many do. How does that fit your little Stockholm Syndrome comment? You must have had some kind of logic when you posted that comment. Dazzle me...
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Whoozyerdaddy said:
No it's not. I don't see how your assertion applies. I don't want the putz back. I just think it's funny that so many do. How does that fit your little Stockholm Syndrome comment? You must have had some kind of logic when you posted that comment. Dazzle me...
Click to expand...

Re-read your own OP... If Obama sucks so hard, what alternative do voters have? Does he suck harder than Bush, whose minions and deregulate/ cut taxes at the top/ go to war on false pretenses/ philosophy put us into this mess, or just because he inherited it?

You'd suggest Obama do what, exactly? Govern even more to the Right than many of his supporters ever believed he would, or what?

Or is this just sour grapes in general, pissin' in the punch bowl because your team blew it?
 
nobodyknows

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Patranus said:
You are an idiot if you think that tax cuts somehow magically spent money.
You are also an idiot if you think that income taxes are the only type of taxes collected by the federal government.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot if you think I give a rat's ass what a douche like you thinks. Bush reduced taxes and spent more money you fucking stupid ass. Now it's time to pay the piper so shut your whiney ass trap and fork over your rent. The days of greeenmailing the masses are fast coming to an end. Power BACK to the people!!

If you don't like it then don't let the door pat ur anus on the way out.
 
D

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
These polls are just getting ridiculous and are nothing more than fodder for pep rallies for the faithful. Pick an area, make sure it's favorable to your message and distribute. Watch the faithful eat it all up, claim supremacy, rinse and repeat.

To hell with Obama. To hell with Bush. The American public is the problem, and THAT sure as hell isn't improving. Find a poll on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom