Phoney baloney - right wing lies

[ssd]

Muff,
Any time you mention facts from the charts you post, it makes me laugh.

And the facts that I posted were in direct correlation to the Bush tax rates. Period. Spin it however you want and paint it in rainbow colors if it pleases you, but those are facts.


As we have talked about before - and I think we both agree, or did - Fed gov't collects more than enough in tax revenue. Their is an allocation and spending problem. While we can argue about the allocations, I think we agree that there is enough revenue

 

[Lumi]

Muff,
Any time you mention facts from the charts you post, it makes me laugh.

And the facts that I posted were in direct correlation to the Bush tax rates. Period. Spin it however you want and paint it in rainbow colors if it pleases you, but those are facts.


As we have talked about before - and I think we both agree, or did - Fed gov't collects more than enough in tax revenue. Their is an allocation and spending problem. While we can argue about the allocations, I think we agree that there is enough revenue

SSD,

you teabagger :mj07:

 

[ssd]

Earl Grey, baby! Little bit of sugar and lemon.


But I really prefer gin. Bombay Sapphire martini or a splash of tonic - (no lime.)

on rare occasions, I'll drink Hendricks with a slice of cucumber - only let the cuke steep in the gin for a short while or it overpowers the gin.


:0074

 

[Duff Miver]

Muff,
Any time you mention facts from the charts you post, it makes me laugh.

And the facts that I posted were in direct correlation to the Bush tax rates. Period. Spin it however you want and paint it in rainbow colors if it pleases you, but those are facts.


As we have talked about before - and I think we both agree, or did - Fed gov't collects more than enough in tax revenue. Their is an allocation and spending problem. While we can argue about the allocations, I think we agree that there is enough revenue

You're still stuck on the same problem, ssd - taking two or more facts and claiming a correlation where none exists.

Here's a shining example> You said -

Here?s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.

From those facts, you conclude that the Bush tax cuts caused in increase in GDP.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts are still in effect (plus a bit more that Obama added, (employee FICA tax cut), but GDP growth has tanked.

So your conclusion: tax cuts = GDP growth is, obviously, erroneous.

Here's a clue for you, ssd: When developing a theory, such theory must account for all known facts.

Economic theory is difficult. Leave it, along with nuclear physics and neurosurgery, to the guys with all those suffixes after their names.

Maybe you're good at gardening.