Whatever happened to the SIRI stock thread? It used to be here someplace.......
Whatever happened to the SIRI stock thread? It used to be here someplace.......
Are you hunkering down Candleman? Earl is coming to a beach near you.
Yeah Havakasha hijacked the thread. He does that occasionaly. It's all his fault.
You need to stop by more often. You seldom call or write......
I remember when Big Ben called this dead money. Well, it's stopped rising in value, but it's far from dead!
Yes, the hurricane might be coming......but, it might not. I'm a firefighter, so I stay no matter what. It usually involves Rum though....LOL
The summer season is almost over, so I'll be posting more in the near future.
But, for now....buy stock boys and girls! And leave the politics to another thread.
First things first, I give you HISTORIACL FACTS AND FIGURES and you come up with theory.
The FACTS are that EVERYTIME the top tax rates have been CUT the revenue taken in by the government from that same group has gone UP While at the same time when the lower tax brackets are cut the revenue taken in by the government from that group gos DOWN. EVERTIME havasucker, did you notice that, EVERYTIME it has been done it has happen. Then again I dont know I am talking to your dumbass, you must just think that must be some BIG, HUGE quensidence.
Now for some truth, liberials like to try and confuse the issue by trying to compare revenues and deficits. The problem with that is those dont take into account that the Government SPENT MORE during that same time OR that 1920s dollars are not the same as 1990s dollars.
Thats is why GDP is used so you can compare the 1920s to the 1990s. Also using the GDP will not be effected by how much the government spends. Using GDP lets you compare apples to apples and not what havasucker does with trying to compare apples to oranges.
As an example of the lies havasucker tells just look at his statement above. First, considering the intelligence we had and the new world we had entered after 911, not only did Bush want to go to war with Iraq but so did a huge majority (almost 80%) of congress and OVER 60% of the American people. Unlike Obama, Bush would not have done something 60% of the American people did not want. Now once the war started and the intelligence was found to be wrong, you cant just pull out on a whem.
Now I dont know where Havasucker is getting his figures from but there is no sane person I know of that says 3 trillion (yes havasucker I know you must have ment Trillion with a "T" and not Billion with a "B" even though you did it twice). I think he should pay closer attention to the president when he speaks. Even he said, BOTH wars are at present at ONE TRILLION. The Iraq war is at present about 700 billion dollars.
Next once again havasucker cant seem to tell the truth. First I said, The BEGINNING of the market down turn (NOT the CARNAGE, that would start in Nov. or Dec.. Unlike most havasucker is an idiot and still does not undersand there is a difference) in the beginning of Sep. TO the MIDDLE of Sep. Next I believe it has already started. I already said I was a little off on that (2 weeks off, and considering when I made that not to bad at all). I think Havasucker should look at a graph of the Dow. and then ask himself were was the market at the beginning of Aug. and where is it now (once again he is an idiot and must not be able to understand what a downturn looks like). then again he is STILL asking for answers to questions I have ALREADY given him SEVERAL times. The dumbass cant even follow a simple lay out of what will happen as events take place even when they are laid out as simple as can be (My god my 6 year old could get it).
P.S. Another havasucker lie. I love how he wants to blame Bush for the recession that OFFIALLY started LESS then 2 months into Bushs FIRST term. Yes I say that because as we know it started way before that and even that twit cannot blame Bush for a recession that started LESS then TWO MONTHS INTO HIS OR ANYONES TERM. Yes while I know havasucker would like to think I blame Clinton for it (his tax hikes could have had SOME cause). The fact is recessions are cyclical and just so happen to happen about every 8 to 10 years. The difference between this recession and that last one are two fold.
FIRST what did the president do to get us out of it:
I will remind you that while we dont think the last one was as bad (because it was the shortest shallowest in HISTORY) It could have easyly have been MUCH MUCH deeper and longer then it was. Lets not forget that while we hit that recession we then got hit with what was called the tech bubble bursting. and if that were not bad enough we then got hit by 911. To give you a comparison, I will remind you all that the market went from almost 11,000 to just over 7,500. The NASDAQ went from just over 4,500 to just over 1,300 in the same time period. Both were undisputably mainly cause by the tech bubble burst and the 911 attacks. Yet some how we had the shortest shallowest recession in history. Ha yes I know havasucker would like to think this is just another HUGE quensidence of history that, humm Bush cut taxes and somehow we had the shortest shallowest recession in history.
A nice little side note: Bush only spent about 150 billion in tax cuts during that time frame.
Next we have Obama who has spent almost 2 TRILLION and has had one of the longest deepest recessions in history. While it could have been a normal recession to begin with he had to contend with a factor that made it worse the banking collapse (caused by democrats making it easy for people who could not pay back their loans to get loans, which inevitably lead to them not paying back their loans which lead to the banking collapse). I will concede that ONE TRILLION in loans to the banks was needed to help them out (along with what the FED did to infuse money into the system). The problem is, most of those original loans HAVE BEEN PAID BACK (the ones loaned during the Bush Administration is at 96% (not including interest the government got)). So what happen to the rest of TARP. Well the democrats keep raiding it, to pay for things that TARP was never supposed to be used for. Once they got that money back they were supposed to pay it back to reduce the debt, THAT HAS YET TO HAPPEN. So what do we have after AT LEAST 2 TRILLION dollars spent and TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS every year from here on out???? A still terrible economy and the big chance of a double dip recession.
Second, What happen during each to make one different then the other:
The first one could have been much worse because of the tech bubble burst and the 911 attacks. Were those as bad to the economy as the banking collapse was to the second one, maybe, maybe not. What we do know is that the market thought so. Ether way we do know that the banking collapse was not twice as bad, much less 5 times worse then the combined effect of the tech bubble bursting and 911 attacks. So why is it Obama and the democrats cant seem to get us out of this recession when they have used AT LEAST 5 TIMES as much as Bush and the republicans used to give us the shortest shallowest recession in history.
Well for that, lets go over even facts that Obamas administration agree on. We will use their stat "JOBS SAVED" (you know one that has never been used in the history of our government (boy if only Bush would have thought of that one he could have said he saved 30 million jobs)). Using that figure that they are using from the CBO that still means that each job SAVED/CREATED means we paid between 145,000 to 176,000 dollars (of just what has been spent of what the CBO says is his now growing 848 billion dollar stimulas money (it used to be 787 billion, I guess it must have been inflation)) to save/create each job. WOW even the lowest figure of 145,000 per job and after that, is there anyone here (besides havasucker) wondering why the economy still sucks on ice after we spent 2 TRILLION dollars to get us out of it. Now compare that to the Bush tax cuts that cost 96 billion in the first year and 63 billion in the second year or about 150 billion to give us the shortest shallowest recession in history (the ten year TOTAL cost is 670 billion).
Hell if we use Havasuckers numbers on the amount spent on Iraq alone (yes nothing was included for Afganistan) then his outside estimate (3 trillion) means the tax cuts actually saved us over 1.1 trillion. Thats because Bush had deficit spending of 1.9 trillion over the course of his total 8 years in office (I do not include the 600 billion of TARP money loaned out during his last few months because as discussed 96% of that was paid back and WITH INTEREST during Obamas term). So which is it havasucker did we save money on tax cuts or did you just blantantly lie on your numbers for the war in Iraq.
Hey S&L is it ok if i respond to John's political diatribe in the Siri xm stock thread or should i answer it in a new thread i start in POLITICS?
There is SO MUCH DISHONESTY in his answers that i am chomping at the bit.
He has thrown so much Junk and crap at the wall just hoping that something would stick.
It would take a month to uncover all the BS. Totally misrepresented my positions on the
John i give you historical facts and figures and you give all of us vodoo economic theory. The laffer curve is a theory and its been debunked many times over.
The FACT is that you still havent come close to answering my 2 specific questions no matter what you say. i detect fear of being pinned down. Par for the course John. You always refuse to answer
questions and put off people by asking them to look elswhere for your answers when you know its nowhere to be found. You've done that on more than one occasion John. People dont forget.
Just simply answer the questions John for all to see. What are you afraid of? I mean if you are so confident of your predictions put it down here "again" lol.
1.IF the Bush tax cuts are rescinded for only the top 2% then tell me what going over the
"cliff" in the market means and please tell us for how long (days, weeks, months) the market
will stay there.
2.When and (IF) they raise the capital gains tax (5%) tell us about the market "carnage" YOU
predicted. Give us specifics about how much the market will tank and for how long (days, weeks,
Its not hard john. You could probably do it in less than 5 minutes. Show a little integrity.
Last edited by Havakasha; 09-02-2010 at 02:34 AM.
I hope everyone remembers that John is the one who said he would "NEVER"
debate me because he has won all the arguments already. LMFAO. You cant make this stuff up.
I quess that has now become i will only debate politics with you in the siri xm stock thread. LOL.
Just for a hint of whats to come.
Here is an example of where John takes my argument and tries to change to a completely different subject.
My argument was that john always talks about the "first Bush recession" (by which i meant
the first recession he had to deal with in office) and conveniently ignore the 2nd Bush recession (which by the wayis the 2nd worst recession in US history and together with the financial collapse has led us to be in these very dire economic circumstances) as though it doesnt exist (ok that was a slight exaggeration. He ususally just deals with it by blaming it all on the Dems. LOL) John turns this into a argument about whether the 1st recession was Bush's or not. A total turn away from what i was discussing. Classic john to get you to look the other way.
The funny thing is that on his argument about the first bush recession he gets it wrong according to even some Republican economists.
Here is how the National Bureau of Economic Research talks about that recession.
"The National Bureau pf Economic research group (Martin Feldstein Republican economist is on their board), a research group that marks the dates of economic recessions and expansions, and which ignores GDP data when defining business cycles, MAINTAINS that the recession didnt begin until MARCH 2001."
I didnt say it or argue it even but the National bureau of Economic Research did. Now here is what economist John says about that recession "We KNOW it started WAY before that (beginning of Bush's term)". I quess it depends what the defintion of the word "WAY" is?
The point: He cant even get the facts right about an argument of his own making.
Last edited by Havakasha; 09-02-2010 at 02:34 AM.
While i wait for your answer S&L.
Tax cuts dont raise revenue like supply siders iike to tell you
Tax Cuts Raise Revenue COMPLETELY DEBUNKED
by Bonddad, Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 03:14:26 AM EST
The Right Wing Noise Machine Economics Division has several themes running through their policy pronouncements and analysis. Their greatest canard is "tax cuts pay for themselves." The underlying facts directly contravene this assertion, but that doesn't stop various pundits from continually advancing their agenda. The primary reason is Republican economic statements are not centered around policy but instead on selling a message.
Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves is perhaps the greatest Republican canard. It's popular because at the root of the message is an easy sell; you can get something for nothing. Compounding the degree of obfuscation is that RWNM pundits continually rewrite the history, usually "forgetting" key facts.
The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal originally started to advance this idea in the mid to late 1970s. The idea is based on a graph drawn by Paul Laffer (reportedly on a cocktail napkin) and is usually represented by a simple semi-circle. The horizontal line represents tax rates and the vertical line represents tax revenue. The curve's central idea is there is an optimal level of taxation, represented by the semicircle's apex. It the level of taxation is above or below the apex, tax revenue will be lower than the theoretical optimal level.
There are several problems with this idea and its implementation.
There is no way to derive this model from any set of existing data. Supply and Demand, marginal cost equaling marginal revenue and all other bedrock economic concepts can be derived from existing data. The Laffer Curve can't be derived from existing data. Ever notice that whenever the Republicans start talking about tax cuts they never say "according to the data, a cut of this magnitude will increase revenue this much"? That's because they can't. Theories are nice, but if reality can't back-up the theory, the theory probably doesn't exist in reality. The scientific method prevents the acceptance of a theory which reality cannot substantiate.
The underlying assumption is taxes are always too high. The assumption of all Republican ideologues is taxes are always to the right of the semicircle's apex. Therefore, lowering taxes will increase revenue. What they forget to mention is according to the Laffer curve, if tax rates are left of the apex, lowering taxes could also decrease revenue. Because there is no way to extrapolate any"laffer" curve from any data there is no way prove or disprove the underlying assumptions of any tax increase or decrease. Because it is easier to sell tax cuts instead of tax increases, the assumption that rates are to the right of the apex fits in with a marketing plan, but has no basis in any actual evidence.
The academic version of conservative economic theory mandates that for every cut in taxes there must be a proportionate cut in government expenditures. Note this theory does not state that tax cuts pay for themselves. Instead, they argue for a 1 for 1 reduction in tax levels and government spending. In other words, if taxes are cut 10% then government spending should be cut by 10%. The problem with the actual implementation of laffer curve ideology is at the same time Republicans cut taxes, they disproportionately increase spending creating deficits.
Reagan and Bush II have implemented laffer curve theory. The actual results from both President's terms is available from the Congressional Budget Office,the Bureau for the Public Debt and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The actual evidence from the historical record directly contravenes RWNM assertions.
Reagan cut taxes in 1981. For the years 1981-1984, tax revenue from individual taxpayers (in billions) was 286, 298, 289 and 298. In other words, there was a total of 12 billion dollars of difference between the lowest total revenue collection and the highest point of revenue collection. It is just as easy to argue the rate from which the cuts occurred weas already to the left of the apex, indicating a tax decrease would lower revenue. After all, revenue didn't increase, did it?
In fairness, part of the reason for the decrease in revenue was a slow economy. The US economy grew 2.5% in 1981 and -1.9% in 1982. But, the US economy grew 4.5% in 1983 (the income taxes for 1983 were collected in 1984). Yet, tax revenue increased a measly 3.1%. This bolsters the argument that tax rates were already to the left of the laffer curve's apex, largely because there was no dramatic increase in tax revenue as the laffer curve would stipulate despite a growing economy.
For the years 1985-1988 tax revenues increased in each year. The respective total amounts were (in billions) 335, 349, 392 and 401. While it looks like the tax cuts eventually increased revenue, that isn't the case. While the RWNM continually touts Reagan's 1981 tax cut, they forget several ofReagan's tax increases:
The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.
(The previous section is from Townhall.com.)
For each year between 1985 and 1988, tax revenue increased from 334.5 billion to 401.2 billion - an increase of 20%. But for each of those years when tax revenue increased, there was also a legislative tax increase of one kind or another.
The total overall increase in tax revenue under Regan was 40.70%. Compare Reagan's increase to the Clinton administration's increase of 97% (from 509.7 billion in 1993 to 1.004 trillion in 2000) which raised taxes on upper-income taxpayers. Again, this bolsters the argument US tax rates are to the left of the laffer curve apex because a tax increase increased tax revenue.
Compounding Reagan's fiscal problems were his massive increases in discretionary spending. Discretionary spending was 307.9 billion in 1981 and 488.8 billion in 1989 - a 58% increase. So, while government revenue increased 40% during Reagan's presidency, discretionary government spending increased 68%. Reagan never balanced a budget. To pay for the difference, Reagan increased total US debt from 1.028 trillion in 1981 to 2.8 trillion in 1989. The debt/GDP ratio of debt under Reagan increased in every year of his presidency from 32.8% in 1981 to 51% in 1989.
The RWNM often advances the argument the US needed that spending to win the cold war. The problem is we have never paid that debt back. We are still paying for the cold war - 15 years later. Basically, the US is paying the interest on its national charge card.
Bush II implemented Reagan's concept to a T. Bush II has also achieved the exact same result.
Bush II cut taxes twice - once in 2001 and once in 2003 (the RWNM has started to only talk about Bush 2003 cuts, conveniently forgetting the first). Tax revenue from individual tax payers was 994 trillion in 2001 and 927 billion in 2005 - a 6.7% decrease. Some of this stagnation is from weak economic growth. US GDP grew 1.6% in 2002. However, the economy grew 2.7% in 2002, 4.2% in 2003 and 3.5% in 2005. Starting in the second quarter of 2004, the economy grew at better than 3% for 10 quarters. Yet, from 2003 - 2004, tax revenue from individual taxpayers increased from 797 billion to 809 billion.
Even comparing the growth in tax revenue from individual taxpayers over a longer time frame does not help Bush's overall figure. Going back 9 years (1 longer than Bush's two terms) gives Bush a 41% increase in individual taxpayer revenue (from 656 billion to 927 billion). Again, Clinton's tax increase on the rich which led to a 97% increase in revenue from individual taxpayers provided more government revenue (while still growing the economy at a healthy clip and eventually balancing his last three budgets).
Bush has also declined to use the other side of standard conservative economic thinking - a proportionate cut in government spending - coinciding with his tax cuts. Bush's discretionary spending increased from 649 billion to 967 billion - a 48% increase. Compare this increase to the "tax and spend" liberal Clinton, whose disrectionary spending increased from 539 billion in 1993 to 614 billion in 2000 -- a 13% increase.
This massive increase in government spending at a time when government revenue is decreasing has once again led to an increase in total national debt. The debt/GDP ratio under Bush has increased in every year of his presidency, rising from 57% in 2001 to 63% in 2005.
Under Reagan, the tax cuts led to stagnant government revenue from individual taxpayers. It wasn't until he started raising taxes the government revenue started to increase. However, Reagan spent like a "tax and spend" liberal, increasing the debt/GDP ratio in each year of his presidency from 33% to 51%.
Under Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%.
To compare, Clinton increased taxes on the upper-income taxpayers, which led to a 97% increase in government revenue. He grew the economy at a health pace. He decreased the debt/GDP ratio in each year starting in 1995 of his presidency.
The two attempts to prove "tax cuts pay for themselves" have failed. It is clear that if the laffer curve exists, the US tax rates are clearly to the left of the curve's apex indicating a tax cut will in fact decrease revenue.
I am going to start looking into all John's claims about his past predictions.
i think we will uncover a lot of bluster and a dearth of accuracy.
I just plugged in johns predicitons and this is the VERY FIRST thing that came up and its from May 2008 about Valerie Jarret.
"i will make a prediction that Valerie Jarrett (obama's seniior advisor) is
getting very worried"
He says this after talking about becks "ability" to get people to resign in the Obama administration. Well John its two years later and she doesnt seem very worried does she? I quess you aint very good predictor afterall.
More to come. i seem to remember some lame predictions about Democrats and gas prices. I seem to remember some lame predictions about the stock market at the beginning of Obama's
term. Oh how about the one where he says the the global climate is cooling. Thats a beauty.
Still sticking by that lame prediction John? Just gettin started John.
Last edited by Havakasha; 09-02-2010 at 02:56 AM.
You guys are cracking me up!!!! There is enough hot air in this thread to form a Hurricane!
And speaking of Hurricanes. Earl is on it's way to the beach and we're looking forward to an awsome next 24 hours.
Now, make my day and buy some shares of SIRI and let's get that price up over a buck so I can turn these that I bought yesterday.