Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 108
  1. #51
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,466
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    If you look historically, the greatest economic growth comes when tax is at its highest.
    ok: you are snaff.

    go on then, harry:

    when was the us growth the highest while the tax was the highest?

  2. #52
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:09 PM
    Posts
    50,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    ok: you are snaff.

    go on then, harry:

    when was the us growth the highest while the tax was the highest?
    Can you not fucking read graphs then?

  3. #53
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,738
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Can you not fucking read graphs then?
    I assume this is rhetorical...

  4. #54
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    my point is that business tax cuts will boost the economy and help the chances for republicans in the next election
    You would be a fucking idiot to think so. The whole fallacy of trickle down is that by cutting taxes on business they will have more money to invest in expanding thereby creating jobs. The problem with that is that corporations have been raking in record profits for well over a decade now. So in theory they should have been already that being that they are already flush with cash.

    Instead they have been buying back stock to inflate their share prices rather than creating jobs. It will be no different with a tax cut. This is just a money grab for the super rich.

    BTW the economy is already healthy and growing thanks to Obama.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    when was the us growth the highest while the tax was the highest?
    During the Eisenhower administration. The rich were taxed at 91% and the middle class was the strongest in American history and the quality of life was as well.
    Last edited by bsnub; 15-11-2017 at 10:58 AM.

  5. #55
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    19-06-2018 @ 04:58 PM
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    midterms are usually a "yay" or "nay" on the president, which is why republicans did so well after 2 years of obama (negative campaigning works well in mid-terms).
    The party not in the Executive historically almost always gains seat in the House and Senate in the mid-terms.

    It's like clockwork.

  6. #56
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,466
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Can you not fucking read graphs then?
    why do you think trillions of cash belonging to u.s corporations are parked off-shore then?

    anyways, harry: if/when corporate tax rates and small business tax rates are lowered and then the gdp rises higher than obama could have dreamed of,

    trump (former obama) supporters in the rust belt won't be looking at your chart in 2020.


  7. #57
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    29,425
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    You would be a fucking idiot to think so. The whole fallacy of trickle down is that by cutting taxes on business they will have more money to invest in expanding thereby creating jobs. The problem with that is that corporations have been raking in record profits for well over a decade now. So in theory they should have been already that being that they are already flush with cash.
    Trickle down must meet the definition of insanity by this stage: repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

  8. #58
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,466
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    Trickle down must meet the definition of insanity by this stage: repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
    as usual, you're misinformed, ant: trickle down means cutting the tax rate on the highest earners and then the benefits will trickle down in the economy to the middle class, etc.

    the only problem with your theory that this republican tax reform plan is "trickle down" is that the top rate is not reduced.

    take a moment to read more than just the headlines, ant.




    House Republicans plan to keep 39.6 percent top rate, but other key details unresolved

    House Republicans plan to keep 39.6 percent top rate

    The plan would keep the current top individual tax rate on very high incomes, according to one person who attended a meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan on the tax plan Wednesday. The Republican framework agreed to with the Trump administration allowed for the possibility of the tax-writing committees keeping the top rate in place to raise revenue for the package and to limit tax cuts for high-earners.

  9. #59
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    29,425
    The only problem with your post is that it has nothing to do with mine and the post it was in response to.

  10. #60
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,466
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    The only problem with your post is that it has nothing to do with mine and the post it was in response to.
    that's right because corporate rates aren't part of "trickle down economics", are they?

  11. #61
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    29,425
    Go back; read the quoted portion of the text; read my response to it; try again.

  12. #62
    Thailand Expat
    Farangrakthai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,466
    Ok, you are inventing a new definition of trickle down economics.

    As you were.

  13. #63
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    29,425
    ...or just keep on chasing yourself down your own rabbit-hole.

  14. #64
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    that's right because corporate rates aren't part of "trickle down economics", are they?
    Of course they are you utter spastic. Your stupidity boggles the mind.

  15. #65
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:09 PM
    Posts
    50,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Farangrakthai View Post
    why do you think trillions of cash belonging to u.s corporations are parked off-shore then?
    To avoid paying as much tax as possible, you dick.

    They are inherently greedy, it's their job.


    anyways, harry: if/when corporate tax rates and small business tax rates are lowered and then the gdp rises higher than obama could have dreamed of,

    trump (former obama) supporters in the rust belt won't be looking at your chart in 2020.


    You sound exactly like a Trumpanzee who believes this shit.

    History on the other hand tells us that Republicans are at best bad for the economy and at worst a complete fucking disaster.

    Attached Images Attached Images

  16. #66
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    19-06-2018 @ 04:58 PM
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    1,127
    This is about the mid-term elections, Harry. Now, your showing graphs of red and blue Presidents.

  17. #67
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:09 PM
    Posts
    50,242
    They just can't help themselves. (Although they are trying to!).

    Senate Republican leaders moved Tuesday to include a repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate in their tax bill, a major change of strategy as they try to accomplish two of their top domestic priorities in a single piece of legislation.
    They also announced that the individual tax cuts in the plan would be made temporary, expiring at the end of 2025 to comply with Senate rules limiting the impact of legislation on the long-term deficit. A corporate tax cut, reducing the rate from 35 to 20 percent, would be left permanent.
    The changes introduce volatile variables into what was already a challenging political enterprise for Republicans. And it’s unclear whether they will help or hurt the bill’s chances.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...74d_story.html

  18. #68
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    19-06-2018 @ 04:58 PM
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    1,127
    ^ Yes, repealing the Obamacare individual tax mandate is in the tax bill.

    I'd like to see polling data on what the voters think.

  19. #69
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:09 PM
    Posts
    50,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampa View Post
    This is about the mid-term elections, Harry. Now, your showing graphs of red and blue Presidents.
    The topic is the tax bill and its effects CP.

    If you can't keep up, shut up.

  20. #70
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,321

    A House forecast holds good news for Democrats

    We’re far enough into the 2018 midterm election cycle that we have some sense of what the fundamentals of the political environment that will govern it look like. A pretty simple forecast model that relies on economic performance and presidential popularity predicts Democrats will pick up 45 to 50 House seats this fall, and take over 15 to 20 state legislative chambers. A loss of just 24 House seats would flip House control to the Democrats.

    Okay, that’s the headline. How realistic is this model, and what is it based on?

    The economic performance variable is per capita real disposable income (RDI), measured from the second quarter of the year before the election to the second quarter of the election year. Presidential popularity is the president’s Gallup approval rating on Labor Day of the election year. The data ranges from 1950 to 2014.

    Most years, this model works fairly well. It predicted Democrats losing 46 House seats in 2010 (they lost 63), and it predicted Republicans losing 40 House seats in 2006 (they lost 31). The model has an R-squared of .568, meaning that just those two variables explain about 57 percent of the variation in the shifts in House seat shares. I can improve the model fit considerably by including a measure of the majority party’s exposure (how many seats in the House it currently controls), but that barely budges the forecast for 2018.

    The graph below shows a range of predicted outcomes according to the model, based on three levels of presidential approval (35 percent, 50 percent, and 65 percent) and economic growth ranging from -2 percent to 8 percent.




    As the graph reminds us, the president’s party tends to lose seats in congressional midterms. Since 1950, only in 1998 and 2002 did the president’s party manage to eke out a few seats, and both of those were during unusually popular presidencies and solid economic expansions. The rest of the time, it’s a loss for the party, affected substantially by the economy and presidential approval.

    Of course, we don’t know precisely what President Trump’s figures will be heading into this election, but his approval rating has generally ranged between 35 and 40 percent. It’s possible that strong economic news could buoy his approval somewhat (his numbers have improved slightly in recent weeks), but his personal behavior has managed to step on what would otherwise be good news for presidents ever since he took office.

    Economic figures, meanwhile, are showing only modest growth so far — per capita real disposable income only rose by around 1 percent between the last quarter of 2016 and the last quarter of 2017. It’s possible the recent tax legislation could put more money in people’s hands and boost these figures. Even if RDI growth jumped to 3 percent, though, the model would still predict Republicans to lose 37 House seats, more than enough to lose control of the chamber, and 14 state legislative chambers.

    (Note that I’m not saying which state legislative chambers might flip, although this is a useful guide. Nor am I forecasting the US Senate, where it will be difficult for Democrats to take over the chamber.)

    What doesn’t this model account for? A big factor is district safety. Due to the concentration of Democratic voters in Democratic House districts, which leads to a lot of “wasted” Democratic votes, Republicans can lose the national House vote substantially and still retain a majority of seats. Conversely, Democrats have been running very strongly in special elections over the past year, and they’ve recruited record numbers of congressional candidates, usually a positive sign for a party’s prospects. A wave of retirements by prominent Republicans in Congress also suggests good fortune for Democrats, making it harder for Republicans to hold some competitive seats.

    More generally, as with any forecast model, past performance is no guarantee of future results. It’s possible things are just different now. Perhaps Trump’s Republican supporters are so loyal that they’ll turn out no matter how challenging the fundamentals are, limiting Democratic gains. Perhaps Democrats are so angry right now that their turnout will far exceed that of the out party in previous elections.

    But it’s worth remembering that despite all the weirdness of the 2016 election, the results that year were astonishingly close to the predictions of conventional forecast models. Even as we continue to note how abnormal much of the current political system is, it seems a safe bet that voters will continue to behave as they have in the past.

    https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...good-news-dems

  21. #71
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,738
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    as with any forecast model, past performance is no guarantee of future results
    ...particularly when Dems are involved...they're well practiced at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

  22. #72
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    19-06-2018 @ 04:58 PM
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Is it then? Perhaps you could elaborate how it could get better for the repubs between now and then. Anther year of trump. Hmmm. Is he suddenly jump by 60 IQ points? Get real. The GOP is hemorrhaging at this point and the bleeding shows no sign of slowing down.

    Wagers?
    As Norton said, the time until the mid-terms is an eternity in US electoral politics.

  23. #73
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampa View Post
    As Norton said, the time until the mid-terms is an eternity in US electoral politics.
    Eight months is not an eternity. There are numerous indicators out there already that point to a coming bloodbath for the GOP. But you feel free to keep your head in the sand DUI guy.

  24. #74
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    19-06-2018 @ 04:58 PM
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Eight months is not an eternity. There are numerous indicators out there already that point to a coming bloodbath for the GOP. But you feel free to keep your head in the sand DUI guy.
    8 months can be an eternity. It is in most cases.

    I've already posted what your now telling me (and everyone else).

    Here it is again: the party not in the Executive historically loses seats.

    And if certain policies or some GOP policies are disfavored there may be deeper GOP losses.

    Think back to the 1994 mid-terms.


    Try to post something substantive.. You started the thread.

  25. #75
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampa View Post
    Here it is again: the party not in the Executive historically loses seats.
    Attached Images Attached Images

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •