oops: The rich are paying the most taxes under Bush (EVER)

2007-12-19 11:04:40

#51

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
The trade deficit and the federal deficit are two different things. As I said before, since we are talking about taxes here, revenues are the highest they have ever been. Despite tax cuts. Why? Because the tax cuts have given people more disposable income and they have in turn reinvested the money into the economy. It's really basic stuff.
The Economist thinks there's no growth.

http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/ … mic%20Data
Right

http://i12.tinypic.com/73cufr4.gif

http://i12.tinypic.com/73lkbqb.jpg

You know that there are more indicators than the unemplyement and the DJ.

From The Economist

After a substantial slowing in 2007, GDP growth will weaken further in 2008, as the housing downturn and the credit crunch take their toll on households and companies. In our main scenario, we expect growth to fall to 1.2% in 2008, but the risk of a recession is now seen at 40%. The main concern is that consumers will be hit more seriously than currently factored into our forecast.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-19 11:06:53)

2007-12-19 11:11:18

#52

Fubsy: Member; +1|6535

Good! lol now they need to start taxing u ALOT more on Fuel... then maybe u might stop driving around in ridiculously huge engined cars wasting fuel and polluting the environment!

2007-12-19 11:12:51

#53

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
The Economist thinks there's no growth.

http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/ … mic%20Data
Right

http://i12.tinypic.com/73cufr4.gif

http://i12.tinypic.com/73lkbqb.jpg
You know that there are more indicators than the unemplyement and the DJ.

From The Economist

After a substantial slowing in 2007, GDP growth will weaken further in 2008, as the housing downturn and the credit crunch take their toll on households and companies. In our main scenario, we expect growth to fall to 1.2% in 2008, but the risk of a recession is now seen at 40%. The main concern is that consumers will be hit more seriously than currently factored into our forecast.

I'm showing what has happened. He is predicting what will happen. Big difference. He may very well be right. But (again) we are talking about the effects of taxes in this topic. He is eluding to the impact of the housing market and predatory lending.

GDP and PPP are often cited as economic indicators http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353 . But you will always have a critic for each since the media is so biased.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:13:30

#54

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

Fubsy wrote:
Good! lol now they need to start taxing u ALOT more on Fuel... then maybe u might stop driving around in ridiculously huge engined cars wasting fuel and polluting the environment!

Check the news lately...

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:18:44

#55

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:

Right

http://i12.tinypic.com/73cufr4.gif

http://i12.tinypic.com/73lkbqb.jpg
You know that there are more indicators than the unemplyement and the DJ.

From The Economist

After a substantial slowing in 2007, GDP growth will weaken further in 2008, as the housing downturn and the credit crunch take their toll on households and companies. In our main scenario, we expect growth to fall to 1.2% in 2008, but the risk of a recession is now seen at 40%. The main concern is that consumers will be hit more seriously than currently factored into our forecast.
I'm showing what has happened. He is predicting what will happen. Big difference. He may very well be right. But (again) we are talking about the effects of taxes in this topic. He is eluding to the impact of the housing market and predatory lending.

GDP and PPP are often cited as economic indicators http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353 . But you will always have a critic for each since the media is so biased.

The Economist is fair enough IMO. And they talk about what's happening, because what will happen is a consequence of the first. The GDP growth this year is 1.8% and they expect 1.2% next year. That's isn't biased.

2007-12-19 11:22:09

#56

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
You know that there are more indicators than the unemplyement and the DJ.

From The Economist

After a substantial slowing in 2007, GDP growth will weaken further in 2008, as the housing downturn and the credit crunch take their toll on households and companies. In our main scenario, we expect growth to fall to 1.2% in 2008, but the risk of a recession is now seen at 40%. The main concern is that consumers will be hit more seriously than currently factored into our forecast.
I'm showing what has happened. He is predicting what will happen. Big difference. He may very well be right. But (again) we are talking about the effects of taxes in this topic. He is eluding to the impact of the housing market and predatory lending.

GDP and PPP are often cited as economic indicators http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353 . But you will always have a critic for each since the media is so biased.
The Economist is fair enough IMO. And they talk about what's happening, because what will happen is a consequence of the first. The GDP growth this year is 1.8% and they expect 1.2% next year. That's isn't biased.

So you concede there is infact growth? It has just slowed?

It may be biased.. who knows it's speculation. Speculation is not a matter of fact.

sergeriver wrote:
The Economist thinks there's no growth.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:23:09

#57

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

Funny. When I read that article, I saw a lot more than what you quoted, Serge. For example, after "forecast" in your blurb, there was this:

Economist.com wrote:
Growth will recover to around 2.8% per year in the latter years of the forecast period. Inflation will average 2.3% per year in 2008-12.

And then there was the table that summarized their predictions: Real GDP growth outpacing inflation (that would be positive growth of the economy) and exchange rates against the euro growing in the dollar's favor from 2009-2012.

Lastly, I'm not sure where you learned math, but the last time I checked, 1.2% of growth is more than no growth.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-19 11:23:14

#58

Fubsy: Member; +1|6535

Kmarion wrote:
Fubsy wrote:
Good! lol now they need to start taxing u ALOT more on Fuel... then maybe u might stop driving around in ridiculously huge engined cars wasting fuel and polluting the environment!
Check the news lately...

No, i haven't as it goes, why? btw im from the UK, and if ur referring to the price of our fuel slowly climbing, that because our government is saving up for their xmas prezzies and need the extra cash.. but seriously the price of fuel is going to go up what else.. It doesn't really bother me tbh i don't drive around in a massive car that does 10mpg

2007-12-19 11:24:36

#59

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

Fubsy wrote:
No, i haven't as it goes, why? btw im from the UK, and if ur referring to the price of our fuel slowly climbing, that because our government is saving up for their xmas prezzies and need the extra cash.. but seriously the price of fuel is going to go up what else.. It doesn't really bother me tbh i don't drive around in a massive car that does 10mpg

They are passing have passed tighter regulations here. It's actually big news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_ … _energy_26

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:28:29

#60

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:

I'm showing what has happened. He is predicting what will happen. Big difference. He may very well be right. But (again) we are talking about the effects of taxes in this topic. He is eluding to the impact of the housing market and predatory lending.

GDP and PPP are often cited as economic indicators http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353 . But you will always have a critic for each since the media is so biased.
The Economist is fair enough IMO. And they talk about what's happening, because what will happen is a consequence of the first. The GDP growth this year is 1.8% and they expect 1.2% next year. That's isn't biased.
So you concede there is infact growth? It has just slowed?

It may be biased.. who knows it's speculation. Speculation is not a matter of fact.

sergeriver wrote:
The Economist thinks there's no growth.

Are you kiddin' me, right? 1.8% when the World grew 5-7 aprox.

2007-12-19 11:33:27

#61

Fubsy: Member; +1|6535

Damn 32 years! ours changes every other week and nobody blinks an eye, mindya that's one thing i like about America if u don't like summut u do something about it, here in the UK we just sit back and take it, but i guess with the constant increase in demand, and the constantly dwindling supply its inevitable..

2007-12-19 11:33:46

#62

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
The Economist is fair enough IMO. And they talk about what's happening, because what will happen is a consequence of the first. The GDP growth this year is 1.8% and they expect 1.2% next year. That's isn't biased.
So you concede there is infact growth? It has just slowed?

It may be biased.. who knows it's speculation. Speculation is not a matter of fact.

sergeriver wrote:
The Economist thinks there's no growth.
Are you kiddin' me, right? 1.8% when the World grew 5-7 aprox.

First of all you said it is not growing. Secondly the "world numbers" are inflated because of mainly two emerging economic powers. But even those numbers appear to be jacked.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2 … 332060.htm

Wait.. it's starting to all make sense now..lol

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:35:26

#63

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

Fubsy wrote:
Damn 32 years! ours changes every other week and nobody blinks an eye, mindya that's one thing i like about America if u don't like summut u do something about it, here in the UK we just sit back and take it, but i guess with the constant increase in demand, and the constantly dwindling supply its inevitable..

It has to go through the Senate.. but I'm pretty sure it will.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:35:46

#64

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
The Economist is fair enough IMO. And they talk about what's happening, because what will happen is a consequence of the first. The GDP growth this year is 1.8% and they expect 1.2% next year. That's isn't biased.
So you concede there is infact growth? It has just slowed?

It may be biased.. who knows it's speculation. Speculation is not a matter of fact.

Are you kiddin' me, right? 1.8% when the World grew 5-7 aprox.
First of all you said it is not growing. Secondly the "world numbers" are inflated because of mainly two emerging economic powers. But even those numbers appear to be jacked.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2 … 332060.htm

Wait.. it's starting to all make sense now..lol
http://i10.tinypic.com/72vi34z.jpg

When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.

2007-12-19 11:36:14

#65

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7183

sergeriver wrote:
When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.

lol

2007-12-19 11:37:30

#66

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

usmarine2005 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.
lol

It's good to hear your opinion on the subject. I assume you are an economist and my statement made you laugh.

2007-12-19 11:38:28

#67

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Are you kiddin' me, right? 1.8% when the World grew 5-7 aprox.
First of all you said it is not growing. Secondly the "world numbers" are inflated because of mainly two emerging economic powers. But even those numbers appear to be jacked.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2 … 332060.htm

Wait.. it's starting to all make sense now..lol
http://i10.tinypic.com/72vi34z.jpg
When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.

No uh, when you don't grow you don't grow? Serge you are starting to worry me .

You see the line is going up still right?
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353

The only time we had a decline is when the attacks happened and the market crashed. Although you said alluded that the stock market wasn't connected to the economy.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:38:34

#68

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:
When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.

Do you really want your name associated with that statement?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-19 11:39:15

#69

Wallpaper: ☺; +303|6415|The pool

/slams head on table

Its still growth.

My flickr

2007-12-19 11:40:56

#70

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7183

sergeriver wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.
lol
It's good to hear your opinion on the subject. I assume you are an economist and my statement made you laugh.

No I am not a economist. And that is why I have not said anything. But that was too retarded to pass up.

~peace boris

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-12-19 11:41:13)

2007-12-19 11:42:33

#71

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:

First of all you said it is not growing. Secondly the "world numbers" are inflated because of mainly two emerging economic powers. But even those numbers appear to be jacked.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2 … 332060.htm

Wait.. it's starting to all make sense now..lol
http://i10.tinypic.com/72vi34z.jpg
When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.
No uh, when you don't grow you don't grow? Serge you are starting to worry me .

You see the line is going up still right?
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353

The only time we had a decline is when the attacks happened and the market crashed. Although you said the stock market wasn't connected to the economy.

And you are worrying me. If the World grows at 5-7% in average, and you grow at 1.8%, you are, in terms of comparisson, not growing. Further more, if you have an inflation of 2.7%, then you can say you didn't grow, in fact your economy is decreasing in real terms.

2007-12-19 11:43:41

#72

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

usmarine2005 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:

lol
It's good to hear your opinion on the subject. I assume you are an economist and my statement made you laugh.
No I am not a economist. And that is why I have not said anything. But that was too retarded to pass up.

~peace boris

If you don't know what you are talking about then shutty pls Hillary.

2007-12-19 11:45:06

#73

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6963|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:
And you are worrying me. If the World grows at 5-7% in average, and you grow at 1.8%, you are, in terms of comparisson, not growing. Further more, if you have an inflation of 2.7%, then you can say you didn't grow, in fact your economy is decreasing in real terms.

Ummm...GDP includes inflation.

2007-12-19 11:46:47

#74

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
When you grow less than the average, you don't grow.
No uh, when you don't grow you don't grow? Serge you are starting to worry me .

You see the line is going up still right?
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353

The only time we had a decline is when the attacks happened and the market crashed. Although you said the stock market wasn't connected to the economy.
And you are worrying me. If the World grows at 5-7% in average, and you grow at 1.8%, you are, in terms of comparisson, not growing. Further more, if you have an inflation of 2.7%, then you can say you didn't grow, in fact your economy is decreasing in real terms.

The word you are looking for is slowing.. it's very different than declining. You need to look at long term data to get a picture of trends. The economy is not a perfect line in any direction. We have slowed plenty of times, but the American economy is extremely resilient. If it weren't we would not be this large in such a brief period of time.

An inflation rate of 2.7 is rather modest. http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-19 11:49:18

#75

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:
And you are worrying me. If the World grows at 5-7% in average, and you grow at 1.8%, you are, in terms of comparisson, not growing. Further more, if you have an inflation of 2.7%, then you can say you didn't grow, in fact your economy is decreasing in real terms.

Positive or negative growth isn't determined by comparing to other economies. It is determined by comparing the economy's growth with the number zero. If the number you get is positive, the economy has positive growth. If it is negative, the economy has negative growth. If it is zero, then economy has no growth or loss.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums oops: The rich are paying the most taxes under Bush (EVER)

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Fubsy wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Economist.com wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Fubsy wrote:

Fubsy wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Fubsy wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Board footer