Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Hacksaw]

Change we can believe in.

[Toemeesleather]

Ford Motor Co. reported a 8.9% increase in U.S. new-vehicle sales in July as the company reported higher car and sport-utility vehicle sales, including strong increases for the Fiesta, Escape and Explorer.

[Owlman]

Woohoo!

Sales of the much-hyped Chevy Volt fell to new lows as did GM share price as July auto sales figures came in. Only 125 Volts were sold during the month of July.

And why does that make you happy?

[sardis]

"...but jobs will outweigh those things for a lot of people."

Probably for most people.

[Toemeesleather]

And why does that make you happy?


The power of the market over do-gooder, know nothing enviro-whacko-politicians is always a good thing.

[Owlman]

http://autos.aol.com/article/gm-july-2011-sales/

DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors says its U.S. sales rose nearly 8 percent last month, led by fuel-efficient vehicles such as the Chevrolet Cruze car.

But GM's increase may not be the norm. Analysts predict that sales of new cars and light trucks in the U.S. rose slightly from a year earlier as few deals and economic worries kept car shoppers home.

Vice President of Sales Don Johnson says unemployment, low consumer confidence and uncertainty over the federal debt ceiling scared some buyers off.

GM sold 214,915 vehicles in July, including nearly 25,000 Cruzes. That could make it America's top-selling car for the second straight month.

Sales of the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain small crossovers rose 80 percent.

GM is among the first companies to report U.S. sales Tuesday

[Toemeesleather]

GM investors were clearly uneasy after the results. The stock closed down more than 3% to $27.05

[bluetick]

problem solved

And go back to the pre-W tax rates. And go back to the pre-9/11 defense budget. We could have a balanced budget by 2015..

and gules kids would be free...FREE! (and free to marry somebody of their own sex!)

I swear a box of rocks must be smarter.

Tax revenue went up after W's cuts were fully put in place. It's an undeniable fact. Even oprama's admin has numbers that prove it.

Find a different horse to keep whipping.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing ... evenue.cfm

The Bush Tax Cuts: How Have They Affected Tax Revenue?

The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal income tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to it's lowest level in almost fifty years.

[bluetick]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... l-problem/

Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? by Bruce Bartlett

the Congressional Budget Office expects revenue to be just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year; the last year it was lower was 1950, when revenue amounted to 14.4 percent of G.D.P. But revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P was that low was 1941 to 1943.


note to puter: ignore this article or your head will explode. It was written by Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's senior economic policy advisor

[sardis]

From tick's article:

"In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959"

I have two questions for you, tick:

1. How come in the 50's and 60's when we had top rates of 70-90% the "tax take" wasn't more than Clinton? I thought the Dms believed the higher the rates on the wealthy the more revenue is collected.

2. Since 20.9% of GDP is the "highest" we can get, why doesn't the Dems reduce spending by $600 billion a year to get spending to 20.9% of GDP to balance the budget?

[Owlman]

Dems???

[Owlman]

Since 20.9% of GDP is the "highest" we can get

I'm not sure this is a true statement.

[Jungle Rat]

I'm not sure I care.

[Professor Tiger]

While I usually agree with the argument that tax cuts increase revenue, Alan Greenspan disagrees. As the former Fed Chairman under W, conservatives usually consider him a credible source. That's why his position surprises me:

[GBJs]

Even to an Army guy, an aircraft carrier is an amazing sight.

I'm not a naval expert, but it appears that the days of the carrier may be numbered. They can't hide in the vastness of the ocean like they used to. A sophisticated enemy with satellites can track them constantly, and modern missiles with satellite guidance can hit them.

Your opinion, admiral GBJ?

BTW, a lot of Army people think the days of the tank and the artillery piece are numbered too.

I don't think so...Yes they are vulnerable now but as you say so are the tanks. Always have been. There is no other current platform to move that much power to any place on earth. Four and a half acres of soverign US territory that will absolutely fuck up your afternoon.

Aside from that, we have the capability to defend Her very well. I don't really believe she's anymore vulnerable now than say WW II. As the dangers have increased, so have the layers of defense.

[Professor Tiger]

I trust you're right. The Navy and Marine Corps may be called upon soon to liberate the Straits of Hormuz and Bandar Abbas.

[AugustWest]

nukes are cheaper than troops.

[Professor Tiger]

True, but it's hard to keep all those oil rigs in the Persian Gulf humming along with huge, billowing radiation clouds floating around.

George Will (peace be upon him) opines:

The debt deal and Obama’s 2012 problem

excerpts:

The debt-ceiling impasse has, as things generally do, ended, and a post-mortem validates conservatives’ portrayal of Barack Obama and their dismay about the dangers and incompetence of liberalism’s legacy, the regulatory state.

For weeks, you could not fling a brick in Washington without hitting someone with a debt-reduction plan — unless you hit Obama, whose plan, which he intimated was terrifically brave, was never put on paper.

Obama’s presidency may last 17 or 65 more months, but it has been irreversibly neutered by two historic blunders made at its outset. It defined itself by health-care reform most Americans did not desire, rather than by economic recovery. And it allowed, even encouraged, self-indulgent liberal majorities in Congress to create a stimulus that confirmed conservatism’s portrayal of liberalism as an undisciplined agglomeration of parochial appetites. This sterile stimulus discredited stimulus as a policy.

[puterbac]

problem solved

And go back to the pre-W tax rates. And go back to the pre-9/11 defense budget. We could have a balanced budget by 2015..

and gules kids would be free...FREE! (and free to marry somebody of their own sex!)

I swear a box of rocks must be smarter.

Tax revenue went up after W's cuts were fully put in place. It's an undeniable fact. Even oprama's admin has numbers that prove it.

Find a different horse to keep whipping.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing ... evenue.cfm

The Bush Tax Cuts: How Have They Affected Tax Revenue?

The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal income tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to it's lowest level in almost fifty years.

W's tax cuts were NOT fully put in place until 2003. In 2001 the 10% bracket was created and the 15% current bracket changed to 10%. The other brackets didn't change until 2006.

The 2003 cuts accelerated that from 2006 to applying immediately to 2003. The VAST majority of the tax cuts were NOT put in place in 2001 and this includes the capital gains tax cuts. Now I know numbers can be hard to follow, but these are from the frigging WHITE HOUSE OMB of OPRAMA. Not W, but OPRAMA.

Main site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Table 2.1 from Main OPRAMA OMB site (above) detailing the revenue by source from 1934 to 2010 including from fed income taxes and capital gains: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... st02z1.xls

Bush cuts were FULLY put in place from 2003 forward:

YEAR Ind Inc Tax Rev Cap Gains tax Rev
2003 793,699 131,778
2004 808,959 189,371
2005 927,222 278,282
2006 1,043,908 353,915
2007 1,163,472 370,243
2008 1,145,747 304,346

Tax REVENUE increased every year from 2003 to 2007 and didn't fall until 2008 when the economy lost about 3 million jobs. Both income rates and capital gains rates were CUT, yet revenue increased in both areas.

Lowering taxes gives more people more money that they either spend or invest which leads to MORE people hiring which leads to MORE people working which leads to MORE people paying taxes WHICH leads to MORE revenue despite tax cuts. All of which is a friggin GOOD THING.

So PLEASE quit with the lies that tax revenue declined when W's cuts were put in effect in 2003.

W INCREASED the progressivism of the tax code. The higher brackets paid a GREATER percentage of all income taxes...NOT less..

[puterbac]

Tick,

The sites are right there and they are from oprama's admin. I don't know how it can be clearer when the revenue increased from 03 to 04 to 05 to 06 to 07.