Dow Jumps More Than 400 Points! - Page 9 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #81 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 04:30 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
OK, let's go over it line by line. Show me the lies.

If you remember the 1992 Election the Democratic rally cry was "It's the Economy, Stupid!". That was because Trickle down Economics failed. The recession could be considered started in Oct 1987 when the DOW lost 23% of it value in 1 day [Black Monday]
Late 1980s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
High unemployment [peaking at 7.8% in June 1992] http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
Trade deficits grew 29% in 1992 alone U.S. Trade Deficit Grew 29% in 1992 - New York Times
GDP grew at a slower than expected rate

The DOW growth numbers quoted are simple enough to look up [even a NeoCon could do it]

And the Budget Deficit run up by Reagan Bush, fixed by Clinton and then Run up again by Shrub is explained on the chart below.

Now, look up the budgets, see the Republican Congresses press conferences and see how the budget was balanced, then surplused [by the way, I don't agree with some of the cuts that made it happen].

Now, you find a lie in the facts. All I see from you is BS. Never any supporting documentation. Wonder why that always is? Hard to gather citings for BS. Facts, much easier.
Well, I'm going to disappoint you, too then, but I recall the economy was in the recovery mode while Clinton was "selling" his assertion that it needed his TLC. GWHB was no match as a communicator to WJC, plus WJC was the darling of our media. Thing is, anybody elected president in 1992 was going to be made to look very good by the upcoming economic upturn. And, if you give WJC credit for the momentum which started in 1993 (ie - he hadn't even submitted budget 1), you are ignoring the basic fundamentals of the economy that you use against us in other areas/posts (ie - the foundation of todays mess was being laid years ago).

edfreeman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #82 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 04:33 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Dang, you took that bait entirely too quickly.

Now, let's look at this again. I will go slow. Now, when you go to Hawaii, do you go, "that is a lovely looking beach" or do you go "look at those five grains of sand"? I ask that because of the way you listed your "examples" of the 1993 Clinton tax plan. You plucked several little examples where taxes rates went up but failed to look at [or didn't want to acknowledge] the aggregate when making your case.

See, when we pay our federal taxes, they are based on the aggregate of ALL the tax laws, all those little lines in the tax codes, not simply three or four examples.

Are you still with me?

Now, the easiest way to look at the aggregate would be to look at the tax tables for different incomes for 1992 and 1993. That would provide real IRS generated numbers for how much a person pays based on "before" and "after" the mean ol' Clinton Tax plan.

Here are a couple of examples. The columns [which I hate in BW] are Income Level, 1992 Taxes, 1993 Taxes, Difference. I chose the perfect little NeoCon Nucular Family - Married, filing Jointly.

Income Level /1992 Taxes /1993 Taxes /Difference
$36,000 /$5,433 /$5,404 /$ 29 Less
$56,000 /$11,033 /$10,890 /$143 Less
$66,000 /$13,833 /$13,690 /$143 Less
$86,000 /$19,433 /$19,290 /$143 Less
$99,950 /$23,743 /$23,521 /$222 Less
$120,000 /$29,951 /$29,729 /$222 Less
$140,000 /$36,151 /$35,929 /$222 Less

Now, you can wander over to the IRS web site and check these numbers out, I took these from my hard copies.

You also forgot to mention that the tax changes included Increased exemptions and increased standard deductions for everyone.

In 1993 the Family median income was $31,241. Only 9.3% of households saw a potential increase in their taxes [and these are the folks that hire accountants to insure they pay less].

The only tax that everyone paid was the 4.3 cent gas tax. I think that averaged under $40 annually per family if my little calculator is correct.

Enjoy the beach.
Hmmm . . . methinks that was due to the tax indexing that RR had instituted. And, I'm not sure if 1993's numbers are pertinent, since it was WJC's first year, correct? Nonetheless, the taxes on in those lower tax brackets likely weren't adjusted much, since the top rates were the ones affected the most. But raising taxes on the upper brackets isn't really raising taxes, is it?

edfreeman is offline  
post #83 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 04:55 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
Well, I'm going to disappoint you, too then, but I recall the economy was in the recovery mode while Clinton was "selling" his assertion that it needed his TLC. GWHB was no match as a communicator to WJC, plus WJC was the darling of our media. Thing is, anybody elected president in 1992 was going to be made to look very good by the upcoming economic upturn. And, if you give WJC credit for the momentum which started in 1993 (ie - he hadn't even submitted budget 1), you are ignoring the basic fundamentals of the economy that you use against us in other areas/posts (ie - the foundation of todays mess was being laid years ago).
Hey! My recollections are the same as yours... But look out for ol' bear! His may be a bit different.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #84 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 07:35 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear
Would that be similar to the four years after Clinton pulled the country out of the Reagan/Bush recession, balanced the budget, gathered a surplus, did NOT raise taxes and started the greatest expansion of the US economy in US Economic history? [Dow 3,241 on 1/21/93 --- 11,723 1/14/2000]

He did have a Republican Congress along for the ride but he used the veto pen to keep Republican charge and spending to a minimum [he vetoed 37 times and was overridden only twice]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
I recalled your original statement (to document what I objected to) so you won't be tempted to wiggle out of what you asserted (in bold). That was a flat statement that was flatly untrue; the worst type of revisionist history.

Below is the analysis projected for OBRA 93 from the webpage of the Congressioal Budget Office which shows the expected revenue increase in the amount of $241 billion, give or take. Remember, this was such an unpopular Act that Republicans took over the House in 1994 for the first time in about 40 years and the next major tax act in 1997 was entitled, "The Tax Relief Act of 1997."

You are not entitled to your own facts. And, that, my friend McBare, is how the beach looks from here.
If a taxpayer did not pay any more income taxes after the Clinton tax plan than before then there was, in essence NO tax increase for that taxpayer - and well over 93% could say that. It is that simple. And for anyone making under $200K they actually paid less tax. That was the full extent of my comments. NO WIGGLE NECESSARY, No Revisionism Implied. I tend to look at the aggregate and logical outcome of the action.

You, on the other hand, can't defend the tax savings for 93% of all taxpayers, reduction of runaway spending, adding over $3Trillion to the National Debt, starting a Recession and failed TrickleDown Economics. So you rely on nitting with nothing to support it.

There are tax increases and decreases monthly within Congress, within State Houses and local governments. That happens all the time. The aggregate is the only way to logically look at the issue.

As for CBO estimates coming out of a Recession? Give me a break. Next thing you will be trying to project is the day the Dow bottoms.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #85 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 07:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
Hmmm . . . methinks that was due to the tax indexing that RR had instituted. And, I'm not sure if 1993's numbers are pertinent, since it was WJC's first year, correct? Nonetheless, the taxes on in those lower tax brackets likely weren't adjusted much, since the top rates were the ones affected the most. But raising taxes on the upper brackets isn't really raising taxes, is it?
The 1993 numbers are based on post "tax plan" figures as they filed in 4/1994.

Yes, there increases for a bit less than 7% of the taxpayers at the top. As I have always said, they are the ones who hire people to make sure they don't even pay as much as those making 1/10 as much. So it tends to wash.

I would imagine the only people who actually paid MORE taxes would be someone who clipped coupons and did nothing to write off. At some point they would get caught in the increase. But working folks did not get an increase.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #86 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 07:45 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk View Post
^We don't call him "wiggles" for nothing... He can twist and turn an otherwise simple factual statement into what I think of as "bearisms," and totally unrecognizable from the discussion at hand. It can give one mental whiplash, if you're not careful. You can't "win" w/ ol' bear so you might as well stop trying.
Those fact thingies, and charts and references, and citings and supporting documentation are so annoying, aren't they.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #87 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 07:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
Well, I'm going to disappoint you, too then, but I recall the economy was in the recovery mode while Clinton was "selling" his assertion that it needed his TLC. GWHB was no match as a communicator to WJC, plus WJC was the darling of our media. Thing is, anybody elected president in 1992 was going to be made to look very good by the upcoming economic upturn. And, if you give WJC credit for the momentum which started in 1993 (ie - he hadn't even submitted budget 1), you are ignoring the basic fundamentals of the economy that you use against us in other areas/posts (ie - the foundation of todays mess was being laid years ago).
Let's see, the DOW, J's favorite measure of the economy only tickled 3300 after Clinton got elected. The unemployment rate, which had been hovering around 6% since 9/90 finally got back under 6% in 9/94 after spending nearly 4 years in the high 7.5% range [peaking at 7.8%]. So, no, the recession was NOT already in recovery mode. But gee, really nice try there.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #88 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 07:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
I cleverly sold when the market was at it's low 2 weeks ago so I could buy a E300 D. Then the market went up in a huge way. Those of you who bought when it was low, please send me a thank you note.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and that’s what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #89 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 08:07 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
I cleverly sold when the market was at it's low 2 weeks ago so I could buy a E300 D. Then the market went up in a huge way. Those of you who bought when it was low, please send me a thank you note.

B
Well, you at least bought an investment so it is not a real loss [except for the price of Diesel].

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #90 of 437 (permalink) Old 03-14-2008, 09:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
If a taxpayer did not pay any more income taxes after the Clinton tax plan than before then there was, in essence NO tax increase for that taxpayer - and well over 93% could say that. It is that simple. And for anyone making under $200K they actually paid less tax. That was the full extent of my comments. NO WIGGLE NECESSARY, No Revisionism Implied. I tend to look at the aggregate and logical outcome of the action.

You, on the other hand, can't defend the tax savings for 93% of all taxpayers, reduction of runaway spending, adding over $3Trillion to the National Debt, starting a Recession and failed TrickleDown Economics. So you rely on nitting with nothing to support it.

There are tax increases and decreases monthly within Congress, within State Houses and local governments. That happens all the time. The aggregate is the only way to logically look at the issue.

As for CBO estimates coming out of a Recession? Give me a break. Next thing you will be trying to project is the day the Dow bottoms.
There you go wiggling again. You said raised no taxes; now you say he raised taxes on just 7%. Did you forget that if any part of a statement is false, the whole thing is false?

I give you a view of the beach as you asked and you take up the sand grains you accused me of handling. You can make NO assessment of the effects of a tax law change by looking at a 1040 rate table. For example, OBRA93 raised the corporate tax rate to, what? 34%. Who do you think pays corporate taxes? The correct answer is the customers (aka the public) and how do you account for that increase on the 1040 tables? Over my time on this forum, I learned that tax and accounting are your weak spots. Analytical distortion is a strength.

The only way your original statement could be true is if you earned no wages, received no SS benefits, bought nothing from a corporation and didn't buy any gas in 1993 and after.

BTW as I recall what also pissed off people is that the Act was passed in October and made retroactive to January 1.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Fox to buy Dow-Jones GHM Off-Topic 7 05-02-2007 02:38 AM
    Dow takes a dump FeelTheLove Off-Topic 0 03-13-2007 03:32 PM
    The Dead Duck Dow ends year in the red. FeelTheLove Off-Topic 35 01-04-2006 10:06 AM
    DOW < 10k mzsmbs Off-Topic 24 10-16-2004 10:03 AM
    OK, if Dow keeps doing the same tricks I might as well forget the '04 SLK :-[ MAX R170 SLK-Class 14 02-06-2002 04:27 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome