« previous   misc   next »

Proving the Teabaggers are full of crap in a single graph


By iwog   Follow   Mon, 28 Feb 2011, 11:55pm PST   15,608 views   239 comments   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

Total US Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

Graph source: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
Data source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/past_years.html

graph

« First     « Previous     Comments 200-239 of 239     Last »

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 12:35pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 200

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

marcus   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 12:39pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 201

It is true that huge numbers of baby boomers and women entered the work force.

Carter was a downer, with his malaise speech. He basically said we were spoiled. He was a true conservative

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014/

I have a conspiracy theory that his anti consumerism message got him in trouble with the corporatocracy.

Hence, "DAY 332 OF THE HOSTAGE CRISIS" is what we heard every night for how many months on the news ? I guess that was before we learned not to play into the hands of terrorists.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 1:06pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 202

duxbury001 says

It starts to make sense about why the holocaust happend or Joe Stalin… Mao. It all makes sense now. People really can be that stupid.

I sometimes lose faith in humanity too, but it's not because of people like Troy. What, you would have us believe that between you and Troy, he is the one who believes what his emotions tell him to believe, and you are the truly intelligent wise seer of the truth.

When I fear for humanity's future, it is because of authoritarian types like you who want daddy to tell them what to believe.

I know, I know, he's a troll and I shouldn't respond. I'm not the only one. And we all know it's Ray, or someone very much like Ray.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 1:10pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 203

Carter from his "Malaise" speech:

"We are at a turning point of our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. … All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to the true freedom for our nation and ourselves."

¥   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 1:24pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 204

duxbury001 says

This is among the dumbest statements… bar none… I have ever heard. Its not something you argue against…

Of course you can't argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

Reagan then took over and juiced the national debt to 40% of GDP by 1990, doubling it in real terms.

The 1970s saw the creation of TWENTY MILLION JOBS.

Then I posted W's great economic performance -- just 8 million piddly jobs created, all of which vanished once the recession hit since they were bubble jobs on a bubble economy.

I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980, but other than that life was super-fine since wages had also doubled to keep up with that inflation.

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 1:33pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 205

marcus says

When I fear for humanity’s future, it is because of authoritarian types like you who want daddy to tell them what to believe.

Actually what I am arguing against is pure and unadulterated criminality. Unions who have destroyed our country through their extortion, their kickbacks to the democrats. They have bankrupted not only the US, but many western states as well like Greece and Spain, where air traffic controllers make 450k and brought the nation to its knees. Today Hawaii is in darkness from thugocracy of absurdly overpaid electrical union workers.

You have to bear in mind the FDR did not allow public sector unions. He thought them wrong. My objection to them is not radical. After seeing the damages they have done I would argue that any remotely sane person would oppose.

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 1:38pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 206

Troy says

Of course you can’t argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70's second to the 30's in terms of overall economic misery. No sane person thinks the 70's were a booming time of prosperity. I don't know where they teach that... but it is an utterly dumbfounding statement.

Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire (where we were losing to the soviets in vietnam and afghanistan in the 70's). He succeeded. The deficit was then brought down as the peace dividend in the 90's when Newt took over. It was a staggering success.

¥   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 1:57pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 207

duxbury001 says

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels,

Do I gotta pull another chart here to educate you out of your foolery again? Here's unemployment:

The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn't get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975 wasn't that much different in price in 1980. Unemployment was elevated, but both the baby boom and women were just flooding into the workforce.

The front half of the baby boom was aged 15 to 24 in 1970. The economy expanded by 20 million jobs for them. Not too shabby.

And the big mid-70s recession was a combination of the oil shock and interest rates doubling from 5% to 10%+.

Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire

LOL such right-wing fantasyland tripe. Soviet "Empire" defeated itself through its shitty command economy and inability to get reform going under Gorbie before things apart thanks to oil prices falling under $20/bbl 1986-1989 (when Alaska and the North Sea peaked).

Conservatives always assert Soviet-style centralized economies can never work, but when they finally blew up in the late 80s, oh, Ronnie Raygun did it.

Pick a f---ing story already.

iwog   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 2:22pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 208

duxbury001 says

Actually what I am arguing against is pure and unadulterated criminality. Unions who have destroyed our country through their extortion, their kickbacks to the democrats. They have bankrupted not only the US, but many western states as well like Greece and Spain, where air traffic controllers make 450k and brought the nation to its knees. Today Hawaii is in darkness from thugocracy of absurdly overpaid electrical union workers.

You have to bear in mind the FDR did not allow public sector unions. He thought them wrong. My objection to them is not radical. After seeing the damages they have done I would argue that any remotely sane person would oppose.

Translation: (this isn't a joke, this is what he actually believes)

Unions did the least damage when they were the strongest and had the most members.
Unions did the most damage when they were the weakest and had the fewest members.

Makes sense to me! (not really)

Funny how everything went to hell when Reagan dropped our trade barriers and made union busting a sport. I guess it was just sheer coincidence. No rational person would link international trade imbalances with radical and historic changes to international trade rules. That's just silly!

MarkInSF   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 2:48pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 209

duxbury001 says

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70’s second to the 30’s in terms of overall economic misery

1% if inflation doesn't cause the same misery as 1% unemployment. Not even close. That's just some arbitrary "index" somebody came up with.

MarkInSF   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 3:00pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 210

iwog says

Unions did the least damage when they were the strongest and had the most members.
Unions did the most damage when they were the weakest and had the fewest members.

Makes sense to me! (not really)

I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50's and 60's.

MarkInSF   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 3:08pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 211

duxbury001 says

MarkInSF says

Please explain how low taxes and a few hundred dollars per person per year of EU aid money caused the financial industry to make over $100 billion of bad loans, and then completely collapse. There is an enormous gap in your logic here.

ummm.. you know if you want me to teach you basic economics you really need to pay me $100/hour (like public school teachers). Google Irish tiger… THEN SHUT THE F-UP.

Ok, thanks. Yeah that completely explains how government policy caused the financial collapse in Ireland.

iwog   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 3:17pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 212

MarkInSF says

I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

That might be true, but he was talking about how unions destroyed our heavy industry, not ruined our schools and fire departments.

That's a different rant.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 3:28pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Comment 213

MarkInSF says

I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s

You're right, Iwog is focusing on manufacturing with his point.

But I would argue that blaming government unions for states financial problems doesn't make sense. Of course there is pressure since our economy is doing so much worse than expected, but that's the real reason for state shortfalls. I would argue that the decent benefits paid to teachers, police etc have helped attract decent people to those professions.

Why is it that police in Mexico are known for being so corrupt ? Some might think it says something about the moral fiber or ethics in Mexico. I think it says more about how they compensate their police. Let's face it, people might like the idea of being in public service, but when choosing a career, they are going to take expected pay and benefits in to account also.

You get what you pay for.

If you looked at the average pay of union teachers in this country, it is under 50k. Closer to 65K in places like NY, LA, SF, and other major cities where the cost of living is higher. Add another 20K- 30K for the value of their benefits, yes this includes an anual amount for the value of local and state contribution to pension which exceeds what it would be if they had social security. Sure there are exceptions like Milwaukee.

IF you think that this reflects compensation that is ripping off the taxpayer, then I can't help you. But FYI, not long before the crash of '08 there was a shortage of teachers in many places.

How do you explain that ? Was what unions got for their teachers some sort of secret from the job market ?

Remember markets ?

MarkInSF   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 4:04pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 214

marcus says

But I would argue that blaming government unions for states financial problems doesn’t make sense.

Yeah, I agree to an extent. Public unions get a lot of scrutiny these days because state revenues plummeted and deficits are huge and cuts have to be made somewhere. The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the "the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy", but it's a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we're still dealing with today.

Teachers are the least of my worries as far as pay is concerned. For example, here in San Francisco a typical firefigher makes $140K including benefits and overtime, with base pay of $100K. No I'm not cherry picking, go look at the numbers at http://www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries-results

And they get to retire after 30 years with 90% of that base salary, 100% guaranteed, which they will be drawing for another 20 years. Not even including medical coverage. I mean seriously, you don't think that's overcompensated?

MarkInSF   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 4:59pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 215

iwog says

MarkInSF says

I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

That might be true, but he was talking about how unions destroyed our heavy industry, not ruined our schools and fire departments.

That’s a different rant.

True. Duxbury also ignores the unionization of workers in Germany and Japan. Somehow, even though unions in those industries were on the rise there, and on the wane here, they became more competitive.

tatupu70   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 8:27pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 216

duxbury001 says

OK, I realize your IQ is about half mine, but I am going to try to explain this in small words so that you might understand. Let’s give a try? C’mon.. try to listen this time.
If the US is doing really, really swell.. and has super, duper money!!! really happy! Daddy and Mommy might buy a German car like a Porsche (zoom, zoom!!). So because Daddy and Mommy have SOOOOOOOOOOO much money they buy lots of stuff overseas.
But those Germans aren’t doing so well.. they can’t get as many credit cards and other things. They don’t make as much money. So those germans don’t buy that many IBM computers from the US.
And to add to our problems… THOSE MEAN GERMANS AND JAPANESE put up trade barriers and super sneaky ones like the VAT which may our products super duper expensive over there.
So it ends up that we buy stuff from Germany than they buy from us… even though our economy is doing well at the time.

OK--how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

Your problem is that the data tells a different story than your narrative.. It helps when your mind isn't already made up before you see the data...

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   befriend   ignore   Sun, 6 Mar 2011, 10:57pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 217

It is clear to anyone that the financial collapse in the west was caused by social security and unions and taxes. Eliminate all of that and housing values will double in an hour.

P N Dr Lo R   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 1:57am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 218

Troy says

I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980

That’s fine so long as your purchases are limited to candy bars, but that’s more than a 100% increase in a decade and I can promise you the same candy bar was smaller. The same principle was present in the prices of everything in those years, which is what made it so painful. For whatever reason, when inflation is raging, you’re not only penalized by an increase in price, you’re penalized by a decrease in content at the same time. Here’s a representative example in the realm of automobiles, which is the next highest expenditure besides housing. In 1960, the least expensive Oldsmobile 98 could be bought for $3,900, and that was a large, powerful highway cruiser that could pass anything on the road. Ten years later, in 1970, that 98 could be replaced for $4,400, barely a 15% increase in price. And that increase in the golden age of GM engineering bought the best engines, air-conditioners and transmissions, the Turbo-Hydramatic 400, in GM history, with a 5 year/50K mile warranty since 1965. By 1974, warranties had been slashed to 1 year/12K miles and prices were increased five times during the year. By 1980, the thing that was called an Olds 98 had increased 115% to $9,400, while at the same time having extracted every component by the bean-counters that made it such an attractive vehicle in 1970. It was fitted with the weakest transmission and poorest quality air-conditioners in GM history and was driven by a weak-sister small V-8 with 150 HP. Prices doubled again to $20,000 by 1989. If the quality and content had remained constant, the increases would have been bad enough, but it was a double insult to be receiving so much less year after year while paying more and more. I’ve used this particular model as an example, but the same things were true across the board for all makes and models. It’s the main reason foreign cars became more popular as they were better built, but you were still getting less car than you had in the 60’s.

iwog   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 2:13am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 219

They had no choice. Free trade and globalism required a huge reduction in quality just to stay competitive. You think the sewage they sell in Home Depot today would be so awful if Chinese who make 25 cents an hour weren't producing them? Consumers are generally pretty lazy. If they see Car A selling for $10,000 and Car B selling for $20,000 and they LOOK similar, most people will buy car A.

Tariffs are as old as the United States and they DO work. What Reagan and other free market nuts who followed him did to this country is an atrocity. As long as China retains favored nation status, as long as the tax code gives advantages to moving production offshore, we will continue our slide into the pit.

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 4:10am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 220

Troy says

The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn’t get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

here's just economics 101... because it is painful to watch you make a fool of yourself in public. When inflation and unemployment are both high it is the most hellacious economic scenario because there are no solutions. You are doomed. Reagan (with volker) heroically raised rates induced the '82 recession and purged inflation. You would never see a modern politician do that. They'll spit out "stimulus" ad infinitum as long as the presses can print currency.

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 4:13am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 221

tatupu70 says

OK–how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can't fire me and if you bitch I'll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 4:17am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 222

MarkInSF says

True. Duxbury also ignores the unionization of workers in Germany and Japan. Somehow, even though unions in those industries were on the rise there, and on

Thanks for defending me, but I really can't take away the "jackass" label yet because Japan wasn't so stupid as to keep unions. They dumped them after we tried to foist them on them. They abolished them and whattahyaknow happened?? their economy went on a ferocious tear for 30 years until the out of control growth made a bubble. Germany has unions... but for whatever reason they aren't as psycho as US unions... they aren't making idiotic work rules that hamper production and welding beer cans in chryslers for fun.

tatupu70   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 4:20am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 223

duxbury001 says

Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can’t fire me and if you bitch I’ll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

Typical trollish response. You won't do it because you can't. There is no data to suppport your position.

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 4:25am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 224

MarkInSF says

The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the “the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy”, but it’s a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we’re still dealing with today.

It really isn't very hard since labor costs are a huge part of the budgets and funny whereever unions are strong you see budgets careening to oblivion.... but what really makes it obvious is how criminally inflated the wages are... 450k air traffic controllers in spain, 100k teachers in madison, 200k train conductors on amtrak and in france. like the rampant corruption in greece, portugal going bankrupt, cali going bankrupt, deficits in NJ, etc... basically if every public sector employee gets a million dollar pension your budget is screwed.

In my mind it is 10 times worse than that because unions fight for the most psychotic economic policies.. like encouraging unskilled illegals (who they view as social service clients). Paying welfare to encourage poor mothers to be brood mares with giant welfare payments for large families. Fighting accounting and efficiency methods. encouraging muslim immigraton with no intention of assimilation to create a giant underclass in france (dependent on unionized social services).

But the surest was is to contrast union vs. non union states.. financial chaos in maryland vs. financial stability in virginia a few miles away. It ultimately becomes a psychological issue, not a policy issue, if you can't see the problems with public sector unionization.

duxbury001   befriend   ignore   Mon, 7 Mar 2011, 4:31am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 225

MarkInSF says

I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

unions were wimps in the 50's and 60's because they were private sector unions... which means all they can do is shoot themselves in the foot with their extortion. They blew up the US industrial base because companies were run into bankruptcy or moved to the south... so private sector unionization is finished because it is so self-destructive. How many factories left in pittsburg? detroit? unions crushed the old factory towns. New factories are in Alabama or China away from thugocracy.

Public sector unionization is infinitely more powerful because you can extort all you want until the government goes bankrupt.. with no consideration of the naive taxpayer. Unions contributed hundreds of millions to the last election cycle + time. Andy Stern practically pushed obama care (Andy was the most frequent guest of obama). So Public sector unions (along with the trial lawyers) are a defacto labor party of the democrats.

I like communists and liberals, I find them naive and idealistic (but ignorant). Democrats are not liberals, they are thugocrats serving millionaire trial lawyers, public sector employees and a few favored companies.