[Click image to enlarge.]Surely this information will end the Republican false claims about corporate taxes and profits, about Obama's so-called anti-business policies. Surely, now, at last, people of the teabagger ilk will realize their errors, and voters will demand truth from people running for office.
Surely trees will grow down and snakes will fly up.
And as long as we're clinging, desperately, to the realm of reality, here's a good article on what did and did not cause the economic crisis in which we find ourselves. Among the points made is one I've written about before: the CRA was not the cause of loan defaults.
But then we all knew that already. And by "we" I mean those more interested in facts than in political prevarication; a group that, as is evident, doesn't include any of those currently running for the R nomination (Jon Huntsman mostly excepted), any of the RWS™ or R Congressfolk, and, most depressingly, that voting group known as teabaggers and those who align with them. Meaning pretty much the entire current iteration of the Republican party.
Wow something medical for a change...
ReplyDeleteI mean aside from your usual "Surgeon who doesn't know he has Alzheimer's blog"..
I mean those ARE CVP tracings aren't they?
Never understood why Surgeons want to see the damn thangs on the monitor...
And one time I forgot to hook up the transducer and the ebbs and flows of the patients fluid status were actually the motions of my knee...(Ya gotta keep active sitting on a stool)...
Frank
Ooooh, it's post some graphs and make snarky comments day at CTTC™! Can I play?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/m-spending_wars.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/m-ten_lessons_from_us_federal_spending.html
Regards,
PT
Sure, play away. Per usual, not relevant to the point; and conclusions not related to the data.
ReplyDeleteTo provide guidance: My point, and those of the graphs I provided, is that, contrary to the deliberate lies of your side, taxes on business have gone down; and that businesses are doing just fine, thanks. You'll have to show me where your charts address that.
What they do is deceive, by addressing spending as a % of GDP, which hides the fact that in a recession the GDP goes down, making spending as a % look higher; and the reason for that spending changes drastically. Your source "concludes," without saying why, that the chart means we can get along with less spending.
Your other source tries to convince that the costs of the war on terror have insignificant impact on the deficits. Nice try.
Personal wages have declined from 50% to 45% of GDP from 1960 to present per your graph. The considerable income from government assistance programs is not calculated as wages/income (but Clinton required it counted as income when applying for a mortgage!), therefore your graph does not accurately assess true incomes. If those values are factored in to this graph, it may be slightly more valid. Of course, the reflexive liberal argument would be that even though the average income % of GDP hasn't changed significantly, the incomes are now more unfairly weighted to the top 10%, but that's a separate grievance.
ReplyDeleteCorporate profits as % of GDP have been between 4%-8% from 1960 to 2008, only to spike to all time highs after O became president. Should we thus conclude that it's O's fault that Corp profits have skyrocketed and label him a corporatist? No, not solely according to this graph! The spike is too short & likely secondary to decreased GDP from the recession. More conclusions can be drawn by the future trajectory of the 08-11' spike.
The slow decline in Corporate taxes as a % of profits must be considered from various viewpoints. Why not just tax the increase in share values & dividends as income? Liberals well known gripe is that 60-80% of increased corp taxes are passed on to the labor force in lower wages. Why do you support a policy that clearly hurts the working class? What is the best tax strategy to keep Corps here rather than force them to relocate corp offices elsewhere?
The graphs, in my opinion, are open to detailed interpretation by seasoned economists. I wouldn't use them as free standing diagrams to make a point for any economic ideaology.
Regards,
PT
PT- you are a Heritage Foundation talking point. If you came up with something original, or at least some original thought, you might be worth reading, and I've wasted my time on you again... my bad. However, I'd take some of whatever the hell it is you are smoking! Let's play!
ReplyDelete