The Democrat Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

A simple graph of tax rates vs. government revenue vs. GDP shows that's bulls***. Here's one:

That GDP growth line is fascinating, in a way that isn't even your main point. It appears to have a declining Vega over that period, reaching near zero in the present. That's kind of weird.

 

[Balta1701]

That GDP growth line is fascinating, in a way that isn't even your main point. It appears to have a declining Vega over that period, reaching near zero in the present. That's kind of weird.

Vega?

[Balta1701]

Lowering taxes RAISED (and always does...) the amount of money coming into treasury. Deficits, however, is because every dollar that was brought in left in about 1992. It's just too damn hard for people to accept the fact that cutting entitlements and putting that money back into the private sector would actually bring us back around. Why is that so bad?

 

Oh, capitalism is EVIIIIIL. I forgot about that. Take all of it and redistribute it.

This data/post has been making the rounds this week. I'm sure it isn't credible since it's at a blog, but for those willing to read it.

 

 

1. Data is from the Federal Reserve. It is seasonally adjusted quarterly real federal receipts.

2. The terrorist attacks, dot-com bubble etc, might explain a decline in the tax base what they don’t explain is why revenues never recover. (though more on that later)

3. Its particularly telling that after an adjustment the new revenue curve tracks the old revenue curve at a lower level. Precisely what one would expect if you were taking a smaller fraction of the same pot.

 

In short, unless you think the economy was permanently damaged, all the way up until 2008, from the dot-com bubble in 2001 then you should expect tax receipts to return to the baseline.

 

After all they are pretty smooth in the wake of the larger early 90s recessions. You should also note that there is no huge boom from the housing bubble. No, for the most part federal receipts track the long run trend growth in the economy.

 

Lastly, the core argument here is that supply side didn’t work. Are you really going to tell me that the mildest recession in post-war history was so bad that it lead to persistent underperformance of revenue even though in a counterfactual world revenue would have surged above trend growth?

[NorthSideSox72]

Vega?

Implied volatility, in this case implied by the periodic snapshots. In other words, decreasing vega, if you trace a line of peaks and a line of valleys on that GDP growth line, you will see that the two lines are approaching each other to intersect at some point in the future. Now of course, they won't ACTUALLY intersect, and the function is probably better represented by two functions approaching a common limit. But its interesting to see the gap tightening, with remarkable consistency, over time.

 

[Balta1701]

Implied volatility, in this case implied by the periodic snapshots. In other words, decreasing vega, if you trace a line of peaks and a line of valleys on that GDP growth line, you will see that the two lines are approaching each other to intersect at some point in the future. Now of course, they won't ACTUALLY intersect, and the function is probably better represented by two functions approaching a common limit. But its interesting to see the gap tightening, with remarkable consistency, over time.

I thought that was what you meant but I wasn't sure.

 

Is it possible that a simple answer to the question of "Why has volatility decreased over time" is that the size of the system in total is larger, such that a $1 trillion shock in 1929 is vastly larger than a $1 trillion shock today?

[NorthSideSox72]

I thought that was what you meant but I wasn't sure.

 

Is it possible that a simple answer to the question of "Why has volatility decreased over time" is that the size of the system in total is larger, such that a $1 trillion shock in 1929 is vastly larger than a $1 trillion shock today?

That's one of a few possibilities, yes.

 

[southsider2k5]

Implied volatility, in this case implied by the periodic snapshots. In other words, decreasing vega, if you trace a line of peaks and a line of valleys on that GDP growth line, you will see that the two lines are approaching each other to intersect at some point in the future. Now of course, they won't ACTUALLY intersect, and the function is probably better represented by two functions approaching a common limit. But its interesting to see the gap tightening, with remarkable consistency, over time.

 

It looks like they set modern day to zero, which really screws up the chart.

[NorthSideSox72]

It looks like they set modern day to zero, which really screws up the chart.

That would give you the opposite result - variations would be smaller in the past. Its a posted growth rate number anyway, so I don't think it works that way in this chart.

 

[Balta1701]

I know what the tea partiers in the other thread can do to prove they're not racist. They can have their spokespeople release mock letters to Abraham Lincoln!...(from the coloreds)

[mr_genius]

I know what the tea partiers in the other thread can do to prove they're not racist. They can have their spokespeople release mock letters to Abraham Lincoln!...(from the coloreds)

 

those evil racists.

 

anyways, so whats the plan if the evil tea party wins during the elections in Nov? WE NEED A PLAN

[Controlled Chaos]

I know what the tea partiers in the other thread can do to prove they're not racist. They can have their spokespeople release mock letters to Abraham Lincoln!...(from the coloreds)

You're bigger than this Balta.

[southsider2k5]

That would give you the opposite result - variations would be smaller in the past. Its a posted growth rate number anyway, so I don't think it works that way in this chart.

 

Actually the biggest problem I have with that chart is of the usage of GDP, as it includes government spending. What that means is you really have no idea what is going on in the private sector due to tax changes. The explosive growth of spending during down times over the last few downturns has manipulated those deltas in GDP viciously. Now instead of the usual downfalls, there are huge spikes in government spending that manipulate the numbers on that chart. In other words there is nothing that can be read from that graph that matters in reality.

[southsider2k5]

You're bigger than this Balta.

 

Really? I haven't seen it.

[kapkomet]

Actually the biggest problem I have with that chart is of the usage of GDP, as it includes government spending. What that means is you really have no idea what is going on in the private sector due to tax changes. The explosive growth of spending during down times over the last few downturns has manipulated those deltas in GDP viciously. Now instead of the usual downfalls, there are huge spikes in government spending that manipulate the numbers on that chart. In other words there is nothing that can be read from that graph that matters in reality.

 

Exactly. You can mask a lot of s*** by including everything. It's okay, though, we know that without government intervention, we would all die 50 years earlier.

[lostfan]

lol. look guys, I'm not gonna write a dissertation to make a simple point that I've tried to make like 10 times at various points on this board. The hysteria over minor changes in the tax rates is totally unfounded and in some cases are more or less a naked giveaway to the wealthy and criticism of this point is avoided by randomly shouting hyperbolic phrases like "class warfare."

[kapkomet]

lol. look guys, I'm not gonna write a dissertation to make a simple point that I've tried to make like 10 times at various points on this board. The hysteria over minor changes in the tax rates is totally unfounded and in some cases are more or less a naked giveaway to the wealthy and criticism of this point is avoided by randomly shouting hyperbolic phrases like "class warfare."

 

Except all of the changes that are getting ready to happen are not "minor" when added together. And this administration knows it.

 

Again, let's tax our way to prosperity - because that works. To paraphrase - lol

[lostfan]

One of the things I did not like about being in Louisiana for a week: EVERYWHERE I went had on Fox News, and a couple of the people I work with were typical blowhards that ranted and rambled about something different every 15 minutes (e.g., homosexuals are digusting, filthy people, and stereotyping them all as wanting to have gay orgies and buttsecks conventions, and if you disagree you need to have your head examined, Obama hates America and anyone who voted for him needs to be sent to Mexico, etc.)

 

That is by far the most obnoxious thing a person can do to me at work... what makes you think I want to hear that even if I did agree with any of that? I don't live and breathe politics in everyday life... I started slipping outside and then later got more and more rude about it and I'd just walk away while they were in mid-sentence.

[kapkomet]

That's honestly what bothers me about politics - whether or not you've figured out why I post the way I do in here...

 

Anyway, the gays are all orgies and disgusting people crap, all the people need to be sent to Mexico if you voted for Obama (truthfully, he does hate America, or should I say, did, because he's "transforming" it into what he thinks it should be, ask Michelle, who pretty much admitted she hated America before her husband became president). People are misinformed, but they can't help it.

 

There are some here that truly believe America needs to be more socialistic in its government policies. You got your wish, but don't b**** when that trap door bites you in the ass later.

 

The biggest issue is ignorance. And the Republican Party is a bunch of weak minded asshats, but that's another story.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's honestly what bothers me about politics - whether or not you've figured out why I post the way I do in here...

 

Anyway, the gays are all orgies and disgusting people crap, all the people need to be sent to Mexico if you voted for Obama (truthfully, he does hate America, or should I say, did, because he's "transforming" it into what he thinks it should be, ask Michelle, who pretty much admitted she hated America before her husband became president). People are misinformed, but they can't help it.

 

There are some here that truly believe America needs to be more socialistic in its government policies. You got your wish, but don't b**** when that trap door bites you in the ass later.

 

The biggest issue is ignorance. And the Republican Party is a bunch of weak minded asshats, but that's another story.

How anyone can say with a straight face that they think Obama, or Bush for that matter, "hate America", is beyond me. There is just no way.

 

[kapkomet]

I see the issue Tex was having with his browser (I finally decided to get into 2010 and use firefox...) anyway...

 

I'll rephrase... he hates America's political spectrum, and he will (is) transform (ing) America into a socialist country... slooooooooowly but surely, he's swinging that pendulum (although in 24 months, after the lame duck congress passes everything Obama wants, it will be a very fast "transformation".) No, not USSR socialist, but definitely European socialistic, and that sucks. That's why our system was better, up until now.

 

I know, you think he's "centrist", but centrists don't do the s*** he's doing. I know, you think not, but whatever. It's almost pointless to say anything anymore because government control of auto, health, insurance, banking, etc. is pretty damn "centrist".

Edited July 18, 2010 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

Government control of banking?

 

Well, I guess you could call it that...since the banks control the government.

[lostfan]

I flew from Alexandria, Louisiana to Houston, about 10 minutes prior to landing I suddenly develop an upset stomach and I feel a case of diarrhea coming on. I uncomfortably hobbled around the airport for a while looking for a place to buy Pepto-Bismol and there is this place called the Fox News Store that saved the day. So it turns out that Fox News is good for s*** after all.

[Balta1701]

And this sums up pretty well how the Republicans and the Democrats right now is comparable to Buster Posey versus a pitcher.

GREGORY: Congressman, congressman, that’s a pretty gauzy agenda so far. I mean, what specifics — what painful painful choices are Republicans prepared to make? … How do you [balance the budget]? Tell me how you do it. Name a painful choice that Republicans are prepared to say we have to make.

 

SESSIONS: Well first of all, we have to make sure as we look at all we spend in Washington, D.C., with not only the entitlement spending, but also the bigger government we cannot afford anymore. We have to empower the free enterprise system.

 

GREGORY: Congressman, these are not specifics, voters get tired of that.

 

SESSIONS: Oh they are. They are. … Let’s go right to it.

 

GREGORY: Do it!

 

GREGORY: Senator, I’m sorry, I’m not hearing an answer here on specifics. What painful choices to really deal with the deficit — is Social Security on the table? — what will Republicans do that will give them, like ‘94, there was the Contract with America, what are voters going to say, hey, this is what Republicans will say yes to.

 

CORNYN: Well, the president has a debt commission that reports December the first, and I think we’d all like to see what they come back with.

 

GREGORY: But wait a minute, conservatives need a Democratic president’s debt commission to figure out what it is they need to cut?

[bmags]

your nevada teapartyin senator candidate

http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=23466

 

Ah, gotta love it.

[southsider2k5]

your nevada teapartyin senator candidate

http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=23466

 

Ah, gotta love it.

 

Yep

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/07/on...obama_last.html