AbeFroman

If you're willing to concede that monetary policy has a lot more to do with economic performance than tax cuts, I guess I'm happy. You may find it refreshing to go back and read all my posts on the mortgage boom thread. I think you'll find that I think taxes help, a tiny bit, but that the heavy lifter is monetary policy. I'm glad we've finally resolved this issue on whether Reagan can be credited for improving the economy: result; No... mostly, he can be credited a tiny bit

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 21, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Someone's butt hurt about my siggy I see. I sincerely apologize for not mentioning Reagan't tax cuts, which by the way are widely credited with helping spark the economic turnaround, but there. I did it. What? thats it? oh come on Nuke... you know I don't care about the signature thing. What I do care about is how you can address some relevant points. Like how you can justify all the flip-flopping you done on economic issues. Or how you seem to look for any plausible reason to credit Ronald Reagan. Please... feel free to address some of my points in my post How did God-incarnate (Reagan) affect interest rates or control inflation? How can tax cuts be so effective when interest rates have a lot more power? Does the Bush economy REALLY prove that tax cuts work? Or might it just correllate to periods of low interest rates? Do tax cuts prove anything if they aren't as powerful as monetary policy. There's a whole lotta contradiction there. I'm pretty sure everyone is gonna see it...

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 20, 2006 -> 11:30 PM) I don't find this hard to believe at all. Democrats couldn't stand the defense buildup, they couldn't stand that Reagan called the Soviets the "evil empire", they couldn't stand the fact Reagan's economic policies were working and the economy was gaining strength, couldn't stand that inflation and interest rates were falling..................just couldn't stand the fact that Reagan was successful where they had failed. This is, of course, before Reagan's ultimate victories with the collapse of the Iron Curtain and of the Soviet Empire itself. WHAT?! INTEREST RATES AND INFLATION?! You're crediting Reagan with that?! Aren't you on record as saying the following: QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 14, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) The fed, as you indicated, has the most control over interest rates. Then there's this doozy: QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 15, 2005 -> 9:23 PM) Everyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that the economy works in cycles with alternating periods of expansion and contraction. Tax cuts can be a valuable tool in creating economic growth but the interest rate policy of the fed has a lot more power. So how can this be one of Reagan's "ultimate victories? He didn't have any control over interest rates! For those of you who didn't follow it, Nuke and I just had a lenthy debate on what causes increases in tax revenue. I contended that easy access to investment and capital (caused by low interest rate) generated economic growth with thereby caused higher tax revenue. I contended that even though tax revenue increases correllated in time to tax cuts, they were not caused by them. Nuke maintained (and he can correct me here if I am misquoting him) that decreased taxes caused higher tax revenues by pumping more money into the economy. I agreed with him in principle, but only to the extent that tax cuts didn't cause inflation (higher prices) and didn't get spent overseas. The net effect of tax cuts, in my argument, was very slight on the economy. Our debate was fruitful and I enjoyed it a great deal. The two of us even privately exchange pm's in which we both expressed an appreciation of the dicussion. Since this lengthy, often animated discussion, Nuke has taken a statement of mine and placed it in his Signature. Thats fine... I've got no problem with it. I stand by that statement as it is accurate. But I find it odd that only now does he bring up interest rates and inflation as one of Reagan's "ultimate glories." What happened to the tax cut argument? I thought you said that the tax cuts were what caused the economic boom of the 80's? And what about that quote above? The one in which you say that tax cuts don't do nearly as much as interest rates? If its all true, then what did Reagan really do for the economy? Well, I've got a new signature... you can read it below:

This thread sucks. It started with a commercial thats partisan bullsh*t to begin with... Following that, we've got 15 posts of name calling.

Here's a great one from Deadspin: http://www.deadspin.com/sports/espn/jay-ma...cism-208144.php Apparently, Jay Mariotti had his page removed from wikipedia because of he personally complained about the things people had written about him. The president and CEO of wikipedia himself (a guy named Jimbo Wales) edited the Mariotti page because of Mariotti's whining and complaining. This from a guy who says (direct quote):"Take your shots at me," Mariotti says of his colleagues, leaning back in his chair and raising his palms to the air. "All you're doing is making me more famous."

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 20, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) love me love me say that you love me oh come on... thats a dis-proportionate response... Also, the new chick that Jim works with... WAY HOTTER than Pam that is all

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 07:52 PM) The Fear of Flying thread made me think of this. Answer one, some or all of the following: 1. Best airport 2. Worst airport 3. Best airline 4. Worst airline 5. Longest air travel excursion 6. Funniest/best/worst air travel experiences. Best Airports: Munich, O'Hare, Budapest, McCarrarn (Las vegas), Kona Worst Airports: St. Peterburg and Moscow (its Russia in general), Also Maui is pretty gross given how beautifl the island is Best Airline: British Airways Worst Airline: Aeroflot Longest trip: St. Petersburg to Frankfort to Chicago (16 hours) Worst experience: Flew to Barcelona in the dead of July. When we landed, there was an ongoing baggage handler strike. It was 100 degrees and the strikers had shut down the AC in the airport. Other airport employees had honored the strike... Nobody was there to clean up, garbage built up everywhere. Whatever employees were there did a terrible job getting the bags of the plane. We stood around in the dirty filthy sticky hot airport for hours waiting for our bags. It was a scene reminscent of the Superdome circa hurrican katrina.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 15, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) One of the funniest posts I have read in awhile. I know the ending already and you two aren't together anymore He_Gawn, but remember this for the future. Staying friends or at least keeping things cordial is the right way to go. If the girl breaks up but wants to remain friends tell her you will try, but she is going to have to give you some space. Don't call or talk to her for a few weeks (aside from the routine hi's and how ya doin's). If you want to stay friends once you are over her, then pursue that angle. If not, it's your call and the space she has given you makes for an easy transition. In the spirit of what Abe posted, I have found one thing about women. When horny, a woman often goes back to an ex if she is not seeing anyone. It's comfortable and it doesn't increase her "number". So she can have all the meaningless sex she wants with exes, but that doesn't increase the number of people she has had sex with. It's pretty strange logic if you ask me, but hey, if that's what a girl wants, it can come in handy at parties in college. Glad you moved on. Thanks Rex, I've kinda always thought this was one of my best posts. You are 100% right about the "number" thing. Its a huge motivating factor for women... Why? I really don't know... and actually I don't care. There's actually no reason to know "why" women do anything. Its just more important to know how to take advantage of it. Good post rex

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) the houses take. you'll see that in a vegas casino, for every $10 you bet on a straight up bet (pts, etc) you will win $9.10 for every $10 bet. So in your example, you'd lose the $1,000 in one situation and win $910 in the other. The only way you make $ is if it falls inbetween. which can certainly happen in close games. Ok... so lets say in the 1000 bet scenario, that means you lose $90. Still, thats only a $90 bet with a potential payoff of $2000 if the final score is just a few points away from the line (which it often is). Those seem like better odds than you ought to be able to get in a casino. In all the times I've been to vegas, I can't recall seeing lines that were two points apart at different casinos. But it seems to happen on these internet gaming sites from time to time... Certainly if internet gambling were legal (which it now is not), then you would have a very easy way to find separate point spreads.

I don't gamble on professional sports. But I often check the lines for NFL games, just to see which teams are best favored for my survival football league. Why I was browsing the lines, I had an epiphany: The following situation occurred last week: On PinnacleSports.com, the Denver Broncos were 14.5 point favorites over the Raiders On Bodog.com, the Denver Broncos were 16.5 favorites over the Raiders So why not do the following: Bet $1000 on Pinnacle Sports on the Broncos Bet $1000 on Bodog.com on the Raiders. Now, in this situation, if the game is decided by 7 points, you break even... if the game is decided by 20 points, you break even... BUT, if the game is decided by 15 or 16 points, you win $2000 cause both bets pay out!!!! Essentially, you are arbitraging two bets. Sure you don't perfectly break even cause the casino takes a percentage on a win... but you get two bets for the price of one. And, these guys who determine the spreads are really really good. If often happens that they are very close.... So odds seem really good that the eventual outcome lies somewhere between the two lines. This seems all two promising... What's the downside that I'm missing?

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 05:09 AM) That is good news, but not surprising. Who in their right mind would watch that disaster of a team. the mentally ill

Its a good place for Pinella... If he wins a world series here, he's a lock for the Hall of Fame. IMO, he's not quite an HOFer yet... If he sucks, well... its the cubs... everyone sucks. The cubs have resources, and the National league is terrible. It makes a lot of sense from Lou's perspective...

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 12:37 AM) I decided to lower my baseball IQ and head over to the White Sox.com boards. It beats huffing nail polish remover.....but not by much. HAHA.... gold jerry... gold... great post

Somebody thinks they are worth all that money to reduce the amount of money paid on insurance claims... i think that makes the insurance company execs scummier than the lawyers.

Steve Lyons is GREAT announcer/analyst. I't take him over any of our broadcasters... tv or radio.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 05:59 PM) Again. With revenues rising during periods of high deficits it stands to reason that spending and not taxes is to blame. Indeed, spending has exploded under Bush and the Republican Congress, as it did under Reagan and the Democratic Congress, and that is a major concern of mine. Congress is never going to control spending... so when you cut taxes, essentially you're creating deficits. Spending in the Reagan administration was not so totally out of control so as to cause the deficits. I don't have the numbers on me, but I don't think Reagan elevated spending so out of control to cause the deficits. I'm pretty sure spending was flat to slightly up over the course of his administration. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 05:59 PM) Left out of this discussion was the work Gingrich and Clinton did during the 1990's to rein in spending. That was the driving force behind the improving budget numbers during that time. In my opinion, the "welfare debate" is over. The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families act (TANF), which was hammered out between Clinton and the 94 Gingrich Congress very effectively reined in spending and limited welfare to deserving parties. It's a good law. I agree with you here. Line-item veto isn't legal unless we get a constitutional amendment. I have mixed feelings about the line item veto... On one hand, its a great way to kill pork. On the other hand, I think it give the president too much power. I'd hate to see a President cut a military spending project or social program just because he disagrees with the premise.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) First of all, I wasn't talking about the nations economic success, simply federal revenues. I also never said anything about tax cuts ALONE causing the increase in revenues. You said federal revenues would be hurt by tax cuts and the facts dont support that. Also, I don't disagree that there are a lot of other factors contributing to economic growth ( especially interest rates and I have made that case before ) but to discount the effect of tax cuts ( which are another injection of capital into the economy ) is foolish. See I think a Nation's economic success causes higher tax revenues. It makes sense that when people and companies make more money, the federal government gets more money too. I think taxes help the economy. I just don't think it helps much. I do think that tax cuts cause deficits. Here's a chart of federal deficits by administration. Keep in mind that we saw tax cuts under Reagan and Bush Jr. Under Bush Sr. and Clinton, we saw tax raises: To me, that seems to show that when taxes get cut, we see deficits. Obviously, if Congress could control spending, then deficits wouldn't occur. But its unreasonable to think that Congress will ever be able to control itself... so you have to build that into the equation. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) Also, about not placing value in the NR article, do you also believe that the CBO ( whose official statistics were quoted in that article ) also has an agenda? I do believe the CBO... My understanding of their role is simply to inform congress without any partisanship. Generally, i think lefties and righties tend to view the CBO as unbiased. NorthsideSox is right though... I think their stats just show correllation... Not causation.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) Why are higher taxing nations more successful? Because the corporate tax structure is not that different or less then it is here. You're talking individual vs. corporate taxes IIRC (I'll have to look at Sweden, since you brought it up earlier). Taxes come from all different sources, not just individuals. And, individual tax brackets go down, the more times money turns in the economy. It's been proven. Abe, this is a good discussion, even if I disagree with a part of your premise. Thanks Kapko... Its a good point about corporate taxes also... One I'll have to investigate as well. On your wording, I wouldn't necessarily say that higher taxing nations are more successful per se. Just that they can be sucessful. And you are definitely right that as tax brackets adjust, more money does flow into the economy. I do think it does tend to be inflationary though... and its also a little inefficient cause not all that money stays in the American market. If it has a trickle down effect here, it also has a trickle down effect in other countries too. This has been a fun discussion for me. I'm pretty geeky about this, and I appreciate your thoughtful input Kapko.

Look, you cannot look to taxes as the only reason an economy succeeds. Its popular politically, but its analytically innacurrate. It does not explain economic growth in the 90's (after we raised taxes twice.) It does not explain why high tax nations succeed economically. Your position implies that only tax cuts can cause higher tax revenues... thats outright untrue. I find your characterization of Bush Sr/Clinton tax raises as "mere" still curious.... By comparison, Bush Jr's tax cuts were also "mere." If mere tax raises didn't hurt the economy, then why did mere tax cuts help it so much? Tax revenues are driven by economic performance. Our nations economy is driven by MILLIONS OF VARIABLES. The most important one is Monetary Policy. When interest rates are low, inflation is in check, and businesses have easy access to investment capital. This leads to bigger profits and bigger tax revenues. Tax cuts, are only a tiny variable in the equation that is economic growth. I've addressed this as throughly as I'm inclined to do in post #95. Here's my economic portrait of the early 2000's - Low interest rates, companies can borrow cheaper, investors want stock cause its return is better than the interest rate, home prices soar, people have more equity in their homes, profits on the sale of homes increase because they are worth more and buyers can borrow more (bc of low i rates), homeowners can afford to take equity out of their homes cause interest rates are cheap... All of these things have pumped HUGE volumes of money into the economy. Thats why tax revenues are rising. *** I don't place a lot of value in the National review. Its got a political agenda and this influences its economic outlook (as well as everything else).***

If all this is true, (and by every indication we have, it is) the prosecutor should just dismiss the damn case. These poor kids are gonna have their lives ruined... and it just doesn't look like the high burden of proof can be met.

Nuke, you're a nice guy. I appreciate your enthusiasm... particularly for our beloved white sox. We've gotten into heated arguments about topics here in the filibuster. Sometimes I feel bad about the way i respond to some of your posts. That said, your previous post makes me want to scream. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Budget deficits are a problem caused by government spending too much. To say that the tax cuts are causing the deficit is a discredited argument. Its a real easy equation. Tax Revenue - Spending = Deficit/Surplus. When you cut taxes, the government gets less money. If spending is flat (or even cut a little) deficits happen. Its not a discredited argument IN ANY WAY. I'm pretty sure even Reagan would agree with me. Here's a chart of budget deficits in recent american history. http://www.iatse728.org/home/deficitgraph.htm Its from the Congressional Budget office, so I'm not making this up. (I'd post it here, but You'll note that deficits are created when Reagan takes office. Then, when taxes are raised during Bush Senior and Clinton admins, we see surpluses. Then, when Bush Jr. takes office, we have deficits. Its real simple. When you cut taxes the government has less money. When the government has less money, you have deficits. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) One of my biggest issues with the Republican leadership in Congress is that they have made no effort whatsoever to rein in spending. The only reason the deficit is falling is that the increase in tax revenues are outpacing the increases in spending. Despite this you still have backwards idiots like Pelosi and Rangel running off at the mouth at how evil the tax cuts are. The only reason these 2 have any credibility is because their partisan class warfare bulls*** resonates well with their core constituencies ( socialists, poor people and anyone else who produces nothing and has their hand out ). I understand your frustrations with the Republican Congress. Its one thing I agree with you on. If you cut taxes, you should cut spending so that you can have a balanced budget. Otherwise you leave future generations with an enormous burden of paying off debt. Hey... i guess there's a war to pay for. Thats definitely accounted for a whole bunch of spending. And pork is a bi-partisan problem in and of itself. I'll get to your comment on socialism below. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) The Bush economy has proven for the 3d time ( Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush ) that tax cuts work, yet the left still clings to their marxist, wealth redistribution rhetoric. When will they ever learn? Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the top marginal tax rate north of 75% still when Carter was in office? This bothers me most. Theres a lot of democrats here. Who's a marxist? Who's a socialist? This is nuts. This is basically name-calling. Nobody here is calling for the massive redistribution of wealth so that everyone is equal. This is NOT the soviet union. The percentage of democrats who are marxists has to be less than a tiny fraction of a percent. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Also, if Im not mistaken, the Clinton tax hikes in 1993 only raised the top rate to something like 35%, if memory serves that was a mere 5% hike. George Bush tax cuts were 3% for all but the highest tax bracket. It was 4.6% cut for the highest bracket. (Source Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Tax_Act) So if you're willing to call a 5% hike "mere," then Bush's cuts were even more slight. I think if you are a believer in the theory that taxes drive an economy, the 90's should give you a wake up call. We raised taxes twice... and the economy still grew. For my real feeling son this, please read my previous post to the very respectable SS2K. Cutting taxes help.... a tiny bit. But not that much. If you look at when our economy has grown, it ALWAYS corresponds with interest rate control. Bush tax cuts have proven anything. Nuke, I don't expect you to agree with me. I doubt this post, or a million more just like it, would change your mind. To be honest, I'm just hopeful that some of the others on this board take a second to read it and maybe it makes some sense to them. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) It was 70%. Although Marginal Tax Rates are misleading, because actual income isn't necessarily taxable income and prior to the 198os tax code reforms, there were a lot more loopholes to reduce taxable income IIRC. It was 35% at the end of Reagan's term. Rex, you're right. Its true that the top tax was 70% but only a tiny few paid it. Tax shelters were rampant and the system was broken. I credit Reagan a great deal for cleaning it all up (Still doesn't change the fact that my kids are going to be paying for his budget management in 2060.)

5 years/70 million?! Those are serious numbers. If he gets more than that, I'll feel really happy about the deal we made with Paulie. If someone's going to give him more than that, it might be a certain free-wielding, money-dumping, american league team that wears pinstripes and is based out of New York which will remain nameless.

Jay marriotti is not talented. He's a hack. Anyone could write the garbage he spews. Someday he's gonna fall... and I can't wait for that to happen.

Tomorrow is the 98th Anniversary of the 1908 Chicago Cubs world series. I'm celebrating by sending a happy anniversary card to all of my cub-fan friends: It reads "October 14th, 1908 Happy 98th Anniversary... May you have many many many more." I've been waiting all year for this zing... like constanza waiting to use the "jerk store" line. Oh man, its gonna be great. I think I'll keep doing this for years to come.

This is really disappointing. He was the Democrat's best candidate. He's got that southern clinton-esqe thing working for him that would have been a nightmare for republicans.