Today’s conservative anger is built upon an illusion

Today’s conservative anger is built upon an illusion

In a column on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, blogger Jay Bookman argues that conservative outcry over 'outrageous' tax increases and government spending on federal jobs is unfounded and unsupported by the facts. He presents a pretty decent case, too.


Here are some charts/figures presented:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/abecc26204e7.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c49813fc6e34.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/92dad5702fea.jpg[/atsimg]


This is the source of his information:

www.taxfoundation.org...

It seems the Tax Foundation (site linked above) is actually a DC-based, Conservative, anti-tax, tax research think-tank. Certainly not Liberal propaganda to deceive us into a Communist takeover and global government ...


So what does everybody make of this? Can anybody provide further information on this? Has this provided interesting/new information to anybody? Fire away! (but please don't flame)

My advisory: beware government control BUT also (especially now) beware the movement that claims revolution but serves only the needs of the rich, privileged, and in-business (who essentially run our Plutocracy anyway).

The data provided doesn't seem to cover the Obama era [Edit: Apart from the first graph] Since Obama seems to be the president that sparked much of this 'Conservative anger', the lack of data from the last six months to a year or so is not very helpful. If anything this seems to be yet another article aimed at portraying 'the other side' as stupid.

Under Obama's first fiscal year of HIS Administration, the Federal Deficit is Down 8%.

So much for the Republican case of Democrats = Budget Deficit, Democrats = High taxes, Democrats = Communism. Any boogeyman you can think of just say Democrats = (Insert Boogeyman).

The anger that the Tea Party and others feel is justified. But as the information you posted proves, that anger has been misplaced. Perhaps a better descriptive is misdirected. On the other end of the spectrum, there is a vocal (but not organized) group of real (as opposed to the globalist) progressives that are every bit as angry, and are focusing their anger in the wrong direction as well. People need to look past the group of sock puppets passing as our elected officials. They need to look past the group of people who hold different political ideas on how to get to the place that we ALL want to get to. There is more than one road to reach our destination, but we keep cutting each other off, knocking ourselves into the ditch on the side of the road, while the huge tractor trailers full of globalist bankers and greedy industrialists zoom past us, not even taking the time to crane their necks to look at the wreck.

This country is like a house divided, but the foundation has been eaten away by termites, and is ready to collapse. What we have to do is build another house we both can live in. But we need to work together to rebuild the foundation. We can worry about the small details of what style door to install or what color shingles to use AFTER we have a foundation and a frame to build upon. But we spend so much time arguing over what shade of beige we should paint the living room, that we will never get around to building the room we want to paint!

PEOPLE!!

Focus your anger upon those who are your true enemies--not merely your philosophical or political rivals. Rivalries make each side better and stronger. Jefferson and Hamilton were the greatest of men, and the greatest of rivals, and their lives will forever be entwined with one another. They were better men BECAUSE of their differences. They built their house together.

Now your enemies, these people won't stop until they kill you, or remove every part about you that they perceive as a threat. Learn who these people are. Read their writings. Study their history. It's there for all to see--they make no secret about it. Do not let their schemes distract you. Do not let their lies manipulate you. Do not trust the words they speak to you. Do not let their vision cloud yours. Do not let them win this most deadly of races, because in the end, it's winner take all, and they have a huge head start.

They do not play by rules. They made them for us, They are not subject to laws. They are the law. Every subject that you studied in public school, was developed and implemented by them-- to become a functional drone in their factories and farms. You were born into their system. So were your parents. So were theirs. The game they play is divide and conquer. Keep us distracted. Keep us entertained. Keep us dumbed down. While they continue with the plans that were written decades ago. Their endgame is tyranny--a scientific dictatorship. Individuality will be snuffed out. Your dreams of a better life will be snuffed out. Their Eugenics program has reemerged again. Your very lineage will be snuffed out. We are useless eaters. We are now expendable. The time to act is growing short.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
The data provided doesn't seem to cover the Obama era [Edit: Apart from the first graph] Since Obama seems to be the president that sparked much of this 'Conservative anger', the lack of data from the last six months to a year or so is not very helpful. If anything this seems to be yet another article aimed at portraying 'the other side' as stupid.

edit on 14-9-2010 by LeftWingLarry because: (no reason given)

Do you REALLY think much has changed to those figures in the past 2 years that warrants such outrage? Highly unlikely.

And do you REALLY deny that right-wingers in this country are generally quite politically ignorant? I don't.

Here, I took the pains to dig up the figures for ya:

Federal Receipts as a Percentage of GDP - 1930-2015:
www.whitehouse.gov...

SOURCE:
Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2015
www.whitehouse.gov...

The above statistics/figures would correspond with the 3rd chart I posted. They show that federal receipts (i.e. revenues) as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) actually DECREASED from 17.5% in 2008 to 14.8% in 2009 and are projected to remain at 14.8% for this year as well.

As for the other two graphs, I can't find up to date information from the IRS on 2008-2010, however it's quite unlikely the figures have changed much. Have you heard of any grand changes in income tax rates as a percentage of income? Through all the noise of "OBAMA'S INCREASIN OUR TAXES OMG!!!1" the facts filtered through to show that most Americans actually got a TAX BREAK: www.cbsnews.com...

As for government payrolls... I haven't heard of any massive influx of government jobs being added on; the current levels are probably consistent with the graph I posted. If you can find more info, please share it.

Originally posted by Misoir
Under Obama's first fiscal year of HIS Administration, the Federal Deficit is Down 8%.

So much for the Republican case of Democrats = Budget Deficit, Democrats = High taxes, Democrats = Communism. Any boogeyman you can think of just say Democrats = (Insert Boogeyman).

You need to read the full article, it is down 8% from the previous year... meaning they still borrowed an astronomical amount of money, just a bit less than the astronomical amount from last year.

Hey, instead of a Trillion.5 it is only a Trillion.3 and change (example) borrowed. It still blows, it is still insane.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Of course, you can prove anything that you want, by selectively picking the parameters. A much fairer look at tax rates is provided here:

www.truthandpolitics.org...

It shows the top marginal rate for every year since its inception, through 2003.
Of course, the top marginal rate, which has ranged from a low of 7% to a high of 94%, does not tell the whole story, and in fact, obscures more significant data, such as average tax rate, percentage of people in each bracket, etc. In addition, other factors, such as what goes into the calculation of Total Gross Taxable income, tax credits, etc. make comparisons almost impossible. Furthermore, since social security taxes have increased, both in rates and in upper limits, comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Tell me what you want to prove, and I can find data to prove it, as well as other data to disprove it. It's called marketing.
Common examples are the auto insurance commercials you see on TV. Every company states how much the average driver saved by switching from Company X to their company. However, that, is of course, a completely MEANINGLESS statistic. People whose premiums are LESS with Company X won't SWITCH, so of course, the people who switched saved money.

Listen closely to every commercial on TV, and listen for the operative words. As I said, you can prove anything you want with statistics. The question is- are those statistics meaningful to the situation at hand? In the case of the OP post, the answer is NO.

Exactly; the right is finally starting to be exposed for how ridiculous it is! The 2012 presidential primaries are going to be hysterical to say the least. Every single democrat president in the past 50 years has brought us out of debt or close to out and every republican has done the opposite.

reply to post by infolurker


Conveniantly you forgot to read this part of my thread.

While this is not some great drop and is still beyond horrifying for our nation, it is still a rather good sign for the economy. It just shocks me that with the Stimulus, Unemployment Extension, State Jobs bill, etc... The Deficit went down 8% anyway. That is truly a shock to me.

We all know that under Democrats the deficit usually goes down... even if it is just 8%.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Of course, you can prove anything that you want, by selectively picking the parameters. A much fairer look at tax rates is provided here:

www.truthandpolitics.org...

It shows the top marginal rate for every year since its inception, through 2003.
Of course, the top marginal rate, which has ranged from a low of 7% to a high of 94%, does not tell the whole story, and in fact, obscures more significant data, such as average tax rate, percentage of people in each bracket, etc. In addition, other factors, such as what goes into the calculation of Total Gross Taxable income, tax credits, etc. make comparisons almost impossible. Furthermore, since social security taxes have increased, both in rates and in upper limits, comparisons are virtually meaningless.

I visited your website (and double checked another to make sure) and it seems on the up and up as far as marginal tax rates. However... it seems that marginal tax rates are at a relatively/historically low level... certainly not the lowest, but definitely on the low end of marginal tax rates over the past century.

I can see how average tax rate might constitute more significant data... though I still ask you to provide such data AND an explanation of exactly how it presents a more valid perspective on tax rates than the graphs I provided. However, I do not see how percentage of people in each bracket could be more statistically significant than even marginal tax rates (which, remember, are levied ONLY after a certain income level has been reached- i.e. the wealthy). Please explain that and also how increases in social security taxes render comparisons meaningless.

Certainly I can see how tax credits and tax considerations could factor into the perspective as well... especially where the bottom 40% don't really pay income taxes via certain credits/considerations. However, I must ask- what's wrong with that? The top echelons of income earners have the vast majority of the wealth/income of this country while the majority of the population works generally no less hard but comes out much shorter. Marginal taxes and higher tax rates on the rich help to balance out a system which arbitrarily/unfairly rewards vast wealth to those who may have earned it via the system but haven't typically worked harder or provided a proportionate benefit to society over the rest of the poorer population.

Tell me what you want to prove, and I can find data to prove it, as well as other data to disprove it. It's called marketing.
Common examples are the auto insurance commercials you see on TV. Every company states how much the average driver saved by switching from Company X to their company. However, that, is of course, a completely MEANINGLESS statistic. People whose premiums are LESS with Company X won't SWITCH, so of course, the people who switched saved money.

Listen closely to every commercial on TV, and listen for the operative words. As I said, you can prove anything you want with statistics. The question is- are those statistics meaningful to the situation at hand? In the case of the OP post, the answer is NO.

edit on 15-9-2010 by ProfEmeritus because: typo

I know full well the deceptions inherent in marketing/commercialism. I also know that statistics and semantics can be manipulated to argue any case you want (at least to a layman who doesn't have a full grasp of the statistics/terms). However, even the car insurance commercials admit (even if half-assed) that we may find a cheaper bargain at another company, but usually the argument is that somehow their company is more likely to deliver the best prices to the most people. Regardless, I think Geico commercials still don't have much to do with what we're specifically discussing. What specifically about the statistics I provided (or the operative words) renders them useless or meaningless to the situation at hand?

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Do you REALLY think much has changed to those figures in the past 2 years that warrants such outrage? Highly unlikely.

If a person attempts to use statistics to demonstrate that a president (namely Obama) isn't actually doing too badly, having statistics which actually cover his period in office is certainly necessary.

And do you REALLY deny that right-wingers in this country are generally quite politically ignorant? I don't.

Being from the UK I wouldn't really know, although since they're generally the same people who voted for Bush twice then I'd have to say I agree with you.

-- Snip sources --

Cool. I was pointing out the flaws of the blog rather than arguing a point.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by infolurker

 

Conveniantly you forgot to read this part of my thread.

While this is not some great drop and is still beyond horrifying for our nation, it is still a rather good sign for the economy. It just shocks me that with the Stimulus, Unemployment Extension, State Jobs bill, etc... The Deficit went down 8% anyway. That is truly a shock to me.

We all know that under Democrats the deficit usually goes down... even if it is just 8%.

I didn't forget anything... It is like YOU going to a casino.... Last year you only lost 100 K and put your house in hock.... This year you did much better. You only went an lost 92K...... Yeah, great freeking job, you reduced your deficit /losses by 8% this year....