home

The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:55:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The best way to end Thanksgiving...Live at Denver's Pepsi Center. They don't come on until 9:15 so I won't be posting again until very late.

For those of you online tonight, here's an open thread.

Update: Unbelievably great show. Every time I think they can't play better than the last time I saw them, they prove me wrong. This was the best I've ever seen them.

< Isikoff: Rove Takes Out Line of Credit | 1,000 th U.S. Execution Next Week >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread | 23 comments (23 topical)
    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    from Digby who as usual hits a home run.
    At this rather late stage in life, I'm realizing that the solid America I thought I knew may never have existed. Running very close, under the surface, was a frightened, somewhat hysterical culture that could lose its civilized moorings all at once. I had naively thought that there were some things that Americans would find unthinkable --- torture was one of them.
    Digby The America i loved never existed except in my mind and in the fairytales contained with history books that are feed to high school students. There was a brief time starting with FDR continuing through JFK where it at least seemed we were headed in a better direction. That was just a blip on the history timeline that defines the real America, not the America most imagine. We are now simply undoing most of that created during the liberal period and returning to the corporate oligarchy that defined this country. This is purposeful, this is explicity posed at the "right" path by many on the right and even some libertarians. Now its being done under the 2 excuses of the war on terror and globalization. The neoliberal economic train is going to run us all over. The corporation is supreme. The history of this country is based on the slaughter of others to advance the economic gain of a few. read "Bury my heart at wounded knee". Now its Iraqis that we salughter, whose next, Chavez and Venezula? How can I mourn the demise of an America that never existed?

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    Soccerdad: Or "Where have all the REAL Democrats gone?" When the leading Democratic candidate for president got there merely because she is the First Lady of a disgraced former president, one is forced to wonder about where the future leaders of the Dems are coming from - cuz it AIN'T the Senate. Another thing, Soccerdad: I don't think it was in any way coincidental that this relatively brief period of flourishing social justice (roughly 1932 to roughly 1968) occurred at a time when America began its ascendancy as a superpower. Social justice is ladled out to the masses only when it's in the interests of the oligarchy to do so. Now that corporations can dictate terms to entire nations, if not run them altogether, globalization has quashed the American oligarchy's need to be concerned with social justice. Now it's back to acquiring wealth and power through the barrel of a gun.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    lavocat - Can you expand on the gun barrel bit? I haven't had one pointed at me by GM...yet. Of course if they keep loosing money they may have to rob some banks to pay the benefits (and rightly so) they promised to retired GM workers. The stock market is at a 4.5 year high, unemployment is hovering around 5%, growth is in the 3 to 4% range.. Yes, no doubt about it, things are terrible. SD writes:
    Now its Iraqis that we salughter, whose next, Chavez and Venezula?
    Nope, although Mexico may do so. Free trade zones help the undeveloped countries, yet Chavez is against them. Perhaps it is beause Cuba is not included. Perhaps it is because he wants to keep his base poor and undercontrol. BTW - I notice you ignore LBJ, the Great Society and all the civil rights gains post Kennedy. Not to mention the defeat of the USSR and the booming economy brought on by Reagan's defense policies and tax cuts. Oh well, at least Chavez is sharing his oil and coke with poor folks in MA. ;-)

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lora on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    OK folks, as this is an open thread, back to my battle cry, election integrity. I really hope TalkLeft takes a hard look at this. Talk about politics and crime. Check this out at Common Wonders Here's a sample: "Off by 40 points, newspaper's predictions may be disturbingly accurate By ROBERT C. KOEHLER Tribune Media Services November 24, 2005 ...The story is about how America votes, and evidence that pandemic chaos and perhaps even centrally orchestrated malfeasance are accompanying the spread of electronic voting machines to the nation’s precincts. We know there’s cause to worry about the state of our democracy because of the historical accuracy of the Columbus Dispatch voter poll. ...Here’s the telling thing. The Dispatch, member in good standing of the mainstream media, has no interest in raising doubts about the integrity of the U.S. electoral system, and so hasn’t looked in that direction for an explanation of what voting-rights activist Bob Fitrakis called a polling error of “Landon beats FDR” proportions. ...But the spark won’t jump in the media mind. You know: Hmm, we have widespread confusion in the voting process, a recent GAO report that cites many glaring insecurities in e-voting, and our own polls indicating big victories that turn into big defeats. Could it be …? Nah! What are we thinking? This is the world’s greatest democracy. Relax." So, any of you out there who think we have a chance of making a substantial change at the polls in future elections, think again, or else get busy: lots to do and very little time.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    The stock market has little to do with the health of the economy, it has more to do with the short term outlook of investors. In any case its only concern is corporate profits not how those profits help the people in general or what the economic state of the average worker is. The fate of the American econonmy lies in the path and speed of the oncoming correction due to the record account deficit of the US. The uS economy has become almost completely a consumption based economy where the suppliers of that consumption are foreign. Thus, our economy more than at any previous time is now dependent on others. The financing of our account deficits by foreign central banks as opposed to foreign investors highlights the precariousness of our economic health. The continued neo-liberal march towards globailization must have as a consequence a decrease in the average economic health of the American worker. It simply cannot happen any other way. With the economies of so many countries intertwined, and with the loss of many good paying jobs the continued expansion of cheap, qualified, foreign labor will exert even more pressure on the American economy to reduce wages and benefits. Vocational school will teach potential workers how to say "do you want fries with that" in 7 different languages, as the only good paying jobs that wil left will be political or defense based. As the economies of China and India expand their markets for goods will dwarf ours, making us less important. American corporations are already bowing to presures from the EU. Unemployment if corrected for those who have given up looking for work is more like 7%, the participation rate is at an all time low and no its not due to increased retirements. Free trade zones in SA have and are zones for corporate plunderers from America, what Chavez is against is US plundering its resources and ultimately that is why Bush hates Chavez so much, Chavez has shut the usual American corporate bigwigs from making their billions. Of course the upper class in Venezula who want to do business with their counterparts in the US are also angry, Of course your attribution of a great recovery to Reagans policies is revionist history and completely wrong. But what else is new.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    TL, I doubt there are many 62 year olds that can jump around a huge stage for 2 plus hours night after night like Mick. Rock til you drop!

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    SD - If I remember correctly, revenues doubled during Reagan's 8 years. That money came from some place.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    and as we all know that doubling of revenues only represented a true increase of 18% because of the rise in prices see here and here

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    PPJ, that's a Hannity talking point that's demonstrably false.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    The stock market is at a 4.5 year high
    Jeez, would that have been since bushco took over? I mean by that 'took over' the largest surplus ever seen in the US econmy? And before, clinton took over the largest defecit ever seen, by bush1/reagan, and turned it into the largest surplus. unemplo yment figs are down only because the unemployed have already run out of their benes. So according to bushenomics, they don't count anymore. Now let's examine soup kitchens, charities, food stamps, oops, my bad, the rethugs just gutted food stamps, AFDC, Head Start and other programs so the rich can have another tax break. This is a country at war; the rethugs who own all branches have declared war on the poor and frankly, on our military, a lot of who rely on food stamps, (not to mention armor, bullets, health care, ... etc.) Please, please ask me for links!

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    Please, please ask me for links!
    Not that I disbelieve you Sailor, but the links vis a vis unemployment would be good to have.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    MD – Actually I heard of the “doubling” long before Sean Hannity… The quote simply says in Reagan’s 8 years, which would be 1981 through 1988. So why is the inflation adjustment used by Media Matters “FY2000” Constant Dollars” when the question /comment is strictly stated as Reagan’s 8 years …. ’81 thru ’88. FISCAL YEAR REVENUE IN CURRENT DOLLARS (billions) REVENUE IN CONSTANT FY2000 DOLLARS (billions) 1981 599.3 1,077.4 1982 617.8 1,036.9 1983 600.6 961.7 1984 666.5 1,016.8 1985 734.1 1,082.6 1986 769.2 1,107.3 1987 854.4 1,196.1 1988 909.3 1,235.6 It appears to me that by adding in 12 years of inflation (1988 to 2000) Media Matters is exhibiting a great deal of bias. But really, who is surprised at that? I mean if they just wait until 2010 and use constant 2010 dollars I am sure the result will be a smaller increase….. By 2030 the Left can probably claim that there was a decrease. I also wonder why the base year is shown as 1981 at 599.3B. Actually, the base should be from the total at the end of fiscal 1980, which means the base is what was collected in 1980, or 517.112B.(See SD’s first link.) Said another way, what was the increase from the Carter year of 1980 (517.112B) to the last Reagan year of 1988, or 909.3B. The increase from Carter to Reagan is 75%. Not a double, but certainly close enough for talk show work. ;-) So a healthy increase even though tax rates were slashed. Pity the Demo controlled Congress was spending it like a drunken sailor, not that the Repubs were all tight themselves. Interestingly enough, and again using SD’s first link – (Thank you SD.) - the increase during the Clinton years was from 1091.279 to 2025.218, or 85%. So the Clinton tax increase added very little, even though the economy was booming, though mostly through the Telcon/Internet bubble.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    ppj dishonest as usual.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    Sailor - We will, of course, be on the look out for decreases that are actual increases. Such as.... We wanted a 12% increase, but we only got 4% so the evil Repubs decreased our budget by 8%. Just wanted you to now.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    SD - Prove me wrong. The numbers are right there in front of you. As a matter of fact, supplied by you. Thanks again. ;-)

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    First as you should know Reagan increased taxes twice in 1982, and again in 1983,1984,1985, 1986, and 1987 in an attempt to stem the deficit brought about by his tax cuts. so that accounts for some of the increase and it didn't do away with the defict despite 7 tax increases. secondly to judge whether the increased revenues were due to policies or other factors one has to account for infaltion and changes in population when you do that tax revenue was $2,283 per person in 1980 and $2,694 per person in 1990. link link2

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    BTW the numbers do speak for themselves, inflation accounted for most of the revenues.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    You can't always get what you want. [King George, 2000] You can't always get what you want. [Invasion of Iraq] You can't always get what you want. [King George, 2004] But, if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need. [Dems take back control in 2006]

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    SD - As you know, Reagan did not increase FIT, which is the tax that most taxpayers are concerned with. As you also know, the number of poor taxpayers fell, leaving fewer people to be taxed, the average tax increased. Although I confess this seems to be of no importance.
    The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.
    Link As for your continuing fascination with inflation, that is mere Monday Morning Quarterbacking... When the cuts were made, the inflation didn't exist.. If we had some ham we would have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs. Plus, tax brackets were indexed in '85 to specifically account for inflation, so any increases thereafter are inflation free, which makes an even bigger HA HA of Media Matters BS comments.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    As for your continuing fascination with inflation, that is mere Monday Morning Quarterbacking...
    now this is just plain stupid.
    Plus, tax brackets were indexed in '85 to specifically account for inflation, so any increases thereafter are inflation free, which makes an even bigger HA HA of Media Matters BS comments.
    And this is irrelevant to the point at hand There are no lengths you wont go to to look dumb to justify Rep policies. Oh wait the sun is coming up. Yep everything as usual.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    SD - Huh? "Point at hand?" Let us revisit... Prior to 1985 the tax brackets were not indexed. So when millions of workers received raises based on COLA's and other inflation based guidelines for both union and non-union compensation plans, the result in many cases was that the worker was bumped into a higher bracket, which resulted in higher tax rates and higher revenues. With indexing, the worker was more apt to stay in the same bracket. i.e. The taxes owed were lower as they were based on the (same) lower rate. i.e. Revenue was more inflation neutral. A raise was not “stolen” by the tax man. I wonder why we never see that when the Left is arguing inflation in revenues? The use of "constant dollars" is basically nonsense to the question at hand, which was how much revenue was collected during Reagan's term, and what was the increase. So what do we care if 1988 dollars would be much higher in 2000? The question was the change. The answer, of course,, biased sources, want to do so. Consider this. When 1981 dollars are adjusted to 2000 Constant Dollars, they are increased 79%. When 1985 dollars are adjusted they are increased 47%. When 1988 dollars are adjusted they are increased 35%. With a higher beginning and a lower ending, you get a smaller change. So stupid? Irrelevant? I don’t think so, SD. You’re just trying to hide behind some numbers, hoping no one ever asks questions about them. So, I am wrong. Revenues didn’t double, they increased 75%. Of course in proving me wrong you have exposed the fake claims of the Left and how they attempt to use disingenuous arguments to confuse and mislead the public. Congratulations and thanks for the help. I hope you keep winning like this.

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    What utter and complete nonsense! I will waste no more time responding to such moronic drivel. PPJ says the sky is green thus it must be so

    Re: The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    SD – Your inability to answer proves my point. Snark away, matey! Darkly – Nice straw men. And yes I was referring to FIT on wages. You quote from your link:
    A complex package of investment incentives was approved in 1981 only to be gradually reduced in each subsequent year through 1985.
    The obvious question is, did the increases wipe out the original reduction? If not, Regan provided a net tax cut. (Remember we are talking about “Reagan’s years.”) And I’ll agree that this is a parsed comment. Once anyone gets a tax cut, a “take away” is regarded as a “tax increase” by the individual. You write:
    And in 1986 the base for the taxation of business income was substantially broadened, reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment. It is not clear whether this measure was a net improvement in the tax code.
    So in this case if the tax reduction of business investments held by an investor exceeded the increased tax on his investment in certain new investment, the individual had a net tax cut. Conversely, if the holdings were the reverse, the individual had an increase. The last sentence, tells the tale. (And is a major “tell.”) ;-)
    Overall, the combination of lower tax rates and a broader tax base for both individuals and business reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989.
    In other words the GDP growth, due to the tax cuts, reduced revenue’s share. As for the spending comment. Well, there you go again. Since the Demos had control of Congress they could have easily reduced spending. But, they didn’t.

    The Bigger Bang and An Open Thread | 23 comments (23 topical)