Bush tax cuts

[momto2girls]

http://reason.tv/video/show/61.html

That was excellent! Thank you!

 

[Mr Man]

http://reason.tv/video/show/61.html

Beautiful and apropo for this entire thread (and the innumerable just like it).

Nicely done.

ps. I kinda miss Drew Carey. Was wondering where he went.

 

[wardfamily1]

...ps. I kinda miss Drew Carey. Was wondering where he went.

Are you serious?

He's hosting The Price is Right now. It's pretty appropriate isn't it, he's hosting a show that's all about how much stuff costs.

 

[Mr Man]

Are you serious?

He's hosting The Price is Right now. It's pretty appropriate isn't it, he's hosting a show that's all about how much stuff costs.

LOL sorry about that. That is very appropriate. He should know.

My TV is always on DisToons or Nickolodeon........

It's sad, really.

 

[connorlevismom]

There was a Budget Board thread a week or so ago asking about buying gallon milk on sale and then freezing it... Not for me! Yes, I realize you just shake it and it goes back together, but I'm a weenie.

Did you miss the thread that suggested taking whole milk and mixing it with water to get the consistency of 1 percent milk? That'd save a couple of pennies for sure!

Is there a smiley that vomits????? That just sounds disgusting!
Kristine

 

[CPT Tripss]

OK, that's it! Now I've had it with him!!!

He's not getting my vote next time!

With friends like Katherine Harris, he don't need your stinkin' vote.

 

[mill4023]

From my example before:

Array = {1,2,2,2,5,10,20,30,40}
Median = 5
Mean = 12.44...

What in particular are you able to tell about contents of the array, given that the median is 5? The average is higher than 6 of the 9 data points.

As I said, a median is one data point. If that one person's income budged, it doesn't actually affect anyone else. If the average income budged, it actually doesn't detail anything--it states the total income divided by the people involved went up. That could mean the wealth accumulation like which happened in the Reagen years is still happening, where the rich get richer, and the poor didn't do so hot.

Check out the OMB's numbers for the Reagen years, if you need "facts" to hold to.

If you are out, have a great night!

I can't tell if you are intentionally being condescending or not. I know perfectly well what a median and a mean are so I'm not sure why you keep acting like you are trying to explain it to me.
What you can tell from the median of 5 is that half of the values are higher than 5.
If you believe both of those numbers are meaningless, than can you please explain what you are basing your opinion on? I'm very curious because you keep saying that the statistics I've posted don't matter. So what does matter? If it's not just your general perception of things, please tell me what it is?

On the other hand, you tell me statistics are irrelevant, then you suggest I look at statistics. Huh? Which is it?

Like I said, I find the median to be a more valuable stat to look at than the mean. You do understand that if the top 1% of income earners are rapidly increasing their vast wealth, it would create an increase in the mean, but would have no effect on the median, right? And if a small percentage of the super rich are getting richer while the middle class and the poor are getting poorer, the median would go down.

Since you brought up the Reagan years, between 1980 and 1988, the real(CPI, etc. adjusted) median income in this country increased by 15%. From 17,825 to 20,510 in 2005 dollars. Whether or not people chose to spend more and save less, resulting in a lower total wealth(if that's true) is irrelevant.

Again, PLEASE explain to me what evidence you have to support your viewpoint.

EDIT: I read your post again and it sounds like you are trying to say that the mean isn't important, but the median is. If that's the case, I completely agree with you, which is why I haven't been using the mean in my comments.

 

[LuvDuke]

OK, that's it! Now I've had it with him!!!

He's not getting my vote next time!

Saved me some cash. I would've bet good money you would vote for Bush again if you had the chance.

 

[mill4023]

Saved me some cash. I would've bet good money you would vote for Bush again if you had the chance.

Hmmm, if the choice was spending the next 4 years listening to Bush's bumbling speeches and the word nucular vs. listening to Hillary's laugh, it's a tough call.

 

[LuvDuke]

Hmmm, if the choice was spending the next 4 years listening to Bush's bumbling speeches and the word nucular vs. listening to Hillary's laugh, it's a tough call.

She does have a bit of a cackle. And Obama has such a smooth voice, he ought to be a lounge singer in his spare time.

 

[Charade]

She does have a bit of a cackle. And Obama has such a smooth voice, he ought to be a lounge singer in his spare time.

a bit? Old age has affected your hearing.

 

[LuvDuke]

a bit? Old age has affected your hearing.

You swine.

 

[Fizzgig]

I can't tell if you are intentionally being condescending or not. I know perfectly well what a median and a mean are so I'm not sure why you keep acting like you are trying to explain it to me.
What you can tell from the median of 5 is that half of the values are higher than 5.
If you believe both of those numbers are meaningless, than can you please explain what you are basing your opinion on? I'm very curious because you keep saying that the statistics I've posted don't matter. So what does matter? If it's not just your general perception of things, please tell me what it is?

On the other hand, you tell me statistics are irrelevant, then you suggest I look at statistics. Huh? Which is it?

Like I said, I find the median to be a more valuable stat to look at than the mean. You do understand that if the top 1% of income earners are rapidly increasing their vast wealth, it would create an increase in the mean, but would have no effect on the median, right? And if a small percentage of the super rich are getting richer while the middle class and the poor are getting poorer, the median would go down.

Since you brought up the Reagan years, between 1980 and 1988, the real(CPI, etc. adjusted) median income in this country increased by 15%. From 17,825 to 20,510 in 2005 dollars. Whether or not people chose to spend more and save less, resulting in a lower total wealth(if that's true) is irrelevant.

Again, PLEASE explain to me what evidence you have to support your viewpoint.

EDIT: I read your post again and it sounds like you are trying to say that the mean isn't important, but the median is. If that's the case, I completely agree with you, which is why I haven't been using the mean in my comments.

You're right, I'm getting fustrated. I've tried to explain with math, with philosophy, and with political theory our differences in opinion. I'm not doing so well with holding on to my sense of humor, am I?

Am I correct in saying that to you, the numbers seem to be the end all and be-all, and therefore they support your political position?

As in, the foundation of your political position is the numbers collected and created by the governmental organizations above?

Your daily life experiences outside of the average and median are meaningless, because you have the comfort of the national numbers? Numbers that mix Miami, Detroit, San Diego, and Hawaii together and result in medians, means, and various other statistical proof to basically annihilate the importance of YOUR EXPERIENCES and YOUR CHECKBOOK.

Every single citizen that walks into a voting booth (outside of Chicago, I grant you, Charade) votes INDIVIDUALLY. They don't usually walk in armed with a data sheet of the average selling price of their neighborhood or their 1040 for this year and last year.

Why is it that so much of your argument mixes 300+ million people together and tries to homogenize their experiences? Ya can't do it with defrosted milk (*wink*), so why is it so important for you to know that that one single household that becomes the median is doing better this year than last year?

Statistics are interpretable--that's my point of view. You interpret them differently than I do, and therefore we make different judgement calls.

Oh, and I'm still looking for the statistic about the Reagen years, but I'm terrified of my storeroom. I have a theory the book on Reagen I need is in there, though. Here's a link where it shows even a graph supporting Reagen excludes data by choice, with the accompanying argument as to why:
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/nr_01.html

"A common complaint about these figures is that they exclude capital gains, and therefore understate income at the top. However, the figures also exclude taxes. Average income taxes and payroll taxes among the top fifth of households amounted to $24,322 in 1990, according to the Census Bureau, but capital gains among the top fifth were only $14,972. To add the capital gains and not subtract the taxes, as some CBO figures do, is indefensible. Indeed, all CBO estimates of income gains are useless, because they include an estimate of capital gains based on a sample of tax returns. Since lower tax rates on capital gains after 1977 induced more people to sell assets more often, the CBO wrongly records this as increased income. It also ignores all capital losses above the deductible $3,000, and fails to adjust capital gains for inflation."

Note the growth of income from one year to the next in each percentage bracket. I'll try and dig up the wealth numbers for Reagen, if you're still interested.

 

[mill4023]

You're right, I'm getting fustrated. I've tried to explain with math, with philosophy, and with political theory our differences in opinion. I'm not doing so well with holding on to my sense of humor, am I?

Am I correct in saying that to you, the numbers seem to be the end all and be-all, and therefore they support your political position?

As in, the foundation of your political position is the numbers collected and created by the governmental organizations above?

Your daily life experiences outside of the average and median are meaningless, because you have the comfort of the national numbers? Numbers that mix Miami, Detroit, San Diego, and Hawaii together and result in medians, means, and various other statistical proof to basically annihilate the importance of YOUR EXPERIENCES and YOUR CHECKBOOK.

Every single citizen that walks into a voting booth (outside of Chicago, I grant you, Charade) votes INDIVIDUALLY. They don't usually walk in armed with a data sheet of the average selling price of their neighborhood or their 1040 for this year and last year.

Why is it that so much of your argument mixes 300+ million people together and tries to homogenize their experiences? Ya can't do it with defrosted milk (*wink*), so why is it so important for you to know that that one single household that becomes the median is doing better this year than last year?

Statistics are interpretable--that's my point of view. You interpret them differently than I do, and therefore we make different judgement calls.

Oh, and I'm still looking for the statistic about the Reagen years, but I'm terrified of my storeroom. I have a theory the book on Reagen I need is in there, though. Here's a link where it shows even a graph supporting Reagen excludes data by choice, with the accompanying argument as to why:
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/nr_01.html

"A common complaint about these figures is that they exclude capital gains, and therefore understate income at the top. However, the figures also exclude taxes. Average income taxes and payroll taxes among the top fifth of households amounted to $24,322 in 1990, according to the Census Bureau, but capital gains among the top fifth were only $14,972. To add the capital gains and not subtract the taxes, as some CBO figures do, is indefensible. Indeed, all CBO estimates of income gains are useless, because they include an estimate of capital gains based on a sample of tax returns. Since lower tax rates on capital gains after 1977 induced more people to sell assets more often, the CBO wrongly records this as increased income. It also ignores all capital losses above the deductible $3,000, and fails to adjust capital gains for inflation."

Note the growth of income from one year to the next in each percentage bracket. I'll try and dig up the wealth numbers for Reagen, if you're still interested.

I'll just address a couple of your questions and comments, then I think I'm done. I'm ready to go back to talking about Disney stuff.

No, the numbers are not the be-all and end-all. It's certainly fair to question the methods that were used to calculate them and make your own decisions about how those methods may or may not have made those numbers a good representation of what is really going on. And obviously, the numbers do not describe everyone's personal experience. The reason I keep talking about medians as a representative view of how 300 million people are doing is because it's the only thing that makes sense. I know you cannot describe every individual person by looking at a median. But you sure as heck can't describe every individual person in this country by looking at your personal experience or the experience of the tiny percentage of the country who you know.
And you certainly can't describe reality based on a few people's feelings. If I were to base my viewpoints on my personal experience and what I see in my everyday real life, I'd be convinced that the housing market in this country is in good shape. I'd tell you that houses are taking a little longer to sell, but that they are still increasing in value and have been for the past 2 years. I'd tell you that house prices are up about 10% in the past 2 years. Would all of those statements based on my real life experience make it true for the whole country?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Everyone's individual experience is different, like you said. The problem is that if you base your views on your individual experiences, rather than considering everyone in the country, what you are really doing is ignoring everyone in the country except for that very small group of people who you know or have talked to. And even then, you are relying on their feelings, which can be strongly influenced by all kinds of outside sources. One person hears a few people talk about how bad things are and they start to believe it and talk about it, etc., etc.

So no, the numbers aren't perfect and of course you have to look at how they were calculated and consider any bias of the organization doing the calculating. Which is the reason I didn't post any statistics from conservative organizations. No, the median doesn't tell you about every individual. But it at least takes everyone into account and looks at them as a whole. The alternative is to look at personal experience and feelings, which in reality means you are ignoring the 99.9999% of the country who you haven't talked to.

But I guess the way I look at things with a scientific background puts me in the minority here. Otherwise, Airborne wouldn't be so popular.
And I dont' mean that in an insulting way. It's just a matter of being skeptical and wanting to see numbers and real proof.

Oh, and for the record before I go (cause I'd rather not get labeled here as a Bush/Limbaugh/Coulter worshipper),
I'm not a Bush fan and I'll be glad to see him go.
I voted for Clinton twice.
I think big spending and debt is bad.
I completely support gay marriage.
I don't go to church.
I'm not rich.

Have fun everyone!

 

[Fizzgig]

I'll just address a couple of your questions and comments, then I think I'm done. I'm ready to go back to talking about Disney stuff.

No, the numbers are not the be-all and end-all. It's certainly fair to question the methods that were used to calculate them and make your own decisions about how those methods may or may not have made those numbers a good representation of what is really going on. And obviously, the numbers do not describe everyone's personal experience. The reason I keep talking about medians as a representative view of how 300 million people are doing is because it's the only thing that makes sense. I know you cannot describe every individual person by looking at a median. But you sure as heck can't describe every individual person in this country by looking at your personal experience or the experience of the tiny percentage of the country who you know.
And you certainly can't describe reality based on a few people's feelings. If I were to base my viewpoints on my personal experience and what I see in my everyday real life, I'd be convinced that the housing market in this country is in good shape. I'd tell you that houses are taking a little longer to sell, but that they are still increasing in value and have been for the past 2 years. I'd tell you that house prices are up about 10% in the past 2 years. Would all of those statements based on my real life experience make it true for the whole country?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Everyone's individual experience is different, like you said. The problem is that if you base your views on your individual experiences, rather than considering everyone in the country, what you are really doing is ignoring everyone in the country except for that very small group of people who you know or have talked to. And even then, you are relying on their feelings, which can be strongly influenced by all kinds of outside sources. One person hears a few people talk about how bad things are and they start to believe it and talk about it, etc., etc.

So no, the numbers aren't perfect and of course you have to look at how they were calculated and consider any bias of the organization doing the calculating. Which is the reason I didn't post any statistics from conservative organizations. No, the median doesn't tell you about every individual. But it at least takes everyone into account and looks at them as a whole. The alternative is to look at personal experience and feelings, which in reality means you are ignoring the 99.9999% of the country who you haven't talked to.

But I guess the way I look at things from the viewpoint of facts and scientific method puts me in the minority here. Otherwise, Airborne wouldn't be so popular.

I couldn't help but chuckle at your Airborne crack. I soooo agree with you after reading the back of the box.

I think we come to an understanding here. You appreciate the individual experience, but temper that belief with the national figures? I think I like the reality check of statistics, but I don't create my political belief system from those man-made statistics.

I got froofy English Toffee coffee, if you want some?

 

[LuvDuke]

Oh, and for the record before I go (cause I'd rather not get labeled here as a Bush/Limbaugh/Coulter worshipper),
I'm not a Bush fan and I'll be glad to see him go.
I voted for Clinton twice.
I think big spending and debt is bad.
I completely support gay marriage.
I don't go to church.
I'm not rich.

Have fun everyone!

With that last laundry list, you can stop and chat with me anytime.

 

[mill4023]

With that last laundry list, you can stop and chat with me anytime.

I tried to stay away, but couldn't help taking a peek. Doh, there's a reason I try to avoid getting into these discussions in the first place.

But yeah, I figure if I can manage to make both sides mad at different times, then I'm doing ok.

 

[Charade]

My facination with this thread has resulted in a whopper of a headache.

Statistics, bleh. I think Eddie Murhpy had it right in Trading Places with his GI Joe, with the Kung Fu grip, analogy.

 

[Mr Man]

My facination with this thread has resulted in a whopper of a headache.

Statistics, bleh. I think Eddie Murhpy had it right in Trading Places with his GI Joe, with the Kung Fu grip, analogy.

That's why I switched to bad jokes. I have more (groan).

Today the IRS gave some guidelines on how to avoid getting audited. Number one, don't list deductions that will raise a red flag. Number two, make sure you file on time. Number three, don't make any stupid anti-war speeches at the Academy Awards." —Jay Leno

Do you realize that some tax forms ask you to check a box if you are BLIND?

Q: How do you humble a person that flaunts their wealth?
A: Have them fill out a tax return.

What's the definition of a good tax accountant?
Someone who has a loophole named after him.

For every tax problem there is a solution which is straightforward, uncomplicated and wrong.

Death: "to stop paying taxes suddenly."

 

[Macca1111]

Why are people (like many republicans) saying the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth?

Because they're morons.