Unanswered Questions

[Rams]

(pls avoid...purporting a correlation without connection, I make a graph showing a direct correlation between a crapty economy and Butler in the Final 4, but that's obviously nonsense)

...

Do you know that after tax rates were reduced on the highest brackets (2003) that federal income tax revenues increased rapidly?

This pretty much sums up all right wing economic viewpoints.  They understand the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, yet they completely refuse to believe that it can apply to their theories.

It's not a theory it's a fact. 

Then prove it.

Eliminate all the other variables that could've caused the increase in federal tax revenues. For instance, how do you prove that the increase in revenue wasn't simply a result of the change in the course of the economic cycle from a period of recession to a period of rapid and substantial growth?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

(pls avoid...purporting a correlation without connection, I make a graph showing a direct correlation between a crapty economy and Butler in the Final 4, but that's obviously nonsense)

...

Do you know that after tax rates were reduced on the highest brackets (2003) that federal income tax revenues increased rapidly?

This pretty much sums up all right wing economic viewpoints.  They understand the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, yet they completely refuse to believe that it can apply to their theories.

It's not a theory it's a fact. 

Then prove it.

Eliminate all the other variables that could've caused the increase in federal tax revenues. For instance, how do you prove that the increase in revenue wasn't simply a result of the change in the course of the economic cycle from a period of recession to a period of rapid and substantial growth?

Not trying to prove it caused the revenues to increase.  Simply stating that revenues increased after the cuts.  Which is a fact.

Libs seem to think revenues went into some tailspin after those cuts.  They also think those cuts were only for the rich.  Both of these statements are completely false.

[Rams]

(pls avoid...purporting a correlation without connection, I make a graph showing a direct correlation between a crapty economy and Butler in the Final 4, but that's obviously nonsense)

...

Do you know that after tax rates were reduced on the highest brackets (2003) that federal income tax revenues increased rapidly?

This pretty much sums up all right wing economic viewpoints.  They understand the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, yet they completely refuse to believe that it can apply to their theories.

It's not a theory it's a fact. 

Then prove it.

Eliminate all the other variables that could've caused the increase in federal tax revenues. For instance, how do you prove that the increase in revenue wasn't simply a result of the change in the course of the economic cycle from a period of recession to a period of rapid and substantial growth?

Not trying to prove it caused the revenues to increase.  Simply stating that revenues increased after the cuts.  Which is a fact.

Libs seem to think revenues went into some tailspin after those cuts.  They also think those cuts were only for the rich.  Both of these statements are completely false.

So what's the point of stating that revenues increased after the cuts if you're not insinuating some causal relationship?  It seems as if you did exactly what you told everyone else not to do.

And while it's true that the cuts applied to everyone, they disproportionately (and by a VERY substantial margin) favored the wealthy.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

So what's the point of stating that revenues increased after the cuts if you're not insinuating some causal relationship? 

Read the rough ridin' thread, Rams.  The point was certain posters on this thread said those cuts caused the deficit.  I wanted to know if they knew that revenues went up after the cuts.  That it.  Period.  Nothing else.  Nothing is insinuated.

And while it's true that the cuts applied to everyone, they disproportionately (and by a VERY substantial margin) favored the wealthy.

Don't ride my ass about "insinuating" something without providing proof, then make a ridiculous statement like this . . . without proof.