IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Could it be that corporate revenue increased
because of the increased military spending and not because of the tax cuts?


In 2005 Corporate revenues increased considerably so it could be said the Bush economic policies are working as planned, but are they?

Corporate revenues increased due to the fact the Department of Defense contract awards doubled from $133 billion in 2000, to $269 billion in 2005 and further increased to $295 billion in 2006.


[link|http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_richard__071008_laugh_with_laffer_ov.htm|Laugh with Laffer] 
Seamus
New a very small part of it
the 162 billion*2% profit margin of large defence contractors then the taxes on that isnt that much. The 2% is a reliable figure from when I worked for such a company and all usg bids were costs + 2%
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Interesting use of stats
Jobs creation especially, considering Clinton's starting unemployment rate was almost 8% and Bush's starting point was about 4.

So, of course, they subtract the losses from the recession from 4 to 6 and then count the 6 to 4 and get only the increase in workforce between the 2 periods...so Clinton gets 4 points as a gimme PLUS the increase in workforce.

I love reading this stuff. Just continues to show you can prove both sides of an argument using the exact same stats.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
     Captives of the Supply Side - (Seamus) - (15)
         are tax revenues up or down? - (boxley) - (14)
             Down by some indicators. - (admin) - (2)
                 last time I checked Michigan isnt a supply sider state -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                     So? - (admin)
             Did you even read the opinion? - (Seamus) - (10)
                 couple of nits - (boxley) - (9)
                     C'mon box - (bepatient)
                     Your cites are mixing lots of things together. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                         Thats a pretty bold assertion they make - (bepatient) - (3)
                             I thought you argued that energy costs don't matter much? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 Huh? - (bepatient) - (1)
                                     I think we'll be paying the piper relatively soon. Images. - (Another Scott)
                     Could it be that corporate revenue increased - (Seamus) - (2)
                         a very small part of it - (boxley)
                         Interesting use of stats - (bepatient)

Oh, Dad! We're ALL Devo!
44 ms