Yes, much of it is inflation, but we didn't go from inflation to deflation then back to inflation again right as the Bush tax cuts were passed.

Like you, I would like to see that graph normalized for inflation. You're right that it's not comparing the right kinds of terms, but I disagree that it means nothing. Revenue was coming down, then tax cuts, then it went up.

As far as inflation goes, the way we measure it now is a joke. If oil, food, and housing don't count, I'm not sure what the point of the quantity even is. Of course that's a different debate for a different day.

The first result from DuckDuckGo for me was this from Heritage Foundation:
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts

Interesting that it's giving us different results. I've never used DDG before on this computer.

Unfortunately not anymore. I looked this stuff up several years ago, getting federal revenue and tax rates from different sources. "Original research" I suppose. I don't remember which sites those were at exactly. It took me about half an hour, iirc.

Sorry I can't give you any better than that.

The Forbes link:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
has a very clear graph, showing the slope changing significantly (from negative to positive) when Bush changed the rate of the top bracket.

The first result I got was this:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

It has a pretty clear graph.

If the first two results for you were those two (particularly the first one, obamaftw.com, seems like it's going to be a bit partisan), I might questioning the biases of your search engine.

Of course search engines are smart, maybe each engine is giving each of us what it thinks we'll personally like :)

Revenue went up the year after the Bush tax cuts. Same for Reagan's tax cuts. People can debate why, and they can debate whether receipts would have been even higher without the tax cuts, but the idea that we "blew" or "spent" the surplus on tax cuts is simply false.

Google for "Bush Tax Cuts Increase Revenue," or look at the tables yourself. I've done both.

Yeah, every model has a different track, and some hurricanes follow one model and other hurricanes follow other models. Hurricanes are unpredictable. Just because this one lined up with a particular forecast doesn't mean that forecast is better in all (or necessarily any other) cases. It's like this for every single hurricane.

I know it's popular on here (and on the internet and media in general) to say that American stuff sucks and that Europe is better, but there isn't anyone pointing out the times when NOAA has the more accurate forecasts. It simply wouldn't be news that people would want to read.

The problem I have is that when times are good, governments spend the excess on crap, and then when it comes time to make cuts, they whine about how they'll have to cut essential services. We see it all the time with local governments as property taxes fluctuate. When revenues are down they say they have to cut police and fire departments and teachers, but there's never any talk about cutting what was _added_ during the fat years. We always had teachers and police and fire departments during the previous lean years, so what's the problem with going back to how it was?

We're seeing the same thing on the federal level, the difference being that there haven't been good times (ie: surplus) in over a decade. Replace "good times" with "when we're borrowing even more from China."

We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that? I think that's what the GP is getting at.

Should we make that law then? As soon as your building is paid for, you shall renovate it and rent it out? What if that's one of many other buildings he owns, the rest of which _lose_ money. What then?

Liberals talk about how horrible it is to judge the social morality of others, but they have no problem doing it economically.

The problem with your line of thinking is that if someone invests huge sums of money, time, and life, and makes a profit, they're evil and they should give that profit away, but if they take a loss, then well that's just their own fault for not being a better businessman.

I bet you could do 50-100% more on your own income. How many jobs do you have? Don't have your doctorate yet? That's what's wrong with personal liberty. Not everyone works up to their full potential.

See how ridiculous it sounds when you try to tell someone what they should and shouldn't be doing with their own money and their own life? Get your own life, and don't judge the actions of other people based on 5 sentences you read in a slashdot summary.

_The_ meme. Interesting take on a country that just re-elected the most income-distributing president of all time. We know he didn't win on his economic record. He won on the same kind of class warfare talk that you're giving right now.

How much is a "decent wage?" I hear people all the time talk about a "living wage" on here, but nobody puts a dollar figure on it. Give me something concrete. What should the high-school drop-out ditch digger (or whatever) who has learned no marketable skills make? What kinds of things should someone making a "living" wage be able to buy? What things are over the line? For example, how new a car, what kinds of food, cell phones, cable TV, how big of house or apartment? Should this "living wage" increase because people live in a certain area, or should we pay them more because they have a bunch of kids? I want to know what a "living wage" really means.

Also, how much more should a person with a degree make than this base "living wage." I mean a real degree which enables someone to produce something of value. I'm talking about engineering, or science, or something medical (and there are plenty of others), not philosophy or communications or something that qualifies you to be a barista.

Like the people here who worship Steve Jobs? I don't get CEO worship either, but I bet if you polled nationally, you'd find that most people _don't_ worship large corporation CEOs either. That said, I don't know what these people (most of them) do that commands the kind of money they make. No doubt many of them are _way_ overpaid, but I also bet you and I both have a lot to learn about what makes a large corporation tick.

Who should be the one making it not-fine? Maybe you don't like it, but are you suggesting that there should be law that if you own a building that you should have to bring it up to modern code and rent out space? Do you have any idea what the condition of that particular building is? (I don't). Should there then be law about how much he should rent the space out for? What's your master plan for this? Don't just spout off about how evil it is that he makes a profit. Tell us what he should do, and tell us what you think the role of government is in this situation, especially with respect to private property rights.

Think so? I'm going to call for citation on that one. Again, what's your end-game proposal here? Should the government force the banks to let homeless people live in bank-owned houses? What's the government's role in this?

I can tell you care deeply about the homeless. How many have you taken into your home to live with you? Should the government force you to take in homeless? So I guess it's fine for a room in your home to sit empty (or "spare") while there are people that live on the street, as long as you have a place to put your feet up and watch TV.

Please describe your moral code with respect to who should be giving what to whom in what situations, and who should be allowed to be on the receiving end.

I agree. We're all far to sensitive to being data mined. Sometimes companies use the information to actually help us.

Or maybe you could get all that stuff for "free" and have to pay more for your ticket. Would that make you happier?

A public account? What happens when someone from your class steals it and turns it in? I know where I went to school if two people turned in the same work, they both got an F.

The professors said they had tools for determining if code had been copied (supposedly which could see through easy stuff like variable name and comment changes). Who knows though. It never concerned me because I wrote my own code and didn't distribute it to others in my class.

Two things come to mind:

1. Cleanliness of the phone. Phones get dirty in pockets. Screens get smudged with grease. Pocket lint gets inside screen protectors and cases. Ever clean your phone and then love how "new" it feels? Ever take off a beat-up old case?

2. Age of the OS. I don't have an iPhone, but it stands to reason that a fresh install will be more responsive than the one in your pocket that's been collecting pictures, emails, etc for a year. I know my old Android phone (HTC Magic with 2.2) behaves like this.

I have one of those (TH-28A) on the desk behind me right now. The 28 is dual-band receive, transmit on 2m only. I think it was a great radio then, and still is now. Sure there's stuff better, but what I love about radio (as opposed to phones and computers) is that the one I bought in the 90s still works just as well now as it did then. While there are better radios now, the goalpost is in the same position as it was back then (hitting the repeater, talking on the same modes, etc).

That's total debt as it relates to GDP. That's not deficit, and deficit in dollars is what we were talking about. Obama's deficits are huge, there's no getting around it.

Further, the revenue has been off (some), but not by enough to make the current deficits not able to be owned by the current people in power:
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/growth-federal-spending-revenue

Really? We were having a civil debate, or so I thought. I _am_ critical of the GOP, and I think my other comments have easily shown that. Both parties have spent way too much money. Both talk a good game in abstract terms about doing something about it. Neither have. In recent history, the Democrats though have been much much worse in this department.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Analysis of spending and its ramifications is their job.

While that's exaggeration, I _still_ find it more palatable than the more-of-the-same talk that we're getting from the other side.