Two Florida school officials won't go to jail for praying

[kandrathe]

Total federal revenues are down by *sixty percent*? Where'd you get that figure?

Tax Revenues Post Biggest Drop Since Depression The 2008 revenue declined 20% overall. Accounting tricks aside, I believe the 2009, and 2010 actual revenues will also be declines. The flattening of the line that has occurred so far in 2009 is due to the 2 or is it 3 trillion dollars the government borrowed to drop from Keynesian helicopters on a struggling nation. Yes, they received unemployment which comes from the states, but was paid for by the feds bailout of state deficits. And, everyone was taxed on their unemployment benefits. And, everyone who was forced to dip into 401K's and IRA's was double taxed. Corporations that fed at the government teat may also show profits, and pay taxes. The revenue picture appears rosier than it really is, and it is all left pocket to right pocket movement. The left pocket is GDP, and the right pocket is the deficit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy201...ts/hist02z1.xls

I feel like we are lying to our sugar daddy... New in 2010.... Down is the new UP!

The "Obama doesn't get to be an American hero until he's a Libertarian hero" might make sense for you, but other people are hardly bound to follow your opinion on the matter. The deficit did not just triple suddenly from unsound management. It tripled (in the short run) because that was the advice of Obama's economists as to how to "rebuild a thriving economy".

No. His greatest accomplishment to date, in all of his political career, is to have been elected. What are his feats? He is not even a progressive hero yet. :)

On the economy; The optimists are projecting that 2007-2010 are a hiccup in an otherwise well oiled economy. My theory is that the tech bubbles and the housing bubbles were (engineered) anomalies that artificially showed growth higher than it is. We've hit the wall in terms of borrowing money and showing it as growth or increase in GDP. Before the latest crash I would have been able to go to my bank and borrow a million dollars based on my assets and income, but that would not make me a millionaire. Now, like everyone else, my assets are reset back to 1990's levels, which is probably closer to the reality of their actual worth. The bottom line; I think the OMB, and the presidents forecasts for revenue recovery in 2010 - 2014 are fictitious. They are overstated by perhaps as much as 30%. We can't go on borrowing money, then pretending we have growth and taxing everyone on it.

[Jester]

The numbers in that excel spreadsheet say exactly what I'm saying - that you're off by a huge margin. If those predictions are accurate, then US revenue has dropped by maybe 15%, 2008 to 2009. That's painful, but it's not a cataclysmic 60%.

"Helicopter money" isn't Keynesian. In fact, the whole concept was dreamed up by Milton Friedman specifically to counter the Keynesian notion of a liquidity trap.

No doubt, assets were overvalued in early 2008, and now they're not. That's what a bubble is, and that's what happens when it pops. Don't confuse GDP with net worth - they are measuring two very different things.

Both you and the administration are making predictions of the future, so of course they are "fictitious" - how could they not be? Are they fraudulent? Overstated by 30%? On what basis? They might be overly rosy, but 30% is a gigantic amount. The US has not run to the end of its borrowing rope, and that the world's most powerful economy is probably not about to collapse utterly under a higher debt load. Whether you see the kind of recovery necessary to sustain that load is an open question. I hope the answer is yes, but I have no magic to reveal the future - and neither do you.

-Jester

[Lissa]

No. That would be appropriate. I wish there were a song about MLK, and some of the other notable black heroes. I guess the other subtlety here is that they take popular Christian kid songs and alter the lyrics, which 1) becomes leftist propaganda, and 2) mentally associates Obama with the original songs subject. It's no longer "Jesus loves me", it becomes "Barrack Obama loves me". Dr. King is a historical figure who has become considered a great influence. While, President Obama, being the first non-white president is noteworthy, he hasn't yet earned his wings as an American hero. Tripling the deficit, while watching revenues plummet by 60% doesn't qualify as brave until we actually pull out of the nose dive and get control of our spending and rebuild a thriving economy.

This is pure cult of personality adulation. Set your clock back 8 years and ask how people would have reacted had there been kids singing the GWB song in any public grade school.

Also, there are far many more historical black hero's that truly deserve to be studied by school children.

So, the first half Black, half White President shouldn't be considered a hero to the Black community? The logic is astonding.

[Jester]

So, the first half Black, half White President shouldn't be considered a hero to the Black community? The logic is astonding.

Of course not. He has to cut his teeth as a fiscal hawk first.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The numbers in that excel spreadsheet say exactly what I'm saying - that you're off by a huge margin. If those predictions are accurate, then US revenue has dropped by maybe 15%, 2008 to 2009. That's painful, but it's not a cataclysmic 60%.

Right. But you ignored my source, which said 60%. 2008 revenues were last year, and the 15% number was the drop in individual income tax revenues because layoffs didn't begin in earnest until the last half of 2008. Unemployment benefits are taxed, and most people get some amount of severance. Lack of employment (% employed) continues to be a growing problem. We need to look at % employment because the government no longer measures people who fall out of the system when their benefits run out. Then you skipped the number on corporate tax revenue which was down 58% in 2008, and down more in 2009 when you look at quarterly returns. This is what forced the CBO and the White house to revise their forecast at midyear, in essence telling us they under-predicted the severity of everything.

"Helicopter money" isn't Keynesian. In fact, the whole concept was dreamed up by Milton Friedman specifically to counter the Keynesian notion of a liquidity trap.

Well Friedman took Keynes one better. Keynes had the idea of printing large sums of money and burying it in mine shafts to stabilize the economy, and Friedman had the notion to give it away.

No doubt, assets were overvalued in early 2008, and now they're not. That's what a bubble is, and that's what happens when it pops. Don't confuse GDP with net worth - they are measuring two very different things.

Value is someone elses idea of what things are worth. I was saying government spending is a large portion of GDP. Borrow more, spend more, bigger government, bigger GDP.

Both you and the administration are making predictions of the future, so of course they are "fictitious" - how could they not be? Are they fraudulent? Overstated by 30%? On what basis? They might be overly rosy, but 30% is a gigantic amount. The US has not run to the end of its borrowing rope, and that the world's most powerful economy is probably not about to collapse utterly under a higher debt load. Whether you see the kind of recovery necessary to sustain that load is an open question. I hope the answer is yes, but I have no magic to reveal the future - and neither do you.

What does you gut tell you? Mine is telling me things are worse, and probably much worse than we know. I think next year there are literally thousands of bomb shells that are going to rock the economy, from unfunded pensions, to major corporate bankruptcy, to more states like California becoming insolvent. The cash infusion is running out, and growth is still stagnant. Meanwhile, one in five, to one in ten workers are unemployed or underemployed who are continue to become insolvent. Credit markets will begin to collapse, and the insurance companies who write off that debt, and the banks who run things. Borrowing cannot fix things, it can only delay when the piper actually get paid.

[kandrathe]

So, the first half Black, half White President shouldn't be considered a hero to the Black community? The logic is astounding.

It is noteworthy, and historic, but Obama is not a hero... Yet. To me the hero is someone who does something heroic. I don't find it particularly heroic to go spend other peoples money.

[Jester]

Right. But you ignored my source, which said 60%.

You'll definitely have to be more specific, then. I didn't see anything in any of them that said anything even resembling 60%. Your first link said "Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year", which is far short of 60%. Your excel spreadsheet numbers are where I got the 15% from, and don't show a drop anywhere near 60%. The video mentions the deficit, but not revenues. Where's the evidence that I "ignored"?

2008 revenues were last year, and the 15% number was the drop in individual income tax revenues because layoffs didn't begin in earnest until the last half of 2008.

15% is the drop between the 2008 numbers and the forecasted 2009 numbers - total tax revenues, all sources.

Unemployment benefits are taxed, and most people get some amount of severance. Lack of employment (% employed) continues to be a growing problem. We need to look at % employment because the government no longer measures people who fall out of the system when their benefits run out.

What % of total taxes do you think come from recouped unemployment benefits? If it was as much as a single percent, I'd be pretty amazed.

Then you skipped the number on corporate tax revenue which was down 58% in 2008, and down more in 2009 when you look at quarterly returns.

No, I didn't. I just looked at total revenues - which is what we were talking about, right?

For what it's worth, the 58% number is the closest I saw to 60% - but only applies to corporate taxes. Other forms of tax revenue have fallen much less.

This is what forced the CBO and the White house to revise their forecast at midyear, in essence telling us they under-predicted the severity of everything.

Yes. This crisis was larger and more painful than initially imagined - hence why many economists are calling for a larger stimulus, 'cause this one isn't going to be large enough. However, just because things are worse than they once thought doesn't mean you can just make up whatever number you like about how bad they are. A 60% drop in revenue would be absolutely devastating - thankfully, it's not true.

Well Friedman took Keynes one better. Keynes had the idea of printing large sums of money and burying it in mine shafts to stabilize the economy, and Friedman had the notion to give it away.

I believe the idea was that people would dig it out, thereby stimulating the economy. Conceptually identical to the "pay people to dig holes and then fill them in again." All part of the big Keynesian idea - when deflation is looming, you want to crank the economy up at all costs - even if it means spending money in absurd ways. Of course, spending money in smart ways is much better, which is the idea of the stimulus. But anything that staves off deflation and gets money moving again is a good thing, in Keynes' view.

Friedman, good monetarist that he was, suggested a plan that involved nothing except manipulating the money supply - that is, printing money until inflation returns, then going back to the usual methods of controlling the economy through interest rates. I'm pretty sure that's not working right now, so we're back to Keynes.

Value is someone elses idea of what things are worth. I was saying government spending is a large portion of GDP. Borrow more, spend more, bigger government, bigger GDP.

Why, yes. That's the idea.

What does you gut tell you?

Since when is my gut an economic indicator? Or yours, for that matter?

Mine is telling me things are worse, and probably much worse than we know. I think next year there are literally thousands of bomb shells that are going to rock the economy, from unfunded pensions, to major corporate bankruptcy, to more states like California becoming insolvent.

The cash infusion is running out, and growth is still stagnant.

Aren't you the one always complaining that the Stimulus hasn't even gone out the door yet? The majority of the spending is still slated for the next year. Quite likely, another few hundred billion will be necessary, or at least desirable. But the impact of the currently approved spending is still mostly in the future.

Meanwhile, one in five, to one in ten workers are unemployed or underemployed who are continue to become insolvent. Credit markets will begin to collapse, and the insurance companies who write off that debt, and the banks who run things.

We'll see. The second round of housing defaults might well be quite ugly. However, that's not going to be solved by anything except more government spending. If people start saving, they'll stop spending, and that means more layoffs. More layoffs means more defaults. Gains from increased savings will be overwhelmed by paralyzed consumer demand, and the great depression will start all over again. What's the solution? A set of trillion-dollar jumper cables, apparently.

Borrowing cannot fix things, it can only delay when the piper actually get paid.

Yes. Specifically, it can delay it until a time when incomes are back up and unemployment is back down. Paying the piper now would be economic suicide.

-Jester

Afterthought: I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but a large part of the stimulus, especially the part that went through already, was in the form of tax breaks - which, definitionally, are going to show up as a drop in tax revenue. So, there you go.

[Chesspiece_face]

It is noteworthy, and historic, but Obama is not a hero... Yet. To me the hero is someone who does something heroic. I don't find it particularly heroic to go spend other peoples money.

Since when has Heroism been a requirement for study? It's not Black Heroism Month. It's Black History Month. The implication you and others seem to be making is that because they are singing a song that the topic of the song must be in adulation. I don't feel that is an appropriate implication. I feel that the singing of the song is only a tool for learning much like I used to sing songs listing the presidents or the states in school.

Lets take my previous point a step further; If the children in the video were singing that song about Marcus Garvey instead would we see any outcry what-so-ever? Marcus Garvey is most certainly a viable historical figure worthy of study. He's also a character of questionable heroism, as you put it, thus if one were to feel that the singing of a song about him implied adulation then one could make the point that this adulation was entirely out of place and unwarranted. Not to mention that so-called "indoctrination" to the beliefs of Marcus Garvey would be much more alarming than anything they could sing about Obama. Would we see all this uproar if that were the case? My answer is an unequivical NO. It would have never made it on the TV. This uproar is less about any inherant malfeasance and more about just playing politics with anything you can get your hands on.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that 90% of these pundit pinheads wouldn't know who Marcus Garvey was in the first place.

[kandrathe]

Since when has Heroism been a requirement for study? It's not Black Heroism Month. It's Black History Month. The implication you and others seem to be making is that because they are singing a song that the topic of the song must be in adulation. I don't feel that is an appropriate implication. I feel that the singing of the song is only a tool for learning much like I used to sing songs listing the presidents or the states in school.

There is a line, and this school crosses the line. They are promoting their political philosophy to impressionable minds. We were talking about brainwashing. As much as people might try to down play it, this school's history is one of partisan propaganda, which comes down to teaching that democrats and their platform = good, and conversely republicans and their platform = bad.

N.J. School Portrays Christians as Terrorists

[eppie]

There is a line, and this school crosses the line. They are promoting their political philosophy to impressionable minds. We were talking about brainwashing. As much as people might try to down play it, this school's history is one of partisan propaganda, which comes down to teaching that democrats and their platform = good, and conversely republicans and their platform = bad.

N.J. School Portrays Christians as Terrorists

My first reaction was: Please kandrathe, next time you bring up these examples in a discussion tell the whole story so that we don't first discuss in general terms and later see that you are only talking about a very specific case.

Then after reading the link I was reassured.....you use exactly the same discussion and writing methods as those morons that wrote that article. Just holding a terrorism training (which might be sensible in the US if you think the chance of terrorist attacks is high) is painted as anti-christian because in this case they didn't use a big bad commy muslim as terrorist.....please.

To me this school is a neocon following school seeing they believe that there really is a big chance of an attack on their school.:wacko:

[Jester]

N.J. School Portrays Christians as Terrorists

For those of us who treasure our logical operators, there is a very large distinction between "N.J. School Portrays All Christians as Terrorists" and "N.J. School Portrays Terrorists who are Christians."

Rather an important distinction, no? Is it particularly implausible that an act of terrorism would be carried out by Christian fundamentalists? I wouldn't think so. It seems like the whole scenario was cooked up by the police, who were running a test of their emergency system.

This is all rather trivial, though. The state is present in every public school. How widespread is this? Schools are a diverse lot (hello, Wiccan), and there are lots of them. Just because a handful of them do any given thing doesn't mean there's an endemic problem. I don't believe Pace High School represents the general state of public education - do you believe that Burlington does? These are outliers.

I recall there was some nutsoid teacher up in Alberta who was teaching his kids anti-semitic garbage - but that doesn't mean Alberta schools are generally imposing anti-semitism, only that there was a teacher who was off his rocker.

Also, as Pete quite rightly pointed out, while it might not be ethical to promote a given political philosophy in schools, it's not unconstitutional - whereas promoting religion is.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

My first reaction was: Please kandrathe, next time you bring up these examples in a discussion tell the whole story so that we don't first discuss in general terms and later see that you are only talking about a very specific case.

This is not the only school in America where leftists are "brain washing" our children. We were talking about brain washing.

Then after reading the link I was reassured.....you use exactly the same discussion and writing methods as those morons that wrote that article. Just holding a terrorism training (which might be sensible in the US if you think the chance of terrorist attacks is high) is painted as anti-christian because in this case they didn't use a big bad commy muslim as terrorist.....please.

Burn your straw man. It would be equally inappropriate to portray the terrorists as Saul Alinsky loving Berkeley socialists.

To me this school is a neocon following school seeing they believe that there really is a big chance of an attack on their school.:wacko:

Are you high, insane or just ignorant? Seriously though, what does neocon have to do with any of this?

[kandrathe]

Also, as Pete quite rightly pointed out, while it might not be ethical to promote a given political philosophy in schools, it's not unconstitutional - whereas promoting religion is.

I agree. We were talking about "brain washing" impressionable minds. This was why it was criminal to allow a grace to be said before a meal. Corrupting youth is a serious business, as Socrates learned the hard way.

[kandrathe]

Afterthought: I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but a large part of the stimulus, especially the part that went through already, was in the form of tax breaks - which, definitionally, are going to show up as a drop in tax revenue. So, there you go.

The unemployed have the largest tax break, and the unemployed who have run out of unemployment benefits have it even easier.

As to the rest of your post... it is a perfect statement of why we disagree. The facts are in the numbers, and if you dig around and look at the quarterly numbers for 2009 you will see what I'm talking about. The bulk of the "stimulus" bill was not stimulus, it was bail out money that was spent on social services. It was a multi-trillion dollar economic anesthetic to numb the pain for a few months or so. It will wear off.

I'll leave it at that.

[Jester]

I agree. We were talking about "brain washing" impressionable minds. This was why it was criminal to allow a grace to be said before a meal.

You really aren't going to stop with this, are you?

All the following ducks have to be in a a row for this to be unconstitutional:

1) Government
2) Promotion of religion
3) No clear secular purpose

This is the clear meaning of the first amendment, as it is currently interpreted by the courts: no official support for religion in school. Not that saying grace is illegal, or that teachers aren't allowed to be religious, or whatever the heck else you keep implying.

You also keep ignoring the context: this is not about one incident where some dude said grace, and was hauled to court. This is a school where *overt religious indoctrination* was the norm, at school assemblies, in the teacher's manual, everywhere. When the ACLU took them to court, the Principal *admitted that this was all true* and got an injunction against them to stop with the unconstitutional preaching. This story is about when they *violated that agreement*, and got dragged back to court. Courts said it was an accident, fine. But this is not just some guy saying grace.

-Jester

[Jester]

The unemployed have the largest tax break, and the unemployed who have run out of unemployment benefits have it even easier.

The unemployed have the largest tax break relative to their income. They surely don't have the largest tax break in absolute numbers - which would be what matters for total revenues. They just don't pay enough total taxes, for the obvious reason that they're really poor.

As to the rest of your post... it is a perfect statement of why we disagree. The facts are in the numbers, and if you dig around and look at the quarterly numbers for 2009 you will see what I'm talking about. The bulk of the "stimulus" bill was not stimulus, it was bail out money that was spent on social services. It was a multi-trillion dollar economic anesthetic to numb the pain for a few months or so. It will wear off.

Yes. The facts are in the numbers. On this much, we agree. Now, could you please either a) show me where they support your statement that revenue is down 60%, or b ) admit that revenue is not down 60%?

I don't even see where you've given quarterly numbers... do you have some?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Yes. The facts are in the numbers. On this much, we agree. Now, could you please either a) show me where they support your statement that revenue is down 60%, or b ) admit that revenue is not down 60%?

Corporate tax revenue is down 60%. That was the 60% number I quoted. But if you want to look at the current situation overall...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/...enue-down_N.htm

That was after Q1...

http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/08/fe...plummeting.html

This guy charts overall Tax Revenues down 18% for 2009, after a decline of 15% in 2008... That is 33% so far... Add in the losses from SSI, Transportation, and other sources and we're getting close to 60% overall. There are many, many things that are now unfunded that were depending on a stable economy. Since income taxes are a pretty taboo subject, governments have relied on other mechanisms for revenue generation.

[Jester]

Corporate tax revenue is down 60%. That was the 60% number I quoted. But if you want to look at the current situation overall...

Are you trying to make my head explode or something? You said:

Tripling the deficit, while watching revenues plummet by 60%...

You didn't say "corporate tax revenues". You said "revenues". That changes it from approximately right to very wrong - which was my whole point.

This guy charts overall Tax Revenues down 18% for 2009, after a decline of 15% in 2008... That is 33% so far... Add in the losses from SSI, Transportation, and other sources and we're getting close to 60% overall. There are many, many things that are now unfunded that were depending on a stable economy. Since income taxes are a pretty taboo subject, governments have relied on other mechanisms for revenue generation.

Okay, so, despite the fact that you have no actual numbers to support your assertion, you just kind of add stuff up (I'm pretty sure you're double-counting the decline from 2008-2009- adding an estimate of that figure to the actual figure) get a number less than half what you claimed in any case, and then murmur a few vague phrases without support, and the number almost doubles to "getting close to 60%"?

There was no 15% decline in the 2007-2008 fiscal year. The numbers you gave earlier, in the excel spreadsheet, which are known quantities, show that 2007-2008 was almost identical to 2006-2007.

We'll have the numbers for the 2008-2009 fiscal year soon enough. If they're as high as 30%, that would be extremely bad. If they're as high as 60% (heck, I'll sport you: 50% drop, from 2006-2007 numbers, or wherever the peak was.) I'll humbly apologise for questioning you. But for the moment, it seems to me like you're exaggerating enormously.

My guess? Just under 20% drop in 2008-2009, which combined with almost no drop in 2007-2008 fiscal, makes... well, it makes about 20%.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You didn't say "corporate tax revenues". You said "revenues". That changes it from approximately right to very wrong - which was my whole point.

No. What I said was vague. If you want to split hairs, then the overall tax revenue are not down 60%... yet. Corporate tax revenues are down 60%, which is why we lost 4 million jobs. Then, individual tax revenues drop when people run out of money.

Okay, so, despite the fact that you have no actual numbers to support your assertion, you just kind of add stuff up, get a number less than half what you claimed, and then murmur a few vague phrases without support, and the number almost doubles to "getting close to 60%"?

No, I gave you real numbers. Real numbers that indicate a trend. That trend leads to federal tax revenues being down substantially for FY 2008, 2009, 2010, and maybe 2011. Now couple that with equal levels of state tax revenue declines. States that cannot borrow money, or print money as the Feds do.

The numbers you gave earlier, in the excel spreadsheet, which are known quantities, show that 2008 was almost identical to 2007.

I checked again, and you are nearly correct. I wouldn't say that -4% PIT and -15% CIT are hardly equal.

We'll have the numbers for the 2009 fiscal year soon enough. If they're as high as 30%, that would be extremely bad. If they're as high as 60% (heck, I'll sport you: 50% drop, from 2007 numbers) I'll humbly apologize for questioning you. But for the moment, it seems to me like you're exaggerating enormously.

Will it get to -50 or -60? It appears to be on track to do that baring a miraculous turn around in the economy.

My guess? Just under 20% drop in 2009 (fiscal), which combined with almost no drop in 2008 fiscal, makes... well, it makes about 20%.

-4% 2008 overall, and my guess is -30% at least for 2009. This fall, and early spring will reveal about 20 to 30 states are insolvent, especially the heavily tax dependent states. Put another way, 7 US states were solvent before the bailout.

Here is another factor to consider in round 2 of our failed economy; failing regional banking.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox...47640.html

[Jester]

No. What I said was vague. If you want to split hairs, then the overall tax revenue are not down 60%... yet.

A) Thank you.

B ) If someone said "I lost 60% of my assets last year", when what they meant was "I lost 60% of the equity in my house" when they had substantial savings and investments that declined much less, that would not be vague - it would be wrong. You can't just take a number for a small part of X, then neglect to say it doesn't refer to the whole of X. This is not hair splitting - this is about a trillion dollars we are making appear and disappear.

No, I gave you real numbers. Real numbers that indicate a trend. That trend leads to federal tax revenues being down substantially for FY 2008, 2009, 2010, and maybe 2011.

Right. And if you look at the growth trend of a 14 year old, it turns out they're going to be tall as a giraffe by the time they're 80. But you can't just extrapolate trends to get numbers that suit you, especially not for something like changes in tax revenue during a crisis. Things might get worse, but they're not in perpetual free fall.

I wouldn't say that -4% PIT and -15% CIT are hardly equal.

The change in total receipts is less than 2%. Compared with the numbers you were throwing around, that's pretty much stable.

Will it get to -50 or -60? It appears to be on track to do that baring a miraculous turn around in the economy.

As I said, if it gets to -50%, you are getting an obsequious apology. But I really wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it - the big drop is over, and you've maybe hit 20%, tops.

-4% 2008 overall, and my guess is -30% at least for 2009. This fall, and early spring will reveal about 20 to 30 states are insolvent, especially the heavily tax dependent states. Put another way, 7 US states were solvent before the bailout.

2007-2008 was about 1.7% (crunch the numbers yourself if you want), and 2008-2009 appears to be maybe 18%. You must be expecting one hell of a 2009-2010.

Regardless, your original post clearly implied that Obama has seen a 60% drop in Federal revenue. (RE: Hero). If that's not what you meant, then fine, but it sure looked like it.

-Jester