kallend 2,113
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteDeficits are an entirely different subject, and both sides of the aisle spend like drunken sailors in an Olongapo whorehouse.
Except drunken sailors, and sober ones, stop spending when they run out of money.
Your blinkers are stopping you from seeing the complete picture.
They should but not all do, by some considerable margin.... They live 'off the slate' or beg borrow - So, all-in-all not too different from a lot over governments.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Quote
Does the concept of -(-1) = +1 elude you somehow?
this is a pefect example of why government is so fucked up, they can not simply say +1, they need to complicate everything until nobody understands anything. like saying -(-1)
SStewart 13
I think it is pretty easy to understand. For the last 10 years we decreased revenue and increased spending. It is time to pay the bill.
We were told the tax cuts would stimulate the economy, if that were true then the economy would be booming now.
It is like going to a restaurant and ordering everything on the menu and then refusing to pay the bill. (Sorry, I need to keep this money for myself.)
Except at the restaurant it is considered theft. When the government does it that is letting the people keep their money. Oh sure eat all you want, you don't have to pay for it.
We were told the tax cuts would stimulate the economy, if that were true then the economy would be booming now.
It is like going to a restaurant and ordering everything on the menu and then refusing to pay the bill. (Sorry, I need to keep this money for myself.)
Except at the restaurant it is considered theft. When the government does it that is letting the people keep their money. Oh sure eat all you want, you don't have to pay for it.
Onward and Upward!
rushmc 23
Revenues have not dropped
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
Analogy fail - it's Congress pigging out at the table, while the people are looking through their wallets trying to see if there's enough to pay the bill.
Guess it wasn't so 'easy to understand' after all.
Guess it wasn't so 'easy to understand' after all.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,085
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>it's Congress pigging out at the table
So your claim is that the money the US government spends - goes to Congress? I think your analogy might need some work, since most of the money goes to things like medicare, veteran's benefits and roads (which we benefit from, not Congress.)
So your claim is that the money the US government spends - goes to Congress? I think your analogy might need some work, since most of the money goes to things like medicare, veteran's benefits and roads (which we benefit from, not Congress.)
mnealtx 0
Quote>it's Congress pigging out at the table
So your claim is that the money the US government spends - goes to Congress? I think your analogy might need some work, since most of the money goes to things like medicare, veteran's benefits and roads (which we benefit from, not Congress.)
Nope, sure isn't. Some nice twisting to make the attempted smear going on there, though - I'll give you credit for that.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote>A pay cut is not an expense. When pay is cut we cut expenses.
Exactly. And surely one of the stupidest thing to do when your expenses are high is to intentionally cut your pay. Reduce expenses, pay off your credit card bill - THEN ask your employer for less money.
An even stupider thing to do is to increase expenses in the face of lower pay. Indeed, this is not even "cutting your pay." This is keeping with the same tax rates that previously existed.
Take a look at this: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1902_2014&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed_F0-state_F0-local&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
Even in 2010 with its drop revenues for the federal government are double what they were 30 years ago! State and local - doubled! The tax dollars paid - DOUBLED! How about as a percentage of GDP? http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1902_2014&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed_F0-state_F0-local&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s Well, Federal has stayed pretty much the same since the 1950's. Whether taxes have gone up or gone down, the percent of GDP seems to stay fairly constant with the only down times being dduring shocks. Even the tax cuts of Reagan, Clinton and Dubya years showed INCREASED revenues as a percent of GDP anyears d massive increases in dollars.
We can see what the federal debt did during from 1900-2010 (through 2014 projected). http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?chart=H0-total&year=1900_2014&units=b
There was not a year that the debt decreased. THe "Balanced Budget" under Clinton added to the federal debt because the Congress "borrowed" money off the books from Social Security and took off-the-books debt to lead to the balanced budget.
So, in comparing "revenues" graphs with the "debt" graph, the debt is approaching exponential growth - a hockey stick. $5 trillion in debt 20 years ago. about $18 trillion in debt today.
I've shown that cutting the pay or increasing the pay does not seem to do much with revenues, except for increase it right after tax cuts. But no matter HOW much revenue comes in, spending increases at a much quicker pace.
It takes a politician to say that failing to raise taxes is a pay cut. It takes a politician to suggest that we need more revenues to make this work. A pragmatist would look at it and say, "We've gotta cut spending."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,085
>An even stupider thing to do is to increase expenses in the face of lower pay.
Yes. The smart guy increases (or at least maintains) his income and reduces his expenses. Reducing his income OR increasing expenses is dumb.
>A pragmatist would look at it and say, "We've gotta cut spending."
No; pragmatists look at all sides of a problem. Politicians ignore the parts of the problem that are politically inconvenient to acknowledge.
We have to cut spending and increase revenues until we balance the budget. Democrats refuse to acknowledge the spending part; republicans refuse to acknowledge the revenue part. They are equally shortsighted in that way.
Yes. The smart guy increases (or at least maintains) his income and reduces his expenses. Reducing his income OR increasing expenses is dumb.
>A pragmatist would look at it and say, "We've gotta cut spending."
No; pragmatists look at all sides of a problem. Politicians ignore the parts of the problem that are politically inconvenient to acknowledge.
We have to cut spending and increase revenues until we balance the budget. Democrats refuse to acknowledge the spending part; republicans refuse to acknowledge the revenue part. They are equally shortsighted in that way.
We've all, well at least many of us, have experienced the impact of budgeting/spending on a level much closer to home.
Have you ever been refused a raise or gotten a smaller-than-expected one based on the following reasoning?:
"We can't give you a raise this year because the company lost $2B this year."
The reality is that they budgeted based on a projected income and the level of income was not met OR the expenses were higher than expected. They didn't actually lose money, they just didn't make as much as they thought they would.
Honesty would have it:
"Well, we only made a profit of $10B this year. We thought we were going to make $12B so we won't be giving you a raise."
These kind of things usually follow on the footsteps of the company BOD Rah-Rah conferences saying, "The company is doing GREAT! We made $10B this year!"
Cake, eat it too...I don't think so.
So much for "trickle-down".
Have you ever been refused a raise or gotten a smaller-than-expected one based on the following reasoning?:
"We can't give you a raise this year because the company lost $2B this year."
The reality is that they budgeted based on a projected income and the level of income was not met OR the expenses were higher than expected. They didn't actually lose money, they just didn't make as much as they thought they would.
Honesty would have it:
"Well, we only made a profit of $10B this year. We thought we were going to make $12B so we won't be giving you a raise."
These kind of things usually follow on the footsteps of the company BOD Rah-Rah conferences saying, "The company is doing GREAT! We made $10B this year!"
Cake, eat it too...I don't think so.
So much for "trickle-down".
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
kallend 2,113
QuoteRevenues have not dropped
As always, you ignore inflation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteRevenues have not dropped
As always, you ignore inflation.
As always you ignore the real problem
Spending
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteRevenues have not dropped
As always, you ignore inflation.
Odd - that didn't seem to be a problem for YOU when you were quoting Treasury numbers for Reagan.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites