billvon 3,085 #26 October 7, 2011 >>>If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making >>>money part that is the problem. >>Really? So companies that make a billion a year should not try to make any more money . . . >Didn't claim that, no. OK then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 October 7, 2011 Quote>If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making >money part that is the problem. Really? So companies that make a billion a year should not try to make any more money; they should just lay people off, reduce production etc? Companies that raise their prices 60% don't usually do too well. Look at Netflix for an example. We'll see how bad the bottom line hit is at the next quarterly report, but meanwhile the loss in stock value is pretty substantial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #28 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuote>If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making >money part that is the problem. Really? So companies that make a billion a year should not try to make any more money; they should just lay people off, reduce production etc? Companies that raise their prices 60% don't usually do too well. Look at Netflix for an example. We'll see how bad the bottom line hit is at the next quarterly report, but meanwhile the loss in stock value is pretty substantial. From $1.0B to $1.5B isn't 60%. And, to the point of this thread and as I recall, the proposal is an increase of 5%... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making >money part that is the problem. Really? So companies that make a billion a year should not try to make any more money; they should just lay people off, reduce production etc? Companies that raise their prices 60% don't usually do too well. Look at Netflix for an example. We'll see how bad the bottom line hit is at the next quarterly report, but meanwhile the loss in stock value is pretty substantial. From $1.0B to $1.5B isn't 60%. And, to the point of this thread and as I recall, the proposal is an increase of 5% Wow - kallend lying with numbers?! A 5% increase in the marginal tax rate on millionaires is a 14.3% increase (35->40). Only a fool or a dishonest person would try to hide behind the absolute number like this. And we're talking about fixing the deficit, with a really poorly constructed analogy to a business. To fix the deficit by revenue increases, it would require a 50-60% increase. In the case of Netflix, it was a 60% increase, so that was the value I selected. (Blue Angels flying about - probably will be gone a while.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #30 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making >money part that is the problem. Really? So companies that make a billion a year should not try to make any more money; they should just lay people off, reduce production etc? Companies that raise their prices 60% don't usually do too well. Look at Netflix for an example. We'll see how bad the bottom line hit is at the next quarterly report, but meanwhile the loss in stock value is pretty substantial. From $1.0B to $1.5B isn't 60%. And, to the point of this thread and as I recall, the proposal is an increase of 5% Wow - kallend lying with numbers?! A 5% increase in the marginal tax rate on millionaires is a 14.3% increase (35->40). Only a fool or a dishonest person would try to hide behind the absolute number like this. Last time I checked even 14.3% was not the same as 60% Quote And we're talking about fixing the deficit, with a really poorly constructed analogy to a business. Not my analogy, tell it to mnealtx. Quote To fix the deficit by revenue increases, it would require a 50-60% increase. In the case of Netflix, it was a 60% increase, so that was the value I selected. A poorly selected (crappy) analogy. You can do better than that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuote And we're talking about fixing the deficit, with a really poorly constructed analogy to a business. Not my analogy, tell it to mnealtx. Actually, that was billvon that brought up the business thing.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #32 October 7, 2011 >Companies that raise their prices 60% don't usually do too well. Right - but companies who sell 60% more stuff sure do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 October 7, 2011 Quote>Companies that raise their prices 60% don't usually do too well. Right - but companies who sell 60% more stuff sure do. Not if they can't afford to make 60% more stuff.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #34 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote And we're talking about fixing the deficit, with a really poorly constructed analogy to a business. Not my analogy, tell it to mnealtx. Actually, that was billvon that brought up the business thing. To what or whom were you referring in post#19? Certainly not the federal govt. or to anyone on this list.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 October 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote And we're talking about fixing the deficit, with a really poorly constructed analogy to a business. Not my analogy, tell it to mnealtx. Actually, that was billvon that brought up the business thing. To what or whom were you referring in post#19? To billvon's post 16, as illustrated by the Re:[billvon] in the subject bar. Just as an FYI, since you seem to be a bit confused on timeline, the business reference came up in post #24, also by billvon. QuoteCertainly not the federal govt. or to anyone on this list. Maybe you should give up on the telepathy gig...you don't seem to be having much success with it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #36 October 8, 2011 Quote As I thought, you can't find anything other than a tiny drop in a large bucket. Adding up everything you listed, with the exception of the Veteran's Affairs building maintenance which may well be justifiable, amounts to less than 0.001% of federal spending. OK. I've got some programs we can get rid of. Social Security - $761 billion Medicare - $468 billion Medicaid - $269 billion TARP - $13 billion How's that for a drop in the bucket. Pretty big drop, huh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #37 October 8, 2011 >TARP - $13 billion Veteran's benefits - $132 billion Department of defense - $663 billion I'd cut those first if you are serious about cutting the big spenders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #38 October 8, 2011 No, but the bottom 50% should pay some taxes so that they have a stake in the game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #39 October 9, 2011 Quote>TARP - $13 billion Veteran's benefits - $132 billion Department of defense - $663 billion I'd cut those first if you are serious about cutting the big spenders. I know you would. I wouldn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #40 October 9, 2011 >I wouldn't. Of course not. You have your favorite entitlement programs that you want the government to fork out money for, just like everyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #41 October 9, 2011 Quote>I wouldn't. Of course not. You have your favorite entitlement programs that you want the government to fork out money for, just like everyone else. Yes, except mine is laid out in the constitution. I also wouldn't call the defense of this country an entitlement. You would. We're different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #42 October 9, 2011 >Yes, except mine is laid out in the constitution. So is welfare. >I also wouldn't call the defense of this country an entitlement. No, but veteran's benefits are. And until we're willing to cut everything - without every single special interest group out there saying "cut someone else's government program, not mine" - then we will continue to spend like we are now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #43 October 9, 2011 Is welfare in the US Constitution? LOL I guess the USA is more socialistic than your northern neighbor. Put our less than efficient public healthcare system on the back burner for a second and hear me out. 1) In Canada you can collect about 42 weeks of UI at a maximum of $400/week (in some Provinces with traditionally high unemployment you can get a few extra weeks of UI). But in the USA you can collect up to 99 weeks of UI at 36% of your weekly wage (it's not capped? maybe it is?). 2) In the USA you can get food stamps. In Canada? What are food stamps? 3) Medicare? Medicaid? What the hell is that? In Canada when I am sick I go to the doctor, but wait I don't have a doctor. So I line up for hours on end at the clinic or line up at the hospital to wait to see someone who hates their job and tries to process as many lemmings as they can as fast as they can so that they can get home as soon as they can. Looks like the USA is the more socialistic country of the two. Of course Canada's economy while not firing on all cylinders thanks to our largest customer being a total basket case at this time thanks to their out of control government spending, but our economy in Canada is actually not too bad right now because Canadians on average really are not in that much debt. Maybe the USA would be doing better if they stopped spending money they did not have and were not such a socialist cesspool. I mean come on, if you want your people to start working, why do you continue to give them free money for two years to sit on their asses? Didn't you get the memo? Want to stop your children from sponging off of you? stop feeding them cheese. ROFLMAO. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #44 October 9, 2011 +1 But a little rough on the good old USA, we ARE down now but we will be back. Japan was going to own the USA back in the 80's (I believe) now it's the Chines. We have problem and we are actting more divided right now than we should.... But we will be back Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #45 October 9, 2011 Quotelittle rough on the good old USA Just pointing out that the USA is already more socialist than they may think they are. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #46 October 9, 2011 QuoteQuote As I thought, you can't find anything other than a tiny drop in a large bucket. Adding up everything you listed, with the exception of the Veteran's Affairs building maintenance which may well be justifiable, amounts to less than 0.001% of federal spending. OK. I've got some programs we can get rid of. Social Security - $761 billion Medicare - $468 billion Medicaid - $269 billion How's that for a drop in the bucket. Pretty big drop, huh. Given the size of the (voting) baby boom generation that has been paying contributions for the past 30 - 40 years, that is just wishful thinking and an indication of amazing stupidity to think that they could possibly be eliminated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 October 10, 2011 Quote 1) In Canada you can collect about 42 weeks of UI at a maximum of $400/week (in some Provinces with traditionally high unemployment you can get a few extra weeks of UI). But in the USA you can collect up to 99 weeks of UI at 36% of your weekly wage (it's not capped? maybe it is?). 99 is not the norm, this is a possible max length due to the recent stimulus bills. In CA, you get x% of salary to a cap of $450/wk for 26 weeks. Any further extensions come from the Feds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 October 10, 2011 Quote OK. I've got some programs we can get rid of. Social Security - $761 billion Medicare - $468 billion Medicaid - $269 billion TARP - $13 billion Now would you be getting rid of the FICA taxes as well? Or would that tax continued to be collected as a big Fuck You to the taxpayers? SS and MC have implications on the long term debt picture, but when we're talking about the current deficit, they have nothing to do with it. The SS surplus subsidized the Bush tax cuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 October 10, 2011 Quote>Companies that raise their prices 60% don't usually do too well. Right - but companies who sell 60% more stuff sure do. The problem here is that the government already increased the output 60% at the current price. It's not going to be able to increase revenues by increasing output. It has to increase prices for the same output. This is the problem for Netflix as well. Faces with expensive renewals (or outright refusals) for content, they will need to be making more revenue. But consumers don't like those sort of increases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #50 October 10, 2011 QuoteDOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations" FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget. International defense $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion Homeland Security $46.9 billion NASA, defense satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget Veterans pensions $54.6 billion Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM Classified Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest Total Defense Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion + Classified budget What raised my eyebrow was the "NASA, defense satellites" in your post. Looking at the wikipedia article where you appear to have copied that list from, it seems as though you added the word "defense" there. I'm not sure why. There are several other problems with the calculations and sources referenced regarding those figures, but let me sum it up this way: If you have a problem with the $707.5B (and I know I do) then complain about that number. Bullshitting to get the number above $1T doesn't help the cause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
