Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Over 2/3 of the National Debt comes to us courtesy of the last three Republican Presidents
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
If you want voodoo economics, look at the mandated CBO scoring of tax increases and decreases. The CBO is required to use static scoring. Under that system, a 10% increase in tax rates results in 10% more revenue. A 10% decrease in tax rates results in a 10% decrease in revenue. Under that same system, a 10% increase or decrease in tax rates results in no change in employment or government expenditures. If your economists believe that, you should fire them and hire me.
Also, trying to find the "source" of any deficit is entirely arbitrary. I could blame it all on any category of expenditures I dislike, or any category of tax policy I dislike. The CBO analysis -- again dictated by static analysis -- uses changes from previous budgets. Thus, if the budget increased military spending by $100 mil., and lowered tax rates by 10%, resulting in $100 mil. less revenue, and made no other changes, the CBO would be required to score those two changes as responsible for a net $200 mil. decrease in surplus (or increase in deficit, depending on the previous year's results).
One could just as accurately state, however, that maintaining spending in other categories -- rather than reducing that spending -- caused the same negative effect.
The CBO has excellent economists. Unfortunately, Congress itself has dictated that its analysis be skewed by politics, not objective economic analysis.
John
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Dr F - pretending to be stupid again this morning I see. No ones Fooled.
The rich spend there mega earnings on a universe of things. That money
circulates into the pockets of the employees of small business in a never ending torrent.
The only place that money should never go is to people on the dole. They
have traded nothing to deserve a dime of that money stream.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
And another thing, Obama has been "palling" around with known terrorists, like Reverent Wright, who also hates Good White People, more PROOF that Obama hates White People
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
Reagan had to raise taxes
He did it 11 times, because of the deficit it was causing
Its all Mythology that Tax cuts cause increases in revenue, unless you close loopholes too, and hence are raising taxes
Reagan Lowered Taxes on the Rich, Then Raised them on the Middle Class and poor,
That was the Trickle Down Theory, in other words, America, Eat Sh#t
If he also had sex with a goat 11 times, Obama would be wise to do the same. Under Reagan the economy turned around 180 degrees from the worst recession since the Depression, under Obama, we are decaying fast.
To say that only the rich prospered under Reagan is B.S.. I spent a lot of time in Yosemite from 85-90 and even Camp 4 had late model VW buses popping up all over the place.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Dr. F:
Check the rules for CBO scoring. If I souond like Fox News, it doesn't follow that I'm automatically wrong. The required static analysis of CBO scoring is well-known and well-discredited within the economic community.
John
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
The rich spend there mega earnings on a universe of things. That money
circulates into the pockets of the employees of small business in a never ending torrent.
More important than that is the money they don't spend - which is usually invested. Investment creates production, which creates consumption.
For anyone with their head in the sand (Dr. F), the last decade has proven that a consumption based economy is a mirage.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Never ever reply directly to a Troll and never give the Troll the childish attention they crave.
I do wish to thank you for sharing your perceptions, thus clearing up this matter. It certainly does explain a whole lot of that which here-to-fore made no sense to me. Continued interaction would be pointless and would likely generate nothing but additional hostility. There would be no realistic prospect of us ever achieving any meeting of the minds. In fact, discussion would foster both of us to invest time and energy into patently negative pursuits. Doing so would certainly not represent a positive use of our respective life energies. If it is all the same to you, then, regarding future discussions between us, I shall simply pass.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
If you want voodoo economics, look at the mandated CBO scoring of tax increases and decreases. The CBO is required to use static scoring. Under that system, a 10% increase in tax rates results in 10% more revenue. A 10% decrease in tax rates results in a 10% decrease in revenue. Under that same system, a 10% increase or decrease in tax rates results in no change in employment or government expenditures. If your economists believe that, you should fire them and hire me.
Excellent analysis John. I can't believe that they still use that notion when trying to attribute the deficit to tax cuts. Infantile! The way Obama keeps pushing sound bytes like this I get the impression that they realize most of the U.S. is fairly uneducated about economics, and if they just keep repeating something over and over it becomes fact. Sort of like "the Bankers destroyed the economy". While it is true that Bankers were complicit, like nearly everyone else, it is absurd to imagine that this country's economic problems are based on hidden overdraft fees.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
A really good internet troll has one goal, to attract attention to themselves by playing the victim when challenged, by being personally insulting in a clever kind of vague manner, and constantly provoking anger and emotions so as to keep the other posters responding to the troll with every reply.
This good internet troll knows very little of the specifics behind what is being discussed, offers nothing of concrete value, changes the subject frequently in order to avoid being proven specifically wrong, never ever admits to being wrong, and is an expert at appearing to personally wounded and hurt when their own actions cause others to reply in the same insulting manner as the troll.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
AG Eric Holder most likely an accessory to murder for Fast and Furious?
And Obama says he has confidence in the man?
“We’re talking about consequences of criminal activity — where they actually allowed guns to walk into the hands of criminals — where our livelihoods are at risk,” Rep Gosar (R-AZ) said in a phone interview. “When you facilitate that and a murder or a felony occurs, you’re called an accessory. That means that there’s criminal activity.”
Congressman: With Fast and Furious, administration officials might be accessories to murder.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/05/congressman-with-fast-and-furious-administration-officials-might-be-accessories-to-murder/
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"The required static analysis of CBO scoring is well-known and well-discredited within the economic community."
If the CBO's analysis does not support one's ideologic position on a policy, then it's considered wrong. If it does support that position then it's considered right.
Spin, spin, spin. It's all about spin.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Jeff,
I do wish to thank you for sharing your perceptions, thus clearing up this matter. It certainly does explain a whole lot of that which here-to-fore made no sense to me. Continued interaction would be pointless and would likely generate nothing but additional hostility. There would be no realistic prospect of us ever achieving any meeting of the minds. In fact, discussion would foster both of us to invest time and energy into patently negative pursuits. Doing so would certainly not represent a positive use of our respective life energies. If it is all the same to you, then, regarding future discussions between us, I shall simply pass.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Bookworm,
Yes, good question. Why DO libs hate Mexicans so much?
But seriously,
While I will hold that I am not the person described in your a*#essment, neither am I going tolerate any abuse from you. As I told you previously, I do not "do" abuse. Once I sense that such is an individual's main agenda, I simply ignore them and do not address any of their posts. Such encounters simply become too overtly hostile for my tastes.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Jeff,
By contrast you DO discuss issues and you do so quite intelligently BUT you get entirely too emotional and then quickly descend into name calling and hurling insults. That tendency does makes you rather less appealing as well, in terms of online discussion. In short, you get entirely too hostile so I am becoming less and less interested in discussing anything with you. If you could maintain a civil tongue in your head and also be less overtly hostile, then I would not mind discussing issues with you. Such would not appear to be the case. Less and less, I want to bother to answer any of your posts directed at me. It always gets to the same place wherein you hurl insults and invectives, attacking my character or intellect. Who needs that?
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
"The required static analysis of CBO scoring is well-known and well-discredited within the economic community."
If the CBO's analysis does not support one's ideologic position on a policy, then it's considered wrong. If it does support that position then it's considered right.
Spin, spin, spin. It's all about spin.
There is plenty of spin to go around, but when it comes to projecting tax receipts the CBO's analysis is most definitely wrong. But many economic models are wrong for the same reason - they assume a static situation in which people's behavior does not change when incentives change. In the case of tax revenues, the Government has NEVER been able to get revenue above 19% for a significant length of time, so they should lower taxes until revenue starts to drop below this, and then LIVE WITHIN A BUDGET.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Dr. F,
I am sorry you perceive it that way but I see it differently. When I come in from outdoor work and check in only to find a HUGE number of extremely emotional vitriolic posts directed specifically at me over the span of a but few hours, I become concerned. Moreover, this was not the first time it has happened. It is happening more and more frequently - long posts and numerous posts directly in a very emotional tone specifically at me. It is not a situation wherein he posts one comment which is "heated" and then waits for me to return to reply to it. I am noticing a pattern of escalating vitriol and it is directed at me. I do not feel this pattern is healthy for any of the parties involved and accordingly I have asked Ken not to specifically engage me in these discussions. I do not feel that request is unreasonable.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
|
|
Crack
Answer My question on the math of Bush tax cut not raising the deficit?
Can you, or can you not do it?
Where did the deficits come from??
Why do you blame Obama, he had nothing to do with them
The deficit is completey explained by spending increases, period. Like I said earlier, revenue did not decrease significantly.
deficit = revenue - spending
if revenue is constant, and spending goes up (as it did), the deficit increases by the same amount.
Should I throw in a differential equation so you will believe I have a Ph.D.?
What is your Ph.D. in BTW?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!