or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clinton to go "scorched earth" - Page 3

post #81 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In other words, socialism. Equality of outcome.

Give me a break. No one wants equality. How many times have I written that socialism needs to be balanced with capitalism? What part of that do you not understand? And if you understand it, then why do you always lie and say anyone wants "equality"? Yes, that's right, you lie. When you say "Equality of outcome," it's a deliberate misrepresentation of what anyone wants or expects.

I just think that salary raises of workers should be equal in percentage to salary raises of CEOs. Don't you think that's fair? The CEO gets 10% more, the janitor gets 10% more. In no way does that lead to "equality" of income.

Unfortunately, that's not the direction the economy is going right now. And that's why we need tax incentives. Not to equalize pay, but to equalize the Delta of pay. Tell me how that discourages capitalism. Go ahead. It doesn't.
post #82 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I just think that salary raises of workers should be equal in percentage to salary raises of CEOs. Don't you think that's fair? The CEO gets 10% more, the janitor gets 10% more. In no way does that lead to "equality" of income.

That is going to cause problems - Imagine if Apple had to replace Steve Jobs after he dies of cancer, and in order to get the best person they had to pay him a whole bunch of money. You could be left with the choice of "pay the janitors $100K/year" or "let the company die".

Equality - to me - means equality wrt the law and nothing else. If you try to enforce any kind of economic equality you end up distorting the economy enough to hurt it.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #83 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

That is going to cause problems - Imagine if Apple had to replace Steve Jobs after he dies of cancer, and in order to get the best person they had to pay him a whole bunch of money. You could be left with the choice of "pay the janitors $100K/year" or "let the company die".

Equality - to me - means equality wrt the law and nothing else. If you try to enforce any kind of economic equality you end up distorting the economy enough to hurt it.

You know what I mean. When loss-making companies are giving overgenerous golden parachutes to outgoing executives, even when those same companies end up going chapter 11 and laying off 90% of staff, it's free market capitalism talking.
post #84 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You know what I mean. When loss-making companies are giving overgenerous golden parachutes to outgoing executives, even when those same companies end up going chapter 11 and laying off 90% of staff, it's free market capitalism talking.

I think that the proper solution for that is to limit the amount of insurance that a company director can get, and wack them with lawsuits when they negotiate crap CEO contracts like that. There is no negative consequences for directors when they are negligent - since the company usually pays for director liability insurance against shareholder lawsuits.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #85 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... speak to the facts of the matter, you continuously say tax cuts grow the economy, so show us the money! Or STFU! \

You are infamous for not backing up what you say with factual data to support your specious claims, so stop talking, and show us the money! Or STFU! \

Bush is captain of the USS Economic Titanic.

At this point in time, there is no point to the Bush (t)ax cuts. \ Reduce federal revenues through lower taxation, and spend like a drunken captain of an oil tanker about to go aground. Now that's a brilliant fiscal strategy, a brilliant business plan!

How do rather small gradual tax cuts that are a tiny fraction of GDP stimulate the economy? Answer is, they don't! \



YES! See POTUS 42. \

Now reverse your question; Has the economy ever grown as a result of tax decreases, or simply in spite of them?

Please, show us the money, or stop talking out your azz! \


Let me attempt to respond to your ranting, hysterical and misguided post.

1. You would like data you say? No problem. Simply look up the data for economic growth, federal revenues, etc. after the last three major tax cuts. Do you really need me to find this for you? It's all there, friend. Hopefully we can avoid wasting our time arguing whether or not the economy expanded after these tax cuts, and whether or not revenue increased dramatically after all three. Let me know if you need me to hold your hand. I surely don't want to be accused of "not backing anything up."

2. "At this point in time, there is no point to the Bush tax cuts"

---Sure, none at all, except for the economic stimulation they've provided.

3. "Reduce federal revenues through lower taxation, and spend like a drunken captain of an oil tanker about to go aground. Now that's a brilliant fiscal strategy, a brilliant business plan! "

--Revenues have not decreased. Say it with me: They have not decreased. You're being fooled by zero0-sum thinking. Revenues are at record levels. Now, on spending...there we agree. Bush has been terrible at reducing or even limiting spending.

4) "How do rather small gradual tax cuts that are a tiny fraction of GDP stimulate the economy? Answer is, they don't! \"

---Apparently they did. Please review economic data from March of 2000 through 2002, then compare it with the data from 2003-2008. Hmmm. Oh, and pssst: The cuts were not "small." It's amazing...people like you always talk about how the rich get disproportional cuts in terms of real dollars. Yet, you ignore that many middle income families (including...uh, mine) got thousands of dollars in relief. If you want to talk actual dollars, you can't have it both ways. My "tiny" tax cut allowed me to put at least $1,500 back into the economy.


Quote:
YES! See POTUS 42. \

Please demonstrate cause and effect. In fact, you can't. The economy was actually in recovery prior to Clinton taking office. You can certainly say the economy recovered in spite of the tax increases (which the middle class paid, btw), but not because of them.

Quote:

Now reverse your question; Has the economy ever grown as a result of tax decreases, or simply in spite of them?

Pardon me, but can you fucking read? I already "reversed" the question. I stated it clearly. According to everything we know, YES, tax cuts stimulated the economy. Why? BECAUSE THE ECONOMY EXPANDED GREATLY SHORTLY AFTER ALL THREE WERE ENACTED. What was it...coincidence? Now, show me some evidence of the same being true for tax increases. You can't. The best you can do is demonstrate that some tax increases didn't cause massive harm because of when they fell in the natural business cycle. This was certainly the case with the dot-com boom. The economy was not stellar until about 1996/1997. And gee...I wonder what was going on at that time.

.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Give me a break. No one wants equality. How many times have I written that socialism needs to be balanced with capitalism? What part of that do you not understand? And if you understand it, then why do you always lie and say anyone wants "equality"? Yes, that's right, you lie. When you say "Equality of outcome," it's a deliberate misrepresentation of what anyone wants or expects.

I just think that salary raises of workers should be equal in percentage to salary raises of CEOs. Don't you think that's fair? The CEO gets 10% more, the janitor gets 10% more. In no way does that lead to "equality" of income.

Unfortunately, that's not the direction the economy is going right now. And that's why we need tax incentives. Not to equalize pay, but to equalize the Delta of pay. Tell me how that discourages capitalism. Go ahead. It doesn't.


Does that sound FAIR to me? Fair? forgetting for a second that we are talking about private corporations here and that the government has no right to intervene, how the hell would you accomplish this "fairness?" Did these employees not choose to work there? And what "tax incentives" do you have in mind exactly? Even assuming you found an acceptable method (and an effective one), what interest does the government have in making sure everything is "fair?

And hey...let's not stop there. A lot of my friends work in the corporate world and get bonuses of thousands of dollars each year on top of their base salaries. Sometimes these bonuses are as high as 10% of their salaries, which already are equal or greater than mine. I should get 10% too! It's not FAIR! We need tax incentives for my school district. Also, if the Superintendent gets a raise, so should I. It's only FAIR.

Really, listen to yourself.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #87 of 255
SDW please provide some data to show how the economy has grown more after tax cuts than during other periods. I couldn't find a perfect graph, but here's one that puts it into some context:

It shows that the supposedly glorious Reagan years actually showed no more average growth than the supposedly terrible Carter years. And it shows how Bush II, after tons of tax cuts, has been close to the worst of all. And how Clinton raised taxes and had better average growth than Reagan or Bush. In short, the data simply don't support your "indisputable" argument that tax cuts have always caused more growth than other periods.

Please either address this or stop making that argument.

post #88 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

SDW please provide some data to show how the economy has grown more after tax cuts than during other periods. I couldn't find a perfect graph, but here's one that puts it into some context:

It shows that the supposedly glorious Reagan years actually showed no more average growth than the supposedly terrible Carter years. And it shows how Bush II, after tons of tax cuts, has been close to the worst of all. And how Clinton raised taxes and had better average growth than Reagan or Bush. In short, the data simply don't support your "indisputable" argument that tax cuts have always caused more growth than other periods.

Please either address this or stop making that argument.


Is that graph adjusted for inflation? Because mismanagement of the economy and the oil crisis during the Carter years caused inflation to jump to 13%, so all that growth got wiped out and then some (and it took a couple years for Regan to get things back under control):

Monthly inflation rates, last number in each row is average for the year
1984 \t 4.19% \t 4.60% \t 4.80% \t 4.56% \t 4.23% \t 4.22% \t 4.20% \t 4.29% \t 4.27% \t 4.26% \t 4.05% \t 3.95% \t 4.30%
1983 \t 3.71% \t 3.49% \t 3.60% \t 3.90% \t 3.55% \t 2.58% \t 2.46% \t 2.56% \t 2.86% \t 2.85% \t 3.27% \t 3.79% \t 3.22%
1982 \t 8.39% \t 7.62% \t 6.78% \t 6.51% \t 6.68% \t 7.06% \t 6.44% \t 5.85% \t 5.04% \t 5.14% \t 4.59% \t 3.83% \t 6.16%
1981 \t 11.83% \t 11.41% \t 10.49% \t 10.00% \t 9.78% \t 9.55% \t 10.76% \t 10.80% \t 10.95% \t 10.14% \t 9.59% \t 8.92% \t 10.35%
1980 \t 13.91% \t 14.18% \t 14.76% \t 14.73% \t 14.41% \t 14.38% \t 13.13% \t 12.87% \t 12.60% \t 12.77% \t 12.65% \t 12.52% \t 13.58%
1979 \t 9.28% \t 9.86% \t 10.09% \t 10.49% \t 10.85% \t 10.89% \t 11.26% \t 11.82% \t 12.18% \t 12.07% \t 12.61% \t 13.29% \t 11.22%
1978 \t 6.84% \t 6.43% \t 6.55% \t 6.50% \t 6.97% \t 7.41% \t 7.70% \t 7.84% \t 8.31% \t 8.93% \t 8.89% \t 9.02% \t 7.62%
1977 \t 5.22% \t 5.91% \t 6.44% \t 6.95% \t 6.73% \t 6.87% \t 6.83% \t 6.62% \t 6.60% \t 6.39% \t 6.72% \t 6.70% \t 6.50%
1976 \t 6.72% \t 6.29% \t 6.07% \t 6.05% \t 6.20% \t 5.97% \t 5.35% \t 5.71% \t 5.49% \t 5.46% \t 4.88% \t 4.86% \t 5.75%

This is really what we might be looking at - a repeat of the Carter years, if oil prices continue to go up, taxes go up, the dollar falls, and interest rates go down. The upside is that we might be able to buy 30 year treasuries at 12% again, and sell them for a 300% profit when the crisis is over.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #89 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yadda, no links, yadda, no links, yadda, no links, ...

You keep saying the same thing over and over again, with no substitutive proof.

Here's a link for you;

Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2009

OK?

Under the main heading The Budget Documents, fourth link down;

Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009

It's a PDF file, OK?

See Table 1.1, page 22 (nee PDF page 26), FY 2000 thru 2007 inclusive, Total Receipts, OK?

Quote:
2000 2,025,457 (in millions of dollars)
2001 1,991,426 (in millions of dollars)
2002 1,853,395 (in millions of dollars)
2003 1,782,532 (in millions of dollars)
2004 1,880,279 (in millions of dollars)
2005 2,153,859 (in millions of dollars)
2006 2,407,254 (in millions of dollars)
2007 2,568,239 (in millions of dollars)

Those are OMB numbers, not adjusted for inflation, thus the need to include FY 2005 thru FY 2007, since one of those years would be the first year that tax receipts exceeded FY 2000 tax receipts in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars.

For FY 2000-5 the annual inflation rate would need to be below;

(2,153,859/2,025,457)^(1/5) = 1.24% annualized (inflation was above this at 2.55% annualized)

For FY 2000-6 the annual inflation rate would need to be below;

(2,407,254/2,025,457)^(1/6) = 2.92% annualized (inflation was close at 2.66% annualized)

For FY 2000-7 the annual inflation rate would need to be below;

(2,568,239/2,025,457)^(1/7) = 3.45% annualized (inflation was below this at 2.69% annualized)

[CENTER]
Annual inflation (and deflation), 1914-2007[/CENTER]

Figure from Consumer Price Index, data from BLS website BLS Consumer Price Index (ascii text file).

So there you go, conclusive proof that reducing tax rates do not increase the federal revenue stream (in constant dollars).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #90 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

SDW please provide some data to show how the economy has grown more after tax cuts than during other periods. I couldn't find a perfect graph, but here's one that puts it into some context:

It shows that the supposedly glorious Reagan years actually showed no more average growth than the supposedly terrible Carter years. And it shows how Bush II, after tons of tax cuts, has been close to the worst of all. And how Clinton raised taxes and had better average growth than Reagan or Bush. In short, the data simply don't support your "indisputable" argument that tax cuts have always caused more growth than other periods.

Please either address this or stop making that argument.


That's a graph of average economic growth and is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. I am saying that economic growth happened AFTER tax cuts were enacted. Tax cuts were enacted for that purpose, actually. In other words, the average would have been much different without the stimulus the cuts provided.

Do I really need to go look up that data for you? I guess I could, but I have a date tonight, so I'd appreciate not having to hold your hand on this one.

Also...if tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, what-if anything-does? Surely you must agree that if we raised taxes, say, 50%, it would have a hugely negative impact on economic growth?

Similarly, let's assume for a moment that revenue and the federal budget was of no consequence (heh..cough). What do you think would happen to the economy if income, payroll and capital gains taxes were suspended for a period of 1-2 years? Surely you agree that the economy would explode growth-wise?

If you agree with the above ideas, then it's not about whether tax cuts stimulate the economy or not, but what kind of tax cuts stimulate the economy. That's another matter.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #91 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Also...if tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, what-if anything-does? Surely you must agree that if we raised taxes, say, 50%, it would have a hugely negative impact on economic growth?

Similarly, let's assume for a moment that revenue and the federal budget was of no consequence (heh..cough). What do you think would happen to the economy if income, payroll and capital gains taxes were suspended for a period of 1-2 years? Surely you agree that the economy would explode growth-wise?

+1

Seems to me that the more you tax something, the less of it you get. Capital gains taxes deter investment. Progressive income taxes dull the effect of hard work and smart money management. Liberals love to use tax-based deterrence as just another method of creating the nanny state. "We're not going to make X illegal, but we're going to punish your 'bad' choices." Tobacco. SUVs. Carbon. Profit. You know, the evil things that we tax, or try to tax, so we can get less of them.

Our current tax policy is just another method of social and government control. Sadly, most people are resigned to the servitude of "well, that's just how it is."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #92 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's a graph of average economic growth and is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. I am saying that economic growth happened AFTER tax cuts were enacted. Tax cuts were enacted for that purpose, actually. In other words, the average would have been much different without the stimulus the cuts provided.

Do I really need to go look up that data for you? I guess I could, but I have a date tonight, so I'd appreciate not having to hold your hand on this one.

Also...if tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, what-if anything-does? Surely you must agree that if we raised taxes, say, 50%, it would have a hugely negative impact on economic growth?

Similarly, let's assume for a moment that revenue and the federal budget was of no consequence (heh..cough). What do you think would happen to the economy if income, payroll and capital gains taxes were suspended for a period of 1-2 years? Surely you agree that the economy would explode growth-wise?

If you agree with the above ideas, then it's not about whether tax cuts stimulate the economy or not, but what kind of tax cuts stimulate the economy. That's another matter.

... with a link to rhe RAW data, not exactly a winger site I might add, but real data, for you to prepare your verbose grammatical (e. g. wordy with no numbers) proof.

Bureau of Economic Analysis NIPA Tables

Hurry back.

Score: SDW10000BC = -666
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #93 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Similarly, let's assume for a moment that revenue and the federal budget was of no consequence (heh..cough). What do you think would happen to the economy if income, payroll and capital gains taxes were suspended for a period of 1-2 years? Surely you agree that the economy would explode growth-wise?

... simply because government services would come to a screeching hault.

Transportation systems, infrastructure, down the drain.

Security and rescue services, down the drain.

Educational services, down the drain.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, ...

That's such a loopy hypothetical, that you must have pulled that one straight out of your azz!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #94 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... simply because government services would come to a screeching hault.

Transportation systems, infrastructure, down the drain.

Security and rescue services, down the drain.

Educational services, down the drain.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, ...

That's such a loopy hypothetical, that you must have pulled that one straight out of your azz!

It's a valid hypothetical, because we're merely looking at economic growth alone to analyze the impact tax rates have upon it. Obviously it's not something that would be wise or possible to try. Try to stay with me here. I realize abstract concepts might be difficult for you to grasp.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... simply because government services would come to a screeching hault.

Transportation systems, infrastructure, down the drain.

Security and rescue services, down the drain.

Educational services, down the drain.

There is a large presumption in your statement here. I wonder if you know it and just aren't saying or simply cannot see it. I wonder if anyone else can see it.

Actually two.
post #96 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

There is a large presumption in your statement here. I wonder if you know it and just aren't saying or simply cannot see it. I wonder if anyone else can see it.

Actually two.

Well, I didn't float the RP hypothetical revenue cliff scenario, It was handed to this thread on a silver platter, as it were.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's a valid hypothetical, because we're merely looking at economic growth alone to analyze the impact tax rates have upon it. Obviously it's not something that would be wise or possible to try. Try to stay with me here. I realize abstract concepts might be difficult for you to grasp.

I think it's you that needs to keep up, since I've actually worked for the federal government, I know exactly what happens when the revenue stream is cut off, government stops dead in it's tracks.

Been there, done that!

So no, it's not a valid hypothetical, no matter what words you choose to inflict in this thread.

Government services (particularly in metropolitan areas) would start to decay in a matter of days.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #98 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Government services (particularly in metropolitan areas) would start to decay in a matter of days.

Sounds good to me.
Self reliance is a dying art. Especially in the blue urban plantations. </half kidding>

Katrina, anyone?

(Self-reliance... that is, unless the government illegally seizes your guns when there is no police force... that whole 'self-reliance' thing goes right out the window... "we can't protect you, and we're going to prevent you from protecting yourself.")

SDW's point, the loathsome hypothetical as you see it, is valid... his point was regarding economic behaviour, and how it is affected and advised by tax policy... although I can understand how some people instinctively panic when it is even insinuated that the government could be less than "fully" funded.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #99 of 255
Oh look.

Jubelum is involved in another philosophical debate.
post #100 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Oh look.

Jubelum is involved in another philosophical debate.

<sends out search party for your point>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #101 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Sounds good to me.
Self reliance is a dying art. Especially in the blue urban plantations. </half kidding>

Katrina, anyone?

(Self-reliance... that is, unless the government illegally seizes your guns when there is no police force... that whole 'self-reliance' thing goes right out the window... "we can't protect you, and we're going to prevent you from protecting yourself.")

SDW's point, the loathsome hypothetical as you see it, is valid... his point was regarding economic behaviour, and how it is affected and advised by tax policy... although I can understand how some people instinctively panic when it is even insinuated that the government could be less than "fully" funded.

So I just went out to my mailbox, and guess what?

The goobermint sent me a treasury check refunding my entire 2007 taxes!

And then I took my shovel and went to the backyard and just started digging any old where, and guess what?

I found a rusty old tin can full of goobermint greenbacks!

Point is that you just can't make things up, but since you seem to think so, let's add $100 Trillion dollars each year to the private sector. Heck, I don't think that's enough, let's make it ... One Million Dollars.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Start digging and check your mailboxes frequently!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #102 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Well, I didn't float the RP hypothetical revenue cliff scenario, It was handed to this thread on a silver platter, as it were.

The presumption(s) was(were) in your response to the hypothetical.

I'll spell them out for you.

First you assume that if the government doesn't provide a particular service (and you listed several) that they simply wouldn't be provided at all. You assumed that in the absence of government provision of these services (but in the presence of a whole bunch of new money in their pockets) that people would not find other, alternative, private/non-government means of obtaining these services.

Second, you assumed that the federal (which is what the poster you were responding to was referring) budget is the primary source of funding for the things you listed. It isn't. The fact is that 75% of the federal budget goes to primarily three things: direct transfers of money from one group people to another, "defense" (which is apparently what we call invading nations today) and interest on the debt (which is really, technically, simply a special case of the first). If you want to account for the portions of the federal budget allocated to transportation infrastructure, security* and justice and education, you'd come up with less that $200 billion for 2007 (out of about $3 trillion, or less than 7%).

*If you want to include defense...actual defense (not invading other countries, etc.) then one could approximate about 1/2 of the $580 billion defense budget. So another $290 billion. But heck, let every able bodied adult American have access to the public armories and one rifle and one pistol per adult (I suspect they have enough) and you have a citizen's militia (for probably a fair amount less than $280 billion per year!)
post #103 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I think it's you that needs to keep up, since I've actually worked for the federal government, I know exactly what happens when the revenue stream is cut off, government stops dead in it's tracks.

Wait, are you making any argument in favor of reducing the budget to zero...because it sure looks like it to me when you lay out the benefits like that.

post #104 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

The presumption(s) was(were) in your response to the hypothetical.

I'll spell them out for you.

First you assume that if the government doesn't provide a particular service (and you listed several) that they simply wouldn't be provided at all. You assumed that in the absence of government provision of these services (but in the presence of a whole bunch of new money in their pockets) that people would not find other, alternative, private/non-government means of obtaining these services.

Second, you assumed that the federal (which is what the poster you were responding to was referring) budget is the primary source of funding for the things you listed. It isn't. The fact is that 75% of the federal budget goes to primarily three things: direct transfers of money from one group people to another, "defense" (which is apparently what we call invading nations today) and interest on the debt (which is really, technically, simply a special case of the first). If you want to account for the portions of the federal budget allocated to transportation infrastructure, security* and justice and education, you'd come up with less that $200 billion for 2007 (out of about $3 trillion, or less than 7%).

*If you want to include defense...actual defense (not invading other countries, etc.) then one could approximate about 1/2 of the $580 billion defense budget. So another $290 billion. But heck, let every able bodied adult American have access to the public armories and one rifle and one pistol per adult (I suspect they have enough) and you have a citizen's militia. for probably a fair amount less than $280 billion per year.

Premise, one large public infrastructure is more efficient than tens of thousands of smaller private infrastructures. It's called economics of scale, it works in both the public and private sectors. And there is no profit motive in the public sector to boot.

And if you haven't worked for the federal government, then I'd suggest you don't know what your talking about. \ If you've never been a public servant, don't pretend, don't presume, how civil servants go about doing their jobs.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #105 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Premise, one large public infrastructure is more efficient than tens of thousands of smaller private infrastructures.

Except that your premise is wrong. In fact this exact model was once (the Soviet Union) taken to its logical conclusion by government control over every aspect of the economy (roads, housing, food, clothing, automobiles, etc.) They destroyed the economy in part because the government could never get the proper allocation of goods and services. The free-market does this extraordinarily well every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And there is no profit motive to boot.

Which is the fundamental problem, because it is profit motive that drives those thousands of private enterprises to find more efficient ways to provide their products and services. You know like computers, consumer electronics, clothing, food, and many other examples.

P.S. The other problem with government-provided products and services is that they presume demand. The price system in the economy is what tells product and service providers what people really desire/demand. But when you get your income by force, where people have no choice, then there is no way to determine whether what's being provided is what's really wanted.
post #106 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Except that your premise is wrong.



Which is the fundamental problem, because it is profit motive that drives those thousands of private enterprises to find more efficient ways to provide their products and services. You know like computers, consumer electronics, clothing, food, and many other examples.

P.S. The other problem with government-provided products and services is that they presume demand. The price system in the economy is what tells product and service providers what people really desire/demand. But when you get your income by force, where people have no choice, then there is no way to determine whether what's being provided is what's really wanted.

... if you don't know what your talking about, then you don't know what you're talking about.

And clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

I can't help you if you've never been there, done that.

It's as simple as that. TYVM!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #107 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... if you don't know what your talking about, then you don't know what you're talking about.

And clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

I can't help you if you've never been there, done that.

It's as simple as that. TYVM!



Because I've never worked for the government I don't know what I'm talking about?



Or is that you way of simply dismissing people you disagree with without actually, you know addressing the argument? There's a name for that.
post #108 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post



Because I've never worked for the government I don't know what I'm talking about?



Or is that you way of simply dismissing people you disagree with without actually, you know addressing the argument? There's a name for that.

No, it's just that I'm not going to go there with your naive 18th century Libertarian POV.

Get a clue. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No, it's just that I'm not going to go there with your naive 18th century Libertarian POV.



Got it. Unwilling to defend your faulty presuppositions.
post #110 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post



Got it. Unwilling to defend your faulty presuppositions.

Ah, no!

I'm not willing to debate an ideology that simply wouldn't work in today's real world.

And saying my premise is wrong is your overly simplistic way of lying?

Seriously, if you want to play in the big leagues, you will need a whole lot of batting practice and fielding drills before you would ever have a chance of reaching my skill level!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #111 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'm not willing to debate an ideology that simply wouldn't work in today's real world.

There you go, piling on more faulty presumptions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And saying my premise is wrong is your overly simplistic way of lying?

No, it's a way of saying that your premise is wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Seriously, if you want to play in the big leagues, you will need a whole lot of batting practice and fielding drills before you would ever have a chance of reaching my skill level!

Ahhh. Ignorance and arrogance. What a lovely combination.
post #112 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

There you go, piling on more faulty presumptions.




No, it's a way of saying that your premise is wrong.




Ahhh. Ignorance and arrogance. What a lovely combination.

No comment.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #113 of 255
Do you call everyone that challenges your arguments a "troll"?

See you simply want everyone to accept your unsupported premises (for example that without the government we'd be in the dark ages) without challenge. If I'm a "troll" for call you out, then it's a label I'll wear with pride.
post #114 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Do you call everyone that challenges your arguments a "troll"?

See you simply want everyone to accept your unsupported premises (for example that without the government we'd be in the dark ages) without challenge. If I'm a "troll" for call you out, then it's a label I'll wear with pride.

That's the behavior you're exhibiting now, no two ways about it.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #115 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Ya got no street cred.

Priceless. This from someone who's primary form of argument appears to be ad hominem! A good hearty laugh for me to start the weekend. Thanks.
post #116 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Priceless. This from someone who's primary form of argument appears to be ad hominem! A good hearty laugh for me to start the weekend. Thanks.

Have a nice weekend.

Please come back when you have a better understanding of how our federal government works.

PS - What does the Russian form of government have to do with the American form of government? I'm not sure you can extrapolate our form of government to their form of government, or visa versa. It appears as if you were trying to make some kind of analogy, but for some reason it is an entirely moot point, since the American government isn't the Russian government.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #117 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Please come back when you have a better understanding of how our federal government works.

According to you I won't unless I've worked for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

PS - What does the Russian form of government have to do with the American form of government? I'm not sure you can extrapolate our form of government to their form of government, or visa versa. It appears as if you were trying to make some kind of analogy, but for some reason it is an entirely moot point, since the American government isn't the Russian government.

I was addressing your (unsupported and faulty) assumption and claim of "big government efficiency" by providing an example where they did everything through the government (very inefficiently as it turns out). In fact I could cite dozens of examples where government does things less efficiently that the the thousands of competitors in the free-market, private sector. This is the problem with big-government advocates, you assume that the state can do things more efficiently without trying to support this assumption with pesky little things like facts and evidence.

(Of course I'm arguing with someone who thinks that tax increases can actually help the economy to grow. Go figure.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Have a nice weekend.

You too.
post #118 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

According to you I won't unless I've worked for it.



I was addressing your (unsupported and faulty) assumption and claim of "big government efficiency" by providing an example where they did everything through the government (very inefficiently as it turns out). In fact I could cite dozens of examples where government does things less efficiently that the the thousands of competitors in the free-market, private sector. This is the problem with big-government advocates, you assume that the state can do things more efficiently without trying to support this assumption with pesky little things like facts and evidence.

(Of course I'm arguing with someone who thinks that tax increases can actually help the economy to grow. Go figure.)

Your last statement, show me where I stated as such. \ Looks like an incorrect interpretation of my position, which I haven't even stated to begin with.

And as a public servant, I've worked with the private sector on numerous occasions, overall I've found the private sector dealings I've had, to be quick AND sloppy (at their end). You get what you pay for, I guess. \

How can you even compare a totalitarian government to a democratic government, it make no sense whatsoever. It's apples to oranges.

Oh, and there's no such thing as a "free market" hundreds of billions of federal dollars provide for a socialized form of the "free market" otherwise known as corporate welfare.

Example, federal (and state/local) tax dollars fund road building, where heavy trucks produce virtually all of the subsequent damage to this infrastructure, the trucking industry couldn't exist without this form of corporate welfare.

The same is true of the navigation infrastructure (navigation channels. navaids, protective breakwater, jetty, and revetment structures).

Heck, the USA wouldn't even have one large shipbuilder, if it weren't for Navy procurements of their military watercraft, outside of that there are virtually no large ships being built in America (and there hasn't been for a long, long time), we wouldn't even be third rate by world standards.

The list goes on and on, automotive bailouts, airline bailouts, bank bailouts, heck if it wasn't for our extremely (per capita) heavy investments in defense spending, we couldn't compete with Airbus for passenger jets.

We should be investing heavily (with government backed funding) in upgrading/modernizing our rail infrastructure, because it's the second most efficient method (per ton) of cargo transport (after waterborne commerce).

High speed passenger/commuter trains you ask? China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, and Canada are kicking our behinds.

Big science is going overseas, because the federal government can no longer subsidize these efforts, as it once did.

In so many ways, these past seven years have been an utter nightmare, bad fiscal policies, being the main root of all these problems we now face.

The main point about not having worked for the federal government, is that you don't see the people, the actual civil servants, actually doing their jobs, you only see it from the top down, so that if you haven't been in the trenches you really have no idea how hard a typical civil servant works. At least the way I and my fellow coworkers have done and will continue to do.

So flatly stating that "big" government is less efficient than small government, just doesn't make sense, sure go ahead, eliminate all non-discretionary spending, and see what happens, it would make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk by comparison.

I see the common good that federal services provide, come up with a better system than the one we have now, but please leave your ideologies at the door, TYVM. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #119 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Point is that you just can't make things up, but since you seem to think so

That's a cute little post 'ry-cher, in line with the rest of your gems in this thread... but what exactly do you think I am "making up" ?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #120 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

First you assume that if the government doesn't provide a particular service (and you listed several) that they simply wouldn't be provided at all. You assumed that in the absence of government provision of these services (but in the presence of a whole bunch of new money in their pockets) that people would not find other, alternative, private/non-government means of obtaining these services.

Second, you assumed that the federal (which is what the poster you were responding to was referring) budget is the primary source of funding for the things you listed. It isn't. The fact is that 75% of the federal budget goes to primarily three things: direct transfers of money from one group people to another, "defense" (which is apparently what we call invading nations today) and interest on the debt (which is really, technically, simply a special case of the first). If you want to account for the portions of the federal budget allocated to transportation infrastructure, security* and justice and education, you'd come up with less that $200 billion for 2007 (out of about $3 trillion, or less than 7%).

*If you want to include defense...actual defense (not invading other countries, etc.) then one could approximate about 1/2 of the $580 billion defense budget. So another $290 billion. But heck, let every able bodied adult American have access to the public armories and one rifle and one pistol per adult (I suspect they have enough) and you have a citizen's militia (for probably a fair amount less than $280 billion per year!)

Excellent post on both points. Well done. So often we forget that there WAS a partial government shutdown in 1996, and guess what... we're all still here. Indeed, most of the "quality of life" things like water, sewer, etc are locally controlled. But never mind me, I'm an anti-federalist at heart, bound to join rancor with people who sleep better knowing that a bloated, powerful central government is taxing successful people in the cause of "fixing" all the inequality and injustice in the world.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"