By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The big problem with Obama's economic plan.

akuma587 on 11 September 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

You aren't even analyzing anything!  How can you say we are nowhere near that point when you haven't even brought up any real research or any real data!  Just because you say something doesn't just magically make it true.  Your logic is nothing but flawed because you haven't even presented anything to construct a logical analysis from.

 

 

But your telling me it's wrong without any logical analysis?

How is it possible for you to even be right if you have done no analysis in the first place?  I feel like I am arguing with a brick wall.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Sephiroth357 on 11 September 2008

You guys still believe in this crap?

Just...No comment.




TheRealMafoo on 11 September 2008
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

You aren't even analyzing anything!  How can you say we are nowhere near that point when you haven't even brought up any real research or any real data!  Just because you say something doesn't just magically make it true.  Your logic is nothing but flawed because you haven't even presented anything to construct a logical analysis from.

 

 

But your telling me it's wrong without any logical analysis?

How is it possible for you to even be right if you have done no analysis in the first place?  I feel like I am arguing with a brick wall.

 

 

So do I.

 

Can you find a chart somewhere that shows how much money the US government collected each year? I looked for one, and can't find it.



Sephiroth357 on 11 September 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
 

You aren't even analyzing anything!  How can you say we are nowhere near that point when you haven't even brought up any real research or any real data!  Just because you say something doesn't just magically make it true.  Your logic is nothing but flawed because you haven't even presented anything to construct a logical analysis from.

 

 

But your telling me it's wrong without any logical analysis?

How is it possible for you to even be right if you have done no analysis in the first place?  I feel like I am arguing with a brick wall.

 

 

So do I.

 

Can you find a chart somewhere that shows how much money the US government collected each year? I looked for one, and can't find it.
I don't think the government releases such things.

 

 




akuma587 on 11 September 2008
TheRealMafoo said:

 

So do I.

 

Can you find a chart somewhere that shows how much money the US government collected each year? I looked for one, and can't find it.

You are making two fatal assumptions:

1) The economy was generating the same amount of gross, pre-tax revenue as it was every year, when in actuality it wasn't, because an economy grows every year.  So a lower rate in the next year could actually bring in more revenue.  But government budgets grow also.  Under Bush they skyrocketed, which is why we are broke as a country.

2) As steven brought up, you are ignoring inflation as well, which means that even if the Bush Administratin earned more revenue that it did not necessarily earn more "real" revenue when adjusted for inflation.

You also have not established where would be the appropriate tax level for our economy, and have failed to differentiate between the various levels of tax brackets in our economy and how the people in those tax brackets have different behaviors and attitudes towards spending and taxes.

So in reality there would be multiple different Laffer curves for multiple different sections of the economy.

Each Laffer curve would have a different optimum tax rate for the highest amount of revenue.

Without accounting for all of the things mentioned above, you cannot draw a sound conclusion.  Issues and facts come before a conclusion, not after.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 11 September 2008
akuma587 said:

Police protection, military protection, firefighting services, emergency aid...you see, a private company offering those same services would not want to do so without making a profit, and the government is not interested in making a profit, it is simply providing those services.

It is much more difficult to reign in on a private industry too because cities would have to sign a whole bunch of contracts with a whole bunch of different providers of these services across the country which would generate a bunch of needless litigation if there was fault on the part of the provider of that service.

Please explain to me how that would be cheaper, or a better alternative?  There is a reason why the government takes control over some things, because it would be inefficient to let the private sector do so.  Would we want to have all of our military power in the hands of private corporations?  What's to stop a foreign country from paying them more so they would wipe us off the face of the earth?

 

 

The federal government does not pay for police protection, or firefighting services. They do pay for the Military and in some cases, use federal fund for emergency aid.

That emergency aid usually goes to a large contractor when it's administered. I would never want the military run by business, but I am sure if you contracted the entire thing out, it would cost a fraction of what it costs today.

The US has a great military, but it is by means a shinning example of economic prudence.



steven787 on 11 September 2008

In Nominal/Real(2008) Trillions of US$

Projected fiscal 2009
Revenue: 2.77/NA
Spending: 3.10

2008:
R: $2.66/2.66
S: $2.9


2007:
R: $2.4/2.51
S: $2.8

2006
R: $2.2/2.32
S:$2.7

Notice that those numbers do outpace inflation but not real GDP growth (~2.2% for the past few years averaged) or deficit spending.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

TheRealMafoo on 11 September 2008
akuma587 said:You are making two fatal assumptions:

1) The economy was generating the same amount of gross, pre-tax revenue as it was every year, when in actuality it wasn't, because an economy grows every year.  So a lower rate in the next year could actually bring in more revenue.  But government budgets grow also.  Under Bush they skyrocketed, which is why we are broke as a country.

2) As steven brought up, you are ignoring inflation as well, which means that even if the Bush Administratin earned more revenue that it did not necessarily earn more "real" revenue when adjusted for inflation.

You also have not established where would be the appropriate tax level for our economy, and have failed to differentiate between the various levels of tax brackets in our economy and how the people in those tax brackets have different behaviors and attitudes towards spending and taxes.

So in reality there would be multiple different Laffer curves for multiple different sections of the economy.

Each Laffer curve would have a different optimum tax rate for the highest amount of revenue.

Without accounting for all of the things mentioned above, you cannot draw a sound conclusion.  Issues and facts come before a conclusion, not after.

 

Again, this is all great, but where does it discredit what I have said? All you have said is I did not show due diligence in my assertions, thus they are wrong.

prove to me they are wrong.

Have we not collected more taxes in the years we lower taxes then in the years we have raised them? If you think not, show me.

What's in red, is what I said at the start of this thread. Our issue is spending. Can you show me where Obama plans to spend less?



TheRealMafoo on 11 September 2008
steven787 said:

In Nominal/Real(2008) Trillions of US$

Projected fiscal 2009
Revenue: 2.77/NA
Spending: 3.10

2008:
R: $2.66/2.66
S: $2.9


2007:
R: $2.4/2.51
S: $2.8

2006
R: $2.2/2.32
S:$2.7

Notice that those numbers do outpace inflation but not real GDP growth (~2.2% for the past few years averaged) or deficit spending.

Thanks Steven. Where did you get these numbers? How far back can you get them for?

 

 



psrock on 11 September 2008

where is all that spending money going?

I



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)