|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 19 2013 07:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 07:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2013 06:23 aksfjh wrote:On May 19 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2013 11:22 aksfjh wrote:On May 18 2013 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2013 03:28 aksfjh wrote:On May 18 2013 02:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:US Consumer Sentiment Surges; Leading Indicators Rise
...
The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's preliminary reading on the overall index on consumer sentiment rose to 83.7 from 76.4 in April, topping economists' expectations for 78.
It was the highest level since July 2007.
The barometer of current economic conditions jumped to 97.5 from 89.9, the highest since October 2007, while the gauge of consumer expectations gained to 74.8 from 67.8. ...
The Conference Board said on Friday that its Leading Economic Index increased 0.6 percent to 95.0 last month, the highest level since June 2008. LinkPretty damn good given what's going on with our trading partners in Europe. I wonder if those numbers are usually lead or lag indicators of economic activity. Either way, they don't seem "real," or at least important in the current climate. There aren't any reasons for consumer sentiment to rise, apart from getting used to unaltered levels of economic disparity. Incomes haven't risen above their previous highs, underemployment is still ridiculous, housing numbers are erratic, and none of the key drivers of these things are getting any better. This report looks more like sociology and less like economics. It's a leading indicator. I think you're too pessimistic. Income and employment have been steadily improving for years and housing is doing fantastic. Starts are up 13% YoY and prices are up almost 10%. I'm pessimistic because I'm weighing the recovery against what it should be, not what it could be. Wages are still far below their 2008 highs, but educational attainment is higher than ever. Households have stopped the deleveraging process, but debt levels are still the same. Rumor has it that more Americans are living hand-to-mouth, which would explain the lack of deleveraging. Inflation is still below target, which hints that job growth is stifled. The only bright spots come from company profits and cash reserves, but those won't fuel more recovery in their current state. As for housing, YoY we're doing great because the entire thing collapsed in 2008. Housing prices are now where they were in 1998, which is arguably lower than before the bubble. The only saving grace of our position is that we aren't in the Eurozone. By all other standards, the economy is still in the crapper and it stopped gaining ground on the potential in 2010. Disposable income is near pre-recession levels. Meanwhile, thanks to deleveraging and low rates, debt payments are taking a record low bite out of budgets. That makes for a strong consumer, particularly in regards to housing where affordability is still sky high. Add to that a shrinking trade deficit and growing government budgets and we should have a pretty good situation going forward. Disposable income is still below pre-recession levels, while GDP is above. Private consumer debt went down slightly since the recession started, but is still higher than ever before, and consumers have stopped deleveraging. If we're to believe recent reports about education, people are investing in education instead of homes for the long term, betting on better/higher income jobs, but that is far from the case. We're setting ourselves up for another round of deleveraging in the near future. The trade deficit gains are being fueled mostly by a glut in oil inventories (due to weakness especially in the EU) as well as a drop in US oil consumption. Exports are still declining, just not as fast as imports. This is probably seasonally related, but the outlook behind the numbers points to this as a coming trend. Housing indicators are going to continually improve until they hit an income/debt barrier (which is likely to happen sooner than later). At that point, incomes will HAVE to rise, but if unemployment/underemployment is still high, that's not going to happen. We need the unemployment numbers to come down, which either requires businesses to spend their cash piles or the government to reverse most of the austerity they've committed to. As for paralleluniverse, we've been hearing that recovery is 2-3 years away since 2010. The issue seems to be that we assume it will just happen on its own because we've been good or something. We see the same projections for Ireland, but nothing happens. I don't see things returning to normal without course corrections, like the Japanese have started doing. You need to check your data. Household debt has been falling. Exports have been booming. I have no idea what "income/debt barrier" you are talking about. As I posted, debt service is at a 30 year low - seems any barrier would be a long way off. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdfIn 2012, households stopped deleveraging.
Not sure what the difference would be but FRBNY says still deleveraging.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/national_economy/householdcredit/DistrictReport_Q12013.pdf
Assuming the report you are using is correct, we're talking about a tiny increase in debt.
|
On May 19 2013 08:29 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote:On May 18 2013 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 08:28 Danglars wrote:But of course, once we raise taxes ... many times more money gets spent! It's really just a huge tax hike with talk about closing the deficit. If passed, Congress is free to just spend many more times the money that's coming in, and increase the federal deficit as they always do. Tax and spend is the name of the game, and Obama's business as usual on that front. Well, I tried closing the deficit, but those mean old Republicans ... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gaCYxzV.gif) I hadn't really heard of Congressman Mike Kelly before I read this news article. He grilled the departing IRS commissioner on his failure of responsibility and the ramifications of this scandal. Check out this LINK for the video. REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?
My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?
You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans. The deficit is already fixed. Haven't you heard. Government spending has outpaced inflation by 43% in the last 10 years, and you're okay imagining that new spending measures in the next 10 years will be tame? Excuse me, pardon me, but if everything regarding the deficit is fine, why is Obama's budget raising taxes by $1 trillion dollars? Have we not seen revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years? Heck, have we seen a CBO 10-year prediction in the same timeframe be close to accurate? It's tax and spend: Obama is proposing a $1,000,000,000,000+ tax increase, Congress and the President will follow after with more ways to spend the money. Literally nothing the government will feasibly do short of some change brought on by armed insurrection or something is going to qualify as anything other than "tax and spend" by the talking point metric, so why even talk about it as some political issue that's a valid object of concern for parliamentarian-ism instead of advocating revolution? That would be more forthright at least.
For your future reference this is by and far the clearest example of a False dilemma argument there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Using fallacies as your only form of argument just makes you look stupid, Despite the aristocratic words you use to express your views it doesn't change the shit you put on the screen.
|
On May 19 2013 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 07:51 aksfjh wrote:On May 19 2013 07:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 19 2013 06:23 aksfjh wrote:On May 19 2013 01:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2013 11:22 aksfjh wrote:On May 18 2013 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 18 2013 03:28 aksfjh wrote:On May 18 2013 02:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:US Consumer Sentiment Surges; Leading Indicators Rise
...
The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's preliminary reading on the overall index on consumer sentiment rose to 83.7 from 76.4 in April, topping economists' expectations for 78.
It was the highest level since July 2007.
The barometer of current economic conditions jumped to 97.5 from 89.9, the highest since October 2007, while the gauge of consumer expectations gained to 74.8 from 67.8. ...
The Conference Board said on Friday that its Leading Economic Index increased 0.6 percent to 95.0 last month, the highest level since June 2008. LinkPretty damn good given what's going on with our trading partners in Europe. I wonder if those numbers are usually lead or lag indicators of economic activity. Either way, they don't seem "real," or at least important in the current climate. There aren't any reasons for consumer sentiment to rise, apart from getting used to unaltered levels of economic disparity. Incomes haven't risen above their previous highs, underemployment is still ridiculous, housing numbers are erratic, and none of the key drivers of these things are getting any better. This report looks more like sociology and less like economics. It's a leading indicator. I think you're too pessimistic. Income and employment have been steadily improving for years and housing is doing fantastic. Starts are up 13% YoY and prices are up almost 10%. I'm pessimistic because I'm weighing the recovery against what it should be, not what it could be. Wages are still far below their 2008 highs, but educational attainment is higher than ever. Households have stopped the deleveraging process, but debt levels are still the same. Rumor has it that more Americans are living hand-to-mouth, which would explain the lack of deleveraging. Inflation is still below target, which hints that job growth is stifled. The only bright spots come from company profits and cash reserves, but those won't fuel more recovery in their current state. As for housing, YoY we're doing great because the entire thing collapsed in 2008. Housing prices are now where they were in 1998, which is arguably lower than before the bubble. The only saving grace of our position is that we aren't in the Eurozone. By all other standards, the economy is still in the crapper and it stopped gaining ground on the potential in 2010. Disposable income is near pre-recession levels. Meanwhile, thanks to deleveraging and low rates, debt payments are taking a record low bite out of budgets. That makes for a strong consumer, particularly in regards to housing where affordability is still sky high. Add to that a shrinking trade deficit and growing government budgets and we should have a pretty good situation going forward. Disposable income is still below pre-recession levels, while GDP is above. Private consumer debt went down slightly since the recession started, but is still higher than ever before, and consumers have stopped deleveraging. If we're to believe recent reports about education, people are investing in education instead of homes for the long term, betting on better/higher income jobs, but that is far from the case. We're setting ourselves up for another round of deleveraging in the near future. The trade deficit gains are being fueled mostly by a glut in oil inventories (due to weakness especially in the EU) as well as a drop in US oil consumption. Exports are still declining, just not as fast as imports. This is probably seasonally related, but the outlook behind the numbers points to this as a coming trend. Housing indicators are going to continually improve until they hit an income/debt barrier (which is likely to happen sooner than later). At that point, incomes will HAVE to rise, but if unemployment/underemployment is still high, that's not going to happen. We need the unemployment numbers to come down, which either requires businesses to spend their cash piles or the government to reverse most of the austerity they've committed to. As for paralleluniverse, we've been hearing that recovery is 2-3 years away since 2010. The issue seems to be that we assume it will just happen on its own because we've been good or something. We see the same projections for Ireland, but nothing happens. I don't see things returning to normal without course corrections, like the Japanese have started doing. You need to check your data. Household debt has been falling. Exports have been booming. I have no idea what "income/debt barrier" you are talking about. As I posted, debt service is at a 30 year low - seems any barrier would be a long way off. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdfIn 2012, households stopped deleveraging. Not sure what the difference would be but FRBNY says still deleveraging. http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/national_economy/householdcredit/DistrictReport_Q12013.pdfAssuming the report you are using is correct, we're talking about a tiny increase in debt.
Tiny increase, but also a reverse in trend. We can't build another recovery on increased consumer debt, but that's the course we're headed in.
|
On May 19 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 17:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On May 18 2013 00:13 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 00:03 Sermokala wrote:
so logically what the republicans were doing was forceing the white house to release the correct emails to prove them wrong. Yeah, right. It's so logical, how can anyone deny it. So your logical story is this: Republicans had the emails before the White House released them, and despite them having the emails, they had to force the White House to release the emails which they already had, by publicly releasing the emails with slightly altered content. Make sense. In order for it to be a joke you have to have a punchline. What part about that doesn't make sense to you? Just beacuse you live in a blinkered "lets ignore anything that doesn't prove my ideology" doesn't mean the rest of us do. It doesn't help that the union that services the IRS gives so wildly disproportionaly to anti tea party democrats. People arn't angry that the IRS did something wrong people are angry that the people in the IRS just continued their partisan ways inside the office as they do outside of it. And beacuse Obama wants to just shuffle this under the rug like the other scandels refusing to actually do anything at all about them the shit is just going to keep pileing up for 2014. You thought the tea party was a firestorm of idological fury before? just imagine how strong they're gona be when the government is literally out to get them. You changed the subject. Admit it, your story is a fantasy you made up to justify their alleged actions to yourself. And it doesn't even make sense. It makes complete sense your the one thats utterly irrational and fails to even consider anything that doesn't agree with you. For fucks sake at least say why you think it doesn't make sense.
I did say why what you said made no sense, but you ignored it and changed the subject.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301¤tpage=240#4793
|
On May 19 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 08:28 Danglars wrote:But of course, once we raise taxes ... many times more money gets spent! It's really just a huge tax hike with talk about closing the deficit. If passed, Congress is free to just spend many more times the money that's coming in, and increase the federal deficit as they always do. Tax and spend is the name of the game, and Obama's business as usual on that front. Well, I tried closing the deficit, but those mean old Republicans ... I hadn't really heard of Congressman Mike Kelly before I read this news article. He grilled the departing IRS commissioner on his failure of responsibility and the ramifications of this scandal. Check out this LINK for the video. REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?
My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?
You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans. The deficit is already fixed. Haven't you heard. Government spending has outpaced inflation by 43% in the last 10 years, and you're okay imagining that new spending measures in the next 10 years will be tame? Excuse me, pardon me, but if everything regarding the deficit is fine, why is Obama's budget raising taxes by $1 trillion dollars? Have we not seen revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years? Heck, have we seen a CBO 10-year prediction in the same timeframe be close to accurate? It's tax and spend: Obama is proposing a $1,000,000,000,000+ tax increase, Congress and the President will follow after with more ways to spend the money.
Where are you getting this 43% number from?
Why are you using this 43% number which compares government spending to inflation? It's not the best measure of government spending to use. That doesn't take into account GDP and population growth. Government spending needs to increase as the population does, for example, a higher population means higher spending on education, it means more infrastructure is needed to support population growth, it means more workers pay taxes to support a higher debt burden. More GDP means a greater ability to bear the amount of government debt. So the most useful comparison is debt to GDP.
Obama's budget aims to replace sequester, through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Therefore the baseline it assumes is that the sequester is removed. So Obama does not suggest raising taxes on top of the sequester, but only after the removal of the sequester. The CBO's baseline is current law, so it assumes the sequester is in effect. Also, I'm not yet convinced that your $1 trillion is correct. It may use a different baseline to the above.
No we have not really always seen "revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years". Debt to GDP has increased under Reagan and Bush and decreased under Clinton. In the case of Obama it increased due to the financial crisis causing depressed revenues and increased spending on transfers (e.g. unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc).
The CBO projection assumes current law and is subject to some error. It cannot take into account unexpected shocks (either on the positive side or negative side). But the CBO is what both side uses, so to suggest a different metric would be moving the goalposts.
|
On May 19 2013 09:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 08:29 HunterX11 wrote:On May 19 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote:On May 18 2013 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 08:28 Danglars wrote:But of course, once we raise taxes ... many times more money gets spent! It's really just a huge tax hike with talk about closing the deficit. If passed, Congress is free to just spend many more times the money that's coming in, and increase the federal deficit as they always do. Tax and spend is the name of the game, and Obama's business as usual on that front. Well, I tried closing the deficit, but those mean old Republicans ... I hadn't really heard of Congressman Mike Kelly before I read this news article. He grilled the departing IRS commissioner on his failure of responsibility and the ramifications of this scandal. Check out this LINK for the video. REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?
My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?
You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans. The deficit is already fixed. Haven't you heard. Government spending has outpaced inflation by 43% in the last 10 years, and you're okay imagining that new spending measures in the next 10 years will be tame? Excuse me, pardon me, but if everything regarding the deficit is fine, why is Obama's budget raising taxes by $1 trillion dollars? Have we not seen revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years? Heck, have we seen a CBO 10-year prediction in the same timeframe be close to accurate? It's tax and spend: Obama is proposing a $1,000,000,000,000+ tax increase, Congress and the President will follow after with more ways to spend the money. Literally nothing the government will feasibly do short of some change brought on by armed insurrection or something is going to qualify as anything other than "tax and spend" by the talking point metric, so why even talk about it as some political issue that's a valid object of concern for parliamentarian-ism instead of advocating revolution? That would be more forthright at least. For your future reference this is by and far the clearest example of a False dilemma argument there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaUsing fallacies as your only form of argument just makes you look stupid, Despite the aristocratic words you use to express your views it doesn't change the shit you put on the screen.
Consider the following logical structure for an argument:
If P, then Q.
If !P, then Q.
If !Q, then Q.
It doesn't even really rise to the level of fallacy; it's just meaningless. How exactly am I supposed to address such an argument? Should I just give up and concede that Q is immutably true?
|
On May 19 2013 12:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote:On May 18 2013 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 08:28 Danglars wrote:But of course, once we raise taxes ... many times more money gets spent! It's really just a huge tax hike with talk about closing the deficit. If passed, Congress is free to just spend many more times the money that's coming in, and increase the federal deficit as they always do. Tax and spend is the name of the game, and Obama's business as usual on that front. Well, I tried closing the deficit, but those mean old Republicans ... I hadn't really heard of Congressman Mike Kelly before I read this news article. He grilled the departing IRS commissioner on his failure of responsibility and the ramifications of this scandal. Check out this LINK for the video. REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?
My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?
You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans. The deficit is already fixed. Haven't you heard. Government spending has outpaced inflation by 43% in the last 10 years, and you're okay imagining that new spending measures in the next 10 years will be tame? Excuse me, pardon me, but if everything regarding the deficit is fine, why is Obama's budget raising taxes by $1 trillion dollars? Have we not seen revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years? Heck, have we seen a CBO 10-year prediction in the same timeframe be close to accurate? It's tax and spend: Obama is proposing a $1,000,000,000,000+ tax increase, Congress and the President will follow after with more ways to spend the money. Where are you getting this 43% number from? Why are you using this 43% number which compares government spending to inflation? It's not the best measure of government spending to use. That doesn't take into account GDP and population growth. Government spending needs to increase as the population does, for example, a higher population means higher spending on education, it means more infrastructure is needed to support population growth, it means more workers pay taxes to support a higher debt burden. More GDP means a greater ability to bear the amount of government debt. So the most useful comparison is debt to GDP. Obama's budget aims to replace sequester, through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Therefore the baseline it assumes is that the sequester is removed. So Obama does not suggest raising taxes on top of the sequester, but only after the removal of the sequester. The CBO's baseline is current law, so it assumes the sequester is in effect. Also, I'm not yet convinced that your $1 trillion is correct. It may use a different baseline to the above. No we have not really always seen "revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years". Debt to GDP has increased under Reagan and Bush and decreased under Clinton. In the case of Obama it increased due to the financial crisis causing depressed revenues and increased spending on transfers (e.g. unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc). The CBO projection assumes current law and is subject to some error. It cannot take into account unexpected shocks (either on the positive side or negative side). But the CBO is what both side uses, so to suggest a different metric would be moving the goalposts.
The original point stands, the government can borrow from the markets as much money as it please, knowing full well, that taxes can always be increased in the future to cover costs of borrowing.
Not that that's how the government has operated in the past, but it can do so if desired. Naturally, for so long as the republicans hold one or both houses (or the white house) they will have to share the blame for such awkward policy.
On the whole the US gov is simply doing a lot of things that neither side of the political divide is willing to give up on, and therefore you have a large-ish government (comparatively it really isn't that big). The republican strategy of underfunding it, hailing from the 90s, has clearly failed.
I suggest the only decent thing to do is indeed to increase taxes to a level where debt service doesn't become your #1 expenditure. Debt itself isn't a terrible thing really, but not paying it down is.
|
On May 19 2013 17:10 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 09:49 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2013 08:29 HunterX11 wrote:On May 19 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote:On May 18 2013 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 08:28 Danglars wrote:But of course, once we raise taxes ... many times more money gets spent! It's really just a huge tax hike with talk about closing the deficit. If passed, Congress is free to just spend many more times the money that's coming in, and increase the federal deficit as they always do. Tax and spend is the name of the game, and Obama's business as usual on that front. Well, I tried closing the deficit, but those mean old Republicans ... I hadn't really heard of Congressman Mike Kelly before I read this news article. He grilled the departing IRS commissioner on his failure of responsibility and the ramifications of this scandal. Check out this LINK for the video. REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?
My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?
You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans. The deficit is already fixed. Haven't you heard. Government spending has outpaced inflation by 43% in the last 10 years, and you're okay imagining that new spending measures in the next 10 years will be tame? Excuse me, pardon me, but if everything regarding the deficit is fine, why is Obama's budget raising taxes by $1 trillion dollars? Have we not seen revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years? Heck, have we seen a CBO 10-year prediction in the same timeframe be close to accurate? It's tax and spend: Obama is proposing a $1,000,000,000,000+ tax increase, Congress and the President will follow after with more ways to spend the money. Literally nothing the government will feasibly do short of some change brought on by armed insurrection or something is going to qualify as anything other than "tax and spend" by the talking point metric, so why even talk about it as some political issue that's a valid object of concern for parliamentarian-ism instead of advocating revolution? That would be more forthright at least. For your future reference this is by and far the clearest example of a False dilemma argument there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaUsing fallacies as your only form of argument just makes you look stupid, Despite the aristocratic words you use to express your views it doesn't change the shit you put on the screen. Consider the following logical structure for an argument: If P, then Q. If !P, then Q. If !Q, then Q. It doesn't even really rise to the level of fallacy; it's just meaningless. How exactly am I supposed to address such an argument? Should I just give up and concede that Q is immutably true?
Don't make your argument a "I win or you want a civil war" argument. It rise's to a falacy when you say that your opponents are advocating revolution. surely you can't be that blind that you don't see how that goes over the line a bit.
|
Repeating the word, 'fallacy', doesn't make you sound any more authoritative (especially not when backed up by wikipedia links based in obvious misinterpretations of what the other person was saying and when freely misusing the term to apply not just to arguments but to conclusions).
If you have a problem with someone's argument, point out where it goes wrong. If you have a problem with a proposition someone asserts, point out why it is false. Instead calling these things "fallacies" is no improvement on responding with, "You're a dumb face."
|
I love it when radio hosts go off the deep end. Pete Santilli.
Miss Hillary Clinton needs to be convicted, she needs to be tried, convicted and shot in the vagina,” he said. “I wanna pull the trigger. That ‘C U Next Tuesday’ has killed human beings that are in our ranks of our service.”
Santilli alleged Clinton was involved in drug trafficking in Arkansas and the killing of U.S. troops overseas.
“I want to shoot her right in the vagina and I don’t want her to die right away,” he added. “I want her to feel the pain and I want to look her in the eyes and I want to say, on behalf of all Americans that you’ve killed, on behalf of the Navy SEALS, the families of Navy SEAL Team Six who were involved in the fake hunt down of this Obama, Obama bin Laden thing.
“That whole fake scenario, because these Navy SEALS know the truth, they killed them all. On behalf of all of those people, I’m supporting our troops by saying we need to try, convict, and shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina.”
Source
Obviously rants are good for a laugh, but this guy went there. What do I mean? Mena, Ark. That's what. Nom Nom Nom StealthBlue, I know you like 'drug trade' related stories. You'll probably enjoy the spoilered documentary.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much.
|
On May 19 2013 12:41 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote:On May 18 2013 17:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 18 2013 08:28 Danglars wrote:But of course, once we raise taxes ... many times more money gets spent! It's really just a huge tax hike with talk about closing the deficit. If passed, Congress is free to just spend many more times the money that's coming in, and increase the federal deficit as they always do. Tax and spend is the name of the game, and Obama's business as usual on that front. Well, I tried closing the deficit, but those mean old Republicans ... I hadn't really heard of Congressman Mike Kelly before I read this news article. He grilled the departing IRS commissioner on his failure of responsibility and the ramifications of this scandal. Check out this LINK for the video. REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?
My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?
You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans. The deficit is already fixed. Haven't you heard. Government spending has outpaced inflation by 43% in the last 10 years, and you're okay imagining that new spending measures in the next 10 years will be tame? Excuse me, pardon me, but if everything regarding the deficit is fine, why is Obama's budget raising taxes by $1 trillion dollars? Have we not seen revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years? Heck, have we seen a CBO 10-year prediction in the same timeframe be close to accurate? It's tax and spend: Obama is proposing a $1,000,000,000,000+ tax increase, Congress and the President will follow after with more ways to spend the money. Where are you getting this 43% number from? Why are you using this 43% number which compares government spending to inflation? It's not the best measure of government spending to use. That doesn't take into account GDP and population growth. Government spending needs to increase as the population does, for example, a higher population means higher spending on education, it means more infrastructure is needed to support population growth, it means more workers pay taxes to support a higher debt burden. More GDP means a greater ability to bear the amount of government debt. So the most useful comparison is debt to GDP. Obama's budget aims to replace sequester, through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Therefore the baseline it assumes is that the sequester is removed. So Obama does not suggest raising taxes on top of the sequester, but only after the removal of the sequester. The CBO's baseline is current law, so it assumes the sequester is in effect. Also, I'm not yet convinced that your $1 trillion is correct. It may use a different baseline to the above. No we have not really always seen "revenues chasing after wildly increasing spending in the last 30 years". Debt to GDP has increased under Reagan and Bush and decreased under Clinton. In the case of Obama it increased due to the financial crisis causing depressed revenues and increased spending on transfers (e.g. unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc). The CBO projection assumes current law and is subject to some error. It cannot take into account unexpected shocks (either on the positive side or negative side). But the CBO is what both side uses, so to suggest a different metric would be moving the goalposts.
Your very right. Unexpected shocks pan out something like this.
Income – The financial crisis cost the U.S. an estimated $648 billion due to slower economic growth, as measured by the difference between the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) economic forecast made in September 2008 and the actual performance of the economy from September 2008 through the end of 2009. That equates to an average of approximately $5,800 in lost income for each U.S. household.
Government Response – Federal government spending to mitigate the financial crisis through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will result in a net cost to taxpayers of $73 billion according to the CBO. This is approximately $2,050 per U.S. household on average.
Home Values – The U.S. lost $3.4 trillion in real estate wealth from July 2008 to March 2009 according to the Federal Reserve. This is roughly $30,300 per U.S. household. Further, 500,000 additional foreclosures began during the acute phase of the financial crisis than were expected, based on the September 2008 CBO forecast.
Stock Values – The U.S. lost $7.4 trillion in stock wealth from July 2008 to March 2009, according to the Federal Reserve. This is roughly $66,200 on average per U.S. household.
Jobs – 5.5 million more American jobs were lost due to slower economic growth during the financial crisis than what was predicted by the September 2008 CBO forecast.
I'm not here to argue, I just find your earlier 'Budget fixed Haven't you heard?' comment overly optimistic. China/Japan, Syria, Lebenon, Turkey, diplomatic rows with Russia. Another crisis and a war with a non-pipsqueak = estimates worth trash.
Source
|
United States42663 Posts
On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much.
I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution.
|
On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution.
Why don't we just skip the middleman (government) and force peter to pay paul?
|
United States42663 Posts
On May 20 2013 01:42 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution. Why don't we just skip the middleman (government) and force peter to pay paul?
Because Paul will probably spend the money on the wrong things. It's not practical for each and every Paul to all individually do the research and manage the funds appropriately. Specialisation.
|
On May 20 2013 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 01:42 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution. Why don't we just skip the middleman (government) and force peter to pay paul? Because Paul will probably spend the money on the wrong things. It's not practical for each and every Paul to all individually do the research and manage the funds appropriately. Specialisation.
If Paul can't even be trusted to spend the money on the right things, why is giving him what the government thinks he needs beneficial for a society?
|
United States42663 Posts
On May 20 2013 01:45 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 01:42 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution. Why don't we just skip the middleman (government) and force peter to pay paul? Because Paul will probably spend the money on the wrong things. It's not practical for each and every Paul to all individually do the research and manage the funds appropriately. Specialisation. If Paul can't even be trusted to spend the money on the right things, why is giving him what the government thinks he needs beneficial for a society?
Because it stops the Pauls getting together and murdering Peters and there are a lot more Pauls than Peters.
|
On May 20 2013 01:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 01:45 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 01:42 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution. Why don't we just skip the middleman (government) and force peter to pay paul? Because Paul will probably spend the money on the wrong things. It's not practical for each and every Paul to all individually do the research and manage the funds appropriately. Specialisation. If Paul can't even be trusted to spend the money on the right things, why is giving him what the government thinks he needs beneficial for a society? Because it stops the Pauls getting together and murdering Peters and there are a lot more Pauls than Peters.
That is a pretty funny way to look at it I guess, I would think you'd have something better than that. So we force peter to pay paul so paul doesn't murder peter. Sounds like armed robbery with the governments assistance lol
|
United States42663 Posts
On May 20 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 01:47 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 01:45 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 01:42 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 01:18 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much. I refer to reality which, regardless of what Milton Freidman says, shows that wealth naturally pools at the top and requires forceful redistribution. Why don't we just skip the middleman (government) and force peter to pay paul? Because Paul will probably spend the money on the wrong things. It's not practical for each and every Paul to all individually do the research and manage the funds appropriately. Specialisation. If Paul can't even be trusted to spend the money on the right things, why is giving him what the government thinks he needs beneficial for a society? Because it stops the Pauls getting together and murdering Peters and there are a lot more Pauls than Peters. That is a pretty funny way to look at it I guess, I would think you'd have something better than that. So we force peter to pay paul so paul doesn't murder peter. Sounds like armed robbery with the governments assistance lol
It is. And it's still way better for Peter than the alternative. It's also better for Paul though. Going "Well why can't we have rampant unrestrained inequality of wealth, followed by the both physical (in the form of private communities) and societal (different schools, hospitals etc) separation of rich from poor, combined with the political disenfranchisement of the entire underclass? There's no way that will end badly." is idiotic and shortsighted.
They will rise up and they will kill you and to be honest, if I were in the underclass, I'd do it too. A non redistributive system will naturally become an oligarchy which in turn will simultaneously exploit and repress the people in order to maintain itself because it is not a naturally stable system. At that point it simply becomes an arms race between the ability of the few to repress the masses and the ability of the masses to rise up. From there there are three potential outcomes. A police state maintaining the oligarchy, an outcome which has only ever worked in North Korea. Revolution by the masses, anarchy and collapse. Concessions to the people, both in terms of wealth redistribution and political rights which is what happened to get us where we are today.
|
On May 20 2013 00:19 SayGen wrote:
Limited government is best government, the more capital in the hands of the people (IE not taken away via taxes and BS rules and regulations or gov stimulated inflation) the more opportunity for social movement (IE: The capability behind the concept of the American Dream).
A tax of any kind, regardless of nomenclature is a hindrance to growth. I refer to Milton Freidman who explains this with a far superior articulation than I ever could.
If you support ANY kind of government spending that isn't useful to the whole, I am against you.
Fire, Police, medical response, Military, etc help everyone.
Phones for illegal immigrants--- not so much.
If this is the case, why does study after study consistently show that the US is among the worst countries in the industrialized world in terms of social mobility? Wealth will hoard more wealth, not spread it. Actively giving people opportunities creates prosperity, forgiving of student loans is a good example. Leaving everyone to make their own way just means power and wealth will stay exactly where it is, it essentially becomes a hereditary pseudo-monarchy, something that strikes me as highly unamerican.
Bane was right, the myths of opportunity are just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
