|
A Prognostication
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: Jack Stein wrote: If it DID happen we right-wingers could sustain the coup because we have most of the guns. We don't have nearly as many guns as the government. In fact, if it were up to the left, only the government would have guns, thus, would be rather easy for the government to rule with an iron fist (the left motto) whenever it chooses. To do this, the US would need to undergo a fundamental change from right leaning to far left. This has been going on for around 100 years and in the last few, has rapidly picked up pace, and our current regime actually campaigned on it. But the government would lack enough people to actually FIRE all the guns they have warehoused. Today's military is not composed of automatons or cannon-fodder. Today's general is well aware that the corporal running the radio is as much an expert at his job as the general is at his. The American soldier will NEVER fire on American civilians, no matter who gives the order (unless, of course, those civilians are rioting hippies). You're not including the National Guard then. (Kent State) |
A Prognostication
On 8/1/2011 7:17 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articleZ8ednUimN7kYBKvTnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: k-nuttle wrote: You are right a budget is a plan where you have considered all possibilities with plans for excesses and deficiencies. The reserve is part of the budget and absorbs the excess and can proved funds to cover the deficiencies About the only entities that try to operate with out a budget is the US government and some states. I believe all of the states with budget problems do not have the balance budget requirement. All successful companies work to a budget, and as private entities, must manage their excess and deficient revenues. Forty-nine states require a balanced budget. How they get there is interesting: * One way is to determine the state's spending requirements then adjust revenue (i.e., raise taxes) to meet the requirements. * The opposite (my state) is to calculate how much revenue is expected, then adjust projected spending to match. Then there's the approach used by a "balanced budget" amendment introduced in Congress in, IIRC, the early 1980s: it would have required the President to submit to Congress an estimate of revenue during the coming fiscal year, and a spending budget that did not exceed the revenue estimate -- but nothing required the estimate to be in any way realistic. A better way, IMHO, would be to require that expenditures in any calendar year not exceed revenues received during the immediately previous calendar year. No estimating, no fudging, just the hard numbers. There would, of course, need to be some means of suspending this requirement during wartime or national emergency. An interesting phenomenon is what happens toward the end of a budget year. If spending is below what was budgeted, a spending frenzy occurs to make sure all budgeted money is spent so next years budget wont be cut. Then there's federal baseline budgeting where a flat budget includes an 8% increase every year. Any increase less than this amount is considered a cut. |
A Prognostication
On 8/1/2011 10:36 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 8/1/2011 7:17 AM, Doug Miller wrote: In articleZ8ednUimN7kYBKvTnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: k-nuttle wrote: You are right a budget is a plan where you have considered all possibilities with plans for excesses and deficiencies. The reserve is part of the budget and absorbs the excess and can proved funds to cover the deficiencies About the only entities that try to operate with out a budget is the US government and some states. I believe all of the states with budget problems do not have the balance budget requirement. All successful companies work to a budget, and as private entities, must manage their excess and deficient revenues. Forty-nine states require a balanced budget. How they get there is interesting: * One way is to determine the state's spending requirements then adjust revenue (i.e., raise taxes) to meet the requirements. * The opposite (my state) is to calculate how much revenue is expected, then adjust projected spending to match. Then there's the approach used by a "balanced budget" amendment introduced in Congress in, IIRC, the early 1980s: it would have required the President to submit to Congress an estimate of revenue during the coming fiscal year, and a spending budget that did not exceed the revenue estimate -- but nothing required the estimate to be in any way realistic. A better way, IMHO, would be to require that expenditures in any calendar year not exceed revenues received during the immediately previous calendar year. No estimating, no fudging, just the hard numbers. There would, of course, need to be some means of suspending this requirement during wartime or national emergency. An interesting phenomenon is what happens toward the end of a budget year. If spending is below what was budgeted, a spending frenzy occurs to make sure all budgeted money is spent so next years budget wont be cut. Then there's federal baseline budgeting where a flat budget includes an 8% increase every year. Any increase less than this amount is considered a cut. I beleive that was a social democrat invention. I would like to see spending based on the revenues based on the previous years revenue. This make good budgeting sense |
A Prognostication
|
A Prognostication
In article m, Doug Winterburn wrote:
An interesting phenomenon is what happens toward the end of a budget year. If spending is below what was budgeted, a spending frenzy occurs to make sure all budgeted money is spent so next years budget wont be cut. I spent 13 years as a civilian employee of the Navy; the last eight or nine of those years, I was the sysadmin for the mainframe that ran the procurement system at our facility. I'm well familiar with that phenomenon. We'd typically see transaction rates in September of about double the average for the other 11 months. Then there's federal baseline budgeting where a flat budget includes an 8% increase every year. Any increase less than this amount is considered a cut. Only in Washington can an increase be called a cut. Try that one with SWMBO if she asks you to spend less on tools next year: "Well, honey, I spent $2000 this year and I planned to spend $3000 next year, but I'm only gonna spend $2500 instead, so I'm really spending five hundred dollars less." See how far that flies. :-b |
A Prognostication
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com: Not inflation adjusted, just the actual debt numbers. The annual increases in debt since the Eisenhower administration indicate that spending has outpaced revenue for over 50 years - in other words deficit spending for all that time. There hasn't been a surplus or balanced budget in over half a century, no matter what the media and liberals claim. Glancing at the last numbers, it seems that until 2007 there wasn't too much of an increase if you guess a bit at inflation. But then, no inflation to speak of and 10+ % yearly increases in debt ... See, you can easily twist statistics your way or mine ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Prognostication
|
A Prognostication
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 07:24:24 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Not inflation adjusted, just the actual debt numbers. When adjusted for inflation, the $257 billion debt in 1950 is the same as 2.3 trillion in 2010. So while the debt has definitely increased over time, 5.6 trillion vs 2.3 trillion is a lot less grotesque than the unadjusted numbers imply. And reflects reality, not a political position. The annual increases in debt since the Eisenhower administration indicate that spending has outpaced revenue for over 50 years - in other words deficit spending for all that time. There hasn't been a surplus or balanced budget in over half a century, no matter what the media and liberals claim. That's just plain wrong. There have been several times when there was no deficit. Once again you're using unadjusted numbers to make a political point. I suggest you look at the following report from the OMB showing adjusted figures: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf Finally, there is a rather lengthy discussion, well footnoted, of the US budget and deficits at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget that not only describes the problems, but analyzes some of the proposed solutions. But it's not light reading. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
A Prognostication
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:37:35 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
After people learned what it was about, support for it dropped a bit. Agreed. But some of what they "learned" about it was totally false like the "death squads" and such. It's not hard for a determined propagandist to put across whatever "facts" he wants. Remember that Bush had over 50% of the people convinced that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And he did it without actually saying so, just by implying it. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
A Prognostication
On 8/1/2011 9:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says... On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 09:27:51 -0400, Jack Stein wrote: Their salaries are no biggie, throw in all the perks and you get a little bigger. One of the perks which you may or may not have included is the large staffs of reps and sens. Something over 15,000 in total. Their salaries and benefits add up to quite a bit. I wonder if a senator with 34 staff members ever actually reads a bill before he or she signs it? For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff Another Amendment I'd love to see: Every congressman must recite a bill verbatim without error before he is allowed to vote in favor of it. Unfortunately, being able to recite it and being able to understand it are two different things... |
A Prognostication
On 8/1/2011 9:15 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 07:24:24 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote: Not inflation adjusted, just the actual debt numbers. When adjusted for inflation, the $257 billion debt in 1950 is the same as 2.3 trillion in 2010. So while the debt has definitely increased over time, 5.6 trillion vs 2.3 trillion is a lot less grotesque than the unadjusted numbers imply. And reflects reality, not a political position. Where are you coming up with these current debt numbers? You appear to about $10 trillion short. The annual increases in debt since the Eisenhower administration indicate that spending has outpaced revenue for over 50 years - in other words deficit spending for all that time. There hasn't been a surplus or balanced budget in over half a century, no matter what the media and liberals claim. That's just plain wrong. There have been several times when there was no deficit. Once again you're using unadjusted numbers to make a political point. I suggest you look at the following report from the OMB showing adjusted figures: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf Finally, there is a rather lengthy discussion, well footnoted, of the US budget and deficits at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget that not only describes the problems, but analyzes some of the proposed solutions. But it's not light reading. Any reading considering the basic definitions of deficit, surplus and debt will tell you that since debt has increased each and every year since the fifties, there have been no surpluses, only deficits. The differences are entirely attributable to what is called intragovernmental debt, that is the debt the government incurs as a result of transferring all federal trust fund surpluses to the general fund and placing the debt instrument into those trust funds in return. Those surpluses are counted as revenues for the fiscal year, but the debt instrument is not counted as an expense for that fiscal year - however it is added to the debt. When the holder of debt wants his cash, there is no difference in intragovernmental debt versus regular debt. |
A Prognostication
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:14:11 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 8/1/2011 9:15 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote: When adjusted for inflation, the $257 billion debt in 1950 is the same as 2.3 trillion in 2010. So while the debt has definitely increased over time, 5.6 trillion vs 2.3 trillion is a lot less grotesque than the unadjusted numbers imply. And reflects reality, not a political position. Where are you coming up with these current debt numbers? You appear to about $10 trillion short. You're right. I meant to say 2000, before Bush and then Obama ran it through the roof. One can only hope that was an aberration. But the point was that unadjusted numbers make both deficits and surpluses look bigger than they really are. That's just plain wrong. There have been several times when there was no deficit. Any reading considering the basic definitions of deficit, surplus and debt will tell you that since debt has increased each and every year since the fifties, there have been no surpluses, only deficits. You're still wrong. Look at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm and look at 1951, 1956, and 1957. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
A Prognostication
On 8/1/2011 5:15 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:14:11 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote: On 8/1/2011 9:15 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote: When adjusted for inflation, the $257 billion debt in 1950 is the same as 2.3 trillion in 2010. So while the debt has definitely increased over time, 5.6 trillion vs 2.3 trillion is a lot less grotesque than the unadjusted numbers imply. And reflects reality, not a political position. Where are you coming up with these current debt numbers? You appear to about $10 trillion short. You're right. I meant to say 2000, before Bush and then Obama ran it through the roof. One can only hope that was an aberration. But the point was that unadjusted numbers make both deficits and surpluses look bigger than they really are. That's just plain wrong. There have been several times when there was no deficit. Any reading considering the basic definitions of deficit, surplus and debt will tell you that since debt has increased each and every year since the fifties, there have been no surpluses, only deficits. You're still wrong. Look at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm and look at 1951, 1956, and 1957. The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is: Your mother and I want to spend about $10,000 per month, but we only have $5,800 a month income. So we (your parents generation)have opened up a $17 trillion (by 2013) credit account in your and your kids (our grandkids) names so we can spend the extra $4200 per month. The new budget agreement that congress has just passed might lower the monthly charges to only $4000. But don't worry - we'll be gone before the bill comes due. BTW, these are the approximate fractional amounts we are currently racking up for our posterity. |
A Prognostication
On 7/31/2011 10:13 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/31/2011 8:44 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: I have to wonder if we need as many government employees though. Used to be for every 10 private employees, there was one government. Now it is 4 to 1. Hell, we need'em, doncha know! ... two cops, I mean two, count'em TWO cops, loaded down with weapons worthy of a military exercise, came out and ordered me to quit mowing my postage stamp of a yard at 11:30AM last Sunday ... a yard for which I pay $13k + a year in property taxes for the privilege; and half of that to pay for a broken educational system where 61.7% of the students are from parents who are mostly here illegally, and only 7.8% of the entire student body remotely share my heritage: You and Linda still have a chance to move in to the burbs. There are 4 empty lots on our street. ;~) Move out here with the "regular", people. ;~) |
A Prognostication
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:57:34 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: You and Linda still have a chance to move in to the burbs. There are 4 empty lots on our street. ;~) Move out here with the "regular", people. ;~) So, what Festool products you haven't bought yet does Karl have that you want to borrow? It would be really convenient to just walk across the street to get them wouldn't it? g |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 4:00 AM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:57:34 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: You and Linda still have a chance to move in to the burbs. There are 4 empty lots on our street. ;~) Move out here with the "regular", people. ;~) So, what Festool products you haven't bought yet does Karl have that you want to borrow? It would be really convenient to just walk across the street to get them wouldn't it?g Actually I think I have more Festool with tails than he does. ;~) He has more rails and accessories. I think we both have an eye each others tool that essentially does the same thing, mine is portable and his is not. |
A Prognostication
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com: On 8/1/2011 5:15 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote: On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:14:11 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote: On 8/1/2011 9:15 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote: When adjusted for inflation, the $257 billion debt in 1950 is the same as 2.3 trillion in 2010. So while the debt has definitely increased over time, 5.6 trillion vs 2.3 trillion is a lot less grotesque than the unadjusted numbers imply. And reflects reality, not a political position. Where are you coming up with these current debt numbers? You appear to about $10 trillion short. You're right. I meant to say 2000, before Bush and then Obama ran it through the roof. One can only hope that was an aberration. But the point was that unadjusted numbers make both deficits and surpluses look bigger than they really are. That's just plain wrong. There have been several times when there was no deficit. Any reading considering the basic definitions of deficit, surplus and debt will tell you that since debt has increased each and every year since the fifties, there have been no surpluses, only deficits. You're still wrong. Look at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm and look at 1951, 1956, and 1957. The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is: Your mother and I want to spend about $10,000 per month, but we only have $5,800 a month income. So we (your parents generation)have opened up a $17 trillion (by 2013) credit account in your and your kids (our grandkids) names so we can spend the extra $4200 per month. The new budget agreement that congress has just passed might lower the monthly charges to only $4000. But don't worry - we'll be gone before the bill comes due. BTW, these are the approximate fractional amounts we are currently racking up for our posterity. Once again, as nonsensical as the current congressional approaches are, we have to keep in mind where this deficit explosion came from. Apart from the real estate balloon explosion that fed part of this, it was just plain excruciatingly stupid policy to cut taxes while waging 2 wars. Cutting taxes cannot by definition bring in more revenue other than by letting people and companies off the hook when they should have paid before. Yes, I am a liberal. I am also for prudent investing and spending no more than is reasonable, and taxing to the level that is needed. And that doesn't mean tax and spend. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 6:25 AM, Leon wrote:
On 8/2/2011 4:00 AM, Dave wrote: On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:57:34 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: You and Linda still have a chance to move in to the burbs. There are 4 empty lots on our street. ;~) Move out here with the "regular", people. ;~) So, what Festool products you haven't bought yet does Karl have that you want to borrow? It would be really convenient to just walk across the street to get them wouldn't it?g Actually I think I have more Festool with tails than he does. ;~) He has more rails and accessories. I think we both have an eye each others tool that essentially does the same thing, mine is portable and his is not. Read that as: "I have a Domino, he does not gloat,gloat!" g Ackshully ... I have three Festool sanders, a TS75, and a CT22E, all with tails. For at total of four and 32/32nd tailed Festools (that's five for you, Leon) ;). So, what have you bought that you didn't tell me about, eh? LOL -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
A Prognostication
On 8/1/2011 10:29 AM, Robatoy wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote: The American soldier will NEVER fire on American civilians, no matter who gives the order (unless, of course, those civilians are rioting hippies). You're not including the National Guard then. (Kent State) They're the only ones he included. He didn't include the Branch Davidians or the entire southern half of the country. -- Jack The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others. http://jbstein.com |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 9:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 8/2/2011 6:25 AM, Leon wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:00 AM, Dave wrote: On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:57:34 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: You and Linda still have a chance to move in to the burbs. There are 4 empty lots on our street. ;~) Move out here with the "regular", people. ;~) So, what Festool products you haven't bought yet does Karl have that you want to borrow? It would be really convenient to just walk across the street to get them wouldn't it?g Actually I think I have more Festool with tails than he does. ;~) He has more rails and accessories. I think we both have an eye each others tool that essentially does the same thing, mine is portable and his is not. Read that as: "I have a Domino, he does not gloat,gloat!" g LOL, YOU have the multi-router, which is IMHO is like having a HD Laguna kind of tool setting in your shop. Ackshully ... I have three Festool sanders, a TS75, and a CT22E, all with tails. For at total of four and 32/32nd tailed Festools (that's five for you, Leon) ;). Lets see here,,, I have a Rotex, the rectangle 400 Finish Sander, TS75, Domino, and CT22. That's 5. I musta been thinking about the ones I was wishing for. ;~) I sure could have used the fancy Domino drill with eccentric off-set when crawling around under the islands and installing slides on my last drawer installment. You certainly have more grey and green boxes. Systainers So, what have you bought that you didn't tell me about, eh? LOL Nuth'in |
A Prognostication
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:07:07 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
You're still wrong. Look at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm and look at 1951, 1956, and 1957. The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is: Lets see: I explained where I was wrong. You ignore data showing you were wrong. Which of us is more credible? -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 9:38 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:07:07 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote: You're still wrong. Look at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm and look at 1951, 1956, and 1957. The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is: Lets see: I explained where I was wrong. You ignore data showing you were wrong. Which of us is more credible? I pointed out that there have been no surpluses since the fifties, and you confirmed? What's at issue? |
A Prognostication
I wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. ---------------------------------- One for three works for a prognostication. Lew |
A Prognostication
Han wrote:
.. Cutting taxes cannot by definition bring in more revenue other than by letting people and companies off the hook when they should have paid before. Yes, I am a liberal. I am also for prudent investing and spending no more than is reasonable, and taxing to the level that is needed. And that doesn't mean tax and spend. I understand how you can think that. Most liberals, progressives, socialists, Communists, Keynesian, etc., think that the amount of wealth is constant and their goal is redistribution to make the pie-slices more equal. Conservatives believe that wealth can be created and each person's slice gets bigger the more wealth overall. If you still doubt the latter, look at the historical GDP. Except for the last five years or so, GDP far outpaced inflation. How could this be if wealth was not being created? Further, when the government takes a dollar of wealth out of the economy, that's a dollar of wealth destroyed. All that said, tax cuts allow the dollars retained by private enterprise to multiply. Raised taxes takes that dollar out of the economy. As for empirical evidence, EVERY TIME a tax cut has been employed, tax revenues to the government have risen. |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 12:42 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote: . Cutting taxes cannot by definition bring in more revenue other than by letting people and companies off the hook when they should have paid before. Yes, I am a liberal. I am also for prudent investing and spending no more than is reasonable, and taxing to the level that is needed. And that doesn't mean tax and spend. I understand how you can think that. Most liberals, progressives, socialists, Communists, Keynesian, etc., think that the amount of wealth is constant and their goal is redistribution to make the pie-slices more equal. Conservatives believe that wealth can be created and each person's slice gets bigger the more wealth overall. If you still doubt the latter, look at the historical GDP. Except for the last five years or so, GDP far outpaced inflation. How could this be if wealth was not being created? Further, when the government takes a dollar of wealth out of the economy, that's a dollar of wealth destroyed. All that said, tax cuts allow the dollars retained by private enterprise to multiply. Raised taxes takes that dollar out of the economy. As for empirical evidence, EVERY TIME a tax cut has been employed, tax revenues to the government have risen. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm |
A Prognostication
"HeyBub" wrote in
m: Han wrote: . Cutting taxes cannot by definition bring in more revenue other than by letting people and companies off the hook when they should have paid before. Yes, I am a liberal. I am also for prudent investing and spending no more than is reasonable, and taxing to the level that is needed. And that doesn't mean tax and spend. I understand how you can think that. Most liberals, progressives, socialists, Communists, Keynesian, etc., think that the amount of wealth is constant and their goal is redistribution to make the pie-slices more equal. Conservatives believe that wealth can be created and each person's slice gets bigger the more wealth overall. If you still doubt the latter, look at the historical GDP. Except for the last five years or so, GDP far outpaced inflation. How could this be if wealth was not being created? Further, when the government takes a dollar of wealth out of the economy, that's a dollar of wealth destroyed. All that said, tax cuts allow the dollars retained by private enterprise to multiply. Raised taxes takes that dollar out of the economy. As for empirical evidence, EVERY TIME a tax cut has been employed, tax revenues to the government have risen. Some of that is true. Some of that are lies. I'm surprised you keep repeating them. The Reagan trickle down hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven. Right now (today), the stockmarket slumps with a loud thud to its lowest point this year, because all those planned cuts will put people out of jobs. No job, no salary, no purchasing power. Yes cuts can stimulate the economy, but what about those people working on FAA projects who suddenly are out of work? If that is how this socalled compromise is going to work, I'm glad I have some TIAA money available. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Prognostication
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:19:44 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm "For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase." Wonder how much of that was due to their share of the income going up and the share of the rest of us going down? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_gains.jpg And what the numbers would have been had there not been an increase in 2- earner households due to necessity? -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
A Prognostication
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:52:28 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Lets see: I explained where I was wrong. You ignore data showing you were wrong. Which of us is more credible? I pointed out that there have been no surpluses since the fifties, and you confirmed? What's at issue? I'm going to give up responding to you Doug You blithely ignore facts that disagree with you. In the years I asked you to look at, the US debt went *down*. That means there was a surplus in those years. And for later years, look at: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf It shows a surplus in 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. But like I said, you won't believe those numbers either. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 4:01 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:19:44 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm "For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase." Wonder how much of that was due to their share of the income going up and the share of the rest of us going down? http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_gains.jpg And what the numbers would have been had there not been an increase in 2- earner households due to necessity? |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 4:12 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:52:28 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote: Lets see: I explained where I was wrong. You ignore data showing you were wrong. Which of us is more credible? I pointed out that there have been no surpluses since the fifties, and you confirmed? What's at issue? I'm going to give up responding to you Doug You blithely ignore facts that disagree with you. In the years I asked you to look at, the US debt went *down*. That's true for those years in the fifties as I pointed out - no disagreement. That means there was a surplus in those years. And for later years, look at: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf It shows a surplus in 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Since the debt went up in those years, how was there a true surplus? But like I said, you won't believe those numbers either. Oh, I understand them. As I also pointed out before, it was by counting all trust fund surpluses as general fund revenue - some DC magic accounting. However the SS part of that trick is over (because of current unemployment) as SS revenues are not currently covering outlays. That wasn't supposed to happen until 2047 or some such future date. |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 5:16 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in m: Han wrote: . Cutting taxes cannot by definition bring in more revenue other than by letting people and companies off the hook when they should have paid before. Yes, I am a liberal. I am also for prudent investing and spending no more than is reasonable, and taxing to the level that is needed. And that doesn't mean tax and spend. I understand how you can think that. Most liberals, progressives, socialists, Communists, Keynesian, etc., think that the amount of wealth is constant and their goal is redistribution to make the pie-slices more equal. Conservatives believe that wealth can be created and each person's slice gets bigger the more wealth overall. If you still doubt the latter, look at the historical GDP. Except for the last five years or so, GDP far outpaced inflation. How could this be if wealth was not being created? Further, when the government takes a dollar of wealth out of the economy, that's a dollar of wealth destroyed. All that said, tax cuts allow the dollars retained by private enterprise to multiply. Raised taxes takes that dollar out of the economy. As for empirical evidence, EVERY TIME a tax cut has been employed, tax revenues to the government have risen. Some of that is true. Some of that are lies. I'm surprised you keep repeating them. The Reagan trickle down hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven. Right now (today), the stockmarket slumps with a loud thud to its lowest point this year, Actually the market is still up for the year, the DJA started the year at 11577 And I am still WAY up for the year. |
A Prognostication
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:34:42 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: Read that as: "I have a Domino, he does not gloat,gloat!" g Ackshully ... I have three Festool sanders, a TS75, and a CT22E, all with tails. For at total of four and 32/32nd tailed Festools (that's five for you, Leon) ;). Lets see here,,, I have a Rotex, the rectangle 400 Finish Sander, TS75, Domino, and CT22. That's 5. I musta been thinking about the ones I was wishing for. ;~) I sure could have used the fancy Domino drill with eccentric off-set when crawling around under the islands and installing slides on my last drawer installment. I can just see it. Karl moves into Leon's neighbourhood. Every morning they meet in the middle of the street. Here's the scenario: Hi Karl, how's it going today? Fine Karl says, how are you doing? Fine says Leon. Karl says, Leon, can I borrow your Rotex sander? Sure says Leon, help yourself. BTW Karl, can I borrow that Domino drill of yours? Sure, says Karl, feel free to go get it. we'll meet again tomorrow morning and exchange what we borrowed today for something else. Great says Leon, have a good day. You too Leon, says Karl. And so goes the Karl/Leon daily swap meet. |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 8:27 PM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:34:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: Read that as: "I have a Domino, he does notgloat,gloat!"g Ackshully ... I have three Festool sanders, a TS75, and a CT22E, all with tails. For at total of four and 32/32nd tailed Festools (that's five for you, Leon) ;). Lets see here,,, I have a Rotex, the rectangle 400 Finish Sander, TS75, Domino, and CT22. That's 5. I musta been thinking about the ones I was wishing for. ;~) I sure could have used the fancy Domino drill with eccentric off-set when crawling around under the islands and installing slides on my last drawer installment. I can just see it. Karl moves into Leon's neighbourhood. Every morning they meet in the middle of the street. Here's the scenario: Hi Karl, how's it going today? Fine Karl says, how are you doing? Fine says Leon. Karl says, Leon, can I borrow your Rotex sander? Sure says Leon, help yourself. BTW Karl, can I borrow that Domino drill of yours? Sure, says Karl, feel free to go get it. we'll meet again tomorrow morning and exchange what we borrowed today for something else. Great says Leon, have a good day. You too Leon, says Karl. And so goes the Karl/Leon daily swap meet. LOL ... you got it, Bubba! :) -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
A Prognostication
Doug Winterburn wrote:
The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is: Your mother and I want to spend about $10,000 per month, but we only have $5,800 a month income. So we (your parents generation)have opened up a $17 trillion (by 2013) credit account in your and your kids (our grandkids) names so we can spend the extra $4200 per month. -------------------------------------------------------- What a crock of crap. Nice try, but no cigar. Fight TWO (2) wars on borrowed money and the sacrifice of less than 5% of the country. Create a prescription drug insurance plan on borrowed money. Cut taxes so that additional debt is created. Well it's time to start paying the tab, so shut the f**k up and start paying your bill. Unless of course you want to be a free loader and let the next generation pay YOUR bill. Lew |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 8:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote: The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is: Your mother and I want to spend about $10,000 per month, but we only have $5,800 a month income. So we (your parents generation)have opened up a $17 trillion (by 2013) credit account in your and your kids (our grandkids) names so we can spend the extra $4200 per month. -------------------------------------------------------- What a crock of crap. Nice try, but no cigar. Fight TWO (2) wars on borrowed money and the sacrifice of less than 5% of the country. Create a prescription drug insurance plan on borrowed money. Cut taxes so that additional debt is created. Well it's time to start paying the tab, so shut the f**k up and start paying your bill. Unless of course you want to be a free loader and let the next generation pay YOUR bill. Lew Glad to see you're so up on the current debt situation and how we got here, Lew. Been paying my share and much of others for some time. Getting tired of your kind of crap - very tired. |
A Prognostication
On 8/2/2011 8:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote: The way I'm explaining all this to the kids is: Your mother and I want to spend about $10,000 per month, but we only have $5,800 a month income. So we (your parents generation)have opened up a $17 trillion (by 2013) credit account in your and your kids (our grandkids) names so we can spend the extra $4200 per month. -------------------------------------------------------- What a crock of crap. Nice try, but no cigar. Fight TWO (2) wars on borrowed money and the sacrifice of less than 5% of the country. Create a prescription drug insurance plan on borrowed money. Cut taxes so that additional debt is created. Well it's time to start paying the tab, so shut the f**k up and start paying your bill. Unless of course you want to be a free loader and let the next generation pay YOUR bill. Lew AAMOF Lew, I'll be coming through the peoples republic of Kalifornica in about three weeks on my way home. I'd be more than happy to stop by and discuss the relative merits of your liberal versus my conservative beliefs in person. Send me an email of how and where we can meet. |
O/T: A Prognostication
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:11:49 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Oh there will be a resolution, all of those critters up there is Washington know full well that if they don't come up with a plan or agreement that it will be political suicide for them all regardless of which party held out. It was all posturing, period. They knew it would _literally_ destroy the country and that they couldn't allow that to happen. (Correction, the puppets' handlers wouldn't allow that to happen.) -- Win first, Fight later. --martial principle of the Samurai |
A Prognostication
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:30:13 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote: On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:43:56 -0400, k-nuttle wrote: ...when health care "reform" was being forced down the throat of the American People That's a somewhat biased comment. All of the polls I saw showed pretty much a 50-50 split - half approved, half didn't. If you think that forcing healthcare down the throats of over 150 million people _isn't_ biased, what IS? Granted, the phrase "half the American people" would have been better. So, what do we have now? 26 states who got their people waived, so we continue to have 26 states full of uninsured people. Is this a big Obama win we're seeing? If so, please 'splain it to me. -- Win first, Fight later. --martial principle of the Samurai |
A Prognostication
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:13:49 -0500, Swingman wrote:
On 7/31/2011 8:44 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: I have to wonder if we need as many government employees though. Used to be for every 10 private employees, there was one government. Now it is 4 to 1. Hell, we need'em, doncha know! ... two cops, I mean two, count'em TWO cops, loaded down with weapons worthy of a military exercise, came out and ordered me to quit mowing my Hey, why haven't you rid yourself of that damned grass stuff yet? Stop by the library and pick up a copy of "The Wild Lawn Handbook" and stop by Homey's Despot for some drip irrigation goodies, then spend a few days redecorating that stamp-sized lawn into a real nice piece of xeriscaped art. postage stamp of a yard at 11:30AM last Sunday ... a yard for which I pay $13k + a year in property taxes for the privilege; and half of that to pay for a broken educational system where 61.7% of the students are from parents who are mostly here illegally, and only 7.8% of the entire student body remotely share my heritage: http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnec...52 147fa6RCRD What would we do without these types of safeguards on our lives, eh? Yeah. sigh We are past due for a revolution, but don't hold your breath. Surprisingly, inertia still holds it from happening. Wait until the public gets a load of the actual Obamacare costs. Then the **** will definitely hit the fan. I fought once, supposedly for this countries _values_ (Ha!) but no way would I do it again for the current crop of ****head "citizens". Grok that. You got what you deserved, America ... including a politicized climate. sigh2 -- Win first, Fight later. --martial principle of the Samurai |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter