Little.Alex:

spends $1.40 for every new dollar of revenue
spends $1.40 for every new dollar of revenue
spends $1.40 for every new dollar of revenue
spends $1.40 for every new dollar of revenue

So what you are saying is that... revenue is part of the puzzle here? we could increase revenue by 20% and cut spending by 1/7th and then spend 1 dollar for every dollar of revenue. Or we could keep revenue the same and cut spending by 2/7ths. Or we could increase revenues by 40% and keep our spending the same? Gee, its almost like revenue matters. Back to our last point, where you said tax rates on the wealthy don't matter: some of our candidates have tax plans that REDUCE revenue. Do you know what what that does to your 1.4 spending to revenue ratio? Put your math helmet on: makes it worse....


The problem with this is that there's a finite amount of possible revenue.

If they were spending $100 trillion a day you couldnt just increase revenue to $100 trillion a day.

Revenue has already been more or less maximized.

Spending must be reduced or the debt will continue to spiral out of control.

ArrogantGod: The problem with this is that there's a finite amount of possible revenue.

If they were spending $100 trillion a day you couldnt just increase revenue to $100 trillion a day.

Revenue has already been more or less maximized.

Spending must be reduced or the debt will continue to spiral out of control.


So, essentially, despite the statement from the ever pithy and engaging writing style or reconstructed neocon, P.J. O'Rourke, if you eat the whole pizza, my family DOES have to eat the box?

ArrogantGod: Revenue has already been more or less maximized.

[citation needed]

cameroncrazy1984: ArrogantGod: Revenue has already been more or less maximized.

[citation needed]

Well so far we're printing IOUs to pay for 14,000,000,000,000.00 in IOUs, so that should be some kind of clue as to how much money is actually in the freezer behind the leftover roast.

bunner: Well so far we're printing IOUs to pay for 14,000,000,000,000.00 in IOUs, so that should be some kind of clue as to how much money is actually in the freezer behind the leftover roast.

Are taxes at 100% and I didn't know about it? No? Then revenue clearly has not been maximized. Hell, the effective tax rate is lower than it's been in 50 years. No, revenue is not even close to "maximized"

cameroncrazy1984: Are taxes at 100% and I didn't know about it? No? Then revenue clearly has not been maximized. Hell, the effective tax rate is lower than it's been in 50 years. No, revenue is not even close to "maximized"

Well, technically no. Doesn't "maximized" sort of implied optimal usage, though? Cause technically, every dime we mint and the revenues that it returns go directly into CERN gone amok style black hole the second it's collected.

bunner: Cause technically, every dime we mint and the revenues that it returns go directly into CERN gone amok style black hole the second it's collected

I don't think you understand what the word "technically" means.

cameroncrazy1984: RandomExcess: Changing taxes has never increased revenue.

Tax cuts certainly don't.

Then how do you explain the increase in Federal tax revenue following the Bush tax cuts?

The rich did two things.

First, they figured out a way to avoid paying taxes on spiraling debt by promising and delivering on capitalizing industries, domestically, that created and maintained jobs and supported the markets for them - if the people who got those jobs were willing to cover the wealthy's fair share with the meager incomes from those jobs, instead.

Second, they started saying "f*ck you, f*ck jobs, f*ck taxes and f*ck workers, We're taking our money-as-debt, the football, the machines and the paint off the wall to magic Chinaland where our needs are understood, and you guys can still go bust ass for a pittance and pay it down for us again."

Oddly, the people who used to play along with this "you can have all the work you want as long as you use the paychecks to pay our bills and we keep the wealth" scam are a bit disenchanted this time.

untaken_name: cameroncrazy1984: RandomExcess: Changing taxes has never increased revenue.

Tax cuts certainly don't.

Then how do you explain the increase in Federal tax revenue following the Bush tax cuts?

The same way you explain the decrease in revenue shortly thereafter: correlation does not imply causation. Can you conclusively prove that tax cuts alone increased revenue?

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: Cause technically, every dime we mint and the revenues that it returns go directly into CERN gone amok style black hole the second it's collected

I don't think you understand what the word "technically" means.

In this context, it means "Everything is f*cked but we're still printing this sh*t as long as you'll use it!" cause, technically, we need about 14,000,000,000,000.00 to be flat broke. Technically. It means we're running on fumes, false assertions based on past achievements and gymnastic math. Technically.

cameroncrazy1984: untaken_name: cameroncrazy1984: RandomExcess: Changing taxes has never increased revenue.

Tax cuts certainly don't.

Then how do you explain the increase in Federal tax revenue following the Bush tax cuts?

The same way you explain the decrease in revenue shortly thereafter: correlation does not imply causation. Can you conclusively prove that tax cuts alone increased revenue?

I don't have to. You made the assertion, I am challenging it. It's up to you to conclusively prove that the Bush tax cuts DIDN'T cause the increase in Federal tax revenue, since it was your assertion that tax cuts "certainly" don't increase revenue. I merely pointed out a situation in which lowered tax rates were followed by higher tax receipts. If you can prove that it is a correlation and not causal relationship, go for it, otherwise, admit that your use of the word "certainly" was in error and you do not actually have any evidence for your assertion. Then, when you're done proving that the Bush tax cuts didn't increase revenue, I'll bring up the Missouri cigarette tax cuts which were followed by increased cigarette tax receipts, and you get to prove that's just a correlation also. Then, when you're done with that, I'll bring up another example. I don't think you've actually done any real research into your position before you made your assertion. I think you just didn't expect anyone to call you on it with actual examples.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: bunner: Cause technically, every dime we mint and the revenues that it returns go directly into CERN gone amok style black hole the second it's collected

I don't think you understand what the word "technically" means.

In this context, it means "Everything is f*cked but we're still printing this sh*t as long as you'll use it!" cause, technically, we need about 14,000,000,000,000.00 to be flat broke. Technically. It means we're running on fumes, false assertions based on past achievements and gymnastic math. Technically.

Do you have a mortgage? If so, how much is that mortgage?

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: Well so far we're printing IOUs to pay for 14,000,000,000,000.00 in IOUs, so that should be some kind of clue as to how much money is actually in the freezer behind the leftover roast.

Are taxes at 100% and I didn't know about it? No? Then revenue clearly has not been maximized. Hell, the effective tax rate is lower than it's been in 50 years. No, revenue is not even close to "maximized"

The "laffer curve" might be of interest to you.



Remember federal income taxes are only a small portion of the taxes and individual pays.

cameroncrazy1984: Do you have a mortgage? If so, how much is that mortgage?

No. I have this habit of paying for things as I go so that should there, at some point, technically more piss than fruit juice in the punchbowl, I can skip that round.

ArrogantGod: cameroncrazy1984: bunner: Well so far we're printing IOUs to pay for 14,000,000,000,000.00 in IOUs, so that should be some kind of clue as to how much money is actually in the freezer behind the leftover roast.

Are taxes at 100% and I didn't know about it? No? Then revenue clearly has not been maximized. Hell, the effective tax rate is lower than it's been in 50 years. No, revenue is not even close to "maximized"

The "laffer curve" might be of interest to you.

[www.americanthinker.com image 334x292]

Remember federal income taxes are only a small portion of the taxes and individual pays.

That is only one representation of what someone THINKS the laffer curve looks like. There is no known or mathematical "true" representation of what it looks like, because the laffer curve is not scientific.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: Do you have a mortgage? If so, how much is that mortgage?

No. I have this habit of paying for things as I go so that should there, at some point, technically more piss than fruit juice in the punchbowl, I can skip that round.

Fine, do you then consider people that DO have mortgages to be "flat broke" "running on fumes" and "false assertions" based on "gymnastic math"? If so, why?

cameroncrazy1984: There is no known or mathematical "true" representation of what it looks like, because the laffer curve is not scientific.

And oddly, for all the guys making bets at he rail, the horses still do what they're gonna do in the real world, too.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: There is no known or mathematical "true" representation of what it looks like, because the laffer curve is not scientific.

And oddly, for all the guys making bets at he rail, the horses still do what they're gonna do in the real world, too.

You'd think that, with all these supposed "real world" example, you could prove the laffer curve mathematically, right?

The problem is, you can't, because real proof does not exist.

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: cameroncrazy1984: Do you have a mortgage? If so, how much is that mortgage?

No. I have this habit of paying for things as I go so that should there, at some point, technically more piss than fruit juice in the punchbowl, I can skip that round.

Fine, do you then consider people that DO have mortgages to be "flat broke" "running on fumes" and "false assertions" based on "gymnastic math"? If so, why?

If they're mortgage is about 92834059802948 times more than they can ever hope to earn, steal, obtain shadily or pull out of their ass in a lifetime, yes. and why is because, well.. see foreclosure crisis. Eventually the man with the note says "That's nice" and takes your collateral. Denying that means money is, in and of itself worthless and the whole argument is moot. And of course, that there is just communism.

bunner: If they're mortgage is about 92834059802948 times more than they can ever hope to earn, steal, obtain shadily or pull out of their ass in a lifetime, yes

Please provide proof that a debt-to-GDP ratio of 110% is unsustainable. Use examples.

cameroncrazy1984: The problem is, you can't, because real proof does not exist.

The only real proof of any given hypothesis is the measurable results of the actions within the construct are attempting to apply it to or obtain data from and so far, the result is we ain't got a pot to piss in. Technically. Don't mine me, though. I think the preponderance of economics is 20/20 hindsight, gymnastic supposition and a lot of people with plaques on their wall rolling their eyes while they expound upon a long and mind list of things that "as a layman, you wouldn't understand". Money was invented to improve the speed at which we can improve the quality of life. The plow has turned bludgeon, the rope to chains and the only way to keep the wheels from falling off of the disingenuous notion of endless growth is to keep driving faster and hope nobody has noticed that they already have.

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: If they're mortgage is about 92834059802948 times more than they can ever hope to earn, steal, obtain shadily or pull out of their ass in a lifetime, yes

Please provide proof that a debt-to-GDP ratio of 110% is unsustainable. Use examples.

I'm sorry, we're actually either at 96% or 102% depending on the source you use. Canada, Germany, and France are all around 80-90% Debt-to-GDP. They're obviously terrible countries to live in, ready to collapse. Japan is at 190%, clearly that's a county in ruin beset by hyperinflation.

Hm, maybe a country's financial health isn't directly tied to their debt-to-GDP ratio?

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: If they're mortgage is about 92834059802948 times more than they can ever hope to earn, steal, obtain shadily or pull out of their ass in a lifetime, yes

Please provide proof that a debt-to-GDP ratio of 110% is unsustainable. Use examples.

Shouldn't you back up your own naked assertions before calling those of others into question?

bunner: The only real proof of any given hypothesis is the measurable results of the actions within the construct are attempting to apply it to or obtain data from and so far, the result is we ain't got a pot to piss in. Technically. Don't mine me, though. I think the preponderance of economics is 20/20 hindsight, gymnastic supposition and a lot of people with plaques on their wall rolling their eyes while they expound upon a long and mind list of things that "as a layman, you wouldn't understand". Money was invented to improve the speed at which we can improve the quality of life. The plow has turned bludgeon, the rope to chains and the only way to keep the wheels from falling off of the disingenuous notion of endless growth is to keep driving faster and hope nobody has noticed that they already have.

So what you really mean to say is you have no idea what you're talking about, except to say that you're very afraid of things you do not understand.

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: If they're mortgage is about 92834059802948 times more than they can ever hope to earn, steal, obtain shadily or pull out of their ass in a lifetime, yes

Please provide proof that a debt-to-GDP ratio of 110% is unsustainable. Use examples.

I can show you several examples that the whole notion that some sort of ratio can be arrived at wherein you can screw the pooch into a coma and still make it fetch is not only unsustainable, but mudf*cking stupid to believe in,

cameroncrazy1984: So what you really mean to say is you have no idea what you're talking about, except to say that you're very afraid of things you do not understand.

That would be the "and a lot of people with plaques on their wall rolling their eyes while they expound upon a long and mind list of things that "as a layman, you wouldn't understand" part. You're batting 1000 so far on the eye rolling, though. Don't forget your projector. Have fun shtorming da castle.

untaken_name: cameroncrazy1984: bunner: If they're mortgage is about 92834059802948 times more than they can ever hope to earn, steal, obtain shadily or pull out of their ass in a lifetime, yes

Please provide proof that a debt-to-GDP ratio of 110% is unsustainable. Use examples.

Shouldn't you back up your own naked assertions before calling those of others into question?

Sure. What would you like me to prove?

bunner: I can show you several examples that the whole notion that some sort of ratio can be arrived at wherein you can screw the pooch into a coma and still make it fetch is not only unsustainable, but mudf*cking stupid to believe in,

Please explain to me why it's unsustainable. So far you've said we're flat broke because there's a large number next to "DEBT" but failed to expound upon that with any kind of empirical data at all. I'd just like to know why you think $14T is some magical, unsustainable number.

cameroncrazy1984: Sure. What would you like me to prove?

That any of this long winded, overwrought pseudoscience malarkey farming that is economics has gotten us anywhere but here.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: So what you really mean to say is you have no idea what you're talking about, except to say that you're very afraid of things you do not understand.

That would be the "and a lot of people with plaques on their wall rolling their eyes while they expound upon a long and mind list of things that "as a layman, you wouldn't understand" part. You're batting 1000 so far on the eye rolling, though. Don't forget your projector. Have fun shtorming da castle.

I have never said "as a laymen, you wouldn't understand." I've said "please provide proof of your assertions." which, apparently, is a difficult concept to grasp. I'm trying to understand why YOU say what you say.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm trying to understand why YOU say what you say.

Because empirically speaking, and you may have to step back from the tree bark you are admiring to see the forest, so far, the entirety of all of the ostensibly high minded guessing and hoping and manipulating of every single aspect of something that is supposed to improve the quality of life has manged to o the opposite with it and gotten us, with our light speed calculations, endless series of prop pieces and well educated harrumphing - precisely here. And here is sh* creek. And I haven't seen one paddle come out of the shop you trained at, so far.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: Sure. What would you like me to prove?

That any of this long winded, overwrought pseudoscience malarkey farming that is economics has gotten us anywhere but here.

Those long-winded, overwrought pseudoscience malarkey farmers are exactly the same people who are credited with the economic recovery you are currently reaping benefits from. Again, just because you do not understand it does not mean it does not work.

23 Months of job creation netting (currently) 3.7 million jobs speaks for itself.
Dow at its highest point since 2008 speaks for itself
Jobs coming back in manufacturing speak for themselves.

I'm sorry that you think someone with an 8th grade education could do a better job, but we tried that from 2001-2006 and myself, I'm trusting in those selfsame "pseudoscience malarkey farmers" because they give me better results

One thing any political scientist, historian or economist worth their guild robe knows, though - if they portend to know anything at all - is that, when you're playing with simulacrums, every so often you have to shake the etch a sketch or the game is over for good. Buy a watch and strap in Jack., cause we are about to live in interesting times.

bunner: ostensibly high minded guessing and hoping and manipulating of every single aspect of something that is supposed to improve the quality of life has manged to o the opposite with i

Exactly what guessing and exactly what qualities of life? Why, when pressed, do you refuse to provide anything more than vague generalizations?

bunner: One thing any political scientist, historian or economist worth their guild robe knows, though - if they portend to know anything at all - is that, when you're playing with simulacrums, every so often you have to shake the etch a sketch or the game is over for good. Buy a watch and strap in Jack., cause we are about to live in interesting times.

Oh, I get it. You're just high as sh*t right now, aren't you.

cameroncrazy1984: the economic recovery you are currently reaping benefits from.



cameroncrazy1984: Again, just because you do not understand it does not mean it does not work.

And, once again, just because you are sure you do doesn't mean it does. I never believe much of anything anybody has to say that is supposed to have some inherent scientific gravitas if they spend too much time and too many pointed barbs passionately selling their views on it as fact.

cameroncrazy1984: bunner: ostensibly high minded guessing and hoping and manipulating of every single aspect of something that is supposed to improve the quality of life has manged to o the opposite with i

Exactly what guessing and exactly what qualities of life? Why, when pressed, do you refuse to provide anything more than vague generalizations?

So money wasn't invented to make life easier? That's a "generalization" That tree bark must be your pride and joy.

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I get it. You're just high as sh*t right now, aren't you.

Oh, I get it. You're either a narrow minded insult artist with most of their ammo invested into sneering or a troll. I'm willing to let the mods decided but with stop feeding me smartassery or go away. Your little back forty of the "I ALONE KNOW WHAT'S WHAT!" pose has been farmed already. And better.

Sorry, but people who like to look at themselves in the mirror while they flex their pedant pecs sort of bore me.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: the economic recovery you are currently reaping benefits from.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

cameroncrazy1984: Again, just because you do not understand it does not mean it does not work.

And, once again, just because you are sure you do doesn't mean it does. I never believe much of anything anybody has to say that is supposed to have some inherent scientific gravitas if they spend too much time and too many pointed barbs passionately selling their views on it as fact.

Why don't you start here (new window)

cameroncrazy1984: I'm sorry that you think someone with an 8th grade education could do a better job

I'd be sorry if I thought that, too. I think your projector is broken but you still have to get it of my lawn.

bunner: Oh, I get it. You're either a narrow minded insult artist with most of their ammo invested into sneering or a troll. I'm willing to let the mods decided but with stop feeding me smartassery or go away. Your little back forty of the "I ALONE KNOW WHAT'S WHAT!" pose has been farmed already. And better.

I'm sorry, you'll have to go ahead and find where I said "I am the only one who knows what is best" because I can't find it in this thread. I've simply asked you to provide backups to your assertions that the US is "flat broke" and "running on fumes" and you haven't.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: I'm sorry that you think someone with an 8th grade education could do a better job

I'd be sorry if I thought that, too. I think your projector is broken but you still have to get it of my lawn.

I'm sorry, is there someone in between "completely uneducated" and "pointy-headed pseudo-scientific Economist" that you were thinking should run the US economy? If so, who is this person(s)

cameroncrazy1984: Why don't you start here (new window)

Because tomorrow and the next day, leading economic indicators notwithstanding, the same people will will be pulling the same sh*t with the same stack of IOUs that will be moving in the same directions for the same reasons with the same results and your pom poms and my cynicism wont manage to change a damn thing about it. Will they? I understand how fire works, but the next time half of the San Fernando valley gets a haircut courtesy of a month of no rain and some dipwad with a cigarette lighter, I don't think I can do much about it with a super soaker and a map of CA.. And therein lies the difference between the overly educated and the practical.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: Why don't you start here (new window)

Because tomorrow and the next day, leading economic indicators notwithstanding, the same people will will be pulling the same sh*t with the same stack of IOUs that will be moving in the same directions for the same reasons with the same results and your pom poms and my cynicism wont manage to change a damn thing about it. Will they? I understand how fire works, but the next time half of the San Fernando valley gets a haircut courtesy of a month of no rain and some dipwad with a cigarette lighter, I don't think I can do much about it with a super soaker and a map of CA.. And therein lies the difference between the overly educated and the practical.

You still have yet to prove to anyone that $14T is somehow a bad, magical, unsustainable number except because you say it is and you use very dark, scary words to describe it. Show me the fire. All I've seen is smoke and mirrors.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm sorry, you'll have to go ahead and find where I said "I am the only one who knows what is best" because I can't find it in this thread.

Dude, it's next to where you said with great certainty that I flatly stated that I believed that "8th graders could to better". See? hang up the ad hominem or leave me alone. Seriously. Show some dignity.

bunner: cameroncrazy1984: I'm sorry, you'll have to go ahead and find where I said "I am the only one who knows what is best" because I can't find it in this thread.

Dude, it's next to where you said with great certainty that I flatly stated that I believed that "8th graders could to better". See? hang up the ad hominem or leave me alone. Seriously. Show some dignity.

A) That's not an ad hominem and B) I still didn't say "I alone know what is best. Try harder.

thomps: bunner: oops This this sites policy as stated here (new window)

i don't get it. are you saying i shouldn't post dick pics? i'll grudgingly comply.

It also says not to post pics that aren't under you control...just in case the site owner changes it to something NSFW.

cameroncrazy1984: You still have yet to prove to anyone that $14T is somehow a bad, magical, unsustainable number except because you say it is

I can explain that. I didn't. That's one of those stawman arguments that I was too embarrassed for you to even knock down. Up there next to where I was lauding the financial acumen of 8th graders.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm sorry, is there someone in between "completely uneducated" and "pointy-headed pseudo-scientific Economist" that you were thinking should run the US economy? If so, who is this person(s)

I've got a degree in advanced mathematics, mechanical engineering, psychology, and home economics. I'm not a PhD, but I'll give it a go.

/Were talking about sex with your wife, right?