djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 15:11:30 GMT -5
i would be very concerned if we hit $20T in debt before Obama left office. i would be very concerned if revenues to the treasury were not at 20% GDP by 2018. i would be deeply concerned if expenses were not at 21% by that same time. i would be concerned if headway was not made on medicare by then- if the social security was not funded for all income levels, and means tested for those who don't need it. i would be concerned if we continue to devote so much of our time and resources to war rather than to domestic security. i would be concerned if the DHS was not dismantled. so yes, there are a great deal of things that would concern me- but spending trillions out of a really bad economic downturn doesn't concern me. it is what happens over the NEXT (5) years. Excellent. At least you have criteria. You're going to see every one of the "very concerned"s come to pass, hence at least I won't be babbling out "...but DJ", "...but DJ" if we're both around five years from now, trying to convince you that a $20 T public debt, etc. did at one point concern you. you don't know me well enough to know that i never change my mind about this stuff, Virgil. NEVER. i have thought a long time about those numbers, and i will stick by them. the revenue number worries me the most (is the most doubtful). we have to get it up in order to pay down debt. but i doubt that the debt on 1/21/2017 will be over $19T.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 15:13:14 GMT -5
i would like to add one MORE thing. several conservative journals have pointed out that the budget bill is a victory for Republicans, in that it maintains the sequester. the longer they maintain it, the better they will look, imo. after all, Obama and the Democrats HATE it, and they LOVE it. what could be better than that? The sequester is peanuts. And both Republicans and Democrats are fighting to lift the peanuts provisions made by the last sequester. peanuts are an elephant's favourite food.I shouldn't say "peanuts", because at least it's something. But they'll need to sequester a heck of a lot more, a lot faster, if they want to make more than a symbolic dent in anything. i am not going to argue over this with you today, Virgil, but i disagree. i gave you my numbers. but for the record, i worry plenty right now, and i am still happy.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 18, 2013 15:19:13 GMT -5
Incidentally, you do realize that in the socialist paradise that is Canada, our federal government revenues are just below 13.5% of our GDP. Hence you're so in favour of taxing your way out of the US's deficit problem that your proposed solution would absolutely blow Canada--one of the most socialized nations on Earth--out of the water in terms of tax burden?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 18, 2013 15:21:36 GMT -5
but for the record, i worry plenty right now, and i am still happy. So am I. I've never said otherwise. You seem to have assumed otherwise, but I'm just as happy as the next guy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 15:32:08 GMT -5
Incidentally, you do realize that in the socialist paradise that is Canada, our federal government revenues are just below 13.5% of our GDP. that is not what the Heritage Foundation says. they say it is 31.1. and the US is 26.9% (all levels)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Hence you're so in favour of taxing your way out of the US's deficit problem that your proposed solution would absolutely blow Canada--one of the most socialized nations on Earth--out of the water in terms of tax burden? from a false premise, an infinite number of false conclusions can be drawn. if our revenue level were where canada's were, we would not have a deficit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 15:44:03 GMT -5
but for the record, i worry plenty right now, and i am still happy. So am I. I've never said otherwise. You seem to have assumed otherwise, i assumed nothing of the kind. but i have no idea how cynics deal with their cynicism.but I'm just as happy as the next guy. i could jokingly say that i find that unfathomable, but i don't. truthfully, it does bother me a bit that you find my happiness unfathomable. but not enough to say more than that about it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 18, 2013 15:58:52 GMT -5
Incidentally, you do realize that in the socialist paradise that is Canada, our federal government revenues are just below 13.5% of our GDP. that is not what the Heritage Foundation says. they say it is 31.1. and the US is 26.9% (all levels)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Hence you're so in favour of taxing your way out of the US's deficit problem that your proposed solution would absolutely blow Canada--one of the most socialized nations on Earth--out of the water in terms of tax burden? from a false premise, an infinite number of false conclusions can be drawn. if our revenue level were where canada's were, we would not have a deficit. You clearly state "i would be very concerned if revenues to the treasury were not at 20% GDP by 2018." "The treasury" I assumed meant the US federal treasury. Both because that's the only thing that makes sense, and because if you meant "the US federal treasury plus all state and municipal treasuries" then 20% would (by your own numbers) be a landslide decline in revenues. So I don't even know what "revenues to the treasury" even refer to here. The revenues to Canada's federal treasury in 2012 were 245.2 billion. Our 2012 GDP was 1,821.40 billion. Take the ratio, 13.45%.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 18, 2013 16:04:20 GMT -5
So am I. I've never said otherwise. You seem to have assumed otherwise, i assumed nothing of the kind. but i have no idea how cynics deal with their cynicism.but I'm just as happy as the next guy. i could jokingly say that i find that unfathomable, but i don't. truthfully, it does bother me a bit that you find my happiness unfathomable. but not enough to say more than that about it. I don't get how you equate a pessimistic ('cynical', as you call it) outlook with unhappiness, or an optimistic outlook with happiness. Above a certain baseline, happiness is a first-order phenomenon. It relates to the first derivative of one's outlook. You're treating it like it's a zero-order phenomenon, but that's only true below a threshold that both of us are far above in terms of our present positions on Maslow's hierarchy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 16:36:59 GMT -5
i could jokingly say that i find that unfathomable, but i don't. truthfully, it does bother me a bit that you find my happiness unfathomable. but not enough to say more than that about it. I don't get how you equate a pessimistic ('cynical', as you call it) outlook with unhappiness, or an optimistic outlook with happiness. by contrast, i don't get how you equate my happiness with irrationality.Above a certain baseline, happiness is a first-order phenomenon. It relates to the first derivative of one's outlook. You're treating it like it's a zero-order phenomenon, but that's only true below a threshold that both of us are far above in terms of our present positions on Maslow's hierarchy. i am not "treating" it in any way. i only know that when i am thinking like you do, i am not as happy. but that might just be because it is outside my nature, not because of the cynicism itself. in other words, i might be completely independent, as you have indicated, here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 16:39:44 GMT -5
from a false premise, an infinite number of false conclusions can be drawn. if our revenue level were where canada's were, we would not have a deficit. You clearly state "i would be very concerned if revenues to the treasury were not at 20% GDP by 2018." "The treasury" I assumed meant the US federal treasury. Both because that's the only thing that makes sense, and because if you meant "the US federal treasury plus all state and municipal treasuries" then 20% would (by your own numbers) be a landslide decline in revenues. So I don't even know what "revenues to the treasury" even refer to here. The revenues to Canada's federal treasury in 2012 were 245.2 billion. Our 2012 GDP was 1,821.40 billion. Take the ratio, 13.45%. that is because you guys are not imperialist idiots. i strongly advocate that we follow your example. but until we do, it will take something closer to 20% to fund it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 22:24:17 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,687
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 18, 2013 23:00:00 GMT -5
Ouch.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 23:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,687
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 18, 2013 23:10:07 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 18, 2013 23:25:17 GMT -5
would make a great halloween t-shirt.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2013 5:52:44 GMT -5
The TEA Party is all that's left of America politically. It's really a do-or-die movement.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,372
|
Post by swamp on Oct 19, 2013 7:35:41 GMT -5
Incidentally, you do realize that in the socialist paradise that is Canada, our federal government revenues are just below 13.5% of our GDP. Hence you're so in favour of taxing your way out of the US's deficit problem that your proposed solution would absolutely blow Canada--one of the most socialized nations on Earth--out of the water in terms of tax burden? Ans you do realize that we are effectively yourmilitary thereby soaring the Canadians the cost of funding one?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:59:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 8:51:01 GMT -5
Historically we work very efficiently at 18-19%...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2013 8:52:57 GMT -5
If it works well at 18% or 19% of GDP then US federal spending should be Constitutionally limited to 17%.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2013 9:19:08 GMT -5
If it works well at 18% or 19% of GDP then US federal spending should be Constitutionally limited to 17%. guess you changed your mind about surpluses?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 19, 2013 9:24:12 GMT -5
Incidentally, you do realize that in the socialist paradise that is Canada, our federal government revenues are just below 13.5% of our GDP. Hence you're so in favour of taxing your way out of the US's deficit problem that your proposed solution would absolutely blow Canada--one of the most socialized nations on Earth--out of the water in terms of tax burden? Yes, and the difference is Canada only has a non working class of a few Haitian immigrants and some native Americans who are non-productive citizens, unlike the U.S.A. who has their 47% at the trough. Non-productive = self supporting. If 75% of Americans would actually do their share, to support theirself and families, we truly would be golden.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2013 9:28:54 GMT -5
Incidentally, you do realize that in the socialist paradise that is Canada, our federal government revenues are just below 13.5% of our GDP. Hence you're so in favour of taxing your way out of the US's deficit problem that your proposed solution would absolutely blow Canada--one of the most socialized nations on Earth--out of the water in terms of tax burden? Yes, and the difference is Canada only has a non working class of a few Haitian immigrants and some native Americans who are non-productive citizens, unlike the U.S.A. who has their 47% at the trough. Non-productive = self supporting. If 75% of Americans would actually do their share, to support theirself and families, we truly would be golden. if everyone were paying at mid-Reagan Era rates, we would ALSO be golden.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 19, 2013 9:29:32 GMT -5
And as you know, we're totally at odds on whether "carefully considered and incremental" is nothing more than a hollow euphemism for "marginal and ineffective". i am not speaking euphemistically.I don't know at what point you'd abandon your faith in "carefully considered and incremental". I've considered for a long time the conditions under which I would consider the US's financial situation to be improving. It's fairly detailed. i don't think there is just one answer, one solution, or one way to bring about the kind of change that is needed. and i am utterly opposed to limiting our options. the more options we have, the more likely we are to take one that will work.Do you have any fixed set of criteria that would cause you to abandon faith in "carefully considered and incremental"? Or stated differently: Have you given any thought to specific conditions which, if met, would convince you that 'carefully considered and incremental' simply isn't possible or isn't working? Or does that violate your "What, Me Worry?" philosophy? i would be very concerned if we hit $20T in debt before Obama left office. i would be very concerned if revenues to the treasury were not at 20% GDP by 2018. i would be deeply concerned if expenses were not at 21% (or, preferably, lower) by that same time. i would be concerned if headway was not made on medicare by then- if the social security was not funded for all income levels, and means tested for those who don't need it. i would be concerned if we continue to devote so much of our time and resources to war rather than to domestic security. i would be concerned if the DHS was not dismantled. so yes, there are a great deal of things that would concern me- but spending trillions out of a really bad economic downturn doesn't concern me. it is what happens over the NEXT (5) years. So, 20 trillion is the tipping point of no return, or at least a sign of distress? This reminds me of the global warming hoax thread where the alarmists state numbers where we cannot recover from our pollution levels. Many feel 15 trillion about covers the point of no return. Heck, we are still paying off interest from WWI right now. This idiocy has to stop.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 19, 2013 9:33:28 GMT -5
Yes, and the difference is Canada only has a non working class of a few Haitian immigrants and some native Americans who are non-productive citizens, unlike the U.S.A. who has their 47% at the trough. Non-productive = self supporting. If 75% of Americans would actually do their share, to support theirself and families, we truly would be golden. if everyone were paying at mid-Reagan Era rates, we would ALSO be golden. I prefer 75% of Americans being productive and supporting their families and paying some taxes other than sin taxes and gasoline taxes, etc, and accomplishing the goal of making Government actually work correctly. The idea of a permanent underclass living on the government dole was never part of the original intent of our founding Fathers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2013 9:36:51 GMT -5
i would be very concerned if we hit $20T in debt before Obama left office. i would be very concerned if revenues to the treasury were not at 20% GDP by 2018. i would be deeply concerned if expenses were not at 21% (or, preferably, lower) by that same time. i would be concerned if headway was not made on medicare by then- if the social security was not funded for all income levels, and means tested for those who don't need it. i would be concerned if we continue to devote so much of our time and resources to war rather than to domestic security. i would be concerned if the DHS was not dismantled. so yes, there are a great deal of things that would concern me- but spending trillions out of a really bad economic downturn doesn't concern me. it is what happens over the NEXT (5) years. So, 20 trillion is the tipping point of no return, or at least a sign of distress? read again. 20T UNDER OBAMA would be a sign for serious concern for me. if, after a decade in the dumps, we can't right the ship, that worries me.This reminds me of the global warming hoax thread where the alarmists state numbers where we cannot recover from our pollution levels. that's nice. but you got me wrong in the first place, so i doubt it bears any resemblance. i am not talking about any sort of magic number.Many feel 15 trillion about covers the point of no return. well, pardon me for saying so, but that is stupid.Heck, we are still paying off interest from WWI right now. This idiocy has to stop. yes, but stopping it in the middle of a weak recovery is more insane than the debt.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 19, 2013 9:44:08 GMT -5
if everyone were paying at mid-Reagan Era rates, we would ALSO be golden. I prefer 75% of Americans being productive and supporting their families and paying some taxes other than sin taxes and gasoline taxes, etc, and accomplishing the goal of making Government actually work correctly. The idea of a permanent underclass living on the government dole was never part of the original intent of our founding Fathers. 75% are paying more than just sin taxes. I know it is easier to pretend the 47% pay nothing, but that number is more like 15%.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 19, 2013 9:55:35 GMT -5
Angel, if you receive a refund larger than your Federal with holding, you are not paying taxes. And more than 15% do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2013 10:12:26 GMT -5
if everyone were paying at mid-Reagan Era rates, we would ALSO be golden. I prefer 75% of Americans being productive and supporting their families and paying some taxes other than sin taxes and gasoline taxes, etc, and accomplishing the goal of making Government actually work correctly. The idea of a permanent underclass living on the government dole was never part of the original intent of our founding Fathers. no. but tolerating a permanent underclass living as the slaves of private individuals was. so much for moral superiority.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 19, 2013 13:37:41 GMT -5
Angel, if you receive a refund larger than your Federal with holding, you are not paying taxes. And more than 15% do. Federal income taxes. A lot of lower income don't pay federal income taxes, but still pay FICA taxes. Since it is all federal taxes, then IMO it counts as paying taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:59:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 13:44:08 GMT -5
The TEA Party is all that's left of America politically. It's really a do-or-die movement. Or is it a Suicide Cult?
|
|