'How they will solve the budget mess' wild speculation thread.
Howard Beale
it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot. I read that they've been trying
to put together a new economic union (if that's the right way to put it)
w/ other economies like Brazil in order to have an alternative to the
dollar. If they stop buying our bonds we are in real trouble and if we
try to inflate our way out of this it would be a reason for them, and
everybody else, to stop buying our bonds. We can't tax our way out of
this and there isn't enough discretionary spending in the national budget
to balance it. Besides, politicians are politicians and they can't stop
spending. So I've come up w/ what I would do if I were the government:
I would seize 10% of the money of every American w/ $100,000+ in the bank
or w/ brokerage accounts and give them and IOU.
My second idea is the Barack Obama to hold a telethon in which he begs for
donations, maybe you get a bumper sticker that might keep you from getting
a speeding ticket. That's worth something.
So, ok, I know that these 2 are the best ideas because I thought of them
myself but I invite you to come up with others.
Wait, wait, I've got another: Dress up all the politicians like Nascar
drivers.
Howard Beale
-------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
La Cosa Nostradamus
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9614A7D3941FFAEF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL
16
_____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Necron99
You sell Hawaii to Japan and Cali to the Chinese, cap it off with the
pacific fleet to India and nationalizing haliburton
Irish Mike
> Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or sense
> it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot.
There is only one solution. Obama must use the three pillars of his
presidency. #1. Blame President Bush. #2 Go one another world-wide trash
America tour. #3 Commit additional troops to fight in the war against Fox
News. It is the only change we can hope to believe in!
Irish Mike
________________________________________________________________________�
Howard Beale
> Make detroit a giant nuke station sell bonds problem solved
I like it. Let's make this happen!
HB
-----�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Howard Beale
> On Feb 20 2010 2:01 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
>
> > Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or sense
> > it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot.
>
> There is only one solution. Obama must use the three pillars of his
> presidency. #1. Blame President Bush. #2 Go one another world-wide trash
> America tour. #3 Commit additional troops to fight in the war against Fox
> News. It is the only change we can hope to believe in!
>
> Irish Mike
Focus Mike, focus! We need money so let's have an idea. Nothing is too
outrageous.
HB
--------�
La Cosa Nostradamus
> On Feb 19 2010 11:16 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
> > Make detroit a giant nuke station sell bonds problem solved
>
>
> I like it. Let's make this happen!
>
>
> HB
Thanks, i will get on it
______________________________________________________________________�
Travel A
money.
I'd pay to see Rachel Madcow blow a horse.
Irish Mike
> On Feb 19 2010 11:59 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20 2010 2:01 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
> >
> > > Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or sense
> > > it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot.
> >
> > There is only one solution. Obama must use the three pillars of his
> > presidency. #1. Blame President Bush. #2 Go one another world-wide trash
> > America tour. #3 Commit additional troops to fight in the war against Fox
> > News. It is the only change we can hope to believe in!
> >
> > Irish Mike
>
>
> Focus Mike, focus! We need money so let's have an idea. Nothing is too
> outrageous.
>
>
> HB
Cut taxes on businesses and corporations, immediately reduce payroll
taxes, freeze all government spending, reduce the capital gains tax to
zero for at least three years, take all of the unspent stimulus money and
all of the repaid TARP money and use it to reduce the deficit, and provide
special tax incentives to businesses that create new jobs. Make the Bush
tax cuts permanent. Put an immediate freeze on all money in the pipeline
that is scheduled to be pissed away on fighting global warming. Begin to
immediately crack down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud, pass major tort
reform legislation and allow all insurance companies to compete
nationally. Deploy five national guard battalions on the Mexican border
with orders to shoot to kill to stop illegal immigration. Give ICE the
power to immediately deport all illegal immigrant felons. Begin a massive
sweep to identify and deport illegal immigrants in this country. Bill
every UN country for their fair share of the UN operating expenses, begin
to drill for American oil and implement fines for any American company
that exports American jobs. Fire Rahn Emanuel, Eric Holder , Larry
Sommers and Janet Napalitano. When you've fully implemented these
actions, I'll give you another list.
Irish Mike
Recession: When your neighbor loses his job.
Depression: When you lose your job.
Recovery: When Obama loses his job.
Frisbieinstein
>
Sale of torture videos.
BillB
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:eea457x...@recgroups.com...
> I would seize 10% of the money of every American w/ $100,000+ in the
> bank
> or w/ brokerage accounts and give them and IOU.
>
> My second idea is the Barack Obama to hold a telethon in which he
> begs for
> donations, maybe you get a bumper sticker that might keep you from
> getting
> a speeding ticket. That's worth something.
>
> So, ok, I know that these 2 are the best ideas because I thought of
> them
> myself but I invite you to come up with others.
>
> Wait, wait, I've got another: Dress up all the politicians like
> Nascar
> drivers.
Oh, this is supposed to be a joke. OK. I was going to give you the
real answer.
Jerry Sturdivant
Put Bill Clinton back in office. You remember Bill. He's the one that kicked
George "read my lips" Bush to one term. Then Clinton balanced the budget
(PayGo, SunSet, et cetera) and we had a surplus. Continuing those policies
would have been the way to go.
Don't do what Bush 2 did. Wasted Clinton's surplus. Spent billions, 'off
budget.' Started a war (we didn't need) and refused to raise taxes to pay
for it; increasing the national debt. Made the great giveaway to the
pharmaceuticals (No Bid - unbudgeted). Only president to cut taxes during a
war. Gave no bid contracts away (Halliburton) unbudgeted. Bush is
responsible for about $12 trillion of the national debt.
Actually we have a real good start with President Obama. Cut earmarks. Fix
healthcare (that's about to bust us), that will save money. Increase the
taxes the Idiot Bush 2 wouldn't. With plans (unlike Bush) to balance the
budget
Oh, that's right. The Right Wingers refuse to even discuss President Obama's
plans on balancing the budget. It's more like Idiot (I want to be an
American) Mick and, "Cut taxes on businesses!" What a fool.
Jerry 'n Vegas
susan
The USofA buys Baja California from Mexico for xxxx dollars (the amount of
Mexico's National Debt.
The USofA in turn sells Baja California to independent real estate
investors/contractors etc. for xxxx dollars (the purchase price plus our
national debt.)
Insert any numbers you want.
Alim Nassor
> Put Bill Clinton back in office. You remember Bill. He's the one that kicked
> George "read my lips" Bush to one term. Then Clinton balanced the budget
> (PayGo, SunSet, et cetera) and we had a surplus. Continuing those policies
> would have been the way to go.
>
> Don't do what Bush 2 did. Wasted Clinton's surplus. Spent billions, 'off
> budget.' Started a war (we didn't need) and refused to raise taxes to pay
> for it; increasing the national debt. Made the great giveaway to the
> pharmaceuticals (No Bid - unbudgeted). Only president to cut taxes during a
> war. Gave no bid contracts away (Halliburton) unbudgeted. Bush is
> responsible for about $12 trillion of the national debt.
Nope Jerry, Bush ran the defict from nearly 6 trillion to about 11
trillion. Even if you want to pin a trillion of Obama's debt on him
that is still half of the number you pulled out of your ass.
>
> Actually we have a real good start with President Obama. Cut earmarks. Fix
> healthcare (that's about to bust us), that will save money. Increase the
> taxes the Idiot Bush 2 wouldn't. With plans (unlike Bush) to balance the
> budget
Cut earmarks? LOL did you keep a straight face when you said that?
Fixing healthcare will save money? A neat trick when you talk about
covering tens of millions of new people.
>
> Oh, that's right. The Right Wingers refuse to even discuss President Obama's
> plans on balancing the budget. It's more like Idiot (I want to be an
> American) Mick and, "Cut taxes on businesses!" What a fool.
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
Cutting business taxes in an attempt to make America a more friendly
place to do business is a good idea Jerry. Or do you like the idea
that the government will one day be the biggest employer? What the
hell is wrong with trying to attract business, which brings jobs?
Lower taxes on business would offset some of the greater costs of
doing business here, like regulation and wages.
The only fool here is you.
Alim Nassor
I know you said wild ideas, but please don't give them the idea to
sieze any more of my money than they already have.
Howard Beale
> On Feb 20, 2:01 pm, "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or sense
> > it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot. I read that they've been trying
> > to put together a new economic union (if that's the right way to put it)
> > w/ other economies like Brazil in order to have an alternative to the
> > dollar. If they stop buying our bonds we are in real trouble and if we
> > try to inflate our way out of this it would be a reason for them, and
> > everybody else, to stop buying our bonds. We can't tax our way out of
> > this and there isn't enough discretionary spending in the national budget
> > to balance it. Besides, politicians are politicians and they can't stop
> > spending. So I've come up w/ what I would do if I were the government:
> >
> > I would seize 10% of the money of every American w/ $100,000+ in the bank
> > or w/ brokerage accounts and give them and IOU.
> >
> > My second idea is the Barack Obama to hold a telethon in which he begs for
> > donations, maybe you get a bumper sticker that might keep you from getting
> > a speeding ticket. That's worth something.
> >
> > So, ok, I know that these 2 are the best ideas because I thought of them
> > myself but I invite you to come up with others.
> >
> > Wait, wait, I've got another: Dress up all the politicians like Nascar
> > drivers.
> >
> > Howard Beale
> >
> I know you said wild ideas, but please don't give them the idea to
> seize any more of my money than they already have.
In all seriousness I think that that is the one that is going to happen
because it's the only place to get the money from. They'll give you an
IOU and grab it.
HB
--------�
FL Turbo
I think Howard had a good start with the NASCAR theme.
The NASCAR teams have stickers on their cars showing their sponsors.
We should enact a law requiring that anyone running for office shall
display stickers showing, say the top 10 of their major contributors.
Slim1Der
orders to shoot to kill to stop illegal immigration. Give ICE the
power to immediately deport all illegal immigrant felons. Begin a
massive sweep to identify and deport illegal immigrants in this
country.
How much money do you think this would "save" us? Actually I don't
really care, it needs to be done anyway. I'm agreeing with IM, lord
help me...
susan
"Slim1Der" <mkmo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27837d18-fe94-4254...@g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
teehee and I'm agreeing with you lord help me ............
Slim1Der
> "Slim1Der" <mkmor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
LOL! But Susan, you once told me that you don't disagree with 60% of
my views..is this 61%
bub
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>Then Clinton balanced the budget
>(PayGo, SunSet, et cetera) and we had a surplus. Continuing those policies
>would have been the way to go.
dont let facts get in the way
November 18, 1996 Baltimore Sun
"the president suddenly confided the other day that he could live with
a balanced budget amendment so long as there was an escape hatch "that
gives the country what it needs to manage a recession."Just a day
later, however, the president rowed back to his position against such
an amendment.Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin said the
administration would "actively oppose" the conservative proposal and
quoted Mr. Clinton as telling his economic advisers he was still
adamantly opposed."
www.ustreas.gov
national debt deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
>Gave no bid contracts away (Halliburton)
just like obama
>Cut earmarks. Fix healthcare (that's about to bust us), that will save money. Increase the
>taxes the Idiot Bush 2 wouldn't. With plans (unlike Bush) to balance the
>budget
sooooooooooooooooo far from the truth , alim addressed it
>The Right Wingers refuse to even discuss President Obama's
>plans on balancing the budget.
i will. please explain it to me
ChrisRobin
Audit the Pentagon. Don't send them another dime until they account for
every penny of the $4 trillion (lowball estimate) that's they've "lost"
over the last decade.
Problem solved. Where's my cookie?
ChrisRobin
> In all seriousness I think that that is the one that is going to happen
> because it's the only place to get the money from. They'll give you an
> IOU and grab it.
It happened in California, it's not that big a stretch.
However, I think retirement funds are the next target. There have been
rumblings of replacing the 401k with some sort of fund that guarantees a
small return � a "return" that would get destroyed by inflation, of
course...
ChrisRobin
WWIII? Think of all the jobs it would create!
______________________________________________________________________�
Travel A
Tea Party Power to Solve the Debt Problem
A Commentary By Lawrence Kudlow
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The New York Times ran a front-page story this week called "Party
Gridlock in Washington Feeds New Fear of a Debt Crisis." As usual, they
got it wrong. Instead, the headline should have read, "After Scott
Brown's Astonishing Senate Win in Massachusetts, New Political Gridlock
in Washington Could Spell the End of the Liberal Crack-Up We Have
Witnessed over the Past Year."
In fact, gridlock in Washington is good, since it will stop the assault
of big government until the end of the year, when Congress could be
overturned by independents, Tea Partiers, Republicans and probably some
Democrats, as well. Just take a look at the high spirits at the CPAC
convention, where Tea Partiers are reinvigorating conservatives and
Republicans.
So let's take this momentum forward by using it to drain any remaining
power from the extravagant spending-and-borrowing assault in Democratic
Washington. And let's especially use this Tea Party power to stop
Democratic plans for another round of broad-based tax increases.
Take, for example, Obama's new deficit commission. It's a bad idea. This
commission is a fig leaf to cover up President Obama's out-of-control
budget. It's a Trojan horse for tax hikes, especially a value-added tax
that would engulf the middle class with up to a 15 percent tax rate on
the sale of goods and services. Obama is getting ready to move his lips
on the pledge not to raise middle-class taxes. Congressional Republicans
must not let him do this.
Here's the real problem: The Obama budget would take federal spending as
a fraction of the economy to 25 percent, roughly a $1 trillion
additional spending increase in the out-years. Publicly held federal
debt would climb about $18.5 trillion by 2020, more than double what
Obama inherited, rising to almost 80 percent of the economy.
Rather than tax hikes, I say stop the spending. Outside of defense and
entitlements, why not roll back the discretionary budget to 2008?
Or take a look at Harvard professor Martin Feldstein's idea of putting
an end to all the new Obama refundable tax credits, which really are
nothing more than new spending and government-transfer programs.
Feldstein estimates that putting an end to the new "tax expenditures"
could save $1 trillion by 2020.
And I would add in the need for a congressional law that sets strict
spending-limit rules based on population and inflation.
And how about flat-tax reform -- ending all the unnecessary
flotsam-and-jetsam tax credits and subsidies -- to broaden the tax base?
Why not slash the top tax rate to 20 percent or less for a true flat
tax?
Why not stop the multiple taxes on all forms of saving and investing,
including capital gains, dividends and inheritances? And why not
eliminate the business tax on profits in favor of a sales tax on net
revenues that would deduct all investment expenses? That would leave us
with a single-rate consumption-based income tax that would grow this
economy by 7 percent to 8 percent in the years ahead, just as the
economy should grow after a deep recession.
Going back to the debt-to-GDP ratio, I want to grow the denominator (the
economy) and reduce the demand for the numerator (spending and
borrowing). That means a combination of supply-side tax cuts and firm
spending limits.
And we should add in some monetary reform for a stable King Dollar
linked to gold or a commodity basket, along with an expansion of free
trade, which itself is a tax cut.
In other words, I'm proposing a growth solution to the debt problem.
Lower spending is pro-growth. So are lower tax rates. A program like
this could get yearly budget deficits down to a manageable 2 percent to
3 percent in a couple of years. And getting the debt ratio back down to
something like 50 percent also would be quite manageable.
Incidentally, limited spending and lower debt would take the pressure
off the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply, sink the dollar and
raise the inflation rate to 4 percent or 5 percent or worse.
So here, once again, is the plan: gridlock in Washington to stop the
big-government assault until Congress is overturned in November. After
that, a return to growth, by way of reduced spending and lower tax
rates.
There is a revolution going on in the heartland of this country, and
it's aimed against Washington's profligacy and controls. There is still
a way out. It's called free-market populism.
La Cosa Nostradamus
Nukes in small sizes and many quantities.
Joe Santos proposed the idea years ago and sadly he passed.
Joe was the best.
Little nuke reactors which alone would have little impact upon individual
reactor failure.
It trims our expenses, lessens the transfer of wealth etc.
_______________________________________________________________________�
Pepe Papon
<mkmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Deploy five national guard battalions on the Mexican border with
>orders to shoot to kill to stop illegal immigration. Give ICE the
>power to immediately deport all illegal immigrant felons. Begin a
>massive sweep to identify and deport illegal immigrants in this
>country.
Make English the official language stop bilingual education, and stop
printing government forms in 16 different languages.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Pepe Papon
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>Cut taxes on businesses and corporations, immediately reduce payroll
>taxes, freeze all government spending, reduce the capital gains tax to
>zero for at least three years, take all of the unspent stimulus money and
>all of the repaid TARP money and use it to reduce the deficit, and provide
>special tax incentives to businesses that create new jobs. Make the Bush
>tax cuts permanent.
Cut taxes to balance the budget. Good one, Mike. Did you fail
arithmetic in 2nd grade?
susan
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:df21o5dqm5jrmia53...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:31:25 -0800 (PST), Slim1Der
> <mkmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Deploy five national guard battalions on the Mexican border with
>>orders to shoot to kill to stop illegal immigration. Give ICE the
>>power to immediately deport all illegal immigrant felons. Begin a
>>massive sweep to identify and deport illegal immigrants in this
>>country.
>
> Make English the official language stop bilingual education, and stop
> printing government forms in 16 different languages.
> --
and don't make me push any button for English
Pepe Papon
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 20, 10:26�pm, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Put Bill Clinton back in office. You remember Bill. He's the one that kicked
>> George "read my lips" Bush to one term. Then Clinton balanced the budget
>> (PayGo, SunSet, et cetera) and we had a surplus. Continuing those policies
>> would have been the way to go.
>>
>> Don't do what Bush 2 did. Wasted Clinton's surplus. Spent billions, 'off
>> budget.' Started a war (we didn't need) and refused to raise taxes to pay
>> for it; increasing the national debt. Made the great giveaway to the
>> pharmaceuticals (No Bid - unbudgeted). Only president to cut taxes during a
>> war. Gave no bid contracts away (Halliburton) unbudgeted. Bush is
>> responsible for about $12 trillion of the national debt.
>
>Nope Jerry, Bush ran the defict from nearly 6 trillion to about 11
>trillion.
There was never any deficit of 6 trillion or 11 trillion. Perhaps you
meant "debt".
>> Oh, that's right. The Right Wingers refuse to even discuss President Obama's
>> plans on balancing the budget. It's more like Idiot (I want to be an
>> American) Mick and, "Cut taxes on businesses!" What a fool.
>>
>> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>Cutting business taxes in an attempt to make America a more friendly
>place to do business is a good idea Jerry. Or do you like the idea
>that the government will one day be the biggest employer? What the
>hell is wrong with trying to attract business, which brings jobs?
Because the topic is reducing the deficit. Cutting taxes increased
does the opposite of reducing the deficit. And please spare me the
supply-side trickle-down gibberish.
>Lower taxes on business would offset some of the greater costs of
>doing business here, like regulation and wages.
>
>The only fool here is you.
No, the fools are the ones who think tax cuts reduce deficits.
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:56:18 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>
>
>
>
>
> <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 20, 10:26 pm, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Put Bill Clinton back in office. You remember Bill. He's the one that kicked
> >> George "read my lips" Bush to one term. Then Clinton balanced the budget
> >> (PayGo, SunSet, et cetera) and we had a surplus. Continuing those policies
> >> would have been the way to go.
>
> >> Don't do what Bush 2 did. Wasted Clinton's surplus. Spent billions, 'off
> >> budget.' Started a war (we didn't need) and refused to raise taxes to pay
> >> for it; increasing the national debt. Made the great giveaway to the
> >> pharmaceuticals (No Bid - unbudgeted). Only president to cut taxes during a
> >> war. Gave no bid contracts away (Halliburton) unbudgeted. Bush is
> >> responsible for about $12 trillion of the national debt.
>
> >Nope Jerry, Bush ran the defict from nearly 6 trillion to about 11
> >trillion.
>
> There was never any deficit of 6 trillion or 11 trillion. Perhaps you
> meant "debt".
Yes I meant debt. Thank you Pepe.
>
> >> Oh, that's right. The Right Wingers refuse to even discuss President Obama's
> >> plans on balancing the budget. It's more like Idiot (I want to be an
> >> American) Mick and, "Cut taxes on businesses!" What a fool.
>
> >> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> >Cutting business taxes in an attempt to make America a more friendly
> >place to do business is a good idea Jerry. Or do you like the idea
> >that the government will one day be the biggest employer? What the
> >hell is wrong with trying to attract business, which brings jobs?
>
> Because the topic is reducing the deficit. Cutting taxes increased
> does the opposite of reducing the deficit. And please spare me the
> supply-side trickle-down gibberish.
More people employed means more tax revenue. If that is gibberish to
you, then there is no way to make you understand. Do you prefer
millions drawing unemployment?
>
> >Lower taxes on business would offset some of the greater costs of
> >doing business here, like regulation and wages.
>
> >The only fool here is you.
>
> No, the fools are the ones who think tax cuts reduce deficits.
Tax cuts that spur investment and jobs do reduce deficits. It's been
done before.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Howard Beale
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:31:25 -0800 (PST), Slim1Der
> <mkmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Deploy five national guard battalions on the Mexican border with
> >orders to shoot to kill to stop illegal immigration. Give ICE the
> >power to immediately deport all illegal immigrant felons. Begin a
> >massive sweep to identify and deport illegal immigrants in this
> >country.
>
> Make English the official language stop bilingual education, and stop
> printing government forms in 16 different languages.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
Here's my true story:
I had business to do at the Bronx office of the water department, needed a
permit or w/e. One of the walls had notices in like 20 languages, lol,
and I had to search for the ones in English. So, naturally, when I got to
a clerk I told them I wanted to conduct my business in Farsi and she told
me I'd have to come back on Tuesday. I remember that, Tuesday. So I
said, ok, English then and I'll do my best.
HB
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
Tax cuts can reduce deficits IF they stimulate the economy more than enough
to compensate for them.
But Seth failed math often.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:59:43 -0800, "Irish Mike"
> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Cut taxes on businesses and corporations, immediately reduce payroll
>>taxes, freeze all government spending, reduce the capital gains tax to
>>zero for at least three years, take all of the unspent stimulus money and
>>all of the repaid TARP money and use it to reduce the deficit, and provide
>>special tax incentives to businesses that create new jobs. Make the Bush
>>tax cuts permanent.
>
> Cut taxes to balance the budget. Good one, Mike. Did you fail
> arithmetic in 2nd grade?
Seth the shithead, ladies and gentlemen!
The concept of growing the economy is beyond him, and the concept of
reducing spending along with reducing tax rates never occured to him.
lawh...@hiwaay.net
> Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or sense
> it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot. I read that they've been trying
> to put together a new economic union (if that's the right way to put it)
> w/ other economies like Brazil in order to have an alternative to the
> dollar. If they stop buying our bonds we are in real trouble and if we
> try to inflate our way out of this it would be a reason for them, and
> everybody else, to stop buying our bonds. We can't tax our way out of
> this and there isn't enough discretionary spending in the national budget
> to balance it. Besides, politicians are politicians and they can't stop
> spending. So I've come up w/ what I would do if I were the government:
>
> I would seize 10% of the money of every American w/ $100,000+ in the bank
> or w/ brokerage accounts and give them and IOU.
>
> My second idea is the Barack Obama to hold a telethon in which he begs for
> donations, maybe you get a bumper sticker that might keep you from getting
> a speeding ticket. That's worth something.
>
> So, ok, I know that these 2 are the best ideas because I thought of them
> myself but I invite you to come up with others.
>
> Wait, wait, I've got another: Dress up all the politicians like Nascar
> drivers.
>
>
> -------
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
Howard:
It's nice to see that Alim Nassor and I are not the only ones on this
message board giving serious thought to this weighty question. Here's
a recent Fortune magazine article that addressed one possible
"solution" to this mess - a European-style Value Added Tax (VAT)
The President's new bi-partisan "Commission on the Debt and Deficits"
will surely study a possible VAT, but whether or not they'll actually
recommend implementation of such a tax is an open question. You can
be sure that opposition to the VAT - from groups like the Chamber of
Commerce and other pro-business lobbies - will be fierce. (Such a
confrontation will make the ruckus over health care reform look like a
Sunday picnic.)
If the health care debate is any indication of the difficulty our
political leaders have in dealing with contentious issues, then I
think it is more than a 50-50 probability that we will experience some
kind of economic calamity, (i.e. an exchange rate crisis or a failed
treasury auction), that forces our elected representatives to make
tough decisions that they would rather avoid. At a minimum, baby
boomers who think or believe that they're going to get all the Social
Security benefits they have been "promised" under current law are
going to be in for a rude awakening. Those are the kind of "tough
decisions" that politicians from both parties would rather not have to
make. It's not going to be pleasant dealing with this problem.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
Alim Nassor
>
> If the health care debate is any indication of the difficulty our
> political leaders have in dealing with contentious issues, then I
> think it is more than a 50-50 probability that we will experience some
> kind of economic calamity, (i.e. an exchange rate crisis or a failed
> treasury auction), that forces our elected representatives to make
> tough decisions that they would rather avoid. At a minimum, baby
> boomers who think or believe that they're going to get all the Social
> Security benefits they have been "promised" under current law are
> going to be in for a rude awakening. Those are the kind of "tough
> decisions" that politicians from both parties would rather not have to
> make. It's not going to be pleasant dealing with this problem.
>
> Alan C. Lawhon
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alan, we came close to a failed Treasury auction a couple of weeks ago
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3861666
The article gives a good explanation of "direct, indirect and primary"
buyers.
excerpt:
Buyer
Purchase Amount (%)
Primary Dealers
47%
Direct Buyers
24% (A RECORD)
Indirect Buyers
28%
First of all, we see Direct Buyers hit a RECORD percentage of
purchases. This is extremely bizarre and somewhat disconcerting given
that we have no way of know who these buyers are. For all we know they
could be the Federal Reserve itself or other US-Government entities
buying "off the radar."
Indeed, on that note we know that the US Federal Reserve accounted for
11% of the total purchases. Folks, you're not dealing with a healthy
debt auction when the Fed accounts for 10% of purchases.
However, far, FAR more worrisome is the pathetic Indirect Buyer
takedown: 28%. Historically this number has been more around 40%
(Tyler at ZeroHedge notes that the average Indirect purchase of the
last four long-term Treasury auctions was 39.9%). To see such a
MASSIVE drop off in Indirect Buyers (40% down to 28%) is a MAJOR
warning sign that Foreign Governments are no longer willing to buy
long-term US debt.
This auction was a very small step away from a failed auction.To see
Primary Dealers buying so much (remember they HAVE to buy it) and
Indirect Buyers so little, only confirms what I've been saying for
months, that the US is entering a Debt Spiral: a situation in which it
must issue more and more debt (while rolling over trillions of old
debt) at the very time that fewer and fewer investors are willing to
lend to the US for any lengthy period of time (more than ten years).
Pepe Papon
lawh...@hiwaay.net
> On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, "lawho...@HiWAAY.net" <lawho...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If the health care debate is any indication of the difficulty our
> > political leaders have in dealing with contentious issues, then I
> > think it is more than a 50-50 probability that we will experience some
> > kind of economic calamity, (i.e. an exchange rate crisis or a failed
> > treasury auction), that forces our elected representatives to make
> > tough decisions that they would rather avoid. At a minimum, baby
> > boomers who think or believe that they're going to get all the Social
> > Security benefits they have been "promised" under current law are
> > going to be in for a rude awakening. Those are the kind of "tough
> > decisions" that politicians from both parties would rather not have to
> > make. It's not going to be pleasant dealing with this problem.
>
> > Alan C. Lawhon
> > Huntsville, Alabama- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alim:
This is quite sobering. I was browsing in my local Barnes & Noble
bookstore last night and began reading Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen
Reinhardt's book "This Time Is Different". The entire book deals with
the topic of developed (and developing) economies experiencing a
financial crisis that quickly leads to a debt explosion and the
various ways these countries attempted to extricate themselves from
the mess. (Professor Rogoff is interviewed by Jim Puplava on this
week's "Financial Sense Online" web site. You might want to go to the
web site and listen to the interview.) Rogoff and Reinhardt clearly
show that while it is easy to get into a debt spiral, getting out is
very ugly. Sovereign debt defaults have occurred in the past - and
could happen again. In a number of cases, countries saddled with a
heavy debt burden decide that it is less painful to default [and
suffer the consequences] rather than endure the draconian steps
required to honor their commitments. It boils down to a practical
choice of "Which option is the least painful for our citizens?"
Rogoff and Reinhardt have charts in the book (covering 800 years of
financial history) which show that the kind of debt we're accumulating
has led other countries into high inflation and even (in some cases)
hyper-inflation. Politically, the temptation to eliminate the debt by
"inflating it away" becomes irresistable.
If the February 10th auction was a "near failure," grab your knees and
start praying. If I heard correctly, the Treasury is supposed to
conduct another auction (later this week) for $129 billion of debt.
If this one goes badly, we may have our crisis.
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlqf95$v5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Pepe the shit for brains, ladies and gentlemen!
>
> Tax cuts can reduce deficits IF they stimulate the economy more than
> enough to compensate for them.
>
> But Seth failed math often.
And pigs could fly if only they grew wings.
Can you explain why revenue as a % of GDP dropped from 21% to 15%
under the Bush tax cuts?
Can you explain why every non-partisan auditing group that analyzed
the Bush tax cuts (CBO, OMB, JCT, etc) estimated it would cost the
government hundreds of billions of dollars in net revenue? Not a
single one of them estimated that growth caused by the tax cuts would
offset revenue losses, and they were proved right. Just a coincidence,
right?
Can you explain why in the world politicians would *not* lower taxes
if it would grow the economy, please their constituents, and increase
the revenue they have to work with? Do you think they are all stupid?
Is every other wealthy country in the world stupid?
You have among the lowest taxation in the world already. You also have
among the lowest spending, even though much of that spending is
accounted for by spending more on military than the rest of the world
combined. Think about it.
Pepe Papon
>
>
>"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:hlqf95$v5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Pepe the shit for brains, ladies and gentlemen!
>>
>> Tax cuts can reduce deficits IF they stimulate the economy more than
>> enough to compensate for them.
>>
>> But Seth failed math often.
>
>And pigs could fly if only they grew wings.
>
>Can you explain why revenue as a % of GDP dropped from 21% to 15%
>under the Bush tax cuts?
>
>Can you explain why every non-partisan auditing group that analyzed
>the Bush tax cuts (CBO, OMB, JCT, etc) estimated it would cost the
>government hundreds of billions of dollars in net revenue? Not a
>single one of them estimated that growth caused by the tax cuts would
>offset revenue losses, and they were proved right. Just a coincidence,
>right?
>
>Can you explain why in the world politicians would *not* lower taxes
>if it would grow the economy, please their constituents, and increase
>the revenue they have to work with? Do you think they are all stupid?
>Is every other wealthy country in the world stupid?
Beldingbat thinks everyone is stupid if they disagree with him. So,
the answer to your question is yes.
>You have among the lowest taxation in the world already. You also have
>among the lowest spending, even though much of that spending is
>accounted for by spending more on military than the rest of the world
>combined. Think about it.
You're asking Beldim to think? Good luck with that.
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know I'm sure that Reagans tax cuts increased revenues to the
treasury. You also know that the deficit still gew because spending
increased more than the revenue increase. Do you try to claim that
Reagans tax cuts resulted in higher deficits?
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
excerpt:
"Simultaneously with the enactment of the tax cuts in 1981 the Federal
Reserve Board, with the full support of the Reagan Administration,
altered monetary policy so as to bring inflation under control. The
Federal Reserve's actions brought inflation down faster and further
than was anticipated at the time, and one consequence was that the
economy fell into a deep recession in 1982. Another consequence of the
collapse in inflation was that federal spending levels, which had been
predicated on a higher level of expected inflation, were suddenly much
higher in inflation-adjusted terms. The combination of the tax cuts,
the recession, and the one-time increase in inflation-adjusted federal
spending produced historically high budget deficits which, in turn,
led to a tax increase in 1984 that pared back some of the tax cuts
enacted in 1981, especially on the business side.
As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the
1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained
pattern of growth. Though the painful medicine of disinflation slowed
and initially hid the process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate
cuts and reductions in the disincentives to invest took hold as
promised."
Beldin the Sorcerer
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:hlr0qt$rhk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hlqf95$v5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Pepe the shit for brains, ladies and gentlemen!
>>
>> Tax cuts can reduce deficits IF they stimulate the economy more than
>> enough to compensate for them.
>>
>> But Seth failed math often.
>
> And pigs could fly if only they grew wings.
Bill, good to see you still like to look stupid
>
> Can you explain why revenue as a % of GDP dropped from 21% to 15% under
> the Bush tax cuts?
Since those tax cuts didn't reduce anyone's tax burden by more that 25%, I'm
sure the cuts were irrelevent
HOWEVER, retard, measuring by GDP is what morons do.
If you're changing the tax rate to grow the economy and be revenue neutral,
anyone who actually PASSED math class knows the revenue measured against GDP
goes down.
Here, moron, let's make it more clear.
GDP is X
Revenue is .2 X
% of GDP is .2
Cut the tax rate 50%
People feel so good and risk their money investing in businesses and BAM the
GDP triples.
Revenue is .3X
% GDP is .1
Is that better or worse, idiot boy?
(Obvious question... better than what? Better than revenue received before
hand. It's dollars, not %GDP that gets spent, you putz)
>
> Can you explain why every non-partisan auditing group that analyzed the
> Bush tax cuts (CBO, OMB, JCT, etc) estimated it would cost the government
> hundreds of billions of dollars in net revenue? Not a single one of them
> estimated that growth caused by the tax cuts would offset revenue losses,
> and they were proved right. Just a coincidence, right?
Hey, Bill, did you fail reading?
Where did I claim that those cuts specifically advocated by Bush qualified?
>
> Can you explain why in the world politicians would *not* lower taxes if it
> would grow the economy, please their constituents, and increase the
> revenue they have to work with?
Because, you putz, it isn't easily done.
You have to lower the RIGHT taxes, at the right time.
>Do you think they are all stupid?
Well, most of them are.
There's a reason productivity in Europe sucks ass. People have no incentive
to bust ass.
(Note I said productivity, not per hour 'worked'. a 35 hour work week is a
fuckin' joke)
> Is every other wealthy country in the world stupid?
Well, how many rich people leave their country to come here to avoid the
taxes?
Yeah, some of em are really goddamn stupid
>
> You have among the lowest taxation in the world already. You also have
> among the lowest spending, even though much of that spending is accounted
> for by spending more on military than the rest of the world combined.
> Think about it.
>
Why do you think our GDP is so big?
People have more incentive.
Take a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
There's a reason Canada's GDP is 10% of the US
AND a reason why your federal tax revenue NEEDS to be 25% higher as a %GDP
than ours
You have 1/9 the population of the US
Your GDP is slightly better than 1/10
You need to tax higher than the US to get the same dollars per capita spent
If you doubled your GDP, would you need your same tax rate?
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:10:35 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:hlqf95$v5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> Pepe the shit for brains, ladies and gentlemen!
>>>
>>> Tax cuts can reduce deficits IF they stimulate the economy more than
>>> enough to compensate for them.
>>>
>>> But Seth failed math often.
>>
>>And pigs could fly if only they grew wings.
>>
>>Can you explain why revenue as a % of GDP dropped from 21% to 15%
>>under the Bush tax cuts?
>>
>>Can you explain why every non-partisan auditing group that analyzed
>>the Bush tax cuts (CBO, OMB, JCT, etc) estimated it would cost the
>>government hundreds of billions of dollars in net revenue? Not a
>>single one of them estimated that growth caused by the tax cuts would
>>offset revenue losses, and they were proved right. Just a coincidence,
>>right?
>>
>>Can you explain why in the world politicians would *not* lower taxes
>>if it would grow the economy, please their constituents, and increase
>>the revenue they have to work with? Do you think they are all stupid?
>>Is every other wealthy country in the world stupid?
>
> Beldingbat thinks everyone is stupid if they disagree with him. So,
> the answer to your question is yes.
No, Shithead.
I think people that failed math don't understand that revenue is a function
of rate and base, not just the rate.
You go find someone who passed math to explain that to you, ok?
>
>>You have among the lowest taxation in the world already. You also have
>>among the lowest spending, even though much of that spending is
>>accounted for by spending more on military than the rest of the world
>>combined. Think about it.
>
> You're asking Beldim to think? Good luck with that.
Seth, I spend far more time thinking than you do.
And I get much better results.
Go write another song about making out with your girlfriend
Jerry Sturdivant
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:tso1o5todv0105pi9...@4ax.com...
I believe you're right. Musta got my net and gross mixed up. I apologize for
a late; or incomplete; response. It seems "news.east.cox.net" didn't make it
to "news.WEST.cox.net." IOW, I missed a bunch of messages yesterday and I
don't like using RecGroups.com.
>>> There was never any deficit of 6 trillion or 11 trillion. Perhaps you
>>> meant "debt".
>> Yes I meant debt. Thank you Pepe.
Oops! Am I in somebody else's post? Too many 'greater thans' (">").
>>>>> Oh, that's right. The Right Wingers refuse to even discuss President
>>>>> Obama's
>>> >> plans on balancing the budget. It's more like Idiot (I want to be an
>>>>> American) Mick and, "Cut taxes on businesses!" What a fool.
>>>> Cutting business taxes in an attempt to make America a more friendly
>>>> place to do business is a good idea Jerry. Or do you like the idea
>>>> that the government will one day be the biggest employer? What the
>>>> hell is wrong with trying to attract business, which brings jobs?
It's not the where and when of tax cuts; it's balancing the budget. I'm for
a VAT for Flat tax. Something else. (Now that I can't use any deductions
myself).
>>> Because the topic is reducing the deficit. Cutting taxes increased
>>> does the opposite of reducing the deficit. And please spare me the
>>> supply-side trickle-down gibberish.
Sorry, I must be in somebody else's posts.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33c8de7e-f342-44ea...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
If he won't, I will. Cut my taxes so I don't send $100 to the government. I
spend the $100. How much does the government get of that $100? It just doesn't
trickle back to $100 for the government.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wLagn.10635$Dv7....@newsfe17.iad...
>
>
>
>
> If he won't, I will. Cut my taxes so I don't send $100 to the government.
> I spend the $100. How much does the government get of that $100? It just
> doesn't trickle back to $100 for the government.
>
Alim Nassor
>
> > You know I'm sure that Reagans tax cuts increased revenues to the
> > treasury. You also know that the deficit still gew because spending
> > increased more than the revenue increase. Do you try to claim that
> > Reagans tax cuts resulted in higher deficits?
>
> If he won't, I will. Cut my taxes so I don't send $100 to the government. I
> spend the $100. How much does the government get of that $100? It just doesn't
> trickle back to $100 for the government.
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
More money available to be spent, means more jobs. More jobs mean
more tax payers. More tax payers, even at a reduced rate, means more
revenue. Lower business taxes means means more businesses stay here,
Which means more jobs, which means more taxpayers, which means more
revenue. More money available to consumers means more revenue from
other taxes, like excise taxes.
You seem to think the government is who creates jobs and drives the
economy. it isn't.
>
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
***
In some instances it is.
WW II for instance.
The government can, in fact, support everyone. If everyone does what the
government tells them to.
Most people don't really like that approach.
>
>
>
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:33f47fcd-3774-4882...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 9:42 pm, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You know I'm sure that Reagans tax cuts increased revenues to the
> > > treasury. You also know that the deficit still gew because spending
> > > increased more than the revenue increase. Do you try to claim that
> > > Reagans tax cuts resulted in higher deficits?
>
> > If he won't, I will. Cut my taxes so I don't send $100 to the government.
> > I
> > spend the $100. How much does the government get of that $100? It just
> > doesn't
> > trickle back to $100 for the government.
>
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> More money available to be spent, means more jobs. More jobs mean
> more tax payers. More tax payers, even at a reduced rate, means more
> revenue. Lower business taxes means means more businesses stay here,
> Which means more jobs, which means more taxpayers, which means more
> revenue. More money available to consumers means more revenue from
> other taxes, like excise taxes.
>
> You seem to think the government is who creates jobs and drives the
> economy. it isn't.
> ***
> In some instances it is.
>
> WW II for instance.
I can accept special circumstances.
>
> The government can, in fact, support everyone. If everyone does what the
> government tells them to.
>
> Most people don't really like that approach.
And it has failed everywhere it has been tried.
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
***
No, it's never been tried.
People don't do what they're told
It's human attitude that makes socialism fail, not the concept itself
>
>
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlr2f6$klb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Can you explain why revenue as a % of GDP dropped from 21% to 15%
>> under the Bush tax cuts?
>
> Since those tax cuts didn't reduce anyone's tax burden by more that
> 25%, I'm sure the cuts were irrelevent
Huh?
> HOWEVER, retard, measuring by GDP is what morons do.
You mean....economists?
> If you're changing the tax rate to grow the economy and be revenue
> neutral, anyone who actually PASSED math class knows the revenue
> measured against GDP goes down.
You can't grow the economy and be revenue neutral, unless you want to
go deeper into debt. It costs more to run a larger economy.
> Here, moron, let's make it more clear.
>
> GDP is X
>
> Revenue is .2 X
> % of GDP is .2
>
> Cut the tax rate 50%
> People feel so good and risk their money investing in businesses and
> BAM the GDP triples.
lol What planet do you live on?
> Revenue is .3X
> % GDP is .1
>
> Is that better or worse, idiot boy?
> (Obvious question... better than what? Better than revenue received
> before hand. It's dollars, not %GDP that gets spent, you putz)
Good grief. I am asking you to look at the precipitous drop in
revenue/gdp. The point was it was obvious (to anyone but you
apparently?) that any growth that took place (or could have been
reasonably anticipated, for that matter) over that period could not
possibly offset that kind of drop over that short period of time. And
that was in fact the case. That is one of the principal reasons why
the national debt doubled under Bush in absolute terms, and increased
sharply as a % of gdp.
>> Can you explain why every non-partisan auditing group that analyzed
>> the Bush tax cuts (CBO, OMB, JCT, etc) estimated it would cost the
>> government hundreds of billions of dollars in net revenue? Not a
>> single one of them estimated that growth caused by the tax cuts
>> would offset revenue losses, and they were proved right. Just a
>> coincidence, right?
> Hey, Bill, did you fail reading?
> Where did I claim that those cuts specifically advocated by Bush
> qualified?
Where did you exclude them? They are the most recent example. The US
is going deeper and deeper into debt because of idiots like you
clamoring for ever-lower taxes. How about RAISING taxes to pay off
just a little of the money you have borrowed, you fucking deadbeat.
>> Can you explain why in the world politicians would *not* lower
>> taxes if it would grow the economy, please their constituents, and
>> increase the revenue they have to work with?
>
> Because, you putz, it isn't easily done.
>
> You have to lower the RIGHT taxes, at the right time.
And you know this, but the world's best economists they have working
for them haven't figured it out yet. right? You need a psychiatrist.
>>Do you think they are all stupid?
>
> Well, most of them are.
LOL. Get help.
>> You have among the lowest taxation in the world already. You also
>> have among the lowest spending, even though much of that spending
>> is accounted for by spending more on military than the rest of the
>> world combined. Think about it.
>>
>
> Why do you think our GDP is so big?
>
> People have more incentive.
> Take a look here
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
> There's a reason Canada's GDP is 10% of the US
>
> AND a reason why your federal tax revenue NEEDS to be 25% higher as
> a %GDP than ours
>
> You have 1/9 the population of the US
>
> Your GDP is slightly better than 1/10
>
> You need to tax higher than the US to get the same dollars per
> capita spent
I hate to break it to you, but total taxation is about the same in the
US and Canada (correcting only for universal health care
expenditures). Canada is also in debt. Canada was *a lot* worse off
until some brave politicians finally said in the 90's "this is getting
out of hand...we have to raise taxes a little to start paying down
this debt." The same thing is going to have to happen in the US,
whether you like it or not. The lower taxes = more revenue theory has
been exploded too many times. Only the hopelessly gullible (like you)
still cling to it.
Pepe Papon
If your assertion is true, then reducing taxes to zero should maximize
government revenues. Hmmm...something must be wrong with the math.
>You seem to think the government is who creates jobs and drives the
>economy. it isn't.
Another popular right-wing strawman. I don't think that, nor do I
know anyone who does.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Alim Nassor
<hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:52:56 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>
>
>
>
>
> <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 9:42 pm, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> > You know I'm sure that Reagans tax cuts increased revenues to the
> >> > treasury. You also know that the deficit still gew because spending
> >> > increased more than the revenue increase. Do you try to claim that
> >> > Reagans tax cuts resulted in higher deficits?
>
> >> If he won't, I will. Cut my taxes so I don't send $100 to the government. I
> >> spend the $100. How much does the government get of that $100? It just doesn't
> >> trickle back to $100 for the government.
>
> >> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> >More money available to be spent, means more jobs. More jobs mean
> >more tax payers. More tax payers, even at a reduced rate, means more
> >revenue. Lower business taxes means means more businesses stay here,
> >Which means more jobs, which means more taxpayers, which means more
> >revenue. More money available to consumers means more revenue from
> >other taxes, like excise taxes.
>
> If your assertion is true, then reducing taxes to zero should maximize
> government revenues. Hmmm...something must be wrong with the math.
What is wrong with YOUR math is that you seem to have never heard of
the law of diminishing returns.
>
> >You seem to think the government is who creates jobs and drives the
> >economy. it isn't.
>
> Another popular right-wing strawman. I don't think that, nor do I
> know anyone who does.
Many people do. Surely you have heard the Big O spouting about
creating jobs, I was stating an opinion based on your input.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
Pepe Papon
Actually, that's exactly the point. Now, try applying this to your
original assertion.
>> >You seem to think the government is who creates jobs and drives the
>> >economy. �it isn't.
>>
>> Another popular right-wing strawman. � I don't think that, nor do I
>> know anyone who does.
>
>Many people do. Surely you have heard the Big O spouting about
>creating jobs, I was stating an opinion based on your input.
Then you're showing a tremendous misunderstanding of what's being
said. "The government can create jobs" is an entirely different
statement from, "The government drives the economy."
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry Pepe, I never said cut taxes to zero I believe there is a lot
of room before we get to the point of diminishing returns.
Sure the government can create government jobs, and they can provide
some stimulus to the private sector, you know, those tax cuts we are
talking about? But many people put way too much faith in the
government to both create private sector jobs, and drive the economy.
Deadmoney Walking
> Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or sense
> it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot. I read that they've been trying
> to put together a new economic union (if that's the right way to put it)
> w/ other economies like Brazil in order to have an alternative to the
> dollar. If they stop buying our bonds we are in real trouble and if we
> try to inflate our way out of this it would be a reason for them, and
> everybody else, to stop buying our bonds. We can't tax our way out of
> this and there isn't enough discretionary spending in the national budget
> to balance it. Besides, politicians are politicians and they can't stop
> spending. So I've come up w/ what I would do if I were the government:
>
> I would seize 10% of the money of every American w/ $100,000+ in the bank
> or w/ brokerage accounts and give them and IOU.
>
> My second idea is the Barack Obama to hold a telethon in which he begs for
> donations, maybe you get a bumper sticker that might keep you from getting
> a speeding ticket. That's worth something.
>
> So, ok, I know that these 2 are the best ideas because I thought of them
> myself but I invite you to come up with others.
>
> Wait, wait, I've got another: Dress up all the politicians like Nascar
> drivers.
>
> Howard Beale
>
> -------
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
Go to Casino Arizona, levy fines on poker players who don't use combs
and brushes. The 20-40 games alone would create a job.
La Cosa Nostradamus
> Make detroit a giant nuke station sell bonds problem solved
> On Feb 20 2010 1:01 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
>
Hey, i apologize for offering a solution.
I realize the thread title is how they WILL solve....
Not how they COULD solve..
______________________________________________________________________�
Frisbieinstein
> Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or sense
> it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot. I read that they've been trying
> to put together a new economic union (if that's the right way to put it)
> w/ other economies like Brazil in order to have an alternative to the
> dollar. If they stop buying our bonds we are in real trouble and if we
> try to inflate our way out of this it would be a reason for them, and
> everybody else, to stop buying our bonds. We can't tax our way out of
> this and there isn't enough discretionary spending in the national budget
> to balance it. Besides, politicians are politicians and they can't stop
> spending. So I've come up w/ what I would do if I were the government:
>
> I would seize 10% of the money of every American w/ $100,000+ in the bank
> or w/ brokerage accounts and give them and IOU.
>
> My second idea is the Barack Obama to hold a telethon in which he begs for
> donations, maybe you get a bumper sticker that might keep you from getting
> a speeding ticket. That's worth something.
>
> So, ok, I know that these 2 are the best ideas because I thought of them
> myself but I invite you to come up with others.
>
> Wait, wait, I've got another: Dress up all the politicians like Nascar
> drivers.
>
> Howard Beale
>
> -------
Sell poor people into slavery. Not only will this provide badly
needed capital, but it would increase per-capita income and save
greatly on health care costs.
BillB
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f70bea0c-593e-4add-9424-
> What is wrong with YOUR math is that you seem to have never heard of
> the law of diminishing returns.
I have. That's econ 101 stuff.
The law of diminishing returns states that when you increase
investment in one factor of production (eg. man hours) while keeping
all other factors of production constant (eg. plant, equipment) you
will get decreasing output for each unit of investment.
How does that tie into anything you are talking about?
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hlr2f6$klb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> Can you explain why revenue as a % of GDP dropped from 21% to 15% under
>>> the Bush tax cuts?
>>
>> Since those tax cuts didn't reduce anyone's tax burden by more that 25%,
>> I'm sure the cuts were irrelevent
>
> Huh?
>
>> HOWEVER, retard, measuring by GDP is what morons do.
>
> You mean....economists?
If you're adjusting rates, Economists are smart enough to KNOW the %GDP will
go down. That's the goddamn point.
You're doing it to grow revenues while stimulating the economy.... your GOAL
is to increase revenues while decreasing %GDP collected.
>
>> If you're changing the tax rate to grow the economy and be revenue
>> neutral, anyone who actually PASSED math class knows the revenue measured
>> against GDP goes down.
>
> You can't grow the economy and be revenue neutral, unless you want to go
> deeper into debt. It costs more to run a larger economy.
No, fuckhead
I realize you failed math.
Truly I do.
It doesn't cost more simply because the economy got larger.
It costs more if the population gets bigger. It costs LESS if you get
everyone back to work (so no unemployment, far fewer uninsured people,
fewer people on food stamps, less need for crime.... list goes on a long
time)
Are you shithead enough to think that, if the economy doubles, the need for
police doubles?
You think criminals steal twice as much? They all subscribe to The Economist
and get theft quotas?
>
>
>> Here, moron, let's make it more clear.
>>
>> GDP is X
>>
>> Revenue is .2 X
>> % of GDP is .2
>>
>> Cut the tax rate 50%
>> People feel so good and risk their money investing in businesses and BAM
>> the GDP triples.
>
> lol What planet do you live on?
Earth.
That's called "A hypothetical"
Otherwise known as "An illistration"
I realize you're fucked in the head, so you won't get it.
>
>
>> Revenue is .3X
>> % GDP is .1
>>
>> Is that better or worse, idiot boy?
>> (Obvious question... better than what? Better than revenue received
>> before hand. It's dollars, not %GDP that gets spent, you putz)
>
> Good grief. I am asking you to look at the precipitous drop in
> revenue/gdp.
No, fuckhead.
You're pretending that Bush II's cuts are the only ones possible.
The point was it was obvious (to anyone but you
> apparently?) that any growth that took place (or could have been
> reasonably anticipated, for that matter) over that period could not
> possibly offset that kind of drop over that short period of time.
Fuckhead (and you ARE a fuckhead.)
The point WAS that it IS possible to cut taxes and grow revenues.
YOU being too stupid to understand the point doesn't change it.
And
> that was in fact the case. That is one of the principal reasons why the
> national debt doubled under Bush in absolute terms, and increased sharply
> as a % of gdp.
No, fuckhead.
The debt increased dramatically because of military spending. due to 9/11
and related wars.
>
>
>
>>> Can you explain why every non-partisan auditing group that analyzed the
>>> Bush tax cuts (CBO, OMB, JCT, etc) estimated it would cost the
>>> government hundreds of billions of dollars in net revenue? Not a single
>>> one of them estimated that growth caused by the tax cuts would offset
>>> revenue losses, and they were proved right. Just a coincidence, right?
>
>
>> Hey, Bill, did you fail reading?
>> Where did I claim that those cuts specifically advocated by Bush
>> qualified?
>
> Where did you exclude them?
Shithead. I realize you're retarded.
Truly I do.
What the fuck does this say :
<Quote>
>>Lower taxes on business would offset some of the greater costs of
>>doing business here, like regulation and wages.
>>
>>The only fool here is you.
>
> No, the fools are the ones who think tax cuts reduce deficits.
Pepe the shit for brains, ladies and gentlemen!
Tax cuts can reduce deficits IF they stimulate the economy more than enough
to compensate for them.
But Seth failed math often.
<End quote>
That's where I came in; that's the point, and if you're too stupid to
UNDERSTAND the point, go study economics and math.
They are the most recent example.
WHAT DID I WRITE, MORON?
Did I write "As evidenced by Bush II's tax policy?"
No.
I wrote They CAN (emphesis added for Bill the shit for brains) reduce
deficits IF they stimulate the economy mnore than enough to compensate for
them.
Are you a COMPLETE fucking retard?
Can you NOT understand that SIMPLE english sentence?
Hello shithead?
The US
> is going deeper and deeper into debt because of idiots like you clamoring
> for ever-lower taxes. How about RAISING taxes to pay off just a little of
> the money you have borrowed, you fucking deadbeat.
Fucking moron, noone with a brain is raising taxes ANYWHERE.
You have a fear-based recession going. You NEED to encourage new business.
The time to raise taxes is when the economy is rolling like hell
>
>
>>> Can you explain why in the world politicians would *not* lower taxes if
>>> it would grow the economy, please their constituents, and increase the
>>> revenue they have to work with?
>>
>> Because, you putz, it isn't easily done.
>>
>> You have to lower the RIGHT taxes, at the right time.
>
> And you know this, but the world's best economists they have working for
> them haven't figured it out yet. right? You need a psychiatrist.
Fuckhead, I realize you can't read worth a goddamn.
Truly I do.
Did I OFFER a tax policy?
No.
Did I CLAIM to know which ones, at what percentages, to adjust?
No.
This is a solveable game.
I didn't claim to have solved it, I merely demonstrated it is a solveable
game.
Pull your head out of your ass, you moron.
You look like the shithead you are.
>
>
>>>Do you think they are all stupid?
>>
>> Well, most of them are.
>
> LOL. Get help.
You need it far worse than I do
>
>
>
>>> You have among the lowest taxation in the world already. You also have
>>> among the lowest spending, even though much of that spending is
>>> accounted for by spending more on military than the rest of the world
>>> combined. Think about it.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think our GDP is so big?
>>
>> People have more incentive.
>> Take a look here
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
>
>
>> There's a reason Canada's GDP is 10% of the US
>>
>> AND a reason why your federal tax revenue NEEDS to be 25% higher as a
>> %GDP than ours
>>
>> You have 1/9 the population of the US
>>
>> Your GDP is slightly better than 1/10
>>
>> You need to tax higher than the US to get the same dollars per capita
>> spent
>
> I hate to break it to you, but total taxation is about the same in the US
> and Canada (correcting only for universal health care expenditures).
> Canada is also in debt. Canada was *a lot* worse off until some brave
> politicians finally said in the 90's "this is getting out of hand...we
> have to raise taxes a little to start paying down this debt." The same
> thing is going to have to happen in the US, whether you like it or not.
> The lower taxes = more revenue theory has been exploded too many times.
> Only the hopelessly gullible (like you) still cling to it.
No, fuckhead, actually has always been true, assuming the current rate is
high enough.
Beldin the Sorcerer
income generated by that rate, because the base shrinks.
Set the tax rate at 99%
What's going to happen to receipts?
>
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlu4he$d37$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> How does that tie into anything you are talking about?
> Shithead, it also states that if you increase the tax rate, you
> decrease the income generated by that rate, because the base
> shrinks.
No, it doesn't.
Beldin the Sorcerer
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlu555$idv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Yeah, it does.
You are an economic illiterate. Please stop wasting my time.
Beldin the Sorcerer
The LoDR has been applied to tax rates as well.
Don't continue to be a shit for brains, citing the classical economics
definition.
We realize you're a complete retard from your prior posts.
No need to keep proving it.
Anything that has lower results as you increase the rate of something
qualifies.
Bill, seriously, do you get good and drunk before posting this shit?
You are really fucked up
>
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlu5q4$o5f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Beldingbat-speak translation: "I finally looked it up and realized I
didn't know what the fuck I was talking about (yet again)"
Beldin the Sorcerer
Bill the fuckhead was too stupid to look it up, and got fucked in the ass
again.
You're demonstrably wrong, as usual
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlu6od$1u1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> You're demonstrably wrong, as usual
All you have demonstrated is that you are an economic illiterate. The
Law of Diminishing returns does not relate to increasing or decreasing
taxation. It relates to units of production decreasing as you increase
one production factor while keeping all others constant. Pick up a
book sometime.
Pepe Papon
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> If your assertion is true, then reducing taxes to zero should maximize
>> >> government revenues. � Hmmm...something must be wrong with the math.
>>
>> >What is wrong with YOUR math is that you seem to have never heard of
>> >the law of diminishing returns.
>>
>> Actually, that's exactly the point. � Now, try applying this to your
>> original assertion.
>>
>> >> >You seem to think the government is who creates jobs and drives the
>> >> >economy. �it isn't.
>>
>> >> Another popular right-wing strawman. � I don't think that, nor do I
>> >> know anyone who does.
>>
>> >Many people do. Surely you have heard the Big O spouting about
>> >creating jobs, � I was stating an opinion based on your input.
>>
>> Then you're showing a tremendous misunderstanding of what's being
>> said. �"The government can create jobs" is an entirely different
>> statement from, "The government drives the economy." �
>Sorry Pepe, I never said cut taxes to zero I believe there is a lot
>of room before we get to the point of diminishing returns.
I know you believe that. The problem is that your belief is mere
conjecture.
>Sure the government can create government jobs, and they can provide
>some stimulus to the private sector, you know, those tax cuts we are
>talking about?
Tax cuts may create some jobs indirectly, but directly spending money
on project that require people to perform them clearly creates more
and creates them more quickly. The effect is greatest if the money
is spent on infrastructure projects or other projects that the private
sector wouldn't undertake on its own.
> But many people put way too much faith in the
>government to both create private sector jobs, and drive the economy.
The government doesn't "drive" the economy. It can help steer the
economy, however.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Pepe Papon
>Beldingbat-speak translation: "I finally looked it up and realized I
>didn't know what the fuck I was talking about (yet again)"
That's close, but the actual translation is, "I'll never look it up,
and even if I did and found out I was wrong, I'd never admit it."
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
BillB
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a20013cf-1905-4cde-8632-
> Sorry Pepe, I never said cut taxes to zero I believe there is a lot
> of room before we get to the point of diminishing returns.
Based on what? Most of the economists I have read believe the US could
increase revenues 30-35% before they reached the apex of the curve. In
other words, the US is operating on the far left side of the laffer
curve.
The Bush tax cuts were predicted by several independent auditing
groups to reduce revenues hundreds of billions of dollars, and they
did. Why would you think further tax cuts would have the opposite
effect (aside from brainwashing and wishful thinking)?
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It can also be applied to taxes. When you decrease taxes it can
result in increased revenue, up to the point of diminishing returns.
Thats why Pepe's statement of "just cut taxes to zero and get huge
increases in revenue wont work.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Like Wuzzy and Ansi, you're too stupid to understand that usage has evolved.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:bln5o55u02hs86ef6...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:58:45 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>>Beldingbat-speak translation: "I finally looked it up and realized I
>>didn't know what the fuck I was talking about (yet again)"
>
> That's close, but the actual translation is, "I'll never look it up,
> and even if I did and found out I was wrong, I'd never admit it."
> --
Too stupid to understand knowledge of the original term does not negate
knowledge of modern usage
Alim Nassor
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:hlu6od$1u1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > You're demonstrably wrong, as usual
>
> All you have demonstrated is that you are an economic illiterate. The
> Law of Diminishing returns does not relate to increasing or decreasing
> taxation. It relates to units of production decreasing as you increase
> one production factor while keeping all others constant. Pick up a
> book sometime.
If you are going to insist on being that pedantic, then I'll just call
it the "point" of diminishing returns. Happy now?
BillB
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:363604e9-3284-4552-9ac8-
> If you are going to insist on being that pedantic, then I'll just
> call
> it the "point" of diminishing returns. Happy now?
Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. You started it by saying
to Pepe:
"What is wrong with YOUR math is that you seem to have never heard of
the law of diminishing returns."
That's not being pedantic? All I was sayin was, if you are going to be
pedantic, at least get it right.
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
At least look up what pedantic means. Me asking Pepe if he ever heard
of the law of diminishing returns is not pedantic.
You saying it only applied to economics when in reality it can be used
in any number of subjects was pedantic.
Clave
=====================================================================
"I'm not defensive, *YOU'RE* defensive."
- Nathan Thurm
Pepe Papon
Your suggestion assumes that we're not already there. That's
speculation at best.
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:02:55 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>
>
>
>
>
> <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 22, 9:19 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> >> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:f70bea0c-593e-4add-9424-
>
> >> > What is wrong with YOUR math is that you seem to have never heard of
> >> > the law of diminishing returns.
>
> >> I have. That's econ 101 stuff.
>
> >> The law of diminishing returns states that when you increase
> >> investment in one factor of production (eg. man hours) while keeping
> >> all other factors of production constant (eg. plant, equipment) you
> >> will get decreasing output for each unit of investment.
>
> >> How does that tie into anything you are talking about?
>
> >It can also be applied to taxes. When you decrease taxes it can
> >result in increased revenue, up to the point of diminishing returns.
> >Thats why Pepe's statement of "just cut taxes to zero and get huge
> >increases in revenue wont work.
>
> Your suggestion assumes that we're not already there. That's
> speculation at best.
Isn't everything?
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:02:55 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
> <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 22, 9:19 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:f70bea0c-593e-4add-9424-
>>>
>>> > What is wrong with YOUR math is that you seem to have never heard of
>>> > the law of diminishing returns.
>>>
>>> I have. That's econ 101 stuff.
>>>
>>> The law of diminishing returns states that when you increase
>>> investment in one factor of production (eg. man hours) while keeping
>>> all other factors of production constant (eg. plant, equipment) you
>>> will get decreasing output for each unit of investment.
>>>
>>> How does that tie into anything you are talking about?
>>
>>It can also be applied to taxes. When you decrease taxes it can
>>result in increased revenue, up to the point of diminishing returns.
>>Thats why Pepe's statement of "just cut taxes to zero and get huge
>>increases in revenue wont work.
>
> Your suggestion assumes that we're not already there. That's
> speculation at best.
The fact that people avoid some investments because the risk is too great
given the tax situation kinda shows we aren't
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
> "There is no "common usage" for "The Law of Diminishing Returns" *any*
> more than there is for "The Theory of Relativity"
Wow.
You look like a shithead, and you run to correct your GRAMMAR on looking
like a shithead.
Just WOW.
Bill, how far up your as CAN you jam your head?
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm0kvi$8jh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The common phrase "diminishing returns" can be applied to any
>> number of subjects. "The Law of Diminishing Returns" is an economic
>> term has a very specific meaning, and it doesn't relate to
>> taxation. So it turns out it's YOU who has never never heard of it
>> (or at least never understood what it meant).
> Bill the complete shithead, ladies and gentlemen!
>
> What something meant the first time it was uttered doesn't mean it's
> what it means TODAY, fuckhead.
>
> For instance, if I call you a FAG, I am NOT calling you to wait on
> me in boy's school
This is the fourth time you've said this. The Law of Diminishing
Returns means the same thing today as it has always meant. Perhaps we
can clear this up by you showing me an example of an economist
applying "The Law of Diminishing Returns" to taxation.
(not "diminishing returns" , which is a common English phrase, but
"The Law of Diminishing Returns")
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm0qfi$ptb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> It's THEORY, you retard.
Wow, you just posted pages and pages of irrelevant nonsense. You have
a tendency to do that when you feel cornered. I am not trying to make
you feel threatened.
So what you are essentially trying to say is that you believe most
mainstream economists believe that a modest tax increase in the US
(say, raising total taxation 1.8%) would result in a *decrease* in
revenue. Correct?
For example, you think the CBO, JCT and OMB would agree with that?
That's what you are saying?
BillB
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c9bf2bb-a25d-48c9-a72c-
> At least look up what pedantic means.
I don't need to
<Me asking Pepe if he ever heard
> of the law of diminishing returns is not pedantic.
You didn't ask him. You said in a sarcastic tone that he "seems to
have never heard of it"
> You saying it only applied to economics when in reality it can be
> used
> in any number of subjects was pedantic.
The common phrase "diminishing returns" can be applied to any number
Beldin the Sorcerer
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm058b$ea6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Your suggestion assumes that we're not already there. That's
>> speculation at best.
> Not hardly
>
> The fact that people avoid some investments because the risk is too
> great given the tax situation kinda shows we aren't
You crack me up. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking
about. Have you even bothered to do a quick investigation on where the
vast majority of economists believe the US sits on the laffer curve?
BillB
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:eea457x...@recgroups.com...
> Sooner or later it's got to hit the fan, we all either know it or
> sense
> it. The Chinese have us in a tight spot. I read that they've been
> trying
> to put together a new economic union (if that's the right way to put
> it)
> w/ other economies like Brazil in order to have an alternative to
> the
> dollar. If they stop buying our bonds we are in real trouble and if
> we
> try to inflate our way out of this it would be a reason for them,
> and
> everybody else, to stop buying our bonds. We can't tax our way out
> of
> this and there isn't enough discretionary spending in the national
> budget
> to balance it. Besides, politicians are politicians and they can't
> stop
> spending. So I've come up w/ what I would do if I were the
> government:
>
> I would seize 10% of the money of every American w/ $100,000+ in the
> bank
> or w/ brokerage accounts and give them and IOU.
>
> My second idea is the Barack Obama to hold a telethon in which he
> begs for
> donations, maybe you get a bumper sticker that might keep you from
> getting
> a speeding ticket. That's worth something.
>
> So, ok, I know that these 2 are the best ideas because I thought of
> them
> myself but I invite you to come up with others.
>
> Wait, wait, I've got another: Dress up all the politicians like
> Nascar
> drivers.
>
>
> Howard Beale
I'm really trying Howard.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Shithead, it isn't what the vast majority of economists think that's
important.
It's what the vast majority of taxpayers think.
I realize (God knows it's obvious) that you're a complete fucking idiot.
The laffer curve is a CONCEPT. It isn't real.
What people will do if you raise or lower taxes from some given point isn't
a constant, it's a matter of perception.
If people THINK they're overtaxed, then they ARE overtaxed, and they engage
in tax avoidance and risk elimination. In other words, they don't invest
(and risk) money if the reward isn't sufficient, AS THEY PERCEIVE IT.
When the marginal tax rate is 75%, that perception tends to be obvious.
If it's 2%, it's hard to make a case for it.
A lot of the middle depends on factors ASIDE from the tax rate, which is why
lowering the rate OFTEN works really well, even if someone looking at just
the numbers opines that it shouldn't.
People PERCEIVE it as a better deal, so they jump in.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hm0kvi$8jh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> The common phrase "diminishing returns" can be applied to any number of
>>> subjects. "The Law of Diminishing Returns" is an economic term has a
>>> very specific meaning, and it doesn't relate to taxation. So it turns
>>> out it's YOU who has never never heard of it (or at least never
>>> understood what it meant).
>> Bill the complete shithead, ladies and gentlemen!
>>
>> What something meant the first time it was uttered doesn't mean it's what
>> it means TODAY, fuckhead.
>>
>> For instance, if I call you a FAG, I am NOT calling you to wait on me in
>> boy's school
>
>
> This is the fourth time you've said this.
Because it's correct.
You're really pissing me off.
When two shitheads collide, like you and Alim are, it generally means one of
you has to be right.
The fact that it's him in this instance,. and you in the GW instance means I
have to pound on both of you for being shitheads.
The Law of Diminishing
> Returns means the same thing today as it has always meant.
No, fuckhead, it doesn't.
It's a matter of COMMON usage.
I REAL:IZE you're a goddamn moron.
Go google 'common usage'
Perhaps we
> can clear this up by you showing me an example of an economist applying
> "The Law of Diminishing Returns" to taxation.
Why?
Is Alim an economist?
Are you?
He fixes machines and you're a fucking idiot lawyer who only gets his hands
dirty if you wipe and miss.
Is Pepe?
He twangs a guitar.
There's no expectation ANYONE in this discussion was using the term in the
narrow confines of what a professional economist may have meant.
There's EVERY expectation it was being used in the realm of common, everyday
usage.
Like 'inflation' which in common everyday usage refers to 'prices going up'.
NOT printing more currency, which may or may not cause price increases, but
which a number of people will argue is the 'true and only' meaning of the
term.
Remove head from rectal passage, billy-boy.
You know, my book needs an idiot lawyer.
I've got Pickle for judge of the High Court.
But how the hell do I turn BillB into a fantasy name?
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm0n9i$spc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Beldin-speak translation: "I tried to find one example but I
couldn't. I guess I was wrong yet again"
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm0mu5$pgs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Shithead, it isn't what the vast majority of economists think that's
> important.
> It's what the vast majority of taxpayers think.
>
> I realize (God knows it's obvious) that you're a complete fucking
> idiot.
> The laffer curve is a CONCEPT. It isn't real.
> What people will do if you raise in tax avoidance and risk
> elimination. In other words, they don't invest (and risk) money if
> the reward isn't sufficient, AS THEY PERCEIVE IT.
>
> When the marginal tax rate is 75%, that perception tends to be
> obvious.
>
> If it's 2%, it's hard to make a case for it.
> A lot of the middle depends on factors ASIDE from the tax rate,
> which is why lowering the rate OFTEN works really well, even if
> someone looking at just the numbers opines that it shouldn't.
>
> People PERCEIVE it as a better deal, so they jump in.
Once again you prove you are spewing off without even the faintest
clue what you are talking about. There has been a lot of economic
research into how much the US could increase total taxation before
landing itself at the apex of the laffer curve. Are you aware of any
of it?
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm0n9i$spc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The Law of Diminishing
>> Returns means the same thing today as it has always meant.
>
> No, fuckhead, it doesn't.
> It's a matter of COMMON usage.
There is no "common usage" for "The Law of Diminishing Returns" and
more than there is for "The Theory of Relativity". A law states
something very specific. You have been conclusively shown to be a
abject economic illiterate. For your own sake, avoid this topic at all
costs in the future.
Beldin the Sorcerer
I didn't waste my time trying.
I don't need to; the whole group knows I'm right and you're a fucking
retard.
Your utter lack of any meaningful rebuttal proves that
>
>
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:hm0o0m$491$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"There is no "common usage" for "The Law of Diminishing Returns"
*any*
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm0o4l$4uf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Wow, what a shithead.
> I didn't waste my time trying.
> I don't need to; the whole group knows I'm right and you're a
> fucking retard.
Really? How do you know this? The same way you *knew* what The Law of
Diminishing Returns refers to?
You are an economic illiterate, plain and simple. Stop making a fool
of yourself.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hm0mu5$pgs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>> Shithead, it isn't what the vast majority of economists think that's
>> important.
>> It's what the vast majority of taxpayers think.
>>
>> I realize (God knows it's obvious) that you're a complete fucking idiot.
>> The laffer curve is a CONCEPT. It isn't real.
>> What people will do if you raise in tax avoidance and risk elimination.
>> In other words, they don't invest (and risk) money if the reward isn't
>> sufficient, AS THEY PERCEIVE IT.
>>
>> When the marginal tax rate is 75%, that perception tends to be obvious.
>>
>> If it's 2%, it's hard to make a case for it.
>> A lot of the middle depends on factors ASIDE from the tax rate, which is
>> why lowering the rate OFTEN works really well, even if someone looking at
>> just the numbers opines that it shouldn't.
>>
>> People PERCEIVE it as a better deal, so they jump in.
>
> Once again you prove you are spewing off without even the faintest clue
> what you are talking about.
Wrong as usual, shithead.
A bunch of idiots can discuss anything.
There has been a lot of economic
> research into how much the US could increase total taxation before landing
> itself at the apex of the laffer curve. Are you aware of any of it?
Bill, YOU discuss a lot of shit you're clueless on.
Economists are social scientists. Most of them realize they're dealing with
perception, not reality.
Since you're hell BENT on being a shithead, read this :
In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the
relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible
rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of Taxable Income
Elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the
rate of taxation). The curve is constructed by thought experiment. First,
the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is
considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer
curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue
because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational
taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of
nothing. If both a 0% rate and 100% rate of taxation generate no revenue, it
follows that there must exist a rate in between where tax revenue would be a
maximum, by the maximum principle. The Laffer curve is typically represented
as a stylized graph which starts at 0% tax, zero revenue, rises to a maximum
rate of revenue raised at an intermediate rate of taxation and then falls
again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate.
One potential result of the Laffer curve is that increasing taxes beyond a
certain point will become counterproductive for raising further tax revenue
because of diminishing returns. A hypothetical Laffer curve for any given
economy can only be estimated and such estimates are sometimes
controversial. The Laffer curve is associated with supply side economics,
where its use in debates over rates of taxation has also been controversial.
***
Now, fuckhead, go get someone to explain concepts like 'theoretical' and
'thought experiment', then read the last paragraph 15 or 20 times until it
sinks in.
Some idiot (and any economist of ANY stripe who 'knows where we are on the
laffer curve right now' is an idiot) claims we absolutely should raise/lower
taxes. to increase revenue, they're wrong.
The same rate change will show different results depending on any number of
other factors.
Now, if ANY of this has sunk into that cement you think with, read this :
Laffer explains the model in terms of two interacting impacts of taxation:
an "arithmetic effect" and an "economic effect".[1] The "arithmetic effect"
assumes that tax revenue raised is the tax rate multiplied by the revenue
available for taxation (or tax base). At a 0% tax rate, the model assumes
that no tax revenue is raised. The "economic effect" assumes that the tax
rate will have an impact on the tax base itself. At the extreme of a 100%
tax rate, the government theoretically collects zero revenue because
taxpayers change their behavior in response to the tax rate: either they
have no incentive to work or they find a way to avoid paying taxes. Thus,
the "economic effect" of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax base to
zero. If this is the case, then somewhere between 0% and 100% lies a tax
rate that will maximize revenue. Graphical representations of the curve
sometimes appear to put the rate at around 50%, but the optimal rate could
theoretically be any percentage greater than 0% and less than 100%.
Similarly, the curve is often presented as a parabolic shape, but there is
no reason that this is necessarily the case.
Jude Wanniski noted that all economic activity would be unlikely to cease at
at 100% taxation, but would switch to barter from the exchange of money. He
also noted that there can be special circumstances where economic activity
can continue for a period at a near 100% taxation rate (for example, in war
time).[2]
The Laffer Curve assumes that the Government will collect no tax at a 100%
tax rate because there would be no incentive to earn income. However some
question whether this assumption is correct. They argue, for example, that
in the Soviet Union there was an effective 100% tax rate and yet, while the
Soviets were not known for their efficiency, the government still managed to
fund a very large and highly dispersed military while at the same time
creating a highly advanced space program.[3] In contrast, Wanniski used the
outcome of changes in the effective tax rate on farmers in the Soviet Union
in support of the Laffer curve theory.[2]
Various efforts have been made to quantify the relationship between tax
revenue and tax rates (for example, in the United States by the
Congressional Budget Office[4]). Whilst the interaction between tax rates
and tax revenue is generally accepted, the precise nature of this
interaction is debated. In practice, the shape of a hypothetical Laffer
curve for a given economy can only be estimated. The relationship between
tax rate and tax revenue is likely to vary from one economy to another and
depends on the elasticity of supply for labor and various other factors.
Even in the same economy, the characteristics of the curve could vary over
time. Complexities such as possible differences in the incentive to work for
different income groups and progressive taxation complicate the task of
estimation. The structure of the curve may also be changed by policy
decisions. For example, if tax loopholes and off-shore tax shelters are made
more readily available by legislation, the point at which revenue begins to
decrease with increased taxation is likely to become lower.
Laffer presented the curve as a pedagogical device to show that, in some
circumstances, a reduction in tax rates will actually increase government
revenue and not need to be offset by decreased government spending or
increased borrowing. For a reduction in tax rates to increase revenue, the
current tax rate would need to be higher than the revenue maximising rate.
In 2007, Laffer said that the curve should not be the sole basis for raising
or lowering taxes.[5]
***
It's THEORY, you retard. It's correct theoretically, but the variables
aren't easy to judge and the curve moves based on changes in the economy
too, and those changes include something as basic as perception by the
taxpayer.
>
>
>
da pickle
> Your utter lack of any meaningful rebuttal proves that
http://www.answers.com/topic/law-of-diminishing-returns
n.
The tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a
particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level
of result has been achieved.
Could apply to "increasing taxes" ...
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hm0n9i$spc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> The Law of Diminishing
>>> Returns means the same thing today as it has always meant.
>>
>> No, fuckhead, it doesn't.
>> It's a matter of COMMON usage.
>
> There is no "common usage" for "The Law of Diminishing Returns" and more
> than there is for "The Theory of Relativity". A law states something very
> specific.
No, fuckhead, it doesn't.
It STARTS off that way.
The Theory of Relativity changes over time. The very specific meaning of
that theory is no longer what is generally meant when IT is discussed
either.
All you're doing is A) proving my point for me and B) continuing to be a
complete and total fucking moron.
You have REPEATEDLY shown yourself to be a complete fucking idiot.
This is the theory of relativity :
Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was
introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of
special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are
contradictory in classical mechanics:
1.. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion
relative to one another (principle of relativity),
2.. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers,
regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the
light.
YGeneral relativity
Main article: General relativity
General relativity is a theory of gravitation developed by Einstein in the
years 1907-1915. The development of general relativity began with the
equivalence principle, under which the states of accelerated motion and
being at rest in a gravitational field (for example when standing on the
surface of the Earth) are physically identical. The upshot of this is that
free fall is inertial motion; an object in free fall is falling because that
is how objects move when there is no force being exerted on them, instead of
this being due to the force of gravity as is the case in classical
mechanics. This is incompatible with classical mechanics and special
relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot
accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To
resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is curved. In
1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of
spacetime with the mass, energy, and momentum within it.
Some of the consequences of general relativity are:
a.. Time goes more slowly in higher gravitational fields. This is called
gravitational time dilation.
b.. Orbits precess in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity.
(This has been observed in the orbit of Mercury and in binary pulsars).
c.. Rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field.
d.. Frame-dragging, in which a rotating mass "drags along" the space time
around it.
e.. The Universe is expanding, and the far parts of it are moving away
from us faster than the speed of light.
f..
when most people DISCUSS the theory of relativity, they're interested in
CONCLUSIONS that may be drawn :
Some of these are:
a.. Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for some
observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are
in relative motion.
b.. Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an
observer's "stationary" clock.
c.. Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the
direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
d.. Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and
transmutable.
What someone means by a phrase is a function of CONTEXT, you ignorant
moronic Canadian boob
BUT, since you got this far, ignorant fuckface, read this
law of diminishing returns
-nounEconomics.
diminishing returns (def. 2).
Settle Your Back Taxes
We Negotiate With The IRS For You. Call For A Free Tax Debt Analysis!
www.JKHarris.com
Experienced Tax Attorneys
Stop IRS Debt & Collections Today Ex-IRS Agents Can Help-Seen On CNN
Sponsored Results
TaxIncorporated.com
diminishing returns
-noun
1.
any rate of profit, production, benefits, etc., that beyond a certain point
fails to increase proportionately with added investment,effort, or skill.
2.
Also called law of diminishing returns. Economics. the fact, often stated as
a law or principle, that when any factor of production, as labor, is
increased while other factors,as capital and land, are held constant in
amount, the output per unit of the variable factor will eventually diminish.
Read the FIRST definition 97 times, fuckhead..
Taxes qualify as 'production' and the tax rate qualifies as 'effort'.
Since we're on the subject, here's another common user :
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/dat.html
Diminishing returns
The law of diminishing returns is a general principle of economics. It
states that each additional increment of efforts or funds spent on a given
goal typically produces a smaller and smaller increment in the results.
There are exceptions to this law, but they are local; if you keep on
increasing the inputs, you eventually leave the exceptions behind.
For example, you can make traffic flow more smoothly by improving roads.
Adding one lane to 20 miles of congested roads in a city might increase the
average traffic speed by 15 miles an hour. Adding a second lane to those
roads will not give the same improvement; this might increase the average
speed by only 5 more miles an hour. The next additional lane might make no
noticeable difference if the traffic jams are already gone. Yet each
successive lane will cause greater dislocation as more and more buildings
must be torn down to make room.
Now clearly that doesn't conform to YOUR definition at all.
It DOES conform to common usage, of course, and so is easily understood by
any non-shithead.
You're fucked, of course
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hm0olv$a1c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> It's THEORY, you retard. It's correct theoretically, but the
> variables aren't easy to judge and the curve moves based on changes
> in the economy too, and those changes include something as basic as
> perception by the taxpayer.
Evolution and relativity are also theories.
I made a specific statement, then I asked a specific question. Let me
recap for you (you got lost reading wikipedia for a second there).
specific statement: there has been a lot of peer reviewed economic
research that tries to determine the most likely apex point on the
revenue curve.
specific question: how much of it have you read? (don't lie...there
will be a quiz)
There is something of a consensus as to what side of the curve the US
operates from. Were you aware of that? I thought you were all for
deferring to the consensus view of experts? But on this question
you'll go the complete opposite way of the mainstream. That's
interesting.
Climate scientists >> smart
Economists >>> dumb