I'd vote for Bush twice if I could

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
why don't you slackers work a little harder, smoke less blunts, keep study more, make better decisions with your lives and make more money so you can pay more taxes...imagine what the U.S could be if 100% of the population made enough to pay some meaningful taxes, rather than only 50%!!

think about that.

and yes, we want for nothing material in our family. but i would like to retire at a young age and maintain a certain lifestyle, i hope to retire to a "nice" area of the coastal U.S., i like to travel, and i'm probably going to end up putting three kids through college and very likely post-graduate school as well.

by the way, i've already put a cousin through college..paid her tuition.

fyi tuition at Yale is about $40,000/year X4 years = $160,000
lets assume post-graduate (dental, medical, business or law school) $40,000X4 - $160,000

$320,000 per kid X3 kids = potentially $960,000+ for schooling. Now us Conservatives don't get any "loans" or "grants" or "tuition reductions" ..so basically, a million bucks potentially to send my kids through school.

a million here, a million there, pretty soon your talking real money..

that's why i HATE paying so much in taxes. You've got to understand i send 50% of my hard earned cash to uncle sam....that's an very large amount of money.more than most people make.

i have worked extremely hard all my life to earn what i make.

my career as a heartsurgeon has a finite "lifetime"

i spent 4 years college, 4 years medical school, 8 years surgery residency, 3 years cardiac surgery residency - that's 19 years busting my @ss after high school, working 60-100 hours/wk+. getting paid less than minimuim wage on an hourly basis.

Just what do you believe I deserve to be paid?

now i don't expect any sympathy from anyone, but don't start telling me you "deserve" to be helped by the goverment (i.e., my tax dollars) because you had it rough, or "things didn't work out for me" i worked for 19 years at below minimum wage..

go get married, you and the wife both flip burgers for $6.00/hour, 100 hours/week, and you'll make $60,000 year...enough to qualify as "rich" acccording to the Democrats...then pay taxes and see how you feel about it.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you've accurately described your personal situation. (For the sake of civility, let's further assume you haven't littered your post with condescending and ignorant personal attacks suggesting anyone who doesn't whine about taxes must not work hard enough to pay them. For the record, my wife and I are accomplished IT professionals -- me in management for many years -- and though we don't earn as much as two "doctors", we pay more in taxes than the average American earns. We feel privileged to live in a country where we can earn and keep so much. You can put that in your blunt and smoke it. But I digress.)


Anyway, it seems to me that you're trying to mooch off other taxpayers just as much as the Democrats you like to slur. Does Yale take advantage of any public services, e.g., utilities, roads, public transportation and air travel, police and fire, etc.? What about research grants and other government subsidies, federal grants and loans for students (including former students who are now faculty), etc.?

How about the medical facilities where you work? Any of the above public services? How about public emergency resources, e.g., ambulances, E-911? Do your medical facilities pay property taxes (many don't)? Did any staff receive publicly-funded training: EMTs, orderlies, nurses, office staff? Any of your patients use Medicare, Medicaid, or other publicly-subsidized health programs? Any of your patients able to afford your services thanks to their publicly-funded education at government-subsidized learning institutions? Does the medical profession benefit from any publicly-funded research, grants, loans, etc.?

For that matter, did any of your co-workers or patients attend public schools? Do any live in homes accessible via public roads, protected by public safety resources, and serviced by public utilities? Do any of them work in businesses that benefit from these public resources, and that have customers who benefit from these resources, who in turn work at other businesses, etc.?

Everyone and everything around you exists the way it does thanks to taxpayers. Your life of privilege doesn't exist in a vacuum. You didn't create it out of dust. You took advantage of the benefits of living in a tax-paying nation.



Re. some of your other points, I think your expectations are off. First, it's not up to other taxpayers to let you retire early and get a nice coastal retirement villa. You pay your taxes like the rest of us. The tremendous amount you get to keep either supports your desired lifestyle or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you either adjust your expectations or decide to earn more money. Life is all about choices.

You are mistaken when you suggest you must pay the full cost of your children's education. If they are high-achievers, they will qualify for some grants regardless of financial need. If they aren't, yet you choose to send them to an Ivy-league school, well that's just another choice you make.

You will also find that your children will qualify for low-interest loans regardless of means. Most of America use loans to pay for education these days. You have that option as well. Your children can also work while in school, defraying some of the expenses. Since you are so big on people making their own way in the world, I would think you would encourage this.

Certainly, if you choose to send your children to expensive schools, you will shoulder much of the cost. You should feel privileged to have that choice. Many would give their right arm for it.

By the way, $1M over 30 or so years (assuming you start saving at birth, three children with a couple of years between them, several years of college) is "only" $33,000 per year (ignoring interest and investment gains). While that's not chicken feed, it's also not a fortune for someone with a six-figure income. Choices.

Finally, I don't have any problem with what most doctors are paid. In general, I don't have a problem with any wage-earners who are able to demand whatever the market will bear for their labor. I do have a problem with some CEOs who conspire with compliant boards to suck exorbitant salaries out of companies, especially when the company is screwing its employees and/or its shareholders.



Finally, you're right, HS. It's not a fixed pie. The American pie is so large, in part, because generations of taxpayers have built an extraordinary physical, economic, and educational infrastructure that have allowed so many to prosper. That is why so many Americans can take home tens of thousands of dollars per year while most of the world scratches by on a pittance. We all pay so much in taxes so we can have an economy that provides the opportunities to work in jobs where we can pay so much in taxes.

If you take away the taxes, you also take away the opportunities, and the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. Again, think about that. And count your blessings. We do.
Pity. I thought heartsurgeon might actually be interested in a discussion this time. Seems not. I can only assume he doesn't know what to say when someone refutes his stereotypes and dissects his right-wing rhetoric. It's so much easier on the conservative ego if they can pretend they did it all on their own.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
hmm...lets see, the latest "forcast" is that social security is financial sound through at least 2050 . I love it when liberals start up with "the sky is falling"..let's review the liberal track record at predictions..

1920's - build dams, dams are good, cheap energy.
1960's to many kids going to sleep hunger because of Republicans.
1960's..."Global Cooling" we are all going to freeze!
1970's we'll be out of oil by 2000
1970's Solar and Wind power will save us. nuclear is bad.
1990's "Global warming" we're all gonna fry!
2000 leading liberal "Nuclear will save us"..
2000 Wind power kills birds, wind power is evil.
2000 - tear down dams, dams are bad for Salmon
2000 to many kids obese because of Republicans.

when you've been around long enough you get pretty sleptical of liberals ability to forcast the future.

When Republicans implement their economic ideas AND balance the budget, call me.
Listen carefully, this is probably to complicated for you to understand, but here it goes...the U.S. economy doubles every ten years. inflation is low. tax revenues increase over time because the economy grows. the population is static. the Federal debt, as a perecent of GDP is there fore constantly shrinking, even if we don't pay it down. this means our debt becomes a smaller and smaller portion of our "net worth" as the economy expands relentlessly

You were saying?

:thumbsup:


That looks like a "pwned" to me.

Waiting eagerly for HS response.
*Crickets*
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
if the guy has a job, he'll be paying off the hospital for the rest of his life
If you have a job, why don't you buy health insurance.....in my experience the people who have jobs and no insurance are spending enough on beer and cigarettes to pay for a typical insurance policy...

His crap logic of even poor people can go to a hospital doesn't mean that all people have good healthcare. When I was 20 and first got my start in the IT world (pc tech making $8 an hour, not bad for the area I lived in), I had some health troubles. I went to the hospital, because no private doctor would see me unless I paid up front. The visit was a total of about $2,000. I tried to setup payments with the hospital, but they refused, instead after not paying the total off in two months, they went to cut the money out of my checks, but then backed off on that and took me to court. So in the end, I ended up paying over $4,000. Yeah, that's great healthcare right there. The other funny part is that it's a Catholic hospital
Explain to me exactly why you didn't buy health insurance?? I'm guessing you just didn't want to spend the money on insurance.....$8.00/hr = $320.00/week, $1280/month. Plenty of money to buy health insurance....if you wanted to...

By the way, the poster clearly stated that "an enourmous portion of the population will receive no health care at all"

apparently you have proven my point, that statement is completely false. You got care, without any insurance...liberals keep making crap up about how the uninsured "receive no health care, when they know that's just lying. And people believe that crap and repeat it...

as for GDP growth...i will redact my statements to reflect the following facts:

population
1970 205 million
1980 228
1990 250
2000 282
2003 290

GDP (in billions of dollars)
1970 1,038
1980 2,789
1990 5,803
2000 9,817
2003 10,980
2010 projected GDP (CBO) 18,266

GDP/Per Capita
1970 $5,000
1980 $12,000
1990 $23,000
2000 $35,000
2003 $38,000

GDP growth measured in any number of ways approaches doubling every ten years since 1970.

the economic pie is relentless growing, per capita GDP does the same, and tax revenues (as well as expenditures) keeps growing as well. there are year to year fluctuations, but the overall trend is up up up.

here are some interesting links for those of you who like to see data..

CBO
Economic History Services


further more!!

if you want to express the public debt (as listed by the CBO) as a percent of the GDP..here you go..

1970 27%
1980 26%
1990 41%
2000 34%
2003 35%

inspite of the debt increasing, it is still as a percent of GDP less than it was in 1990, and essentially the same as in 2000.

the debt has increased 50% since 1990, but as a percent of GDP it has dropped 15%.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
if the guy has a job, he'll be paying off the hospital for the rest of his life
If you have a job, why don't you buy health insurance.....in my experience the people who have jobs and no insurance are spending enough on beer and cigarettes to pay for a typical insurance policy...

His crap logic of even poor people can go to a hospital doesn't mean that all people have good healthcare. When I was 20 and first got my start in the IT world (pc tech making $8 an hour, not bad for the area I lived in), I had some health troubles. I went to the hospital, because no private doctor would see me unless I paid up front. The visit was a total of about $2,000. I tried to setup payments with the hospital, but they refused, instead after not paying the total off in two months, they went to cut the money out of my checks, but then backed off on that and took me to court. So in the end, I ended up paying over $4,000. Yeah, that's great healthcare right there. The other funny part is that it's a Catholic hospital
Explain to me exactly why you didn't buy health insurance?? I'm guessing you just didn't want to spend the money on insurance.....$8.00/hr = $320.00/week, $1280/month. Plenty of money to buy health insurance....if you wanted to...

By the way, the poster clearly stated that "an enourmous portion of the population will receive no health care at all"

apparently you have proven my point, that statement is completely false. You got care, without any insurance...liberals keep making crap up about how the uninsured "receive no health care, when they know that's just lying. And people believe that crap and repeat it...

as for GDP growth...i will redact my statements to reflect the following facts:

population
1970 205 million
1980 228
1990 250
2000 282
2003 290

GDP (in billions of dollars)
1970 1,038
1980 2,789
1990 5,803
2000 9,817
2003 10,980
2010 projected GDP (CBO) 18,266

GDP/Per Capita
1970 $5,000
1980 $12,000
1990 $23,000
2000 $35,000
2003 $38,000

GDP growth measured in any number of ways approaches doubling every ten years since 1970.

the economic pie is relentless growing, per capita GDP does the same, and tax revenues (as well as expenditures) keeps growing as well. there are year to year fluctuations, but the overall trend is up up up.

here are some interesting links for those of you who like to see data..

CBO
Economic History Services

The GDP is growing, but we are borrowing 5% of GDP per year now, and the GDP is not constantly growing at 5% every year.
 

IndieSnob

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2001
1,340
0
0
Explain to me exactly why you didn't buy health insurance?? I'm guessing you just didn't want to spend the money on insurance.....$8.00/hr = $320.00/week, $1280/month. Plenty of money to buy health insurance....if you wanted to...

Ok, let's see. Let's say I paid out about 10% of my income to taxes/social security/L&I (I know it was a point or so even higher than that).

$1,280 - 10% deductions = $1,152
$1,152 - $375 for rent = $777
$777 - $100 for utilities = $677
$677 - $150 for car/insurance = $527
$527 - $150 for groceries = $377.

Ok so that is roughly what I had left at the end of the month, not factoring in other costs, like car maintenance, basics like house supplies, laundry, etc. Now factor in sometimes I only got an average of 30 hours of work that week because build/repair orders were slow, and bring it down another $100 at least. Pricing out insurance at that point, the average price for buying private was around $250+ for health insurance. Yeah wow. Gee, looking back I really should have bought myself health insurance, I mean I could have totally afforded it. :roll:

Again, disproven on what you'd like to categorize me as. Nice try though. I'm sure you'll come back with more sweeping statements.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
The GDP is growing, but we are borrowing 5% of GDP per year now, and the GDP is not constantly growing at 5% every year.

lets break this down.

"the GDP is growing" - yep.

"we are borrowing 5% of GDP per year now" - that's not true.
The amount of additional public debt we accrue is dependant on the tax revenues, and spending. As the economy continues to improve, the addtional debt as a percent of GDP will decrease. I don't know how you can truthfully state that we will genberate new debt yearly at a rate of 5% of the GDP for the next ten years.

"the GDP is not constantly growing at 5% every year" - yep, it's growing faster than 5%/year...it's doubling about every ten years.

taken as a whole, your statement makes absolutely no sense...what are you trying to claim?
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Pricing out insurance at that point, the average price for buying private was around $250+ for health insurance.
I don't believe you. A employed single male without a smoking history has historically been able to get a policy for about $150-180/month. I don't know how you came up with $250+ per month, but i don't believe you. I'm guessing you just never thought of getting any, or didn't want to spend the money..besides, you list your expenses etc, and you still have more money than even the $250/month price you quote. "$377'

you didn't want to spend the money basically...
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Either you are trying to hide the fact that you measured GDP in nominal dollars (i.e. without adjusting for inflation), or you really have forgotten the inflation brought on by the last round of massive budget deficits. Try here for more realistic growth data. You will see that the real increase in per capita GDP is more like 60% every 20 years, not 100% every 10 years.

Regardless of whether you have made an honest mistake, or have actually tried to deceive people on this forum with bad data, your rallying cry of 'deficits-don't-matter' breaks down when debt reduction through productivity increases in a low inflation economy takes roughly five times as long as you claim.

On the one hand, you are betrayed by the low inflation of today's economy - it simply doesn't support the rapid devaluing of the real level of debt. On the other hand, constantly high deficits *could* be managed if the administration could convince the fed to massively raise the money supply, which would lead to the inflation you need to erase old debt. Sadly, this would return the economy of not only your country, but much of the world via trade ramifications to a period of huge borrowing costs, personal and corporate bankruptcies, and general mayhem.

Sometimes relatively basic economic theory does not apply. This time it does.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
your rallying cry of 'deficits-don't-matter'
i don't recall ever saying that.

the numbers i have posted are accurate. you can post any numbers you want. you can normalize the data, adjust the data, anything at all. i provided links to the raw data...have at it. i don't hide anyting.

and i'm glad to see you agree that the debt is shrinking due to GDP growth..

i believe that deficits matter, but that they need to be put intgo an appropriate perspective, and not turned into another mindless Democrat jingle..

GDP growth is the future and salvation of our country. every country in europe proposed or adopted tax reductons and/or increased budget deficits as a means to stimulate their lagging GDP growth(or decrease in some cases).

personally, i am in favor of lower marginal tax rates, and more fiscal restraint in spending. The medicare drug bill i believe was an unfortunate "triangulation" maneuver by Pres. Bush. I believe he did it to outmaneuver the Dems on health care issues...pre-empted them and did "it" on his own terms (heck, if left up to the dems, they would have spent way more).

as for growth when marginal taxation rates were 90%...that's a gross mischaracterization because there where lots of "loopholes" and deductions and ways to reduce your tax burden....most if not all of those "loopholes" have been eleiminated in the current system.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Your numbers are only accurate if everything costs the same number of dollars today as it did in 1970. Since this is clearly and demonstrably untrue, your numbers are not accurate. Why don't you post the numbers for inflation between 1970 and 2000; then you can claim to be 'not hiding anything' and your numbers will be very close to mine.

The debt is not shrinking due to GDP growth, nor is it shrinking at all, except during the period that Bill Clinton was your president (this according to your own data, not mine). Some portion of the debt is devalued due to GDP growth, but it is also being financed at a rate greater than that of inflation. The net result in an era of 1-3% real GDP growth is minimal at best.

Inflation can cancel old debt, but inflation is not currently high enough to help in that regard, and the sort of inflation needed for 7-10% annual, nominal GDP growth seems to have proven unhealthy for both business and private citizens. Unfortunately, inflation can't cancel new debt, since debt is aquired in real dollars, in the year it is spent, and the interest clock begins ticking at this time. When you fail to even service the debt in a given year (i.e. you run a deficit budget) the cost of borrowing roughly cancels the devaluation due to inflation, and (if I'm not being too complicated here) world] GDP growth. The only devaluation you are left with is the amount by which your country's GDP growth exceeds the world average (or more accurately, the weighted average of solvent, developed nations capable of attracting lenders).

It wasn't my post that claimed high growth in periods of 90% marginal tax rates; I would agree that actual rates of this level would tend to retad economic growth. Fortunately, as you point out, these rates never really applid due to loopholes. I wonder how many of the historical tax cuts you love to recount were made to compensate for closing these loopholes. I do like it better when you respond to one person at a time, or at least make it clear what post you are addressing when you reply all at once.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
as a percent of GDP, our national debt was at it's highest 49.6%, in 1993
as a percent of our GDP, the next highest years were 1994, 1995, 1996.

our current debt as a percent of GDP lower than in than 7 of the 8 years that Clinton was President.

my point is that even thoght the debt is increasing, the growth of the GDP tends to renders the debt less significant economically as time goes on, and that historically, as a percent of GDP, the national debt has been considerably higher, even in very recent history.

please refer to the CBO report.
as for GDP data, refer to the other site which allows you to calculate the gdp any way you wish.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Alrighty then (oops, wrong Canadian comic):

Real GDP (in billions, from your requested source):

1950 - $1,777
1960 - $2,501
1970 - $3,771
1980 - $5,161
1990 - $7,112
2000 - $9,817

Population (in millions):
1950 - 152.271
1960 - 180.671
1970 - 205.052
1980 - 227.726
1990 - 250.132
2000 - 282.434

Note that while GDP has increased more quickly than population, the net population increase over 50 years is 80%. This yields the roughly 60% increase in real per capita GDP that I described.

HS failed to point out an error in my previous posts - increases in per capita GDP, as applied to the national debt are irrelevant. Increases in real GDP are not. I have included the population figures to show that I was not posting inaccurate data before, but I will also change my claim to allow that real total GDP is the key factor for debt reduction. You will notice that the figures are not even close to 100% per 10 years, but do in most cases reach 100% every 20 years. Thus the slowdown compared to HS original claim is 4 times, not 5 or greater as I initially claimed.

None of this changes the other part of the analysis which explained why the debt does not actually decrease directly with GDP, or even inflation (essentially because that effect would only happen if the cost of borrowing money were to fall to zero, which it has not).

Bonus round:

--------------------
as a percent of GDP, our national debt was at it's highest 49.6%, in 1993
as a percent of our GDP, the next highest years were 1994, 1995, 1996.
--------------------

I would have conveniently ignored this if I were you. I think you've forgotten that it is deficit which is a year by year number, a flow so to speak. Debt is an accumulation, or stockpile. 1993 was the first year of Clinton's presidency, and your preferred data clearly show that after a small increase in debt during the changeover year the debt as a percentage of GDP decreased every single year that Clinton was in office:

1992 - 48.2 (last Bush Sr. year)
1993 - 49.5 (first Clinton year)
1994 - 49.4
1995 - 49.2
1996 - 48.5
1997 - 46.0
1998 - 43.0
1999 - 39.7
2000 - 35.1

Inquiring minds may also like to know that in his final two years in office, Clinton ran the first two budget surpluses since 1975. To avoid ambiguity; Clinton ran two consecutive surpluses, when no other president had run even one since 1975 (though Ford managed one in 1974 as well, to his credit). In addition, Clinton reduced the deficit (or increased the surplus) in every year he was in office, except for a modest increase in 1995 (hmm... an election year, how unfortunate, though it is par fr the course it seems). By 1996 the deficit had fallen far below 1994 levels; i.e. the temporary increase did not become permanent.

I realize that I read from the standardized deficit information for the above; based on the raw data, Clinton also ran a surplus in 1998, both of Gerald Ford's surplus budgets are wiped out, and the previous surplus turns out to be in 1969, under Johnson. I tend to be suspicious of standardized data, correcting for business cycles, and assorted other guess work, but in this case it is the more pessimistic data for my purposes (i.e. it supports my position LESS STRONGLY than the alternative) so I am going to stick with it, since despite being the more pessimistic case for my argument, it is far more than sufficient.

I also think an appeal to authority can be supported here based on the qualifications of the fine people at CBO, who are much more qualified than I to adjust economic data and produce meaningful results. A little point-and-shoot will take you to the assistant directors of Microeconomics & Financial Studies and Macroeconomic Analysis Division. Now I'm not saying I'd trust these men with my life, but based on their biographies, I'm willing to trust them to harvest data.
 

hysperion

Senior member
May 12, 2004
837
0
0
the president doesn't control the economy....the president doesn't control the economy.....the president doesn't control the economy....the president doesn't control the economy.....the president doesn't control the economy......the president doesn't control the economy....

I've calculated the odds and the odds are higher that I'll get killed in a car accident going to the voting booth then my vote actually changing the election. Since I value my life- I won't be using my vote this year, and with candidates like Bush and Kerry it's just not worth the risk.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
the point i'm trying to make is very simple...you keep changing the topic and trying to infer political statements from my posts. what i have posted in correct. i never said ALL measures of GDP showed t doubling every ten years, i never said anythnig about deficit spending during Clinton Years.

the purpose of my post was to put in some perspective, what the current level of the national debt is relative to the GDP.

analogy..how much we "owe" on our credit card, versus how much income we make...

Democrats are vigourous (that's the kindest word i could think of) pursuing the Presidency, and part of their approach is to criticise the President for increasing the National Debt.

Well, since 1962, according to the CBO, the national debt has NEVER decreased as a raw, dollar amount.
So, i'm trying to make the point that attacking the Pres. for increasing the national debt is like criticising him for breathing (which i'm sure they will do next).

in an effort to put the debt in some context that gives it a historical perspective relative to a "moving baseline" (the GDP), i introduced the idea of debt as a percent of GDP.
Looked at in this manner, one sees that national debt. as a percent of GDP, is nowhere near historic highs, and indeed is lower than durinf much of the Clinton Presidency. Further, if the deficit can be stabilized, GDP growth will auomatically make the debt/GDP percentage dwindle. there is no doubt that deficit contyro;l is important.

Another point i am trying to make is that the economic pie, the wealth generated by the U.S. economy, is increasing, and at a rate that would surprise most people who do not follow this sort of thing (most college students, liberals, democrats).

A common democrat theme is class warfare and income reistribution. a pivotal element in this is the impicit concept that the "economic pie" in the U.S. is a fixed size.

the exact numbers....well, that's why i provided the links to the CBO data.
which numbers to use? use what ever numbers you want...the basic points i am trying to make are supported by all of them.

the GDP relentless increases over time.
our outstanding debt, as a percent of our income (GDP) in lower now that in the past decade.

one new concept that i must interject is that "tax cuts" are not "spending" the key to deficit reduction is spending cuts...

the only way you can count a "tax cut" as "spending" is if your a communist and you believe all the economic output belongs to the goverment.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the point i'm trying to make is very simple...you keep changing the topic and trying to infer political statements from my posts. what i have posted in correct. i never said ALL measures of GDP showed t doubling every ten years, i never said anythnig about deficit spending during Clinton Years.

the purpose of my post was to put in some perspective, what the current level of the national debt is relative to the GDP.

analogy..how much we "owe" on our credit card, versus how much income we make...

Democrats are vigourous (that's the kindest word i could think of) pursuing the Presidency, and part of their approach is to criticise the President for increasing the National Debt.

Well, since 1962, according to the CBO, the national debt has NEVER decreased as a raw, dollar amount.
So, i'm trying to make the point that attacking the Pres. for increasing the national debt is like criticising him for breathing (which i'm sure they will do next).

in an effort to put the debt in some context that gives it a historical perspective relative to a "moving baseline" (the GDP), i introduced the idea of debt as a percent of GDP.
Looked at in this manner, one sees that national debt. as a percent of GDP, is nowhere near historic highs, and indeed is lower than durinf much of the Clinton Presidency. Further, if the deficit can be stabilized, GDP growth will auomatically make the debt/GDP percentage dwindle. there is no doubt that deficit contyro;l is important.

Another point i am trying to make is that the economic pie, the wealth generated by the U.S. economy, is increasing, and at a rate that would surprise most people who do not follow this sort of thing (most college students, liberals, democrats).

A common democrat theme is class warfare and income reistribution. a pivotal element in this is the impicit concept that the "economic pie" in the U.S. is a fixed size.

the exact numbers....well, that's why i provided the links to the CBO data.
which numbers to use? use what ever numbers you want...the basic points i am trying to make are supported by all of them.

the GDP relentless increases over time.
our outstanding debt, as a percent of our income (GDP) in lower now that in the past decade.

one new concept that i must interject is that "tax cuts" are not "spending" the key to deficit reduction is spending cuts...

the only way you can count a "tax cut" as "spending" is if your a communist and you believe all the economic output belongs to the goverment.

I'd offer a point-by-point rebuttal, but it would be a waste of my time. You've shown again and again you are either unwilling or unable to support your empty rhetoric.
 

imported_Pablo

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2002
3,714
1
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: Phokus
But you're a kool-aid drinking republican.

Thank you for proving my point!

Anyone who believes in limited government would vote libertarian. You're proving how stupid you are by accusing liberals of doing something when your party does the exact same thing, in fact republicans do it WORSE. And btw, i'm a libertarian, not a liberal so i'm not proving your deluded point, mr. kool-aid drinker/statist.

While I'm generally a huge fan of the libertarian philosophy, and would vote for it in a heart-beat, I know it'll never fly in this country, where a number of people (probably a majority) look to the government for solutions to any and all problems. See Neil Boortz's column HERE. Therefore, I generally vote Republican, as they at least claim to be for limited government, even if they frequently expand it. I figure it'll take the GOP longer to wreck the country.


Well said.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
I'd offer a point-by-point rebuttal, but it would be a waste of my time. You've shown again and again you are either unwilling or unable to support your empty rhetoric.
why are evn posting this. worthless trolling.


p.s. the "graph" that supertool posted, that you seemed to enjoy (i know graphs are a lot easier to look at than actual numbers)..

what comic book on economics did that fabrication come from?
try checking out the Congressional Budget Office numbers, the actual facts.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
I tend to agree with Bowfinger on this one - you've posted almost nothing of substance in your most recent post. Agree with me or not as you see fit on this, but I have responded to every worthwhile argument you have made, including your best one, which is the half-truth of debt devaluation through GDP growth. If only it were fully true, it really would be the miracle you claim.

This time you really haven't offered much, but here goes:

While the absolute levels on Supertool's graph don't agree with the CBO data, this is probably a matter of convention, rather than bad data. Try graphing the CBO data - the shape - and thus the argument - are unchanged.

I've switched to using your preferred source of data, at your request, and I agree that it is an excellent. Sadly, now that I'm looking at the same page of numbers you are, you can't make things up anymore.

Quote:
"Well, since 1962, according to the CBO, the national debt has NEVER decreased as a raw, dollar amount."


The dollar value of debt decreased in 1998, 1999, 2000, according to your CBO data, and as a matter of fact it also decreased in in 2001 (remember that fiscal years begin Oct. 1 of the previous year, thus the 2001 budget is esentially a collaboration between Bush Jr. and Clinton).

It is true however that the total expenditure has never decreased as a raw dollar amount since 1965. Under Bush, (not including this year, which isn't finished yet) annual government spending has increased roughly 20%, while revenues have fallen 12%. This is a very large swing in spending. This is the equivalent of me deciding to eat steak every night instead of hamburger, at the same time as my employer restructures and I take a $80-100/week pay cut.
 

phantom309

Platinum Member
Jan 30, 2002
2,065
1
0
Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

There is not a single original idea in this post.
 

Rob9874

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,314
1
0
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Once, while in college, I was really hungry and had no money for food. I went to the store to see if they would give me some food (I mean, c'mon, I need food to live), and they said I had to pay for it! I told them I had no money, and they sent me away. I asked people around the parking lot if they would pay for my food, and they told me to get lost. Life isn't fair.

Wow, nice rebuttal. Myself, trying to make payment arrangements for something, versus asking for free food at a grocery store is completely inane. Try again Rob, or is it you can't make a reply without acting like a child? I'll be patiently waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

It was an illustration to show how unreasonable it is to expect to be given something you cannot afford. Even if your life depends on it. I'm going to sound like a cruel, cold conservative here, but I do not feel it is the government's responsibility to provide free health care for everyone.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Once, while in college, I was really hungry and had no money for food. I went to the store to see if they would give me some food (I mean, c'mon, I need food to live), and they said I had to pay for it! I told them I had no money, and they sent me away. I asked people around the parking lot if they would pay for my food, and they told me to get lost. Life isn't fair.

Wow, nice rebuttal. Myself, trying to make payment arrangements for something, versus asking for free food at a grocery store is completely inane. Try again Rob, or is it you can't make a reply without acting like a child? I'll be patiently waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

It was an illustration to show how unreasonable it is to expect to be given something you cannot afford. Even if your life depends on it. I'm going to sound like a cruel, cold conservative here, but I do not feel it is the government's responsibility to provide free health care for everyone.

Hey Rob9874, you said you wanted to argue factually. Why don't you answer my rebuttal of your inanities?
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
i made an error reading the CBO data, and agree that the national debt actually did fall for 2 years while clinton was president, and 2 years while Bush was president.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Thank you - though I think you'll find it was 3 years while Clinton was president, and one for Bush, but splitting hairs isn't the goal of good argumentation, so I won't concern myself with that overly.

We all make mistakes reading data, as I admitted a few posts ago. There's nothing wrong with it as long as we correct our errors and make them clear.
 

Rob9874

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,314
1
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Hey Rob9874, you said you wanted to argue factually. Why don't you answer my rebuttal of your inanities?

Because you didn't state any facts. The interpretation of the UN's Article 51 is widely disputed among lawmakers. And stating things like Bush's allies were bought and bribed is also not factual. Come back when you can discuss facts, and not liberal propoganda.
 

IndieSnob

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2001
1,340
0
0
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: Rob9874
Once, while in college, I was really hungry and had no money for food. I went to the store to see if they would give me some food (I mean, c'mon, I need food to live), and they said I had to pay for it! I told them I had no money, and they sent me away. I asked people around the parking lot if they would pay for my food, and they told me to get lost. Life isn't fair.

Wow, nice rebuttal. Myself, trying to make payment arrangements for something, versus asking for free food at a grocery store is completely inane. Try again Rob, or is it you can't make a reply without acting like a child? I'll be patiently waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

It was an illustration to show how unreasonable it is to expect to be given something you cannot afford. Even if your life depends on it. I'm going to sound like a cruel, cold conservative here, but I do not feel it is the government's responsibility to provide free health care for everyone.


Again, your flawed in your arguement. Given the fact that it was agreed upon when I walked into that hospital that I could make payments, how is that asking for a handout? You fail to grasp that I was going to pay my health care bill by myself, without government help. Again, tell me where I was crying out for help from you the taxpayer and the government? That's right, I didn't. Also if you want to bring up that kind of logic then I guess maybe you shouldn't buy a house if you have to make payments, becuase gee, you can't afford to pay it all at once. My statement is just as dumb, but only to point out how flawed yours is. When you can actually rebuttal what I said with truth and not twist my words, I'll still see you as someone who just wants to go around and agree on blind faith. But please, by all means prove me wrong if you can.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |