Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope. I grasp it just fine but you seem to be having a bit of difficulty so I'll try to simplify this for you. Let's pretend...
The price of an apple is $1.00.
The grocer tells you that he's decided to raise the price of an apple to $1.25 next week.
Next week the grocer tells you that he changed his mind and will NOT raise the price of an apple to $1.25 because he figured out that people will avoid buying apples and it will hurt his business.
Next week the price of an apple is $1.00
Ok.. so now you have been hoodwinked into thinking you received something when the price of an apple didn't budge. You may now kiss the grocer's feet.
The thing you're not understanding is the grocer had to make the conscious decision to NOT raise that price like he intended next week. Just like congress needs to vote to change the course of action which is toward higher taxes. So, if congress does nothing, are they to blame for the tax increase next year? An action must be taken in order for taxes to be lower next year, where as no action results in a tax increase as originally planned.
It doesn't really matter that it just looks like its continuing the tax breaks we have now, it matters that they are voting to reduce our taxes for next year, which will happen to be the same(vry similar) as the tax breaks we have now. Again, it's a game of Semantics and to say that Dems are going to raise taxes is a silly lie.
Then try saying... "Congress is going to vote on whether to MAINTAIN the current tax rate or to allow rates to increase." That is far more honest and clear that trying to pretend it's the gift of a tax cut. Congress is NOT handing you a freaking quarter.
PayGo was a myth... an accounting trick. Whatever... it resides up there in unicorn lands alongside the Clinton surplus.'
The surplus was not a myth. In both 1999 and 2000, total federal receipts were higher than total federal expenses. The difference between the two was the surplus - which is why the debt held by the public declined during those years.
Wrong
If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus
Then they are not a tax CUT. Doublespeak and obfuscation, the hallmarks of modern politics.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.
Only in the fogged world of the Leftist does taking less money than you said you were going to take count as reducing taxes.
No, the voted to not raise taxes. What fucking planet do you live on?
Oh, the planet that equated coffee coupons with tax policies. Forgot that little pearl of idiocy.
Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.
So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?
That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.
And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.
Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...
1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)
1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)
It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.
[Thank you for proving my point. You are indeed a moron. Note your use of the term "potential output." What is the potential?
If you're not familiar with the concept of potential output, it would go a long way towards explaining your utter lack of knowledge about related topics.
The potential output (Macro: potential GDP) is the equilibrium output level of an industry or an economy as a whole. It's the baseline upon which, in macro, the economy is performing above or below long-term growth potential.
The surplus was not a myth. In both 1999 and 2000, total federal receipts were higher than total federal expenses. The difference between the two was the surplus - which is why the debt held by the public declined during those years.
Wrong
If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus
Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.
The surplus was not a myth. In both 1999 and 2000, total federal receipts were higher than total federal expenses. The difference between the two was the surplus - which is why the debt held by the public declined during those years.
Wrong
If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus
Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.
government spent 60K, earned 50K
Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.
So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?
That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.
And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.
Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...
1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)
1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)
It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.
If the Republicans don't allow the Democrats to 'extend' the so-called middle class tax cuts (which, AGAIN, the rich also get), then they will go UP in January. The GOP will be fully responsible for raising those taxes.
PayGo was a myth... an accounting trick. Whatever... it resides up there in unicorn lands alongside the Clinton surplus.'
The surplus was not a myth. In both 1999 and 2000, total federal receipts were higher than total federal expenses. The difference between the two was the surplus - which is why the debt held by the public declined during those years.
Wrong
If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus
The surplus was not a myth. In both 1999 and 2000, total federal receipts were higher than total federal expenses. The difference between the two was the surplus - which is why the debt held by the public declined during those years.
Wrong
If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus
Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.
Wrong
If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus
Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.
No... try understanding a little thing called intergovernmental spending/borrowing
THAT is what happened... the surplus was a myth... the government has not run a surplus since 1957... and THAT is fact
Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.
No... try understanding a little thing called intergovernmental spending/borrowing
THAT is what happened... the surplus was a myth... the government has not run a surplus since 1957... and THAT is fact
IN his example, earning 50 and spending 60 leaves you with a surplus. Very Clintonesque.
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
You are mixing macro economics with stock market valuation.
Wrong
If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus
Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.
Bullshit. Clinton left with a near $6 trillion debt... he never once ran a surplus. here's the CBO numbers:
Year Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
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
Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.
Bullshit. Clinton left with a near $6 trillion debt... he never once ran a surplus. here's the CBO numbers:
Year Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
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
It's not bullshit, you're just not smart enough to know what you're talking about.
The debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the government took in more than it spent. You can see that quite clearly by reviewing the Bush administration's budget histories. Here, have a look - you'll want to move to the tables on page 26:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Lol, yes. That's my problem here!
You are mixing macro economics with stock market valuation.
No I'm not. I'm "mixing" macroeconomics and microeconomics as they apply to potential output.
But of course, you don't even know what that means so you'll respond with some more asinine commentary proving your lack of education.
Bullshit. Clinton left with a near $6 trillion debt... he never once ran a surplus. here's the CBO numbers:
Year Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
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
It's not bullshit, you're just not smart enough to know what you're talking about.
The debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the government took in more than it spent. You can see that quite clearly by reviewing the Bush administration's budget histories. Here, have a look - you'll want to move to the tables on page 26:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
I'm smart enough to know that when the National Debt goes up every year from 1992 - 2000, it is idiotic to argue we're running surplus'. He started with $4.4 Trillion debt and left with a $5.8 Trillion debt.
Clinton never ran a surplus. PERIOD. You are free to believe otherwise if it makes you feel better, I won't debate it further because you are wrong.
Buh bye.
Why do you support raising taxes on the working and middle class, especially families with children?Poor, poor rich man. Hell, give the bastards another tax break so they can ship some more factories overseas. Yep, that's the Republican ticket.
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Lol, yes. That's my problem here!
You are mixing macro economics with stock market valuation.
No I'm not. I'm "mixing" macroeconomics and microeconomics as they apply to potential output.
But of course, you don't even know what that means so you'll respond with some more asinine commentary proving your lack of education.
What a riot. The good news is you aren't the most clueless poster on this site. The bad news is you are the most clueless poster on this thread.
You can't explain what you mean. This is because you have no idea what your'e talking about, just repeating phrases and snippets you heard while dozing through an econ class.
