Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[TemplarKormac]

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

Or a failure to cut spending.

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

What? Less revenue means more spending?

Less Revenue means less spending. At least in my world.

Are you nuts? Is this how you manage your personal finances?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

Or a failure to cut spending.

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

There you go again with this silliness.

If I keep $100 dollars more of my money, how does that increase government spending?

 

[Billy000]

Or a failure to cut spending.

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

What? Less revenue means more spending?

Less Revenue means less spending. At least in my world.

Are you nuts? Is this how you manage your personal finances?

As long as the right people are taxed (middle class and wealthy only) it would help the economy by paying for our government expenses. Not harm it. How many times does it take for you people to realize this?

 

[Billy000]

Or a failure to cut spending.

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

There you go again with this silliness.

If I keep $100 dollars more of my money, how does that increase government spending?

Okay apparently I have to clarify basic facts. Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

What? Less revenue means more spending?

Less Revenue means less spending. At least in my world.

Are you nuts? Is this how you manage your personal finances?

As long as the right people are taxed (middle class and wealthy only) it would help the economy by paying for our government expenses. Not harm it. How many times does it take for you people to realize this?

I gather you're trying to convince yourself to believe a lie.

"As long as the right people are taxed"? What is that supposed to mean? Like I said, are you nuts? How long will it take you to realize you're full of crap?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

There you go again with this silliness.

If I keep $100 dollars more of my money, how does that increase government spending?

Okay apparently I have to clarify basic facts. Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.

Case in point. Research the Laffer Curve and get back to me.

 

[S.J.]

If I get a pay cut of $100 a month, I have to spend $100 a month less than I have been. The only other option is to go out and rob somebody to make up for it. That seems to be the liberal answer. And they justify it by ONLY robbing rich people. That makes it ok in their world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

There you go again with this silliness.

If I keep $100 dollars more of my money, how does that increase government spending?

Okay apparently I have to clarify basic facts. Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.

You are mistaken.
And you still haven't shown that allowing me to keep $100 more of my income damages the economy in any way.

 

[Billy000]

There you go again with this silliness.

If I keep $100 dollars more of my money, how does that increase government spending?

Okay apparently I have to clarify basic facts. Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.

Case in point. Research the Laffer Curve and get back to me.

Um the public debt under Reagan went up more than a trillion dollars.

 

[Billy000]

There you go again with this silliness.

If I keep $100 dollars more of my money, how does that increase government spending?

Okay apparently I have to clarify basic facts. Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.

You are mistaken.
And you still haven't shown that allowing me to keep $100 more of my income damages the economy in any way.

Lord have mighty. I already had this conversation with like 3 other people. Those receipts are based on RAW dollars. So that means inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account. The only accurate way to measure revenue is determining revenue as a perentage of the GDP. As of 2013, it is 16.7%. That is the second time in history since WWII that revenue levels are that low. The first time lasted only 8 years. The historic high was in 2000, when it was 20.7%.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay apparently I have to clarify basic facts. Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.

You are mistaken.
And you still haven't shown that allowing me to keep $100 more of my income damages the economy in any way.

Lord have mighty. I already had this conversation with like 3 other people. Those receipts are based on RAW dollars. So that means inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account. The only accurate way to measure revenue is determining revenue as a perentage of the GDP. As of 2013, it is 16.7%. That is the second time in history since WWII that revenue levels are that low. The first time lasted only 8 years. The historic high was in 2000, when it was 20.7%.

You really are mentally handicapped.

 

[Billy000]

You are mistaken.
And you still haven't shown that allowing me to keep $100 more of my income damages the economy in any way.

Lord have mighty. I already had this conversation with like 3 other people. Those receipts are based on RAW dollars. So that means inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account. The only accurate way to measure revenue is determining revenue as a perentage of the GDP. As of 2013, it is 16.7%. That is the second time in history since WWII that revenue levels are that low. The first time lasted only 8 years. The historic high was in 2000, when it was 20.7%.

You really are mentally handicapped.

Yes, I know facts are scary, but they do teach you things.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay apparently I have to clarify basic facts. Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.

Case in point. Research the Laffer Curve and get back to me.

Um the public debt under Reagan went up more than a trillion dollars.

Public Debt under Obama has increased by 6.6 trillion dollars. That far eclipses Reagan's total by about 5.6 trillion. Your point? The Laffer Curve is a graph which depicts government income to taxation rate. At this end of the curve, tax rate is 0%, there is no revenue for the government, the higher the tax rate goes the more revenue the government receives; the optimal tax rate where the maximum income rate is most sustainable, is anywhere between 50 and 70%. Furthermore, if this rate exceeds that range, the amount of revenue starts to decrease until you reach the other end of the curve, at 100%; as with 0% taxation rate the government has no revenue stream.

You're reaching. Care to try again?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lord have mighty. I already had this conversation with like 3 other people. Those receipts are based on RAW dollars. So that means inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account. The only accurate way to measure revenue is determining revenue as a perentage of the GDP. As of 2013, it is 16.7%. That is the second time in history since WWII that revenue levels are that low. The first time lasted only 8 years. The historic high was in 2000, when it was 20.7%.

You really are mentally handicapped.

Yes, I know facts are scary, but they do teach you things.

Looks like I'm the one schooling you, Billy. You said public debt under Reagan went up more than a trillion dollars, but if you adjust Obama's $6.6 trillion to 1980 dollars (a 3.43% average inflation rate), he spent $2.243 trillion, which roughly doubles that of Reagan's. I know math is scary, but it does teach you things.

 

[Billy000]

You really are mentally handicapped.

Yes, I know facts are scary, but they do teach you things.

Looks like I'm the one schooling you, Billy. You said public debt under Reagan went up more than a trillion dollars, but if you adjust Obama's $6.6 trillion to 1980 dollars (a 3.43% average inflation rate), he spent $2.243 trillion, which roughly doubles that of Reagan's. I know math is scary, but it does teach you things.

Yes that's right. Spending has been high under Obama. That is due to both increased rates of spending in defense as well as record low revenue. However there is proof that the extension of unemployment benefits grew the economy by injecting so much money into it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, I know facts are scary, but they do teach you things.

Looks like I'm the one schooling you, Billy. You said public debt under Reagan went up more than a trillion dollars, but if you adjust Obama's $6.6 trillion to 1980 dollars (a 3.43% average inflation rate), he spent $2.243 trillion, which roughly doubles that of Reagan's. I know math is scary, but it does teach you things.

Yes that's right. Spending has been high under Obama. That is due to both increased rates of spending in defense as well as record low revenue. However there is proof that the extension of unemployment benefits grew the economy by injecting so much money into it.

That's a lie. Let's see a link to prove that. Perhaps you'll have one? If you've been reading the CBO report that says unemployment benefits extensions would create 300,000 jobs, perhaps you weren't reading the whole thing. That is for short term application only. The report is littered with terms such as "temporary" and "short term." Check this out. In the report it says extending benefits would have three distinct effects such as it would:


A) Afford greater protection against income lost during unemployment;

B) Provide incentives for UI recipients to remain unemployed longer than they otherwise would have because UI benefits stop when recipients find a job or stop looking for work; and

C) Lead to more consumer spending and increased demand for goods and services, which CBO expects would boost overall output and employment in the short term.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43734

 

[ScienceRocks]

May I be the first to suggest that we NEED TO SPEND MORE on somethings...

Like Education, science and infrastructure????

A little less on the ******* military and corporate welfare.

 

[Billy000]

Looks like I'm the one schooling you, Billy. You said public debt under Reagan went up more than a trillion dollars, but if you adjust Obama's $6.6 trillion to 1980 dollars (a 3.43% average inflation rate), he spent $2.243 trillion, which roughly doubles that of Reagan's. I know math is scary, but it does teach you things.

Yes that's right. Spending has been high under Obama. That is due to both increased rates of spending in defense as well as record low revenue. However there is proof that the extension of unemployment benefits grew the economy by injecting so much money into it.

That's a lie. Let's see a link to prove that. Perhaps you'll have one? If you've been reading the CBO report that says unemployment benefits extensions would create 300,000 jobs, perhaps you weren't reading the whole thing. That is for short term application only. The report is littered with terms such as "temporary" and "short term." Check this out. In the report it says extending benefits would have three distinct effects such as it would:


A) Afford greater protection against income lost during unemployment;

B) Provide incentives for UI recipients to remain unemployed longer than they otherwise would have because UI benefits stop when recipients find a job or stop looking for work; and

C) Lead to more consumer spending and increased demand for goods and services, which CBO expects would boost overall output and employment in the short term.

CBO | Unemployment Insurance in the Wake of the Recent Recession

B: yeah, no shit. That's why everyone that receives unemployment makes an effort to find a job, otherwise they would get nothing. Isn't that the point? Christ almighty. You have to send documented proof each month that you are actively searching for a job. If you don't, they cut the benefits.

C: yeah no shit short term because we are talking about a set amount. If it had been bigger, it would have gone longer.

You failed at this miserably.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes that's right. Spending has been high under Obama. That is due to both increased rates of spending in defense as well as record low revenue. However there is proof that the extension of unemployment benefits grew the economy by injecting so much money into it.

That's a lie. Let's see a link to prove that. Perhaps you'll have one? If you've been reading the CBO report that says unemployment benefits extensions would create 300,000 jobs, perhaps you weren't reading the whole thing. That is for short term application only. The report is littered with terms such as "temporary" and "short term." Check this out. In the report it says extending benefits would have three distinct effects such as it would:


A) Afford greater protection against income lost during unemployment;

B) Provide incentives for UI recipients to remain unemployed longer than they otherwise would have because UI benefits stop when recipients find a job or stop looking for work; and

C) Lead to more consumer spending and increased demand for goods and services, which CBO expects would boost overall output and employment in the short term.

CBO | Unemployment Insurance in the Wake of the Recent Recession

B: yeah, no shit. That's why everyone that receives unemployment makes an effort to find a job, otherwise they would get nothing. Isn't that the point? Christ almighty. You have to send documented proof each month that you are actively searching for a job. If you don't, they cut the benefits.

C: yeah no shit short term because we are talking about a set amount. If it had been bigger, it would gone longer.

You failed at this miserably.

You fail at reading comprehension Billy. The CBO report says it all. These "monthly reports" you speak of aren't readily enforceable. Why do you see people trying to max out their benefits, hmm? Do you not think there is a way to cheat the system? At one point, people were going as long as 99 weeks (nearly two years) on unemployment benefits, Billy. Right now though, the average is 73 weeks (1 year 5 months 1 week). Don't sit there and think people aren't trying to milk the system.

And if it were a set amount, why has the government spent $520 billion on it over the past 5 years? Sorry, I didn't fail anything. You fail at rudimentary logical reasoning and elementary mathematics.

 

[TemplarKormac]

May I be the first to suggest that we NEED TO SPEND MORE on somethings...

Like Education, science and infrastructure????

A little less on the ******* military and corporate welfare.

Huh? How about we fix the economy first, my forlorn friend? A little less on the trivialities and more on the necessities.

A) How do we effectively fund our children's education while running a massive national debt?

B) How do we effectively fund scientific endeavors while running a massive national debt?

C) And most worrisome of all, Matthew, how do you spend money on something as expensive as infrastructure while running a massive national debt?

We are already spending well beyond our means, and you expect us to focus on those things? How can we? We can't even pay our own bills without borrowing money from someone!