I think I am going to throw up.

mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Look I know you gays are more or less right. But I know that we cannot stay afloat with a service economy. An economy must still be based on building real, solid stuff. This last recession is all the proof needed to show how fragile a paper economy is. The Great Depression was worse and we had an industrial economy then-so 1 point to Limbaugh. However there is a better argument that it was the paper economy that failed then not the industrial. We were then pulled out of the Depression by the industrial might of the country-aided by WWII paradoxically. However, what we call exports today is quite a bit different than what we called exports then. IT/Tech is the biggest export we have. Not a very reliable industry in the last 20 years.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/40#post_3373549
Dude, it is simple supply and demand. Price (taxes) an item (living/working) too high and you won't make any sales. And your revenue will actually go down. Think about it.
Say I have 50 Jeeps, say I'm selling them for $40,000. I'm not going a dang one of them, My revenue will be 0.
Say I price them at 30,000. I might find 10 suckers. and I bring in $300,000.
But say I price them at 20,000 and sell 50 of them. I'd bring in $1,000,000.
It is really that simply of a base idea.
The actual issue is what the the price, where I'll make the most money. Up to a point, raising price will increase revenue, bigger margins will result in more $$. However, It will also peel off more customers. Eventually you'd price your product high enough, where you start loosing money because not enough people want to buy. And THAT is where this idea of lower taxes will increase revenues....
How much did you pay for the Jeeps? What's the point of selling them for $20,000, if you had to buy them from the manufacturer for $25,000? $1 million in, $1.25 million out. So a $250,000 loss is a considered a positive result?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373565
How much did you pay for the Jeeps? What's the point of selling them for $20,000, if you had to buy them from the manufacturer for $25,000? $1 million in, $1.25 million out. So a $250,000 loss is a considered a positive result?
Exactly our point. If It cost 25,000 to make them, but they only truly will sell at 20,000 making them is pointless...hence why some manufacturing has left the country.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/40#post_3373412
"Nevermind...I can not discuss this with someone that can not grasp the complexity of the situation our policies have caused over the last 70 years....needless to say...your actions would plunge us into a depression the likes never seen"
Seems pretty personal to me. IDK.
Spanko (I don't wear panties) Henry
That was not a personal attack or meant to be. That was a statement that most people in this country do not understand how complex our locl and innternational politics have become and how they have become interwoven. Things have become very complicated to the point where one major change such as you suggest will affect multiple policies in in a diverse way hindering our nation in other areas.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373564
Look I know you gays are more or less right. But I know that we cannot stay afloat with a service economy. An economy must still be based on building real, solid stuff. This last recession is all the proof needed to show how fragile a paper economy is. The Great Depression was worse and we had an industrial economy then-so 1 point to Limbaugh. However there is a better argument that it was the paper economy that failed then not the industrial. We were then pulled out of the Depression by the industrial might of the country-aided by WWII paradoxically. However, what we call exports today is quite a bit different than what we called exports then. IT/Tech is the biggest export we have. Not a very reliable industry in the last 20 years.
I think you're a victim of "remember the good ol days." Go drive around a middle class neighborhood built in the late 40's to early 50's, you'll see an 1100 SQ house. Today, that same house is 2000 sq. Regardless of your opinion about our quality of life, whether you like cell phones, cable, tv, washer and dryer. We afford a whole lot more crap, doing, more tolerable work.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373565
How much did you pay for the Jeeps? What's the point of selling them for $20,000, if you had to buy them from the manufacturer for $25,000? $1 million in, $1.25 million out. So a $250,000 loss is a considered a positive result?
When we're talking taxes, and federal revenues, which was the basis of that discussion. Then Cost really don't need to enter the discussion. (besides, after Obama's trillion dollar deficits, what is the point of talking costs anyway....)
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373586
When we're talking taxes, and federal revenues, which was the basis of that discussion. Then Cost really don't need to enter the discussion. (besides, after Obama's trillion dollar deficits, what is the point of talking costs anyway....)
Obama's "trillion dollar deficits"? Dude, those deficits have been there WAY before Obama was a Senator, much less th POTUS. Based on statistics, the U.S. debt grew 50% between 2000-2007, ballooning from $6-$9 trillion. Hmm, wonder who was POTUS during that timeframe...
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
From 2000-2005 the debt went up 7.1% with Republican President and Republican House.
From 2006-2009 the debt went up 20% with Republican President and Democratic House.
From 2009-2010 the debt went up 9.9% with Democratic President and Democratic House.
Remember the House controls spending.
As noted both parties don't know how or unwilling to control it.


U.S. president


Party: 0.3em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.3em; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">



Term years



Start debt/GDP

tial; background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); text-align: center; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
End debt/GDP


Increase debt ($T)

Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points)und-repeat: initial initial; ">



House Control
(with # if
split during term)



Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)

t" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; " title="Franklin Delano Roosevelt">Roosevelt/Truman


D



1945–1949



117.5%



93.1%



0.05



-24.4%

color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
79th D, 80th R


79th D, 80th R



Harry Truman



D



1949–1953



93.1%

ding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
71.4%


0.01



-21.7%



D



D



Dwight Eisenhower

yle: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
R


1953–1957



71.4%



60.4%



0.01



-11.0%



83rd R, 84th D

initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
83rd R, 84th D


Dwight Eisenhower



R



1957–1961



60.4%



55.2%



0.02

le: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; color: green; ">
-5.2%


D



D



Kennedy/Johnson



D



1961–1965

der-left-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
55.2%


46.9%



0.03



-8.3%



D



D

background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; " title="Lyndon Johnson">Lyndon Johnson


D



1965–1969



46.9%



38.6%



0.05



-8.3%



D

t-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(230, 230, 250); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
D


Richard Nixon



R



1969–1973



38.6%



35.6%

b(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
0.07


-3.0%



D



D



Nixon/Ford

ft-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
R


1973–1977



35.6%



35.8%



0.19



+0.2%



D

ckground-repeat: initial initial; ">
D


Jimmy Carter



D



1977–1981



35.8%



32.5%



0.28



-3.3%

border-left-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(230, 230, 250); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
D


D



Ronald Reagan



R



1981–1985



32.5%

ttom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
43.8%


0.66



+11.3%



D



R



Ronald Reagan

right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
R


1985–1989



43.8%



53.1%



1.04



+9.3%



D

yle: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
99th R, 100th D


George H. W. Bush



R



1989–1993



53.1%



66.1%



1.40

order-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; color: red; ">
+15.0%


D



D



Bill Clinton



D



1993–1997

olor: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
66.1%


65.4%



1.18



-0.7%



103rd D, 104th R



103rd D, 104th R

nitial initial; ">Bill Clinton


D



1997–2001



65.4%



56.4%



0.45



-9.0%



R

olor: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 204, 204); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
R


George W. Bush



R



2001–2005



56.4%



63.5%

ng-left: 0.2em; ">
1.73


+7.1%



R



107th Split, 108 R



George W. Bush



R

padding-bottom: 0.2em; padding-left: 0.2em; ">
2005–2009


63.4%



83.4%



2.63



+20.0%



109th R, 110th D



109th R, 110th D

ft: 0.2em; ">
Barack Obama


D



2009–



83.4%



93.3%







+9.9%

: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">
111th D, 112th R


D
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Obama's "trillion dollar deficits"?  Dude, those deficits have been there WAY before Obama was a Senator, much less th POTUS.  Based on statistics, the U.S. debt grew 50% between 2000-2007, ballooning from $6-$9 trillion.  Hmm, wonder who was POTUS during that timeframe... 

Bef ore our current president we have never operated trillion dollar budget deficits. Bush averaged around 400 billion while in the seat. Maybe you meant NATIONAL DEBT. Which none of us are talking about...but since you bring it up.....it has doubled in the last couple years almost......gee...who's doing was that? Maybe if you watched faux news some you would know the difference between deficit and debt.
Darth (spank the donkey) Tang
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
Just pointing out the the deficit adds to the debt, and the debt keeps generating interest which can increase the deficit if spending is not curtailed.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373652
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373630
Obama's "trillion dollar deficits"? Dude, those deficits have been there WAY before Obama was a Senator, much less th POTUS. Based on statistics, the U.S. debt grew 50% between 2000-2007, ballooning from $6-$9 trillion. Hmm, wonder who was POTUS during that timeframe...

Bef ore our current president we have never operated trillion dollar budget deficits. Bush averaged around 400 billion while in the seat. Maybe you meant NATIONAL DEBT. Which none of us are talking about...but since you bring it up.....it has doubled in the last couple years almost......gee...who's doing was that? Maybe if you watched faux news some you would know the difference between deficit and debt.
Darth (spank the donkey) Tang
Call it inflation. Like I said, bring the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the budget deficit is solved. Kill Medicare and Social Security, budget deficit is solved. How about biffing a few billion in farm subsidies, which several memebers of Congress have been reaping at the tune of $550,000 - $750,000?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Dude, what information are you going off of? And you rip on faux news....
Our entire military expenditure for the 2011 proposed budget is just under 800 billion....that is all military spending. Meaning bringing the troops back would not solve the defecit.......we had a defecit before they were even there. Killing medicare and social security would not solve it either...these total 1.2 trillion in spending. Deficit is 1.3 trillion. Oh wait..if you kill those programs that also means the government no longer collects money from us for the programs...meaning in actuality...we would only remo e 60 billion from the deficit by the removal of these programs...........
Stop reading the Foot In Mouth Daily Times.
Darth (faux news) Tang
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373671
Dude, what information are you going off of? And you rip on faux news....
Our entire military expenditure for the 2011 proposed budget is just under 800 billion....that is all military spending. Meaning bringing the troops back would not solve the defecit.......we had a defecit before they were even there. Killing medicare and social security would not solve it either...these total 1.2 trillion in spending. Deficit is 1.3 trillion. Oh wait..if you kill those programs that also means the government no longer collects money from us for the programs...meaning in actuality...we would only remo e 60 billion from the deficit by the removal of these programs...........
Stop reading the Foot In Mouth Daily Times.
Darth (faux news) Tang
I guess you'll say these numbers are 'liberally inflated' -
In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities.
Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers
Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion
About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $482 billion, will support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.
The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it has borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt, which is projected to reach $9 trillion by the end of fiscal 2010. In 2010, these interest payments (net of some interest income) will claim $209 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.
The remaining 19 percent of federal spending goes to support a wide variety of other public services. These include providing health care and other benefits to veterans and retirement benefits to retired federal employees, assuring safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, and investing in education, scientific and medical research, and basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and airports.

So again, where does the bulk of funding go for this country's annual federal budget?
Bionic (I read MSN) Arm
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
What it comes down to is the government at all levels spends too much, not taxes too little. Social Security and Medicare are both going to have to be cut. Also need to cut Medicaid, Chips and all the other "welfare" programs. We will still have to raise taxes to dig out of the hole but why should the productive members of society be the only ones sacrificing to fix a problem that is caused in large part by those receiving the government services. One great place to start is to quit educating Mexico and south American children (who don't have the right to even be in the country) in their native language. That will save Billions.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I guess you'll say these numbers are 'liberally inflated' -
 
 In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities.
 
Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers  
 
Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion 
 
About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $482 billion, will support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.
 
The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it has borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt, which is projected to reach $9 trillion by the end of fiscal 2010. In 2010, these interest payments (net of some interest income) will claim $209 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.
 
 The remaining 19 percent of federal spending goes to support a wide variety of other public services. These include providing health care and other benefits to veterans and retirement benefits to retired federal employees, assuring safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, and investing in education, scientific and medical research, and basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and airports.  
 
 
So again, where does the bulk of funding go for this country's annual federal budget?
 
Bionic (I read MSN) Arm
 
You said pull out of afghanist and Iraq. OR do away with ss and medicar and this would solve our budget deficit......
Your statistics are very close to my 2011 budget forcast I was using. Neither one of those budget items equal 1.3 trillion dollars.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373792
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3373752
I guess you'll say these numbers are 'liberally inflated' -
In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities.
Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers
Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion
About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $482 billion, will support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.
The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it has borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt, which is projected to reach $9 trillion by the end of fiscal 2010. In 2010, these interest payments (net of some interest income) will claim $209 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.
The remaining 19 percent of federal spending goes to support a wide variety of other public services. These include providing health care and other benefits to veterans and retirement benefits to retired federal employees, assuring safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, and investing in education, scientific and medical research, and basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and airports.

So again, where does the bulk of funding go for this country's annual federal budget?
Bionic (I read MSN) Arm
You said pull out of afghanist and Iraq. OR do away with ss and medicar and this would solve our budget deficit......
Your statistics are very close to my 2011 budget forcast I was using. Neither one of those budget items equal 1.3 trillion dollars.
You're splitting hairs Darth. You do think eliminating 20% of the budget annually would eventually reduce it and balance it? May take a few years, but the end results would be the same.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/384770/i-think-i-am-going-to-throw-up/60#post_3374038
And the information spewed on FauxNews is accurate? P.T. Barnum said ,"There's a sucker born every minute." Want a Tootsie Roll Pop std?
Come on, there is noooo way, you can, with any intellectual integrety, say, bring W into a spending conversation, in comparison to the big 0. Hell, (much to my chagrin) even the "extreemist" teaparty, doesn't have proposed cuts, to bring our deficit back to what it was with W in office.
But hey don't take my word for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top