U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-18-2008, 07:19 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,444,526 times
Reputation: 4016

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_klown View Post
In the short term, you are right the demand for gasoline is fairly inelastic (for many people there are few alternatives to driving) but when you know that gas taxes are going to be permanently higher, it starts impacting the choice of what kind of car you are going to drive and when you will decide to replace the big old clunker with something that gets better mileage. It also has other more subtle effects. When gas prices are higher it makes sense for employers to relocate out of congested cities into suburban office complexes that offer cheaper rents and are closer to surburban workforces. This means shorter commutes for everyone. As more employers move out to the burbs it makes it easier to walk or bike to work.

The net effect, less money for the Hugo Chavez's of the world, smaller US trade deficits, more money staying in the US.
Palin was right....energy is more important to national security than most people can ever imagine.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2008, 07:41 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,189,121 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
I think spending should slow down and allow our GDP to catch up. I'm not happy with the spending. The first chart is from a website clearly blaming republicans for our financial problems but the chart has some merits.

The thing is tax cuts do work. Look at how other nations are trying to compete with US....they are keeping their taxes low and wages low so our businesses take an interest in them.

For a while that 60% was actually reversing. There are watch clocks on the internet for GDP to debt ratios. I don't think it's a good thing it's not going up again. It wasn't until late 2006 where that ratio reversed and started rising again.
Thanks for the explanation, but as I read the chart, I am not seeing what you are seeing!

The chart, though, is hard to see details on, so let me shift to this U.S. Gov't. table: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...9/pdf/hist.pdf - #7.1 FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR: 19402013

The estimates are from the FY2009 Federal Budget:
2001 - 57.4%
2002 - 59.7%
2003 - 62.6%
2004 - 63.7%
2005 - 64.3%
2006 - 64.9%
2007 - 65.5%
2008 - 67.5% estimated
2009 - 69.3% estimated
2010 - 69.4% estimated
2011 - 69.1% estimated
2012 - 68.2% estimated
2013 - 67.3% estimated
*******
As ever with this administration, their estimated numbers are made of vaporware and pipedreams. The 2008 estimate was 66.0% and 2012 was 64.6% in the FY2008 projection. Once upon a time, the estimate for 2007 was 58.0, after three years of decline from an estimated high of 59.8% for 2004. And, as I noted previously, we've already crossed the 69% threshold, with two and a half months to go in '08.

So, no, the change didn't start at the tail end of 2006, as far as I can tell - it started in this administration's first budget year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
We are in the wrong direction by spending but taxing more and spending more isn't going to fix it so even though I don't like it I'm going to go with the person still at least acting like he will try to slow spending down. He does have a remarkable record on earmarks. But in Bush's defense it's been a wild 8 years full of disasters and scandals that have caused some serious damage to the economy. I'm truly surprised it's not way worse and part of the reason behind that was the tax cuts. Of course the current financial crisis is always the worst one. Our history proves otherwise.
This is the thing - the person whom you think is acting like he will try to slow spending down is not the person I think is acting like that, nor likely to act like that.

The tax cuts, as you noted, are a big part of why we've had the change to an increasing percentage of GDP in our debt. The military expenditures are another. Given that Senator McCain has indicated an intention to both preserve the current tax cuts and to create new ones (as opposed to Senator Obama, who is 'merely' going to create new taxes, let the tax cuts end, and have his very own tax cut) and to extend our presence in Iraq as long as they will let us have one, I don't understand why one would expect McCain to embody the spirit of fiscal conservatism. Yes, he is death on earmarks, but they are, all and all, such a small part of our fiscal problems.

Ah well. This is why they have horse races.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,257,954 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
A "house" is built under specific construction rules, so that it is "hurricane-resistant". Even mobile homes/trailers, have hurricane straps to hold on to it.

Why are we off on this tangent again? Yes, suffice it to say that there IS a difference between owning and renting...
hurricane ties will NOT hold a home when hit with anything above a cat. 2 hurricane, nor will it hold a house to the foundation when a tornado goes through the mid-west. They will however do well with gusts of up to 3 seconds of high speed winds. the construction "rules" are the UBC (universal building codes) and the IRC (international residential code), and a city may or may not adopt all of the codes. hurricane straps are found in two locations, holding the trusses, or rafters to the top plate of a frame wall, or imbeded in the foundation holding down the bottom plate of the frame wall to the foundation. Nothing is going to keep a mobile home where it sits if high sustained winds come through. If you wish to talk Construction Technique, feel free to start a thread in the home forums, and we can dicuss Construction Techniques. You will find that I have a wealth of knowledge on it (ya know... since I design buildings for a living)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 11:42 PM
 
406 posts, read 1,380,459 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
So, "Is it fair that the top 5 - 10% of the earners pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than everybody else does?"
Life isn't fair. If I was born in Cambodia, I would have had to face the killing fields. Instead, I was born in the US, where there was a civil society that flourished under the protection of the US military.

In the US no one is guaranteed that they will be the next Warren Buffet, but everyone the opportunity to try to become the next Warren Buffet and that opportunity is worth something.

Taxes are what pay for civil society, so in that sense they are necessary. But with taxes, its rare individual who gets what they paid for, so in that sense no tax is fair.

That being the case, I believe in taxes that achieve other social goods as people try to legally minimise them. I favor most sin taxes. I think drugs should be legal and taxed as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2008, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,298,639 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
hurricane ties will NOT hold a home when hit with anything above a cat. 2 hurricane, nor will it hold a house to the foundation when a tornado goes through the mid-west. They will however do well with gusts of up to 3 seconds of high speed winds. the construction "rules" are the UBC (universal building codes) and the IRC (international residential code), and a city may or may not adopt all of the codes. hurricane straps are found in two locations, holding the trusses, or rafters to the top plate of a frame wall, or imbeded in the foundation holding down the bottom plate of the frame wall to the foundation. Nothing is going to keep a mobile home where it sits if high sustained winds come through. If you wish to talk Construction Technique, feel free to start a thread in the home forums, and we can dicuss Construction Techniques. You will find that I have a wealth of knowledge on it (ya know... since I design buildings for a living)

Having been through a category FOUR hurricane (Charley, August 2004), I think I know a little more about what a HOUSE can withstand. After all, I was up on the roof on August 14, putting it back on!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2008, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,257,954 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Having been through a category FOUR hurricane (Charley, August 2004), I think I know a little more about what a HOUSE can withstand. After all, I was up on the roof on August 14, putting it back on!
Start a Construction Methods, or Construction techniques topic in the house forum and I would be glad to discuss it with you. I have designed at least a thousand custom / semi custom / spec. homes and modular homes throught my career throughout the world. I know codes inside and out, and what houses can and cannot withstand. Hurricane ties do little when stuck in a sustained high speed wind.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2008, 03:43 PM
 
12,870 posts, read 12,780,036 times
Reputation: 4446
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
Thanks for the explanation, but as I read the chart, I am not seeing what you are seeing!

The chart, though, is hard to see details on, so let me shift to this U.S. Gov't. table: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...9/pdf/hist.pdf - #7.1 FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR: 19402013

The estimates are from the FY2009 Federal Budget:
2001 - 57.4%
2002 - 59.7%
2003 - 62.6%
2004 - 63.7%
2005 - 64.3%
2006 - 64.9%
2007 - 65.5%
2008 - 67.5% estimated
2009 - 69.3% estimated
2010 - 69.4% estimated
2011 - 69.1% estimated
2012 - 68.2% estimated
2013 - 67.3% estimated
*******
As ever with this administration, their estimated numbers are made of vaporware and pipedreams. The 2008 estimate was 66.0% and 2012 was 64.6% in the FY2008 projection. Once upon a time, the estimate for 2007 was 58.0, after three years of decline from an estimated high of 59.8% for 2004. And, as I noted previously, we've already crossed the 69% threshold, with two and a half months to go in '08.

So, no, the change didn't start at the tail end of 2006, as far as I can tell - it started in this administration's first budget year.



This is the thing - the person whom you think is acting like he will try to slow spending down is not the person I think is acting like that, nor likely to act like that.

The tax cuts, as you noted, are a big part of why we've had the change to an increasing percentage of GDP in our debt. The military expenditures are another. Given that Senator McCain has indicated an intention to both preserve the current tax cuts and to create new ones (as opposed to Senator Obama, who is 'merely' going to create new taxes, let the tax cuts end, and have his very own tax cut) and to extend our presence in Iraq as long as they will let us have one, I don't understand why one would expect McCain to embody the spirit of fiscal conservatism. Yes, he is death on earmarks, but they are, all and all, such a small part of our fiscal problems.

Ah well. This is why they have horse races.
why are you not addressing obama's spending? the tax cuts or tax increases mean nothing if the spending outpaces it!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2008, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,850 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
why are you not addressing obama's spending? the tax cuts or tax increases mean nothing if the spending outpaces it!

His spending is to improve programs that actually WORK and cut out the BS programs that don't. I like the "scapel" anology and dollar for dollar spending with cuts.

McCain's gonna do a hatchet job... hear what he wants to do to medicare!! And HE'S a senior.. but see.. he's a senior WAY out of touch.. he doesn't need medicaid so of course he wants to cut it

I'll take precision anyday in anyway!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2008, 04:01 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,444,526 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
His spending is to improve programs that actually WORK and cut out the BS programs that don't. I like the "scapel" anology and dollar for dollar spending with cuts.

McCain's gonna do a hatchet job... hear what he wants to do to medicare!! And HE'S a senior.. but see.. he's a senior WAY out of touch.. he doesn't need medicaid so of course he wants to cut it

I'll take precision anyday in anyway!
He is going to get rid of medicare/aid?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2008, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,850 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
He is going to get rid of medicare/aid?

NO.. but he's slashing it's funding.. which is a BAD thing
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top