Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2011, 03:28 PM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,967,571 times
Reputation: 5455

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Economists do. Planners do. Heck, households do (and should). I do.
Government doesn't
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,057,225 times
Reputation: 13772
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Population USA 1965 100 Million.

Population USA 2010 300 Million.

And his argument is that the Goverment's budget tripled.....LOL......................Per capita spending is essentially the same since 1965....LOL

[the material writes itself....lol ....literally]
You think its really that simple?

Money went a lot further in 1965 then it does now, homes were cheaper, cars were cheaper. you could buy a brand new car in 1965 for $3,000, not everything can be multiplied by three and become equal to 2011 values.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Government doesn't
Then the problem was with your question. Now, why do you believe the government doesn't? After all, I see tax revenue being a part of the debate (although, some among them are only interested in pushing for a dysfunctional family that wants to ignore the issue of revenue completely).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
You think its really that simple?

Money went a lot further in 1965 then it does now, homes were cheaper, cars were cheaper. you could buy a brand new car in 1965 for $3,000, not everything can be multiplied by three and become equal to 2011 values.
That is correct. Not everything can be multiplied by three. Although, you could use three to multiply the size of the economy during the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 03:57 PM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Who cares how much revenue did and didn't come in.
people who set tax policy, people who vote, people who pay taxes, people who get paid in U.S. Dollars, etc.

not you, evidently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 04:13 PM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,983,873 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
According to YOUR chart, we should be cutting spending to balance the deficit, just like what happened during the late 1990's. Your chart actually validates the OP's thread more than the OP did..
Try freezing spending and inflating the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 04:18 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,076,521 times
Reputation: 4828
Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2011, 04:24 PM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,983,873 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
How do you know it was the tax cuts that increased revenue?
The housing bubble was pumping up the economy in 2005.

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
It could have been any number of policy decisions that nominally increased tax revenues.... devaluation of the currency comes to mind, or the fact that we were building $500,000 houses, printing money out of thin air, and giving it to any random jackass who could sign his name. Building all those houses for people who can't afford them may be malinvestment, but in the short-term it is still technically tax-generating economic activity.
Actually the bulk of the money being printed was being printed in foreign countries. The money was then used to buy debt in the US and that drove the trade imbalance.




Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
You're right, the deficit is a result of a monetary problem, a political problem, a moral problem, an education problem, a psychological problem, a sociological problem, you name it... but it isn't a revenue problem.

Yet, although the problem is not with revenues, the solution may need to be.
Inflation is one very effective way of getting more revenue. The fed is trying hard but having no success. If you can’t loan out enough money at 0.25% interest to get the economy to grow then you may have to give it away for free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 05:03 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
Inflation is one very effective way of getting more revenue. The fed is trying hard but having no success. If you can’t loan out enough money at 0.25% interest to get the economy to grow then you may have to give it away for free.
i would buy a house if i could get a 30-year fixed mortgage from the fed or the treasury at 0.25% interest. i might start a business, too. unfortunately they give that loan to a middleman, who doesn't give anything like those terms to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 03:49 PM
 
2,514 posts, read 1,983,873 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
i would buy a house if i could get a 30-year fixed mortgage from the fed or the treasury at 0.25% interest. i might start a business, too. unfortunately they give that loan to a middleman, who doesn't give anything like those terms to me.
Even at 3 or 4% the raters are very low. But with the falling prices of houses the real rate is far higher when you look at the resale price going down. And with the economy contracting it isn't attractive to loan out money.

If you can't loan out the money we need to get true inflation going then try giving it away.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top