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.
So now its intellectually dishonest to discuss spending, in relationship to deficits?
No, intellectual dishonesty isn't about discussing an issue, and spending is certainly an issue. No, intellectual dishonest isn't about discussing revenue either. Intellectual dishonesty is in conveniently ignoring key components of what makes up for deficits.
Quote:
You dont know? You ask a lot of questions for someone who pretends to be so well versed on the topic
My numbers differ (and presented above, again). It is your question, so you stand to clarify.
Quote:
So you admit your purpose is to deflect.. Thats not working out very well..
No, intellectual dishonesty isn't about discussing an issue, and spending is certainly an issue. No, intellectual dishonest isn't about discussing revenue either. Intellectual dishonesty is in conveniently ignoring key components of what makes up for deficits.
My numbers differ (and presented above, again). It is your question, so you stand to clarify.
Yay!!
If spending is an issue, then why do you spend so much time deflecting from it, especially considering most of our deficit is a result of spending, not a lack of revenues. The federal government gets something like 20% of the nations GDP in revenue, and has for over 70 years.. But somehow, you think this isnt enough, and is isolated to just the Obama administration.
If spending is an issue, then why do you spend so much time deflecting from it, especially considering most of our deficit is a result of spending, not a lack of revenues. The federal government gets something like 20% of the nations GDP in revenue, and has for over 70 years.. But somehow, you think this isnt enough, and is isolated to just the Obama administration.
Our great society social program needs to mostly take care of the elderly and disabled. The rest should be only on programs like food stamps and welfare for a few months IMO.
Residents on social programs should have their residency removed and they should be deported if they can not pay for themselves.
Government employment as a percentage of the population has grown from 1 - 100 in the 60s to 1 - 9 now. Unsustainable and we have to fire 90% back to the private sector.
If spending is an issue, then why do you spend so much time deflecting from it, especially considering most of our deficit is a result of spending, not a lack of revenues.
Its both.
Quote:
The federal government gets something like 20% of the nations GDP in revenue, and has for over 70 years...
Evidence that you have absolutely no idea what you talk about. We have not seen "something like 20% of nation's GDP" since 2000-2001. If we were to see it in 2010, for example, the deficit would have been no more than $600B.
GDP, 2010: $14.3T
20% of GDP: $2.86T
Federal Tax Revenue, 2010: $2.16T
In other words, federal revenue was $700B less than what you assume to be. And if your assumption actually happened, the deficit would have been... $600B. See, it ain't just spending problem.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 06-04-2012 at 12:18 PM..
Not in the Republican mind, where spending trillions of dollars on multiple wars is done whilst cutting taxes. And sometimes you just really really need to buy the senior vote with an unfunded entitlement.
More B.S. Who was in charge of the Senate which authority for the wars? Why it was the dems. I fact Tom Daschle (D)was the Senate Majority Leader. he even co -sponsored the bill.
as we know with Harry reid, if the senate majrity leader doesn't want something done, he can kill it.
While the dems had control how many times did they de-fund the wars. To this day, NONE.
If spending is an issue, then why do you spend so much time deflecting from it, especially considering most of our deficit is a result of spending, not a lack of revenues. The federal government gets something like 20% of the nations GDP in revenue, and has for over 70 years.. But somehow, you think this isnt enough, and is isolated to just the Obama administration.
If the real Einstein was alive, he would be suing the Ghost for defamation of character.
Evidence that you have absolutely no idea what you talk about. We have not seen "something like 20% of nation's GDP" since 2000-2001. If we were to see it in 2010, for example, the deficit would have been no more than $600B.
GDP, 2010: $14.3T
20% of GDP: $2.86T
Federal Tax Revenue, 2010: $2.16T
In other words, federal revenue was $700B less than what you assume to be. And if your assumption actually happened, the deficit would have been... $600B. See, it ain't just spending problem.
You mean we havent seen 20% GDP revenue since the economy's been good, after tax cuts, and spending cuts, reducing the size of federal government etc? Wow, isnt that everything you oppose?
EINSTEIN, its a SPENDING PROBLEM, because the federal government cant do CRAP about revenues..
Or maybe you can list these stimulus spending in 2000, which boosted the revenues as a % of GDP..
You mean we havent seen 20% GDP revenue since the economy's been good, after tax cuts, and spending cuts, reducing the size of federal government etc?
Correct. We haven't. And you'd see that if you would take the time to read the graph you posted as well.
Quote:
EINSTEIN, its a SPENDING PROBLEM, because the federal government cant do CRAP about revenues..
In 2005 dollars:
Federal Revenue, 2000: $2.31T (20.6% of GDP)
Federal Revenue, 2010: $1.93T (15.1% of GDP)
Economy grows from $11.2T in 2000 to $12.8T in 2010. The revenue, however, shrinks by $400B. What happened, if revenue isn't a problem?
Quote:
Or maybe you can list these stimulus spending in 2000, which boosted the revenues as a % of GDP..
Was it better, or worse than the "stimulus" in 2005-2007? And how exactly does revenue increase as a result of stimulus spending?
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 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.
