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 03-04-2013, 09:48 AM
 
20,716 posts, read 19,357,373 times
Reputation: 8282

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
A very good example of slight-of-hand argument -- just use nominal amounts not taking into account inflation or population growth.

....

But inflation does matter and so does population growth, which both inflates revenues but also inflates government costs.

But when looking at revenue as a p% of GDP, we see the problem:



Had the federal government have the same revenue as a p% of GDP that existed prior to the Bush tax-cuts, 2013 revenue would be $3.3 trillion, not $2.7 trillion, and that would make the deficit only about $200 billion.


Yeah at this point, taxing people or enterprises with large cash hoards who refuse to spend or invest looks more agreeable to me now. The race to hoard the most cash has little social benefit. There is no reason to tolerate such a destabilizing hoard. The rest of the economy would like to continue its normal communication between buyer and seller.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2013, 09:50 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,676,201 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The liberals often note that we don't have a spending problem, but a revenue problem.

Presto.............change -o ................... we no longer have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

CBO: Federal Revenue to Set Record in 2013 | CNS News
Income tax revenue is not the problem anyway, we only get about $1 trillion a year, and 0bama borrows more then that each year. So even if he doubled all income taxes, he'd still spend even more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2013, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,364,890 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
OK lets talk dollars and good sense. Do you want to shrink the money supply in the goods and services economy? Just as simple yes or no. Give me a bottom line.
Yes it is being propped up with gvt over spending and then borrowing and there will be a day of reckoning in the future anyway. Which is better real economic activity driving the money supply or gvt spending/borrowing? I say real economic activity. Will there be economic slow down with gvt cuts ,yes. Will that cause deflation,yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2013, 10:50 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,653,469 times
Reputation: 2522
Keep your eye on the ball boys.

Romney's Economic Plan Includes $6.6 Trillion Tax Cut For The Rich And Corporations | ThinkProgress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2013, 10:52 AM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,209,300 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
The liberals often note that we don't have a spending problem, but a revenue problem.

Presto.............change -o ................... we no longer have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

CBO: Federal Revenue to Set Record in 2013 | CNS News
We do have a spending problem and an efficiency problem but we also have a revenue problem.

I don't trust your link, CNS is not a credible legitimate news sources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2013, 11:06 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,458,172 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2013, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,177 posts, read 4,790,366 times
Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Yes- a 2% decrease. That is hilarious

When one is drowning in 100 ft of water and water level falls 2 feet, that is a 2% decline. One is still dead.

I love it when liberals try to hide reality by "percentage changes". Thanks for the laugh.
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 10:05 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