| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Omphalos" |
| Date: |
04 Jul 2003 08:07:32 PM |
| Object: |
Re: US economy fucked |
On Fri 04 Jul 2003 07:38:33p, "Russell Ranshaw" <rranshaw@cogeco.ca>
wrote in news:QioNa.32$Nk5.9609@read1.cgocable.net:
For those why are still in la la land. The US economy is fucked.
But not nearly as much as it was two years ago.
--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================
http://31337.pl
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
05 Jul 2003 02:20:25 AM |
|
|
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
On Fri 04 Jul 2003 07:38:33p, "Russell Ranshaw" <rranshaw@cogeco.ca>
wrote in news:QioNa.32$Nk5.9609@read1.cgocable.net:
For those why are still in la la land. The US economy is fucked.
But not nearly as much as it was two years ago.
Unemployment is up. The deficit is way up. Business is still just
limping along. The dollar is way down. And the market is so weak
that interest rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years. And
Bush is still president.
Looks like things are getting worse.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
06 Jul 2003 10:37:32 PM |
|
|
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
"Russell Ranshaw" <rranshaw@cogeco.ca>
For those why are still in la la land. The US economy is fucked.
But not nearly as much as it was two years ago.
Unemployment is up.
It always is at the beginning of a business cycle.
Unemployment's been going up for several years.
The deficit is way up.
So?
$400,000,000,000 juyst this year, the result is ever more taxes going
to interest payments, ever more borrowing, ever more money being
sucked out of the economy.
Recession, in other words.
If you want to see the long-term effects of such borrowing then look
at the economy of Argentina.
Balancing the budget in the short term is a horrid policy.
Why?
Business is still just limping along.
Actually, it's showing signs of growth.
"Signs of" is not actual growth.
Have you checked the temp
market lately?
Yes.
The dollar is way down.
Which is a good thing.
Which means that Americans can no longer to buy all those imported
goods which help businesses function.
And the market is so weak
The S&P 500 is up 28% from its 52-wk low.
The Dow is up 26% from its 52-wk low.
The NASDAQ is up 50% from its 52-wk low.
And down how much from its high?
that interest rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Even if the market were weak, how does that affect interest rates?
People take their money out of the market and buy bonds, pushing the
price of bonds up and the interest rate down.
And Bush is still president.
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
09 Jul 2003 02:15:29 AM |
|
|
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
"Russell Ranshaw" <rranshaw@cogeco.ca>
For those why are still in la la land. The US economy is fucked.
But not nearly as much as it was two years ago.
Unemployment is up.
It always is at the beginning of a business cycle.
Unemployment's been going up for several years.
It happens.
Especially when the president is borrowing hundreds of billions of
dollars to give to his rich friends.
We're trying to work off the excesses of the tech bubble.
No, we're giving away the country's future to those who are already
rich. Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
Also, if you haven't noticed, productivity has been going up faster than
GDP lately.
That's what happens when millions of people are out of work. Those
that are left have to work ever longer hours.
The deficit is way up.
So?
$400,000,000,000 just this year, the result is ever more taxes going
to interest payments, ever more borrowing, ever more money being
sucked out of the economy.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chucks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
If you want to see the long-term effects of such borrowing then look
at the economy of Argentina.
Not even close to the same.
Taxes didn't cover pensions and benefits. Decades of borrowing
ruined the economy.
They had a currency collapse caused by the
failure of their currency board to keep the Peso at 1-1 with the
dollar.
Because they needed to keep borrowing money.
Just like Bush.
Plus, Argentina's spending, which was actually more of a problem at the
state than national level, was much more out-of-whack than ours, as a
percent of GNP.
But this year we see a record high deficit. Already 25% of federal
income taxes do nothing but pay interest in the debt. That is a tax
burden that canot easily be eliminated.
If it wasn't for Republican spending federal income taxes would be a
fourth lower for the same services.
Balancing the budget in the short term is a horrid policy.
Why?
Because expenses rise in a downturn and tax revenues fall. This implies
that you should raise taxes and cut spending during a downturn, which is
exactly, 180 degree, wrong.
But Bush is spending hundreds of billions on war which does almost
nothing to improve the economy. Rather than try to reduce government
expenditures and increase investment in the economy, Bush is actually
increasing spending while giving tax breaks to those who don't need it
and are least likely to put it back into the economy.
Business is still just limping along.
Actually, it's showing signs of growth.
"Signs of" is not actual growth.
Well, it's the best we can hope for until we burn through the excess.
And those millions of people out of work? Too bad for them, eh?
The dollar is way down.
Which is a good thing.
Which means that Americans can no longer to buy all those imported
goods which help businesses function.
Jesus wept. You really must be the only person who thinks that a weak
dollar is bad for business.
Then why did the federal government try to keep the dollar so high for
so long?
You *do* realize it makes exports cheaper
and imports more expensive, right?
Of course. It also make the dollar less attractive for the foreign
investors who pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the US economy
every year.
You do realize that this helps the
profitability of companies, right?
Those companies whose profits do not depend upon imports.
Yeah, oil is more expensive in the
short-term,
And other things like computers.
And the market is so weak
The S&P 500 is up 28% from its 52-wk low.
The Dow is up 26% from its 52-wk low.
The NASDAQ is up 50% from its 52-wk low.
And down how much from its high?
False comparison. The previous highs were bubbles.
Snicker.
that interest rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Even if the market were weak, how does that affect interest rates?
People take their money out of the market and buy bonds, pushing the
price of bonds up and the interest rate down.
This thinking is valid, but people are such a small amount of the bond
market that I doubt it would be a rounding error.
Then why are interest rates at a 50-year low if not because people are
putting their money into bonds?
And Bush is still president.
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
Oh, the rich are stealing your money?
Now you're lying about what I wrote.
Ever
look at the IRS tax tables?
Yes. Ever look at who controls most of the country's wealth?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
09 Jul 2003 11:51:12 PM |
|
|
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
"Russell Ranshaw" <rranshaw@cogeco.ca>
For those why are still in la la land. The US economy is fucked.
But not nearly as much as it was two years ago.
Unemployment is up.
It always is at the beginning of a business cycle.
Unemployment's been going up for several years.
It happens.
Especially when the president is borrowing hundreds of billions of
dollars to give to his rich friends.
Oh, where to begin? With the fact that unemployment starting rising
before Bush had the opportunity to do anything?
How does unemployment cause a massive tax cut to the wealthy?
With the fact that
deficits don't cause unemployment?
Unless they do.
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
The deficit is way up.
So?
$400,000,000,000 just this year, the result is ever more taxes going
to interest payments, ever more borrowing, ever more money being
sucked out of the economy.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Government spending *increases*
the money supply.
No, government spending has no effect on the money supply.
The two items are independant.
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
If you want to see the long-term effects of such borrowing then look
at the economy of Argentina.
Not even close to the same.
Taxes didn't cover pensions and benefits.
That wasn't the problem.
It was a large part of the problem.
Decades of borrowing
ruined the economy.
How?
Repaying the debt took money out of the economy. A lot of money.
They had a currency collapse caused by the
failure of their currency board to keep the Peso at 1-1 with the
dollar.
Because they needed to keep borrowing money.
Wow. Got one right, but not for the reasons you think.
Just like Bush.
Not even close. Care to compare debt/GDP?
The debt is increasing quickly.
If it wasn't for Republican spending federal income taxes would be a
fourth lower for the same services.
"Republican spending"? Oh, tell us another one.
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
Balancing the budget in the short term is a horrid policy.
Why?
Because expenses rise in a downturn and tax revenues fall. This implies
that you should raise taxes and cut spending during a downturn, which is
exactly, 180 degree, wrong.
But Bush is spending hundreds of billions on war which does almost
nothing to improve the economy.
Really? So the money is disappearing into thin air?
Yes. War destroys capital. Those missile and bombs were destroyed
in the war. The salaries for the 150,000 soldiers did not pay for
anything that would improve the US. The wear on the equipment did
not benefit the US economy.
Rather than try to reduce government
expenditures and increase investment in the economy, Bush is actually
increasing spending while giving tax breaks to those who don't need it
and are least likely to put it back into the economy.
Oh, dear lord. Where do you think money goes when "the rich" get it?
Into a frikking mattress?
Treasury certificates judging by the numbers. Helping the US to
borrow money.
What happens to money when the poor and middle classes get it?
It gets spent on products which produces jobs.
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
Oh, the rich are stealing your money?
Now you're lying about what I wrote.
Actually, it seems to be quite on-the-nose.
Apparently you've run out of honest rebuttals. You cannot defend Bush
and so you have to lie about what I write.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "CJS" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
10 Jul 2003 12:11:34 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
"Russell Ranshaw" <rranshaw@cogeco.ca>
For those why are still in la la land. The US economy is fucked.
But not nearly as much as it was two years ago.
Unemployment is up.
It always is at the beginning of a business cycle.
Unemployment's been going up for several years.
It happens.
Especially when the president is borrowing hundreds of billions of
dollars to give to his rich friends.
Oh, where to begin? With the fact that unemployment starting rising
before Bush had the opportunity to do anything?
How does unemployment cause a massive tax cut to the wealthy?
What?
With the fact that
deficits don't cause unemployment?
Unless they do.
Care to explain how?
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
The deficit is way up.
So?
$400,000,000,000 just this year, the result is ever more taxes going
to interest payments, ever more borrowing, ever more money being
sucked out of the economy.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
Government spending *increases*
the money supply.
No, government spending has no effect on the money supply.
The two items are independant.
Depends. Are you claiming that government spending does not increase
velocity at all? Or are you claiming that the velocity would be less
than with private investment?
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
If you want to see the long-term effects of such borrowing then look
at the economy of Argentina.
Not even close to the same.
Taxes didn't cover pensions and benefits.
That wasn't the problem.
It was a large part of the problem.
It was an outcome. The real issue is that speculators realized that
Argentina could not possibly defend the peso.
Decades of borrowing
ruined the economy.
How?
Repaying the debt took money out of the economy. A lot of money.
But, wait. You claim that borrowing destroys the economy. Now repaying
also does? Now, how can that be?
They had a currency collapse caused by the
failure of their currency board to keep the Peso at 1-1 with the
dollar.
Because they needed to keep borrowing money.
Wow. Got one right, but not for the reasons you think.
Just like Bush.
Not even close. Care to compare debt/GDP?
The debt is increasing quickly.
Nope. The deficit is. Big difference.
If it wasn't for Republican spending federal income taxes would be a
fourth lower for the same services.
"Republican spending"? Oh, tell us another one.
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution. Oh, and take a look at what
happened after 1994.
Balancing the budget in the short term is a horrid policy.
Why?
Because expenses rise in a downturn and tax revenues fall. This implies
that you should raise taxes and cut spending during a downturn, which is
exactly, 180 degree, wrong.
But Bush is spending hundreds of billions on war which does almost
nothing to improve the economy.
Really? So the money is disappearing into thin air?
Yes. War destroys capital. Those missile and bombs were destroyed
in the war. The salaries for the 150,000 soldiers did not pay for
anything that would improve the US. The wear on the equipment did
not benefit the US economy.
Except that it didn't disappear. Yes, there are better investments, but
the money did not disappear.
Rather than try to reduce government
expenditures and increase investment in the economy, Bush is actually
increasing spending while giving tax breaks to those who don't need it
and are least likely to put it back into the economy.
Oh, dear lord. Where do you think money goes when "the rich" get it?
Into a frikking mattress?
Treasury certificates judging by the numbers.
Care to cite those?
Helping the US to
borrow money.
Which pushes down interest rates and lowers debt service.
What happens to money when the poor and middle classes get it?
It gets spent on products which produces jobs.
Oh, my. One doesn't know where to begin.
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
Oh, the rich are stealing your money?
Now you're lying about what I wrote.
Actually, it seems to be quite on-the-nose.
Apparently you've run out of honest rebuttals.
Reread your own statement. "the rich are entitled to the money that I
earn?"
You cannot defend Bush
and so you have to lie about what I write.
And you cannot discuss economics.
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
11 Jul 2003 02:24:32 AM |
|
|
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
Government spending *increases*
the money supply.
No, government spending has no effect on the money supply.
The two items are independant.
Depends. Are you claiming that government spending does not increase
velocity at all?
Velocity?
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
Private spending has the overhead of profits, making it less
efficient.
Just like Bush.
Not even close. Care to compare debt/GDP?
The debt is increasing quickly.
Nope. The deficit is. Big difference.
Both are increasing quickly.
If it wasn't for Republican spending federal income taxes would be a
fourth lower for the same services.
"Republican spending"? Oh, tell us another one.
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution.
Idiot.
Balancing the budget in the short term is a horrid policy.
Why?
Because expenses rise in a downturn and tax revenues fall. This implies
that you should raise taxes and cut spending during a downturn, which is
exactly, 180 degree, wrong.
But Bush is spending hundreds of billions on war which does almost
nothing to improve the economy.
Really? So the money is disappearing into thin air?
Yes. War destroys capital. Those missile and bombs were destroyed
in the war. The salaries for the 150,000 soldiers did not pay for
anything that would improve the US. The wear on the equipment did
not benefit the US economy.
Except that it didn't disappear.
So you think that bombs and missile are reusable?
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
Oh, the rich are stealing your money?
Now you're lying about what I wrote.
Actually, it seems to be quite on-the-nose.
Apparently you've run out of honest rebuttals.
Reread your own statement. "the rich are entitled to the money that I
earn?"
Nowhere do I see any mention of theft.
You cannot defend Bush
and so you have to lie about what I write.
And you cannot discuss economics.
Snicker.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Omphalos" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
11 Jul 2003 09:57:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri 11 Jul 2003 03:24:32a, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:belonf$sk6$1@bolt.sonic.net:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving billions, let alone hundreds
of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
Why do we have cruise missiles if we can't ever use them?
--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================
http://31337.pl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CJS" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
11 Jul 2003 04:09:29 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4, actually, and that if I only include
individual income tax returns, not including corporations of people
filing jointly. You're actually off by a factor of about 6 or 7.
Sources:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
(Notice how I actually cite things???)
Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
Actually, it's a very vague term. Are you talking about direct
payments? Or the benefits of living in a free society? Two answers,
and they lead you to opposite conclusions.
So, yes, please define what you mean.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Really? The people at General Dynamics might be amazed to hear that?
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
A hamburger isn't reusable, either. Your standard is irrelevant.
Government spending *increases*
the money supply.
No, government spending has no effect on the money supply.
The two items are independant.
Depends. Are you claiming that government spending does not increase
velocity at all?
Velocity?
Yes. It's a well-defined economics term.
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
Private spending has the overhead of profits, making it less
efficient.
Oh, dear lord. Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Just like Bush.
Not even close. Care to compare debt/GDP?
The debt is increasing quickly.
Nope. The deficit is. Big difference.
Both are increasing quickly.
Debt is still quite low as a percent of GDP.
If it wasn't for Republican spending federal income taxes would be a
fourth lower for the same services.
"Republican spending"? Oh, tell us another one.
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution.
Idiot.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Does that mean that you just figured out who actually spends the money?
I would mention, though, that someone of your intellectual abilities
ought to use pejorative terms a bit more carefully. There is a certain
irony in someone who seems utter incapable of understanding basic
economics calling someone else an idiot.
Balancing the budget in the short term is a horrid policy.
Why?
Because expenses rise in a downturn and tax revenues fall. This implies
that you should raise taxes and cut spending during a downturn, which is
exactly, 180 degree, wrong.
But Bush is spending hundreds of billions on war which does almost
nothing to improve the economy.
Really? So the money is disappearing into thin air?
Yes. War destroys capital. Those missile and bombs were destroyed
in the war. The salaries for the 150,000 soldiers did not pay for
anything that would improve the US. The wear on the equipment did
not benefit the US economy.
Except that it didn't disappear.
So you think that bombs and missile are reusable?
So we dropped money bombs on them? Where did they money go, pray tell?
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
Oh, the rich are stealing your money?
Now you're lying about what I wrote.
Actually, it seems to be quite on-the-nose.
Apparently you've run out of honest rebuttals.
Reread your own statement. "the rich are entitled to the money that I
earn?"
Nowhere do I see any mention of theft.
When you talk about people trying to take what is rightfully yours, it
certainly sounds that way to me. Of course, your statement is quite
funny, given that the "rich," which is a misnomer, pay a hell of a lot
more in taxes, both in absolute terms and as a percent of income, than
you do.
You cannot defend Bush
and so you have to lie about what I write.
And you cannot discuss economics.
Snicker.
Try laughing less and reading more, Ray.
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
12 Jul 2003 12:12:50 AM |
|
|
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4,
Nope. 100,000,000 taxpayers, $400,000,000,000 deficit. The IRS says
130,904,889, but I'm rounding to single digit accuracy.
and that if I only include
individual income tax returns, not including corporations of people
filing jointly. You're actually off by a factor of about 6 or 7.
Math isn't your strong point, is it?
Sources:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
Actually, it's a very vague term. Are you talking about direct
payments? Or the benefits of living in a free society? Two answers,
and they lead you to opposite conclusions.
Neither. I'm talking about all of the services that government
provides. Laws, enforcement, administration, currency, protection.
Everything.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Really? The people at General Dynamics might be amazed to hear that?
If you pay for two tanks and end up with just one, then where did the
money for the second tank go?
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
A hamburger isn't reusable, either. Your standard is irrelevant.
Hamburrgers feed people. Missiles destroy capital.
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
Private spending has the overhead of profits, making it less
efficient.
Oh, dear lord. Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Clever rebuttal.
Profits are an expense. All else being equal, private corporations
that take profits will have to charge more than government employees
doing the same job.
Just like Bush.
Not even close. Care to compare debt/GDP?
The debt is increasing quickly.
Nope. The deficit is. Big difference.
Both are increasing quickly.
Debt is still quite low as a percent of GDP.
That depends greatly upon what one considers "low". And given that
the debt is projected to get much larger, your defense doesn't seem to
be very rational.
Debt is increasing about 6% per year. GDP is increasing about 2% per year.
I'm sure you can figure out why that's a problem.
If it wasn't for Republican spending federal income taxes would be a
fourth lower for the same services.
"Republican spending"? Oh, tell us another one.
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution.
Idiot.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Does that mean that you just figured out who actually spends the money?
The executive branch spends the money. In the US it is also the
executive branch that typically provides a budget fre congress to
approve.
I would mention, though, that someone of your intellectual abilities
ought to use pejorative terms a bit more carefully. There is a certain
irony in someone who seems utter incapable of understanding basic
economics calling someone else an idiot.
You're an idiot.
But Bush is spending hundreds of billions on war which does almost
nothing to improve the economy.
Really? So the money is disappearing into thin air?
Yes. War destroys capital. Those missile and bombs were destroyed
in the war. The salaries for the 150,000 soldiers did not pay for
anything that would improve the US. The wear on the equipment did
not benefit the US economy.
Except that it didn't disappear.
So you think that bombs and missile are reusable?
So we dropped money bombs on them? Where did they money go, pray tell?
Destroyed. And you will notice that I referred to "capital" and not
"money". You _do_ know the difference, don't you?
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
Oh, the rich are stealing your money?
Now you're lying about what I wrote.
Actually, it seems to be quite on-the-nose.
Apparently you've run out of honest rebuttals.
Reread your own statement. "the rich are entitled to the money that I
earn?"
Nowhere do I see any mention of theft.
When you talk about people trying to take what is rightfully yours,
Which I did not.
You don't read so well, do you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "CJS" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
12 Jul 2003 03:32:02 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4,
Nope. 100,000,000 taxpayers, $400,000,000,000 deficit. The IRS says
130,904,889, but I'm rounding to single digit accuracy.
A 30% difference is not rounding. And $304,000,000,000 does not round
to 4,000,000,000, does it?
and that if I only include
individual income tax returns, not including corporations of people
filing jointly. You're actually off by a factor of about 6 or 7.
Math isn't your strong point, is it?
Oh, the irony! Please tell us how $307 billion divided by 130 million
is 4000. Add in the fact that there are more taxpayers than returns,
since people file jointly, and you are off by a factor of 4 minimum.
Sources:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
See now? Sources are good things.
Tax cuts for the wealthy and squat for everybody else.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
Actually, it's a very vague term. Are you talking about direct
payments? Or the benefits of living in a free society? Two answers,
and they lead you to opposite conclusions.
Neither. I'm talking about all of the services that government
provides. Laws, enforcement, administration, currency, protection.
Everything.
If you are talking direct services, then the rich get less than they
pay. Look at it this way - lots of people pay no taxes and get lots of
benefits. It cannot possibly be that everyone gets more than they pay
for. QED.
How does money get "sucked out of the economy."
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Really? The people at General Dynamics might be amazed to hear that?
If you pay for two tanks and end up with just one, then where did the
money for the second tank go?
Into the economy. Salaries, raw material purchases, etc. Flip it
around - how does the economy know that the tank was destroyed? Would
the economy be stronger if the tank were sitting in a parking lot in
Maryland? If so, through what mechanism?
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
A hamburger isn't reusable, either. Your standard is irrelevant.
Hamburrgers feed people. Missiles destroy capital.
Your standard was re-usability. Please be consistent.
And the ability to destroy capital, especially that which is not ours,
affects the economy *how*, precisely?
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
Private spending has the overhead of profits, making it less
efficient.
Oh, dear lord. Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Clever rebuttal.
No, just a fervent hope.
Profits are an expense.
Not at all.
All else being equal, private corporations
that take profits will have to charge more than government employees
doing the same job.
Oh, wow. You actually believe this. You see, non-monopolies actually
have to fight to survive. They have lower costs than monopolies for
this reason. This is where the profit margin comes from.
Just like Bush.
Not even close. Care to compare debt/GDP?
The debt is increasing quickly.
Nope. The deficit is. Big difference.
Both are increasing quickly.
Debt is still quite low as a percent of GDP.
That depends greatly upon what one considers "low".
Ability to service and relative to average GDP growth.
And given that
the debt is projected to get much larger, your defense doesn't seem to
be very rational.
It could double and still not concern me.
Debt is increasing about 6% per year. GDP is increasing about 2% per year.
I'm sure you can figure out why that's a problem.
GDP increased by 3.2% annually - IN REAL TERMS - and 5.0% annually in
nominal terms from 1Q93 to 1Q03, including the downturn.
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
Gross Federal Debt increased at 4.5% annually in nominal terms over the
same period.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
So GDP did indeed grow faster than debt. Now, since you are blaming
this on Bush, would you care to explain why the debt also grew during
every single one of Clinton's years?
If it wasn't for Republican spending federal income taxes would be a
fourth lower for the same services.
"Republican spending"? Oh, tell us another one.
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution.
Idiot.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Does that mean that you just figured out who actually spends the money?
The executive branch spends the money. In the US it is also the
executive branch that typically provides a budget fre congress to
approve.
Ah, but Congress holds the purse strings. And Congress porks up every
single bill to go through.
I would mention, though, that someone of your intellectual abilities
ought to use pejorative terms a bit more carefully. There is a certain
irony in someone who seems utter incapable of understanding basic
economics calling someone else an idiot.
You're an idiot.
Again with the irony.
But Bush is spending hundreds of billions on war which does almost
nothing to improve the economy.
Really? So the money is disappearing into thin air?
Yes. War destroys capital. Those missile and bombs were destroyed
in the war. The salaries for the 150,000 soldiers did not pay for
anything that would improve the US. The wear on the equipment did
not benefit the US economy.
Except that it didn't disappear.
So you think that bombs and missile are reusable?
So we dropped money bombs on them? Where did they money go, pray tell?
Destroyed. And you will notice that I referred to "capital" and not
"money". You _do_ know the difference, don't you?
Why don't you explain it with your stellar grasp of economics. Oh, and
you are talking about "capital stock" (in the economic and not stock
market sense) and not "capital." You DO know the difference, right???
And that just fries you guys, doesn't it?
Why would I be bothered by a president who is a liar, who wastes money
by the billions, and who thinks that the rich are entitled to the
money that I earn?
Oh, the rich are stealing your money?
Now you're lying about what I wrote.
Actually, it seems to be quite on-the-nose.
Apparently you've run out of honest rebuttals.
Reread your own statement. "the rich are entitled to the money that I
earn?"
Nowhere do I see any mention of theft.
When you talk about people trying to take what is rightfully yours,
Which I did not.
You don't read so well, do you?
Evidently you don't, since this is exactly what you said.
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
13 Jul 2003 03:41:27 PM |
|
|
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4,
Nope. 100,000,000 taxpayers, $400,000,000,000 deficit. The IRS says
130,904,889, but I'm rounding to single digit accuracy.
A 30% difference is not rounding.
Of course it is. Don't you know what "rounding to single digit
accuracy" accuracy means? No, probably not. It's science/engineering
terminology.
And $304,000,000,000 does not round
to 4,000,000,000, does it?
So, you want to be a pendantic *****, eh?
Using your numbers of $304B and 130M taxpayers my ballpark figure was
not off by a factor of 6 to 7, or even a factor of 4 as you claimed,
but by less than 2.
So using YOUR numbers who was closer to the truth? You or me?
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
Actually, it's a very vague term. Are you talking about direct
payments? Or the benefits of living in a free society? Two answers,
and they lead you to opposite conclusions.
Neither. I'm talking about all of the services that government
provides. Laws, enforcement, administration, currency, protection.
Everything.
If you are talking direct services,
Did I use the word "direct"?
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Really? The people at General Dynamics might be amazed to hear that?
If you pay for two tanks and end up with just one, then where did the
money for the second tank go?
Into the economy. Salaries, raw material purchases, etc.
ROFL! So according to you war is good and stealing is good because
the money spent to replace the lost goods is good.
The labor and material used to produce the tank are destroyed.
Gone.
Flip it
around - how does the economy know that the tank was destroyed?
By having to spend money to buy another one.
Would
the economy be stronger if the tank were sitting in a parking lot in
Maryland?
Yes.
If so, through what mechanism?
Rather than waste money on another tank the money can be used on
infrastructure, investments, and reduced taxes.
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
A hamburger isn't reusable, either. Your standard is irrelevant.
Hamburrgers feed people. Missiles destroy capital.
Your standard was re-usability.
No, the point is that war destroys capital.
And the ability to destroy capital, especially that which is not ours,
affects the economy *how*, precisely?
For someone who claims to understand economics you sure don't seem to
understand money.
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
Private spending has the overhead of profits, making it less
efficient.
Oh, dear lord. Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Clever rebuttal.
No, just a fervent hope.
Profits are an expense.
Not at all.
That's it. You're a troll.
All else being equal, private corporations
that take profits will have to charge more than government employees
doing the same job.
Oh, wow. You actually believe this. You see, non-monopolies actually
have to fight to survive.
Non sequitur.
They have lower costs than monopolies for
this reason.
Ever hear of something called "economy of scale"?
According to your theory, monopolies could never form because they
would become less efficient as they grew larger. But we know that
monopolies do form, and that they have two advantages over smaller
companies: 1) It's almost always cheaper per using to deal in
thousands rather than singles, and 2) cost of entry will often keep
new competitors out of a market.
Debt is increasing about 6% per year. GDP is increasing about 2% per year.
I'm sure you can figure out why that's a problem.
GDP increased by 3.2% annually - IN REAL TERMS - and 5.0% annually in
nominal terms from 1Q93 to 1Q03, including the downturn.
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
Gross Federal Debt increased at 4.5% annually in nominal terms over the
same period.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
How convenient that you rely upon figures from the Clinton era to
defend the policies of the Bush administration.
Now, since you are blaming
this on Bush, would you care to explain why the debt also grew during
every single one of Clinton's years?
Because the DEFICIT he inherited took eight years to eliminate.
A deficit which took Bush just a year to recreate.
You _really_ pretend to know something about economics but you odn't
know anything about how the government is run?
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution.
Idiot.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Does that mean that you just figured out who actually spends the money?
The executive branch spends the money. In the US it is also the
executive branch that typically provides a budget fre congress to
approve.
Ah, but Congress holds the purse strings.
Non sequitur.
And Congress porks up every
single bill to go through.
Unless they do not. With the Bush administration asking for massive
increases in military spending while cutting the taxes that would pay
for it the result is a record deficit.
So you think that bombs and missile are reusable?
So we dropped money bombs on them? Where did they money go, pray tell?
Destroyed. And you will notice that I referred to "capital" and not
"money". You _do_ know the difference, don't you?
Why don't you explain it with your stellar grasp of economics.
I guess that you don't.
Buh bye, troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "CJS" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
16 Jul 2003 09:37:04 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4,
Nope. 100,000,000 taxpayers, $400,000,000,000 deficit. The IRS says
130,904,889, but I'm rounding to single digit accuracy.
A 30% difference is not rounding.
Of course it is. Don't you know what "rounding to single digit
accuracy" accuracy means? No, probably not. It's science/engineering
terminology.
Bwahahahahahahahaha. I must have missed this in my days as an aerospace
engineer.
The point was that you changed the numbers to suit your argument.
And $304,000,000,000 does not round
to 4,000,000,000, does it?
So, you want to be a pendantic *****, eh?
Is that your way of admitting that you fucked up? Or did I miss the
class in engineering school where 3.04 rounded to 4.00?
Using your numbers of $304B and 130M taxpayers my ballpark figure was
not off by a factor of 6 to 7, or even a factor of 4 as you claimed,
but by less than 2.
You aren't bright, are you? There were 130M returns, not 130M
taxpayers. But I pointed this out before.
So using YOUR numbers who was closer to the truth? You or me?
Me. Can't admit you fucked up, can you?
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
Actually, it's a very vague term. Are you talking about direct
payments? Or the benefits of living in a free society? Two answers,
and they lead you to opposite conclusions.
Neither. I'm talking about all of the services that government
provides. Laws, enforcement, administration, currency, protection.
Everything.
If you are talking direct services,
Did I use the word "direct"?
Dear lord. What do you think those are?
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Really? The people at General Dynamics might be amazed to hear that?
If you pay for two tanks and end up with just one, then where did the
money for the second tank go?
Into the economy. Salaries, raw material purchases, etc.
ROFL! So according to you war is good and stealing is good because
the money spent to replace the lost goods is good.
Not a good reader, are you? We were talking about money disappearing.
The labor and material used to produce the tank are destroyed.
Gone.
And?
Flip it
around - how does the economy know that the tank was destroyed?
By having to spend money to buy another one.
Huh? How does the economy know this? What if the tank isn't replaced?
Would
the economy be stronger if the tank were sitting in a parking lot in
Maryland?
Yes.
Please describe the mechanism by which a tank sitting in a parking lot
strengthens the economy.
If so, through what mechanism?
Rather than waste money on another tank the money can be used on
infrastructure, investments, and reduced taxes.
Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Please answer the question.
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
A hamburger isn't reusable, either. Your standard is irrelevant.
Hamburrgers feed people. Missiles destroy capital.
Your standard was re-usability.
No, the point is that war destroys capital.
Your claim was the the war sucked $100,000,000,000 out of the economy.
You were wrong.
And the ability to destroy capital, especially that which is not ours,
affects the economy *how*, precisely?
For someone who claims to understand economics you sure don't seem to
understand money.
Actually, I do. I'm enjoying your attempt to "common sense" your way
through economics.
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
Private spending has the overhead of profits, making it less
efficient.
Oh, dear lord. Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Clever rebuttal.
No, just a fervent hope.
Profits are an expense.
Not at all.
That's it. You're a troll.
Nope. You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. You
actually think that profits are an expense!
All else being equal, private corporations
that take profits will have to charge more than government employees
doing the same job.
Oh, wow. You actually believe this. You see, non-monopolies actually
have to fight to survive.
Non sequitur.
SO you think that the government is more efficient that a competitive
enterprise? Really?
They have lower costs than monopolies for
this reason.
Ever hear of something called "economy of scale"?
Oh, yes. I've written published papers on it. And how it only works in
some cases.+
According to your theory, monopolies could never form because they
would become less efficient as they grew larger.
Nope. I did not say that. Nice strawman, though.
But we know that
monopolies do form,
ATTACK THAT STRAWMAN, SPARKY!
and that they have two advantages over smaller
companies: 1) It's almost always cheaper per using to deal in
thousands rather than singles, and 2) cost of entry will often keep
new competitors out of a market.
Wow. Economies of scale are a - weak - barrier to entry. Figure that
out yourself?
If you are done attacking this strawman, please explain why the
government is more efficient that competitive enterprises.
Debt is increasing about 6% per year. GDP is increasing about 2% per year.
I'm sure you can figure out why that's a problem.
GDP increased by 3.2% annually - IN REAL TERMS - and 5.0% annually in
nominal terms from 1Q93 to 1Q03, including the downturn.
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
Gross Federal Debt increased at 4.5% annually in nominal terms over the
same period.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
How convenient that you rely upon figures from the Clinton era to
defend the policies of the Bush administration.
Throw in Bush I and Reagan. It doesn't matter.
Now, since you are blaming
this on Bush, would you care to explain why the debt also grew during
every single one of Clinton's years?
Because the DEFICIT he inherited took eight years to eliminate.
A deficit which took Bush just a year to recreate.
Bwahahahahahahaha. But, but, we heard so much about his pro forma
surplus!
You _really_ pretend to know something about economics but you odn't
know anything about how the government is run?
Says the guy who thinks that the executive branch spends the money?
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution.
Idiot.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Does that mean that you just figured out who actually spends the money?
The executive branch spends the money. In the US it is also the
executive branch that typically provides a budget fre congress to
approve.
Ah, but Congress holds the purse strings.
Non sequitur.
Nope. Key point. Who passes spending bills? Eh? I'll give you three
guesses.
And Congress porks up every
single bill to go through.
Unless they do not. With the Bush administration asking for massive
increases in military spending while cutting the taxes that would pay
for it the result is a record deficit.
Strangely, Clinton's cutting of the capital gains taxes *increased*
revenues. But I doubt you've heard of the Laffer curve.
So you think that bombs and missile are reusable?
So we dropped money bombs on them? Where did they money go, pray tell?
Destroyed. And you will notice that I referred to "capital" and not
"money". You _do_ know the difference, don't you?
Why don't you explain it with your stellar grasp of economics.
I guess that you don't.
Buh bye, troll.
Run away, little idiot!
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
17 Jul 2003 08:06:55 AM |
|
|
"CJS" <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote in message news:3F160BD0.FF7C15C3@MEANIE.COM...
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich
friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal
budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise
and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for
every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4,
Nope. 100,000,000 taxpayers, $400,000,000,000 deficit. The IRS says
130,904,889, but I'm rounding to single digit accuracy.
A 30% difference is not rounding.
Of course it is. Don't you know what "rounding to single digit
accuracy" accuracy means? No, probably not. It's science/engineering
terminology.
Bwahahahahahahahaha. I must have missed this in my days as an aerospace
engineer.
The point was that you changed the numbers to suit your argument.
Ray Fischer does that all the time, as well as changing the meaning of what
people say to suit his arguments. That is if you want to call them
arguments. He and many of the other pro-aborts, that is their trademark.
And $304,000,000,000 does not round
to 4,000,000,000, does it?
So, you want to be a pendantic *****, eh?
Is that your way of admitting that you fucked up? Or did I miss the
class in engineering school where 3.04 rounded to 4.00?
No, that would mean he would have to be honest. And Ray Fischer is never
honest.
Using your numbers of $304B and 130M taxpayers my ballpark figure was
not off by a factor of 6 to 7, or even a factor of 4 as you claimed,
but by less than 2.
You aren't bright, are you? There were 130M returns, not 130M
taxpayers. But I pointed this out before.
So using YOUR numbers who was closer to the truth? You or me?
Me. Can't admit you fucked up, can you?
that would require him to be honest.
And who pays the taxes?
Who gets most of the services?
Define services.
Figure it out.
Actually, it's a very vague term. Are you talking about direct
payments? Or the benefits of living in a free society? Two
answers,
and they lead you to opposite conclusions.
Neither. I'm talking about all of the services that government
provides. Laws, enforcement, administration, currency, protection.
Everything.
If you are talking direct services,
Did I use the word "direct"?
Dear lord. What do you think those are?
The US borrows money thus making it unavailable for
investment.
Since large chunks of the money are not being used to
reinvest
in the economy, the result is a drain on the economy.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Really? The people at General Dynamics might be amazed to hear
that?
If you pay for two tanks and end up with just one, then where did the
money for the second tank go?
Into the economy. Salaries, raw material purchases, etc.
ROFL! So according to you war is good and stealing is good because
the money spent to replace the lost goods is good.
Not a good reader, are you? We were talking about money disappearing.
The labor and material used to produce the tank are destroyed.
Gone.
And?
Flip it
around - how does the economy know that the tank was destroyed?
By having to spend money to buy another one.
Huh? How does the economy know this? What if the tank isn't replaced?
Would
the economy be stronger if the tank were sitting in a parking lot in
Maryland?
Yes.
Please describe the mechanism by which a tank sitting in a parking lot
strengthens the economy.
If so, through what mechanism?
Rather than waste money on another tank the money can be used on
infrastructure, investments, and reduced taxes.
Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Please answer the question.
Cruise missles are expensive, and they're not reusable.
A hamburger isn't reusable, either. Your standard is irrelevant.
Hamburrgers feed people. Missiles destroy capital.
Your standard was re-usability.
No, the point is that war destroys capital.
Your claim was the the war sucked $100,000,000,000 out of the economy.
You were wrong.
And the ability to destroy capital, especially that which is not ours,
affects the economy *how*, precisely?
For someone who claims to understand economics you sure don't seem to
understand money.
Actually, I do. I'm enjoying your attempt to "common sense" your way
through economics.
At the very minimum, it is neutral. One could argue,
successfully I'd say, that government spending is less
efficient than
private spending, but that is a different issue.
Would _could_ argue that, but not very well since private
spending
takes out profits.
Can you please translate this?
Private spending has the overhead of profits, making it less
efficient.
Oh, dear lord. Please, please, tell me you're joking.
Clever rebuttal.
No, just a fervent hope.
Profits are an expense.
Not at all.
That's it. You're a troll.
Nope. You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. You
actually think that profits are an expense!
All else being equal, private corporations
that take profits will have to charge more than government employees
doing the same job.
Oh, wow. You actually believe this. You see, non-monopolies actually
have to fight to survive.
Non sequitur.
SO you think that the government is more efficient that a competitive
enterprise? Really?
They have lower costs than monopolies for
this reason.
Ever hear of something called "economy of scale"?
Oh, yes. I've written published papers on it. And how it only works in
some cases.+
According to your theory, monopolies could never form because they
would become less efficient as they grew larger.
Nope. I did not say that. Nice strawman, though.
But we know that
monopolies do form,
ATTACK THAT STRAWMAN, SPARKY!
and that they have two advantages over smaller
companies: 1) It's almost always cheaper per using to deal in
thousands rather than singles, and 2) cost of entry will often keep
new competitors out of a market.
Wow. Economies of scale are a - weak - barrier to entry. Figure that
out yourself?
If you are done attacking this strawman, please explain why the
government is more efficient that competitive enterprises.
Debt is increasing about 6% per year. GDP is increasing about 2% per
year.
I'm sure you can figure out why that's a problem.
GDP increased by 3.2% annually - IN REAL TERMS - and 5.0% annually in
nominal terms from 1Q93 to 1Q03, including the downturn.
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
Gross Federal Debt increased at 4.5% annually in nominal terms over the
same period.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
How convenient that you rely upon figures from the Clinton era to
defend the policies of the Bush administration.
Throw in Bush I and Reagan. It doesn't matter.
Now, since you are blaming
this on Bush, would you care to explain why the debt also grew during
every single one of Clinton's years?
Because the DEFICIT he inherited took eight years to eliminate.
A deficit which took Bush just a year to recreate.
Bwahahahahahahaha. But, but, we heard so much about his pro forma
surplus!
You _really_ pretend to know something about economics but you odn't
know anything about how the government is run?
Says the guy who thinks that the executive branch spends the money?
Reagan & Bush pushed the debt to $6,000,000,000,000.
Shrub is pushing that to $7,000,000,000,000
You might want to re-read the Constitution.
Idiot.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Does that mean that you just figured out who actually spends the
money?
The executive branch spends the money. In the US it is also the
executive branch that typically provides a budget fre congress to
approve.
Ah, but Congress holds the purse strings.
Non sequitur.
Nope. Key point. Who passes spending bills? Eh? I'll give you three
guesses.
And Congress porks up every
single bill to go through.
Unless they do not. With the Bush administration asking for massive
increases in military spending while cutting the taxes that would pay
for it the result is a record deficit.
Strangely, Clinton's cutting of the capital gains taxes *increased*
revenues. But I doubt you've heard of the Laffer curve.
So you think that bombs and missile are reusable?
So we dropped money bombs on them? Where did they money go, pray
tell?
Destroyed. And you will notice that I referred to "capital" and not
"money". You _do_ know the difference, don't you?
Why don't you explain it with your stellar grasp of economics.
I guess that you don't.
Buh bye, troll.
Run away, little idiot!
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "CJS" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
17 Jul 2003 10:29:37 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"CJS" <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote in message news:3F160BD0.FF7C15C3@MEANIE.COM...
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich
friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal
budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise
and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for
every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4,
Nope. 100,000,000 taxpayers, $400,000,000,000 deficit. The IRS says
130,904,889, but I'm rounding to single digit accuracy.
A 30% difference is not rounding.
Of course it is. Don't you know what "rounding to single digit
accuracy" accuracy means? No, probably not. It's science/engineering
terminology.
Bwahahahahahahahaha. I must have missed this in my days as an aerospace
engineer.
The point was that you changed the numbers to suit your argument.
Ray Fischer does that all the time, as well as changing the meaning of what
people say to suit his arguments. That is if you want to call them
arguments. He and many of the other pro-aborts, that is their trademark.
Well, I'm not going to wade into THAT pool! What's funnier is that
after I made the point that returns are not the same as taxpayers, he
still keeps making the same mistake
And $304,000,000,000 does not round
to 4,000,000,000, does it?
So, you want to be a pendantic *****, eh?
Is that your way of admitting that you fucked up? Or did I miss the
class in engineering school where 3.04 rounded to 4.00?
No, that would mean he would have to be honest. And Ray Fischer is never
honest.
And he's belligerant. It's a wonderful combo. Loons like this don't
come along too often.
Using your numbers of $304B and 130M taxpayers my ballpark figure was
not off by a factor of 6 to 7, or even a factor of 4 as you claimed,
but by less than 2.
You aren't bright, are you? There were 130M returns, not 130M
taxpayers. But I pointed this out before.
So using YOUR numbers who was closer to the truth? You or me?
Me. Can't admit you fucked up, can you?
that would require him to be honest.
Goes without saying.
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US economy fucked |
18 Jul 2003 01:28:15 AM |
|
|
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CJS <BIG@MEANIE.COM> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
With the fact that Bush isn't giving
billions, let alone hundreds of billions, to his "rich friends."
When Bush took office there was a surplus in the federal budget.
It's now a record deficit.
You do realize that, regardless of any tax cuts, expenses rise and
receipts fall during a downturn, yes?
Not just a deficit, the biggest deficit on record. $4,000 for every
taxpayer in the country.
You're off by a factor of 4,
Nope. 100,000,000 taxpayers, $400,000,000,000 deficit. The IRS says
130,904,889, but I'm rounding to single digit accuracy.
A 30% difference is not rounding.
Of course it is. Don't you know what "rounding to single digit
accuracy" accuracy means? No, probably not. It's science/engineering
terminology.
Bwahahahahahahahaha. I must have missed this in my days as an aerospace
engineer.
Snicker. Economist, engineer...
Any other ***** claims you'd care to make?
The point was that you changed the numbers to suit your argument.
You're lying.
And $304,000,000,000 does not round
to 4,000,000,000, does it?
So, you want to be a pendantic *****, eh?
Is that your way of admitting that you fucked up?
Acutally the latest numbers from the White House show a deficit of
$455,000,000,000 and not the $304B ***** you cited. That's up from
the $405,000,000,000 that was projected just a few months ago.
So, in fact, the deficit for just this year is about $4000 per
taxpayer.
Where, pray tell, does the money go?
$100,000,000,000 is going to destroy and then rebuild Iraq.
Bzzzzzt. Does money spent on a tank "disappear"?
It does if that tank or missile or jet or bomb is destroyed.
Really? The people at General Dynamics might be amazed to hear that?
If you pay for two tanks and end up with just one, then where did the
money for the second tank go?
Into the economy. Salaries, raw material purchases, etc.
ROFL! So according to you war is good and stealing is good because
the money spent to replace the lost goods is good.
Not a good reader, are you? We were talking about money disappearing.
No, YOU were talking about money disappearing. I was referring to
destroyed capita.
The labor and material used to produce the tank are destroyed.
Gone.
And?
Damn you're a stupid *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
