Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Growth is basically earning?? Uhhhh, no. Economic growth does not equal higher earnings? Really? lol While that's true in a vaacum, it's an incomplete statement. Given various economic conditions, it can increase taxes. It also ignores the notion that current spending levels, much less increased spending, may well be unsustainable and economically irresponsible policy. Unsustainable? What do you base this upon? Can you give us some serious numbers and analysis? I hope you are wrong but I'm open to hear your argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Economic growth does not equal higher earnings? Really? lol No. Once again what have the US "earnings" been the past several years? Zero. Has our GDP grown over that time? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Economic growth does not equal higher earnings? Really? lol What's the source of the government's earnings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 What's the source of the government's earnings? Taxes and fees No. Once again what have the US "earnings" been the past several years? Zero. Has our GDP grown over that time? Yes. Zero? The government hasn't taken in any money. What in the f*** are you talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Unsustainable? What do you base this upon? Can you give us some serious numbers and analysis? I hope you are wrong but I'm open to hear your argument Our debt already exceeds our GDP. Taking both that, as well as the inevitability of rising interest rates, most economists agree that the cost of our debt service alone will exceed our entire defense budget. When interest rates go up, so does the cost of servicing both new debt and debt that is rolled over in the form of newly-issued Treasury securities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Taxes and fees Zero? The government hasn't taken in any money. What in the f*** are you talking about Taxes and fees aren't earnings. Care to guess why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Our debt already exceeds our GDP. Taking both that, as well as the inevitability of rising interest rates, most economists agree that the cost of our debt service alone will exceed our entire defense budget. When interest rates go up, so does the cost of servicing both new debt and debt that is rolled over in the form of newly-issued Treasury securities. Most economists?? That should be linked And, when interest rates do go up it will most likely be accompined by an economic expansion with less borrowing making the servicing of the old debt easier. The old debt will also shrink in proportion to the size of the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 And, when interest rates do go up it will most likely be accompined by an economic expansion with less borrowing making the servicing of the old debt easier. The old debt will also shrink in proportion to the size of the economy You're a !@#$ing moron. Where did you learn fiscal policy? Archie comic books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Taxes and fees Zero? The government hasn't taken in any money. What in the f*** are you talking about No we're focusing on your idiotic use of the term earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 No we're focusing on your idiotic use of the term earnings. Although to be honest, his use of the terms "assets" and "worth" were an order of magnitude more idiotic. It's perfectly understandable why I'd go straight to FICO when someone talks about credit ratings being based on "worth." 'Cause who the hell would hear "worth" or "assets" and think "government debt?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Although to be honest, his use of the terms "assets" and "worth" were an order of magnitude more idiotic. It's perfectly understandable why I'd go straight to FICO when someone talks about credit ratings being based on "worth." 'Cause who the hell would hear "worth" or "assets" and think "government debt?" Who indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 No we're focusing on your idiotic use of the term earnings. So you are playing a stupid gotcha game and have no clue of the overall topic which you can care less about. You are a waste of time Although to be honest, his use of the terms "assets" and "worth" were an order of magnitude more idiotic. It's perfectly understandable why I'd go straight to FICO when someone talks about credit ratings being based on "worth." 'Cause who the hell would hear "worth" or "assets" and think "government debt?" Obfuscating away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 So you are playing a stupid gotcha game and have no clue of the overall topic which you can care less about. You are a waste of time Obfuscating away.... It's not obfuscation just because you don't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 It's not obfuscation just because you don't understand it. That's more obfuscating! You are running in circles chasing your tail. You are also a pathetic moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) I have to say I admire gatorman's fearlessness. Albeit ill advised. Pathetically over matched like any 80s Mike Tyson opponent only equipped with the inability to get knocked out or good sense to quit after being repeatedly bludgeoned. Depending on what state your in this "fight" would have been stopped by the 3 knockdown rule or by the mercy and judgement of the ref. Keep at it gatorman Edited March 26, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 So you are playing a stupid gotcha game and have no clue of the overall topic which you can care less about. You are a waste of time It is a stupid gotcha game because you're so easily gotten. At what rate are the US earnings taxed at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I have to say I admire gatorman's fearlessness. Albeit ill advised. Pathetically over matched like any 80s Mike Tyson opponent only equipped with the inability to get knocked out or good sense to quit after being repeatedly bludgeoned. Depending on what state your in this "fight" would have been stopped by the 3 knockdown rule or by the mercy and judgement of the ref. Keep at it gatorman On what point did those clowns get me on? Tom loves that you cheer his idiocy on though It is a stupid gotcha game because you're so easily gotten. At what rate are the US earnings taxed at? You really are a complete idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) And, when interest rates do go up it will most likely be accompined by an economic expansion with less borrowing making the servicing of the old debt easier. The old debt will also shrink in proportion to the size of the economy The service on our debt today is around 260B, which is roughly what it was in 2006, even though our debt has grown substantially over the last 9 years. The driving force behind that is the rate of interest we are paying. We are currently paying 0.01% on 3 month T-bills and 2.98% on ten year notes; while historically those rates are closer to 3.3% and 5.2% respectively. When rates normalize, the cost to service will be astronomical; and prohibitive to new borrowing. However, if our government insists on continuing it's spending trends, that money will have to come from somewhere. A levy of new taxes, used to cover the spending gap will depress the economy. So no, interest rates going up are not likely to be accompanied by economic expansion. Edited March 26, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 You really are a complete idiot Am I the one that said the US government has earnings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Am I the one that said the US government has earnings? Don't forget "worth." That's more obfuscating! You are running in circles chasing your tail. What am I obfuscating? I'm QUOTING you, dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Am I the one that said the US government has earnings?So you are just quibbling over words? If I said revenue you'd be happy? Don't forget "worth." What am I obfuscating? I'm QUOTING you, dumbass. i brought up FICO?? God you are easy The service on our debt today is around 260B, which is roughly what it was in 2006, even though our debt has grown substantially over the last 9 years. The driving force behind that is the rate of interest we are paying. We are currently paying 0.01% on 3 month T-bills and 2.98% on ten year notes; while historically those rates are closer to 3.3% and 5.2% respectively. When rates normalize, the cost to service will be astronomical; and prohibitive to new borrowing. However, if our government insists on continuing it's spending trends, that money will have to come from somewhere. A levy of new taxes, used to cover the spending gap will depress the economy. So no, interest rates going up are not likely to be accompanied by economic expansion. So what do you think will happen? Will we slash Medicare and veterans benefits - and the military to pay for all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 So you are just quibbling over words? If I said revenue you'd be happy? i brought up FICO?? God you are easy Assets, worth, potential earnings...asking you what the hell you think earnings are isn't obfuscation, you ass. It's attempting to correct your egregious ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Assets, worth, potential earnings...asking you what the hell you think earnings are isn't obfuscation, you ass. It's attempting to correct your egregious ignorance.No, I was making basic comparisons that you then attempted to obfuscate by making concrete and specific examples with. It's like me saying the earth and the moon are both planets and you screaming like an idiot that the earth has an atmosphere. Just sh. It like that. You suck ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 No, I was making basic comparisons that you then attempted to obfuscate by making concrete and specific examples with. It's like me saying the earth and the moon are both planets and you screaming like an idiot that the earth has an atmosphere. Just sh. It like that. You suck ass ... I'm not even sure what to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 ... I'm not even sure what to say... Have a drink and thank god you are not gatorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 ... I'm not even sure what to say... I like the part about 'obfuscating with concrete and specific examples'.....I've never heard anyone accused of muddying the waters with specifics before. It's also amusing that he thinks that the moon is a planet. The man is a virtual non-sequitur machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 So you are just quibbling over words? If I said revenue you'd be happy? Happy? Sorry son, I don't need you to make me happy. However it's too late to try and get any credibility back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 No, I was making basic comparisons that you then attempted to obfuscate by making concrete and specific examples with. It's like me saying the earth and the moon are both planets and you screaming like an idiot that the earth has an atmosphere. Just sh. It like that. You suck ass No, I'd say the moon is a satellite, not a planet, because the definition of "sattelite" is an object that orbits a planet where the center of mass of the two objects is inside the planet. If the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system were outside the Earth, then the moon would be considered a planet. The reason I bring this up is to illustrate that words have meanings that are often very specific. Words like "planet" and "moon"...and "resources" and "worth" and "earnings." And before you use them, you should learn what they mean so you use them properly and don't make stupid statements where you confuse tax revenue with "earnings," or bloviate about some bull **** abstraction of a government's "worth." When you abuse the language like it's a ten year old boy at Penn State, asking you to define the words you're misusing isn't obfuscation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Obfuscating away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I like the part about 'obfuscating with concrete and specific examples'.....I've never heard anyone accused of muddying the waters with specifics before. "Stop trying to confuse my point with details!" A reasonably not-stupid person would have at least accused me of making a straw-man argument. It would still be stupid, since I'm not arguing from a fallacy or relevance, but from his fallacy that he knows what he's talking about. But it would still be far less stupid than accusing me of "fallacy of obfuscation by specificity." Such a useful fallacy, though... "The Bills beat the Patriots at the end of last season." "No, they didn't! The Pats won! They were the better team!" "But the score was 17-9, Bills." "Stop obfuscating with specifics! The Pats won!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 What? The more who earns? Besides, that's not what I'm getting at. The reason statists attempt a government spending as a percentage of GDP argument, when the two need not be related, is because an industrialized economy, over time, will always grow; and those statists know that such a link guarentees the growth of government. Including all waste spending, our government was fully funded to meet all of it's obligations last year. It doesn't need an increased % of GDP to meet this year's obligations. The only reason it should be indexed, the only reason, is because we need 15% to fund then governemt, and we can bring in 20%, the extra 5 should go to paying back what we've spent that we didn't have... Under no circumstances should it be indexed and spending be created to meet the increase. But let's be honest, that 5 perecent would go to new spending, and that's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 Don t understand your numbers. How was was the govt fully funded last year and where did 15 come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 No, I'd say the moon is a satellite, not a planet, because the definition of "sattelite" is an object that orbits a planet where the center of mass of the two objects is inside the planet. If the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system were outside the Earth, then the moon would be considered a planet. The reason I bring this up is to illustrate that words have meanings that are often very specific. Words like "planet" and "moon"...and "resources" and "worth" and "earnings." And before you use them, you should learn what they mean so you use them properly and don't make stupid statements where you confuse tax revenue with "earnings," or bloviate about some bull **** abstraction of a government's "worth." When you abuse the language like it's a ten year old boy at Penn State, asking you to define the words you're misusing isn't obfuscation either. Funny! And I'd say the Earth is a satellite. Ok. And you are an idiot. You say "words" have meaning, but what your ignorant self meant to say was that definitions have meaning. But what's really true is that definitions, and words, have different interpretations and you like to exploit that fact to drag any and every conversation down the rabbit hole so you little creepy butt lickers like meaza and azalia--are they your little satellites?, tee hee-- and the rest and jump in, having no idea at all what's going on except that Tom is in trouble. And so yes, the American economy has, GASP!!! Worth! It really does Tom. And bond buyers see that and trust that so they buy the bonds. I like the part about 'obfuscating with concrete and specific examples'.....I've never heard anyone accused of muddying the waters with specifics before. It's also amusing that he thinks that the moon is a planet. The man is a virtual non-sequitur machine. That's the problem with you Tom satellites, everything needs to be explained so slowly. You understand the difference between generalizations and specific comparisons? Do you get that a dog and a cat are different, but they share similarities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 "The Bills beat the Patriots at the end of last season." "No, they didn't! The Pats won! They were the better team!" "But the score was 17-9, Bills." "Stop obfuscating with specifics! The Pats won!" .. I think it would probably look a little more like this: "The Bills beat the Patriots at the end of last season." "No, they didn't! The Pats won! They were the better team!" "But the score was 17-9, Bills." "Stop obfuscating with specifics! The Pats won, you poop head!" That's the problem with you Tom satellites, everything needs to be explained so slowly. You understand the difference between generalizations and specific comparisons? Do you get that a dog and a cat are different, but they share similarities? They're similar in that they are significantly more intelligent than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Funny! And I'd say the Earth is a satellite. Ok. And you are an idiot. You say "words" have meaning, but what your ignorant self meant to say was that definitions have meaning. But what's really true is that definitions, and words, have different interpretations and you like to exploit that fact to drag any and every conversation down the rabbit hole so you little creepy butt lickers like meaza and azalia--are they your little satellites?, tee hee-- and the rest and jump in, having no idea at all what's going on except that Tom is in trouble. And so yes, the American economy has, GASP!!! Worth! It really does Tom. And bond buyers see that and trust that so they buy the bonds. That's the problem with you Tom satellites, everything needs to be explained so slowly. You understand the difference between generalizations and specific comparisons? Do you get that a dog and a cat are different, but they share similarities? You're trying to retrieve you irretrievably stupid argument by engaging me in an epistemological argument over the meaning of meaning? Okay. Words have meaning, because as symbols used to convey knowledge, they represent information abstracted according to a common understanding of the parties involved in that conveyance. For example: the symbol "2" is commonly understood to represent an incrementation value zero, followed by another incrementation (i.e. start at zero, add 1, and add 1 again). If you come along and say "2" is a symbol representing an incrementation from zero, followed by another, followed by another...you are using the symbol "2" in a manner that is not commonly understood. This nature of a symbol being used to convey information according to common understanding is usually referred to as "right." The opposite - a symbol being used to convey information in a manner that differs from common understanding - is referred to as "wrong." And when you are wrong - i.e., when you use a symbol to convey information in a manner contrary to common understanding - if people are kind (like me), they'll request that you clarify the information you are trying (and failing) to convey. If they're not kind, they'll just laugh at you. I know that's a lot of big words for you...but it was the best I could do. But the symbolic logic and group theory I started with was so concrete and specific that I'm sure it would have been "obfuscating" to you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 The only reason it should be indexed, the only reason, is because we need 15% to fund then governemt, and we can bring in 20%, the extra 5 should go to paying back what we've spent that we didn't have... Under no circumstances should it be indexed and spending be created to meet the increase. But let's be honest, that 5 perecent would go to new spending, and that's the problem. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 You're trying to retrieve you irretrievably stupid argument by engaging me in an epistemological argument over the meaning of meaning? the information you are trying (and failing) to convey. If they're not kind, they'll just laugh at you. I know that's a lot of big words for you...but it was the best I could do. But the symbolic logic and group theory I started with was so concrete and specific that I'm sure it would have been "obfuscating" to you... I'm not trying to retrieve anything. You are the one wasting your time blathering on about nothing. Oh no! Big words! Sorry, didn't bother reading all your complete bull sh it--you get that phrase, right? I've no need to. You just keep on going down your obfuscating rabbit hole you jerk and have fun there. I think it would probably look a little more like this: "The Bills beat the Patriots at the end of last season." "No, they didn't! The Pats won! They were the better team!" "But the score was 17-9, Bills." "Stop obfuscating with specifics! The Pats won, you poop head!" They're similar in that they are significantly more intelligent than you. I don't get posters like you. You have nothing to say but to echo Tom. Its like you are his little cling-on. Does he throw the ball for you to fetch, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I don't get posters like you. You have nothing to say but to echo Tom. Its like you are his little cling-on. Does he throw the ball for you to fetch, too? You don't get much of anything, do you? And you say the same thing to anyone who either disagrees with you or makes fun of you, which is just about everyone. But by all means, keep posting. You apparently have no idea how entertaining you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I'm not trying to retrieve anything. You are the one wasting your time blathering on about nothing. Oh no! Big words! Sorry, didn't bother reading all your complete bull sh it--you get that phrase, right? I've no need to. You just keep on going down your obfuscating rabbit hole you jerk and have fun there. I don't get posters like you. You have nothing to say but to echo Tom. Its like you are his little cling-on. Does he throw the ball for you to fetch, too? There is merit, lot's in fact, to admitting you were wrong, and learning something from this process. There is no merit, at all, to what you're doing; which begs the question: why are you doing this? Edited March 27, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 There is merit, lot's in fact, to admitting you were wrong, and learning something from this process. There is no merit, at all, to what you're doing; which begs the question: why are you doing this? Wrong about what? In replying to you about GDP and debt? You even changed your argument from a moral one to an economic one. Have to say I liked your economic one better. I'd really like to address that actually, but if you want to say what I was wrong about I'd like to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts