Is there a problem in this country that Obama won't fix via more spending?

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice dance, CSG- the fact remains that revenue reduction has the same effect on the bottom line as increased spending. Deficits are deficits, no matter the mechanism used to achieve them...

wow...we agree

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: venkman
Your confusing cost with opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of a tax cut is the loss in revenue (and the related loss in social services) but it isn't an actual accountable cost. If you say you are cutting taxes, spending does not increase or decrease, it is just the revenue for that spending decreases and more of the difference has to be financed with borrowing.

Right. None of this matters in the slightest.

You're soaring way over the head of that legislation. The only idea in it is that if you increase spending or decrease revenues, you have to offset that somewhere else with reductions in spending. They use the word 'cost' because it is by far the most generally applicable word to the transaction that is occurring. This is a word game.

But that assumes linear changes actual reductions which is not the case. But even if it was the case it still doesn't make revenue reduction a "cost". Outlays are cost - not reduced intake.

But I do note the silence... and am not surprised.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But that assumes linear changes actual reductions which is not the case. But even if it was the case it still doesn't make revenue reduction a "cost". Outlays are cost - not reduced intake.

But I do note the silence... and am not surprised.

No, it assumes nothing of the sort. That's fine, continue to play word games.

To any rational person attempting to communicate effectively to other human beings the term 'cost' makes perfect sense in this context and conveys exactly the information that is relevant.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But that assumes linear changes actual reductions which is not the case. But even if it was the case it still doesn't make revenue reduction a "cost". Outlays are cost - not reduced intake.

Which ignores the value of and the return on expenditures that are more correctly viewed as investments that enable or directly improve commerce and productivity, including education, infrastructure, health care, REAL security and more.

The do NOT include useless "outlays" like your Traitor In Chief's criminal wars of lies. Without that POS, we'd have a lot more money for what we do need.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But that assumes linear changes actual reductions which is not the case. But even if it was the case it still doesn't make revenue reduction a "cost". Outlays are cost - not reduced intake.

Which ignores the value of and the return on expenditures that are more correctly viewed as investments that enable or directly improve commerce and productivity, including education, infrastructure, health care, REAL security and more.

The do NOT include useless "outlays" like your Traitor In Chief's criminal wars of lies. Without that POS, we'd have a lot more money for what we do need.

Return? Buahahaha..... Hasn't it been shown that it takes $2 to do $1 worth of work for the feds? Yeah, lets continue that...:roll: Anyway, that was only one small piece of what I stated and I'm quite sure you libs won't ever understand the reality of "cost" so it's pretty silly to continue down this road.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But that assumes linear changes actual reductions which is not the case. But even if it was the case it still doesn't make revenue reduction a "cost". Outlays are cost - not reduced intake.

Which ignores the value of and the return on expenditures that are more correctly viewed as investments that enable or directly improve commerce and productivity, including education, infrastructure, health care, REAL security and more.

The do NOT include useless "outlays" like your Traitor In Chief's criminal wars of lies. Without that POS, we'd have a lot more money for what we do need.

Return? Buahahaha..... Hasn't it been shown that it takes $2 to do $1 worth of work for the feds? Yeah, lets continue that...:roll: Anyway, that was only one small piece of what I stated and I'm quite sure you libs won't ever understand the reality of "cost" so it's pretty silly to continue down this road.

Does that mean youll stop posting here?

 

[Vic]

There are things government does well and there are things government doesn't do well. Our Founding Fathers knew this. We don't have a private army or postal service for example.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Return? Buahahaha..... Hasn't it been shown that it takes $2 to do $1 worth of work for the feds? Yeah, lets continue that...:roll: Anyway, that was only one small piece of what I stated and I'm quite sure you libs won't ever understand the reality of "cost" so it's pretty silly to continue down this road.

Sheeh! You don't live on a self supporting island. If you don't see the value of roads, communications, education, disease prevention, bridges, dams, etc., your mother must never have warned you that, if you don't stop it, you'll go blind!? :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic
There are things government does well and there are things government doesn't do well. Our Founding Fathers knew this. We don't have a private army or postal service for example.

That's true to an extent and there are also things the gov't are supposed to do and not supposed to do. The founding fathers knew this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
There are things government does well and there are things government doesn't do well. Our Founding Fathers knew this. We don't have a private army or postal service for example.

That's true to an extent and there are also things the gov't are supposed to do and not supposed to do. The founding fathers knew this.

Isn't that what I just said?

BTW, have you ever read Obama's book about govt.? His arguments on this particular topic are shockingly similar to those of the famous libertarian author/thinker, Robert Heinlein (who is one my heroes BTW although I don't agree with him on everything). And no, I'm not kidding. Government should include everybody in its process, and government does serve a positive function as an investment vehicle of last resort, i.e. in roads, infrastructure, and even in people during economic downtimes or when necessary. There are things that need investment that likely will not pay back except in the very long term. They should not be denied just because the quest for profits can be short-sighted. We risk our nation's future when we do that because other countries, I can assure you, are not doing the same.

Even Ayn Rand was a minarchist and believed in some government, CAD... you wouldn't play a ball game without rules and refs, would you?

And capitalism requires a middle class. Even Henry Ford, for all his love of fascism, knew this and required that all his workers make at least enough to buy his cars. It needs saying that we've lost sight of that. And I'm not talking Wal-Mart, their prices (and their products) are cheap.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
There are things government does well and there are things government doesn't do well. Our Founding Fathers knew this. We don't have a private army or postal service for example.

That's true to an extent and there are also things the gov't are supposed to do and not supposed to do. The founding fathers knew this.

Isn't that what I just said?

BTW, have you ever read Obama's book about govt.? His arguments on this particular topic are shockingly similar to those of the famous libertarian author/thinker, Robert Heinlein (who is one my heroes BTW although I don't agree with him on everything). And no, I'm not kidding. Government should include everybody in its process, and government does serve a positive function as an investment vehicle of last resort, i.e. in roads, infrastructure, and even in people during economic downtimes or when necessary. There are things that need investment that likely will not pay back except in the very long term. They should not be denied just because the quest for profits can be short-sighted. We risk our nation's future when we do that because other countries, I can assure you, are not doing the same.

Even Ayn Rand was a minarchist and believed in some government, CAD... you wouldn't play a ball game without rules and refs, would you?

And capitalism requires a middle class. Even Henry Ford, for all his love of fascism, knew this and required that all his workers make at least enough to buy his cars. It needs saying that we've lost sight of that. And I'm not talking Wal-Mart, their prices (and their products) are cheap.

No, you said they do some things well and others not so well. The other part to that is what the gov't is supposed to do and not do.
The rest of your post is a bit confusing since I haven't suggested the gov't shouldn't do those things. What exactly does all that have to do with the massive list of spending promises from BHO? No libertarian would support even half of his promises as "infrastructure" and the rest.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you said they do some things well and others not so well. The other part to that is what the gov't is supposed to do and not do.
The rest of your post is a bit confusing since I haven't suggested the gov't shouldn't do those things. What exactly does all that have to do with the massive list of spending promises from BHO? No libertarian would support even half of his promises as "infrastructure" and the rest.

No offense, CAD, (well maybe some) but you wouldn't know libertarian if it bit you on the ass.

Did you know that Robert Heinlein was a big part of EPIC?

And here's my biggest personal political hero of all time, best friend of that mega-enemy of the left, John Stossel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams.

I haven't changed, even though you appear to think so. You, my poor friend, have been brainwashed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you said they do some things well and others not so well. The other part to that is what the gov't is supposed to do and not do.
The rest of your post is a bit confusing since I haven't suggested the gov't shouldn't do those things. What exactly does all that have to do with the massive list of spending promises from BHO? No libertarian would support even half of his promises as "infrastructure" and the rest.

No offense, CAD, (well maybe some) but you wouldn't know libertarian if it bit you on the ass.

Did you know that Robert Heinlein was a big part of EPIC?

And here's my biggest personal political hero of all time, best friend of that mega-enemy of the left, John Stossel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams.

I haven't changed, even though you appear to think so. You, my poor friend, have been brainwashed.

Buahahahaha A self professed libertarian that supports Obama is trying to claim that *I* am brainwashed? :laugh:

Do you undestand what I posted or are you just trying to argue because I have targeted Oboama's enormous list of spending promises? You can have your idols but that doesn't change Obama's extremely liberal platform and promises.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you said they do some things well and others not so well. The other part to that is what the gov't is supposed to do and not do.
The rest of your post is a bit confusing since I haven't suggested the gov't shouldn't do those things. What exactly does all that have to do with the massive list of spending promises from BHO? No libertarian would support even half of his promises as "infrastructure" and the rest.

No offense, CAD, (well maybe some) but you wouldn't know libertarian if it bit you on the ass.

Did you know that Robert Heinlein was a big part of EPIC?

And here's my biggest personal political hero of all time, best friend of that mega-enemy of the left, John Stossel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams.

I haven't changed, even though you appear to think so. You, my poor friend, have been brainwashed.

Buahahahaha A self professed libertarian that supports Obama is trying to claim that *I* am brainwashed? :laugh:

Do you undestand what I posted or are you just trying to argue because I have targeted Oboama's enormous list of spending promises? You can have your idols but that doesn't change Obama's extremely liberal platform and promises.

Okay... you clearly didn't read what I posted...

Couple of newflashes here for ya... libertarianism has always been a "ground up" ideology. Those weren't rich folks telling Jean-Baptiste Colbert to "leave us alone," those were ordinary businessmen struggling to make a living.
Second, and this has already been discussed ad naseum in this thread and despite your protests, any "enormous list of spending promises" would be a dramatic cut in spending compared to Bush and McCain.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, you said they do some things well and others not so well. The other part to that is what the gov't is supposed to do and not do.
The rest of your post is a bit confusing since I haven't suggested the gov't shouldn't do those things. What exactly does all that have to do with the massive list of spending promises from BHO? No libertarian would support even half of his promises as "infrastructure" and the rest.

No offense, CAD, (well maybe some) but you wouldn't know libertarian if it bit you on the ass.

Did you know that Robert Heinlein was a big part of EPIC?

And here's my biggest personal political hero of all time, best friend of that mega-enemy of the left, John Stossel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams.

I haven't changed, even though you appear to think so. You, my poor friend, have been brainwashed.

Buahahahaha A self professed libertarian that supports Obama is trying to claim that *I* am brainwashed? :laugh:

Do you undestand what I posted or are you just trying to argue because I have targeted Oboama's enormous list of spending promises? You can have your idols but that doesn't change Obama's extremely liberal platform and promises.

Okay... you clearly didn't read what I posted...

Couple of newflashes here for ya... libertarianism has always been a "ground up" ideology. Those weren't rich folks telling Jean-Baptiste Colbert to "leave us alone," those were ordinary businessmen struggling to make a living.
Second, and this has already been discussed ad naseum in this thread and despite your protests, any "enormous list of spending promises" would be a dramatic cut in spending compared to Bush and McCain.

Again, your libertarian diatribe has nothing to do with this.

Also, it's beyond naive to think/claim that Obama's enormous list of spending promises would be a cut in spending. Hello? He wants to add MORE spending to what is already being done.

....and to think you were trying to claim I was brainwashed... sheesh.

 

[sandmanwake]

Better to tax and spend than borrow and spend.