Math question for libs.

chickaree wrote:

bailey bud wrote: If my credit report showed a steadily increasing level of debt - my credit rating would get a downgrade.

That's what I simply don't get about the US Debt ----

There's absolutely no way this kind of crazy spending (and minimal revenue) can be sustained.

Spending needs to go down - and revenues need to go up.

(I feel the President seems to understand this better than the Speaker)

Have to reluctantly agree with you here. What are these buffoons thinking?! It's a sad state of affairs when liberals seem to have a better grasp of fiscal responsibility than "conservatives". First and foremost, you pay your bills and meet your responsibilities. I'm still hoping that they've hammered out a steely deal and are just putting on a kabuki dance for the wingnuts.

I agree too...

That was the worst problem with the Bush presidency... He never "got it" that spending needed to go down while REVENUES needed to go up. The two unnecessary wars were "off the books", as well as the $700 BILLION prescription drug benefit... He cut taxes, which of course, thrilled his base and the [job creators] (who never created any jobs)...But he never balanced his spending with the necessary revenue to balance it out.

It's too bad the President and the Democrats "get it" better than the wingnuts do.

The DEA and DHS are good examples of organizations that "create" jobs without delivering value proportional with cost.

(nor do I see value with agriculture police shutting down milk farms for shipping raw milk to customers across state lines).

I don't mind government when it creates value (a road, for example - generally has some value).

It's all the mindless, unproductive bunk that drives me nuts (and makes the country broke).

LadyJazzer wrote: I agree too...

That was the worst problem with the Bush presidency... He never "got it" that spending needed to go down while REVENUES needed to go up. The two unnecessary wars were "off the books", as well as the $700 BILLION prescription drug benefit... He cut taxes, which of course, thrilled his base and the [job creators] (who never created any jobs)...But he never balanced his spending with the necessary revenue to balance it out.

It's too bad the President and the Democrats "get it" better than the wingnuts do.

Well just to clarify, most everyone supported going to Afghanistan, and the Iraq vote was even pretty close for the Dems (most supported it in the Senate).

And while it was wrong not to fund it, Bush's "$700 billion" drug benefit has been very popular with seniors. And it wasn't really $700 billion to begin with, that didn't include revenues from premiums and states. It was closer to $550 billion.

And while Medicare and Social Security costs keep escalating, and the CBO estimates for the end of the trust fund keeps moving closer, Bush's drug benefit cost has been way below initial cost estimates. Right now it looks like the 10 year cost for it will be in the upper $300 billion range. It looks like having choices among plans and creating competition among insurance companies has helped keep costs down, unlike Medicare's model of one plan for all and price controls.

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

chickaree wrote: I agree too...

That was the worst problem with the Bush presidency... He never "got it" that spending needed to go down while REVENUES needed to go up. The two unnecessary wars were "off the books", as well as the $700 BILLION prescription drug benefit... He cut taxes, which of course, thrilled his base and the [job creators] (who never created any jobs)...But he never balanced his spending with the necessary revenue to balance it out.

It's too bad the President and the Democrats "get it" better than the wingnuts do.

Well just to clarify, most everyone supported going to Afghanistan, and the Iraq vote was even pretty close for the Dems (most supported it in the Senate).

And while it was wrong not to fund it, Bush's "$700 billion drug benefit has been very popular with seniors. And it wasn't really $700 billion to begin with, that didn't include revenues from premiums and states. It was closer to $550 billion.

And while Medicare and Social Security costs keep escalating, and the CBO estimates for the end of the trust fund keeps moving closer, Bush's drug benefit cost has been way below initial cost estimates. Right now it looks like the 10 year cost for it will be in the upper $300 billion range. It looks like having choices among plans and creating competition among insurance companies has helped keep costs down, unlike Medicare's model of one plan for all and price controls.

Umm, I think you messed up the quote boxes here.

chickaree wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

chickaree wrote: I agree too...

That was the worst problem with the Bush presidency... He never "got it" that spending needed to go down while REVENUES needed to go up. The two unnecessary wars were "off the books", as well as the $700 BILLION prescription drug benefit... He cut taxes, which of course, thrilled his base and the [job creators] (who never created any jobs)...But he never balanced his spending with the necessary revenue to balance it out.

It's too bad the President and the Democrats "get it" better than the wingnuts do.

Well just to clarify, most everyone supported going to Afghanistan, and the Iraq vote was even pretty close for the Dems (most supported it in the Senate).
Umm, I think you messed up the quote boxes there.....
And while it was wrong not to fund it, Bush's "$700 billion" drug benefit has been very popular with seniors. And it wasn't really $700 billion to begin with, that didn't include revenues from premiums and states. It was closer to $550 billion.

And while Medicare and Social Security costs keep escalating, and the CBO estimates for the end of the trust fund keeps moving closer, Bush's drug benefit cost has been way below initial cost estimates. Right now it looks like the 10 year cost for it will be in the upper $300 billion range. It looks like having choices among plans and creating competition among insurance companies has helped keep costs down, unlike Medicare's model of one plan for all and price controls.

Umm, I think you messed up the quote boxes here.

Oops! Sorry, I'll fix that booboo...

chickaree wrote:

bailey bud wrote: If my credit report showed a steadily increasing level of debt - my credit rating would get a downgrade.

That's what I simply don't get about the US Debt ----

There's absolutely no way this kind of crazy spending (and minimal revenue) can be sustained.

Spending needs to go down - and revenues need to go up.

(I feel the President seems to understand this better than the Speaker)

Have to reluctantly agree with you here. What are these buffoons thinking?! It's a sad state of affairs when liberals seem to have a better grasp of fiscal responsibility than "conservatives". First and foremost, you pay your bills and meet your responsibilities. I'm still hoping that they've hammered out a steely deal and are just putting on a kabuki dance for the wingnuts.

According to the president, whom you feel has a better understanding, the only way to increase revenue is to increase taxes. What is also true is that raising taxes historically fails to raise the promised revenue from the tax increases. The luxury tax on yachts and autos that broke "Read My Lips" not only failed to raise the anticipated revenue the Democrats said it would, it resulted in a loss of revenue elsewhere as thousands of the workers that supported the newly taxed purchases suddenly found themselves out of a job due to declining sales. Think a repeat of that scenario is a good reason to do the same today?

Speaking of "Read My Lips", did we ever see the $3 reduction in spending for every $1 that was supposed to be realized from the new taxes? Of course not, and we won't this time around either unless and until we limit the percentage of the national production available for the wannabe national government to spend. The judicial coup that FDR and Congress accomplished 75 years ago essentially removed any limits on the reach of the federal government, any limits to their power and any limits on how much taxation they could subject the citizens of the states to. Only by capping their take of the national production in the future have we now any chance of stopping this runaway federal spending train. Other than that, you can bet your bottom dollar that a decade from now they will be spending not 15%, or 18%, or even 25% - it will be at least 33% and climbing. How long until we are the next Greece, or even worse, the next Rome?

There was no "coup", but thanks for playing.

Sure is a good thing we're not talking about a 10% luxury tax on yachts... Just proposing that guys who own them, who are in the upper 2% income bracket, go back to the pre-Bush rates which would be 3.6% more ONLY ON THE AMOUNT ABOVE $136,000... Whoa, what a hardship.

archer wrote: Doncha just love statistics .....you can make the numbers say anything you want......which is why I usually just pass over such stuff. I guess my math minor has made a skeptic out of me. It's too easy to pick and choose which numbers to use, and how to present them that they are rarely reliable. Kinda like polling numbers.

Do you even know what a statistic is? This was just raw unadulterated data, just plotted on a chart.

conifermtman wrote:

archer wrote: Doncha just love statistics .....you can make the numbers say anything you want......which is why I usually just pass over such stuff. I guess my math minor has made a skeptic out of me. It's too easy to pick and choose which numbers to use, and how to present them that they are rarely reliable. Kinda like polling numbers.

Do you even know what a statistic is? This was just raw unadulterated data, just plotted on a chart.

Yep...give 3 people that raw data and they will produce 3 different charts proving 3 different things. That's the beauty of numbers. But you knew that....or should know that.

And what is beyond arguing is that the most consistent data to use is the percentage of GDP that the federal budget represents. Not the number of dollars earned in profit, not the dollars of revenue "lost" to tax deductions, the tax revenue received as a percentage of the annual national production. That number, a little over 16%, is within historical norms post WWII. What is out of whack is the percentage of the national production represented by the DC spending - now consistently between 23% and 25%, a full 5% more than even LBJ was spending during the enactment of his "Great Society" and 15% more than FDR was spending at the height of his New Deal Legislation. It is an even greater percentage of national GDP than Ronald Reagan, that horrible deficit fiend, was spending when he was the driving force of all that was wrong with this nation. Bush? That blubbering economic idiot was spending 4% - 5% less of GDP than the current petulant economic idiot is spending.