The good news for me is that I hear from one of your previous posts that you're so old that you have one foot in the grave...so you'll no longer need to listen to my ramblings in a few
edit: it must be lonely in your old folks home
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is there any way to short the Romney Campaign?
- Thread starter Hoofhearted
- Start date
The good news for me is that I hear from one of your previous posts that you're so old that you have one foot in the grave...so you'll no longer need to listen to my ramblings in a few
edit: it must be lonely in your old folks home
Quote from oldtime:
ok, I'll acknowledege it (just for the sake of discussion) I don't know where the other trillions go, I never see what it buys. As far as I know, all the government does is build roads and have Military parades.
Well, it looks like "Military Parades" is a ~$400 million dollar line item, so that only leaves ~$999.6 billion in non-road spending to account for.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/electio...cle_e36094cd-7021-5eda-b949-c19cf2612859.html
The discussion hinges on the concept of public goods. What are they and what are they not.
Since "roads" and "military" have been universally acknowledged as public goods since the times of the Greeks and the Romans, it's time to move the discussion toward other spending.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a good organization to check out if you want the dirty details on spending line-item by line-item.
kind of hard to waste money if you don't have any to waste. If they don't raise taxes soon, the government will run out of money to waste. So it's a moot point. Nothing will change until somebody runs out of money. So it's a prop bet. "Who will run out of money first? The Government or the Taxpayer?"Quote from logic_man:
Well, it looks like "Military Parades" is a ~$400 million dollar line item, so that only leaves ~$999.6 billion in non-road spending to account for.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/electio...cle_e36094cd-7021-5eda-b949-c19cf2612859.html
The discussion hinges on the concept of public goods. What are they and what are they not.
Since "roads" and "military" have been universally acknowledged as public goods since the times of the Greeks and the Romans, it's time to move the discussion toward other spending.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a good organization to check out if you want the dirty details on spending line-item by line-item.
yes, I am extremely lonely, that's why I post on ET. What's your excuse?Quote from HurricaneUS:
The good news for me is that I hear from one of your previous posts that you're so old that you have one foot in the grave...so you'll no longer need to listen to my ramblings in a few
edit: it must be lonely in your old folks home
Quote from oldtime:
yes, I am extremely lonely, that's why I post on ET. What's your excuse?
Damn,...you've made 21 posts already today. Pathetic loser.
Sorry, buy I don't converse with blatantly obvious losers like yourself because you don't have anything to offer and you're simply wasting air.
Don't bother responding.
Quote from oldtime:
kind of hard to waste money if you don't have any to waste. If they don't raise taxes soon, the government will run out of money to waste. So it's a moot point. Nothing will change until somebody runs out of money. So it's a prop bet. "Who will run out of money first? The Government or the Taxpayer?"
The OECD did a survey of a number of countries which faced the need to raise taxes and cut spending in light of financial crises and a rise in debt/GDP ratios where the US is at now.
The data suggested that the optimal mix of tax hikes to spending cuts was on the order of $1 in hikes for every $6 in spending cuts. That seems about right to me.
So, if the Dems want to put a proposal on the table in about those ratios of hikes to cuts, that would be a good start.
well you're a lot more reasonable than me. Some of us feel we are TEA, Taxed Enough Already. But I'm all for optimization. If 6 to 1 is good enough for you it's good enough for me, but I know I will feel the 1 with nothing more than a calculator, it will take a team of CPA's with advanced degrees in mathmatics to explain how the 6 is really a cut.Quote from logic_man:
The OECD did a survey of a number of countries which faced the need to raise taxes and cut spending in light of financial crises and a rise in debt/GDP ratios where the US is at now.
The data suggested that the optimal mix of tax hikes to spending cuts was on the order of $1 in hikes for every $6 in spending cuts. That seems about right to me.
So, if the Dems want to put a proposal on the table in about those ratios of hikes to cuts, that would be a good start.