TH3 Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 So much messy in this... First, it's funny reading how you don't understand the need for labels while simultaneously labeling yourself 'an independent' while also insisting the only people who are doing things wrong carry the label of "GOP." Next, you try to explain that you opted to vote for a one-term Senator who couldn't run a lemonade stand because you thought the VP choice of McCain was poor, even after finding out that the one-term senator's choice for a VP was Joe Freaking Biden? That simply doesn't sound like an 'independent' at all, but rather someone TRYING to sound like an independent. Finally, you voted for Obama a second time because Mitt Romney was talking about tax cuts? And your concern with this is that the government was already not bringing in enough money? With independents like you, who needs liberals? As someone already noted - voted for Johnson. Yes I voted for a partial term senator over a clearly experienced candidate because I thought - and this has proven to be true - that Sara Palin is batsh$%t crazy. Someone who makes such a poor choice simply to cater to a small segment does not get my vote - and as well - a heartbeat away bro - BO may not be your cup of team but SP running this country I could not fathom. Again - voted for JOHNSON not BO in 2012. Yes I am concerned that - at the time - the govt did not bring in enough money. During the Bush years revenues were down to 15 percent of GDP and spending was over 20. There is nothing conservative about this - just fiscally irresponsible. Federal spending will never be 15 percent GDP. As as far as indexing the govt revenues to GDP -that is the way most economists look at it - what else do you want to do? Most federal expenses are SS/MC/Defense - what over 80 percent of the budget - so if you want govt to be smaller please have the GOP tell me how they are going to make these programs smaller AND pass that legislation - and yes I have been reviewing the current budget process and am disappointed that the GOP can't just be realistic with the american people - its all they want and it would go over well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 As someone already noted - voted for Johnson. Yes I voted for a partial term senator over a clearly experienced candidate because I thought - and this has proven to be true - that Sara Palin is batsh$%t crazy. Someone who makes such a poor choice simply to cater to a small segment does not get my vote - and as well - a heartbeat away bro - BO may not be your cup of team but SP running this country I could not fathom. Again - voted for JOHNSON not BO in 2012. Yes I am concerned that - at the time - the govt did not bring in enough money. During the Bush years revenues were down to 15 percent of GDP and spending was over 20. There is nothing conservative about this - just fiscally irresponsible. Federal spending will never be 15 percent GDP. As as far as indexing the govt revenues to GDP -that is the way most economists look at it - what else do you want to do? Most federal expenses are SS/MC/Defense - what over 80 percent of the budget - so if you want govt to be smaller please have the GOP tell me how they are going to make these programs smaller AND pass that legislation - and yes I have been reviewing the current budget process and am disappointed that the GOP can't just be realistic with the american people - its all they want and it would go over well. That's not an answer to my question. Why should the size of government be indexed to economic growth? Our GDP is roughly 16.8T. If government expendatures were 17% of that figure, amounting to 2.85T, and the government met all of it's obligations using that 2.85T, why do they need more? If GDP is 17.1T next year, why does the government need to grow in accordance with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 That's not an answer to my question. Why should the size of government be indexed to economic growth? Our GDP is roughly 16.8T. If government expendatures were 17% of that figure, amounting to 2.85T, and the government met all of it's obligations using that 2.85T, why do they need more? If GDP is 17.1T next year, why does the government need to grow in accordance with that? Because the GDP rose because the government spent the $2.85T which was likely more than the year before. So in order for GDP growth to continue the government needs more money to drive that growth. [/gator] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Glenn Beck says Obamacare has a new customer... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/24/obamacare-has-a-new-customer-ted-cruz/ Just thought this was kind of funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Glenn Beck says Obamacare has a new customer... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/24/obamacare-has-a-new-customer-ted-cruz/ Just thought this was kind of funny. I imagine that Cruz and his wife have more than enough money between them to cover all their costs out of pocket, so my guess is that he's planning on using his family's 'membership' as a source for 'first-hand horror stories' in his run to repeal it. But you're right, it is kind of funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 That's not an answer to my question. Why should the size of government be indexed to economic growth? Our GDP is roughly 16.8T. If government expendatures were 17% of that figure, amounting to 2.85T, and the government met all of it's obligations using that 2.85T, why do they need more? If GDP is 17.1T next year, why does the government need to grow in accordance with that? Because they go hand in hand. It's sort of like your earning being related to the size of your mortgage. The more you make the more you can afford to spend on a house or land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Because they go hand in hand. It's sort of like your earning being related to the size of your mortgage. The more you make the more you can afford to spend on a house or land Explain how they "go hand in hand". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Explain how they "go hand in hand". It's simple, the more money you earn the more money the bond market is willing to lend at lower interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 It's simple, the more money you earn the more money the bond market is willing to lend at lower interest. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 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. Its helping spread the wealth without raising taxes. Win-win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Its helping spread the wealth without raising taxes. Win-win That's a non-sequitur. It's also not an argument as to why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 That's a non-sequitur. It's also not an argument as to why. If everyone understood how the system worked they would agree with me and not with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 If everyone understood how the system worked they would agree with me and not with you. You haven't yet explained why you agree with you. It's awfully premature to say others should or would, in that light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 You haven't yet explained why you agree with you. It's awfully premature to say others should or would, in that light. You didn't understand the "win-win" comment??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 You didn't understand the "win-win" comment??? "Win-win" is a declaration, not an explaination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 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. But with the baby boomers, veterans problems and other issue, they actually do need to increase borrowing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 But with the baby boomers, veterans problems and other issue, they actually do need to increase borrowing So when you have a company and you have a P&L problem is the only course of action to increase sales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I wanna be a BIRTHER .... sorry couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 But with the baby boomers, veterans problems and other issue, they actually do need to increase borrowing Why are you confusing borrowing with spending a higher percentage of GDP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I wanna be a BIRTHER .... sorry couldn't resist Go for it. Will mock the crap out of you like we did the right wing crazy birthers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts