Lookin' For That Apology...

[PoliticalChic]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You're looking at it all wrong.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government. That it became harder for the country's production - aka GDP - to generate tax revenues AFTER the tax cuts cited PROVES that the conservative theory that lowering taxes generates more revenue is baloney.

"...how much the government has to produce..."

OMG.

 

[daveman]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You're looking at it all wrong.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government. That it became harder for the country's production - aka GDP - to generate tax revenues AFTER the tax cuts cited PROVES that the conservative theory that lowering taxes generates more revenue is baloney.

"...how much the government has to produce..."

OMG.

Scary, innit?

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. Progressivism is something many people outgrow once they have to work for a living and pay taxes. Those who persist in the delusion are cases of arrested development.

 

[boedicca]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You're looking at it all wrong.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government. That it became harder for the country's production - aka GDP - to generate tax revenues AFTER the tax cuts cited PROVES that the conservative theory that lowering taxes generates more revenue is baloney.

Please explain how and what the Government actually produces.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indeed. Progressivism is something many people outgrow once they have to work for a living and pay taxes. Those who persist in the delusion are cases of arrested development.

Interesting point...maybe we've been talking over their heads!

Let me try a more simplistic tack...

"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."

 

[boedicca]

^^^ Faboo!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You're looking at it all wrong.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government. That it became harder for the country's production - aka GDP - to generate tax revenues AFTER the tax cuts cited PROVES that the conservative theory that lowering taxes generates more revenue is baloney.

Please explain how and what the Government actually produces.

You're a lot braver than I...I didn't dare ask that question.

Remember....when his head explodes, you're responsible!

 

[boedicca]

Hmmm...should we get the earplugs and fire extinguishers ready?

 

[Madeline]

Good thing that's not what I'm advocating, huh?

We cannot cut spending deeply enough or fast enough to address the deficit in time, Dave. The debt load we are carrying is equal to the GDP.

Increasing taxes is a necessity.

No, the necessity is to change the attitude toward business, achievement and success.

A thriving economy will bring in the taxes, and curtailing spending will eventually take care of the debt.

This is fairy tale style thinking, PC. Look around. The world is in an economic turmoil and merely putting a happy face on the US gov't ain't gonna solve shit.

 

[Trajan]

Have you read Angelo Codevilla's essay at American Spectator....sees the members of both parties as cookie-cutter members of the 'ruling class.'

brilliant ...its got a place in my permanent draft file...

 

[NYcarbineer]

And how would that work? I can opt out of my share of military spending because I don't 'use' the military?

Are you a free man who enjoys the protections of the Constitution?

Looks like you use the military, then.

You missed one, Carb.

Take it up with the poster who wanted to make taxes voluntary.

 

[daveman]

Are you a free man who enjoys the protections of the Constitution?

Looks like you use the military, then.

You missed one, Carb.

Take it up with the poster who wanted to make taxes voluntary.

Perhaps you can explain to me how I benefit from paying ghetto queens to have multiple babies by different fathers.

And no, "so we'll have more Democrat voters!" is no benefit to me.

 

[daveman]

Indeed. Progressivism is something many people outgrow once they have to work for a living and pay taxes. Those who persist in the delusion are cases of arrested development.

Interesting point...maybe we've been talking over their heads!

Let me try a more simplistic tack...

"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."

I love that joke.

Of course, to be totally realistic, the young liberal lady would insist that the Dean take GPA from someone else and give it to her partying friend.

 

[Big Fitz]

Are you a free man who enjoys the protections of the Constitution?

Looks like you use the military, then.

You missed one, Carb.

Take it up with the poster who wanted to make taxes voluntary.

Wrong thread. No wonder you can't keep a cogent argument if you can't keep the threads sorted in your head.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You missed one, Carb.

Take it up with the poster who wanted to make taxes voluntary.

Wrong thread. No wonder you can't keep a cogent argument if you can't keep the threads sorted in your head.

From post 359 in this thread, you fatass closet queen:

Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer
Quote: Originally Posted by boedicca
If that is the case, then why not have the system of paying voluntary fees to use the services instead of taxing everyone for things they don't use?
And how would that work? I can opt out of my share of military spending because I don't 'use' the military?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You're looking at it all wrong.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government. That it became harder for the country's production - aka GDP - to generate tax revenues AFTER the tax cuts cited PROVES that the conservative theory that lowering taxes generates more revenue is baloney.

Please explain how and what the Government actually produces.

Missprint. Should be 'country', as you would have seen had you read the rest of the post.

 

[Big Fitz]

Take it up with the poster who wanted to make taxes voluntary.

Wrong thread. No wonder you can't keep a cogent argument if you can't keep the threads sorted in your head.

From post 359 in this thread, you fatass closet queen:

Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer
Quote: Originally Posted by boedicca
If that is the case, then why not have the system of paying voluntary fees to use the services instead of taxing everyone for things they don't use?
And how would that work? I can opt out of my share of military spending because I don't 'use' the military?

oooOOOooo feisty aren't we?

Sick of getting pwnd in this thread?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong thread. No wonder you can't keep a cogent argument if you can't keep the threads sorted in your head.

From post 359 in this thread, you fatass closet queen:

Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer
Quote: Originally Posted by boedicca
If that is the case, then why not have the system of paying voluntary fees to use the services instead of taxing everyone for things they don't use?
And how would that work? I can opt out of my share of military spending because I don't 'use' the military?

oooOOOooo feisty aren't we?

Sick of getting pwnd in this thread?

Proving that you can't read is getting pwned?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're looking at it all wrong.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government. That it became harder for the country's production - aka GDP - to generate tax revenues AFTER the tax cuts cited PROVES that the conservative theory that lowering taxes generates more revenue is baloney.

Please explain how and what the Government actually produces.

You're a lot braver than I...I didn't dare ask that question.

Remember....when his head explodes, you're responsible!

It was a misstatement and was stated correctly in the next sentence. If any of you airheads were educated you could have figured that out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government.

Ooh! Ooh! This is going to be good!

Ahem...

What direct action does it take to create a profit?

"The bureaucracy is expanding to provide for the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Yes sir!

It's how much the country has to produce.

Currently, tax revenues as a percent of GDP are at the lowest level they've been since

1950.

That means, put simply, that contrary to what you THINK is the case, the government is collecting the smallest percent of our nation's production that it has in 60 years.

No, you didn't know that. No, you didn't think that, and no, you don't believe that.