1. #2321
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    67,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yeah, it is. The debt gets pushed back, continuously.
    That's literally not how the national debt works, no. Older bits of that debt are constantly paid off. It isn't like a single big credit card carrying a balance. It's like a whole bunch of 30-year mortgages that the nation is consistently able to keep up payments on just fine. There's still "debt", but it has a specific pay schedule and the US is meeting those obligations.

    Alas, the United States spends like drunken sailors, so maybe you'll jump on board and support those spending cuts.
    Targeted spending cuts, depending on the context of how they affect outcomes.

    You are directly hurting people.
    Nah. You're just resorting to slander because it's cheaper and easier than explaining yourself.

  2. #2322
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Our government runs at a huge debt, and the people obliged to pay it off, often have zero say in the matter.

    If you want to buy movie popcorn, I support your freedom to do it. Do you despise the theater for selling it?
    Yes it does. And you keep electing shitheads (ie GOP) who do a poor job of running it. They do things like the short-sided savings in water distribution and then end up spending more much later to fix the problem they created. Meanwhile some vulture is waiting in the wings to make everyone else's life more miserable.

    The theatre doesn't sell popcorn because people forgot to eat dinner. The theatre sells popcorn because people enjoy eating the shit while they watch the movie. The price isn't there to take advantage of people's lack of foresight, the price is there because that's how much it costs to run a movie theatre.

  3. #2323
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Ahh, nice use of hyperbole.

    As was pointed out, this is about thousands and thousands of smaller cuts. the current topic of discussion is tax burden., I want to reduce it, meaning more liberty to spend your own money.
    For fucks sake, like what specifically???!?!?!?!?!? How many times do you have to be asked this question without answering. List 5? 10? something specific. What individual liberties are being hindered and which ones cost you money? For all the fucking screaming and crying you're doing you should have a bunch of them at the ready to list.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  4. #2324
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    If people are going to make stupid choices, I have no problem using it to my advantage. This is especially the case when they were warned for years about those stupid choices.

    - - - Updated - - -



    So, do I, or do I not want government?

    - - - Updated - - -



    I literally already explained it... more money, and more personal liberty.

    Your hatred of those things is noted.
    Hard to tell, you refuse to discuss your end goal.

  5. #2325
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Well, the companies getting less will be delighted about that fact.



    That's a big if. What about the companies that would have to lay off workers because of the decreased government spending?

    But even if everything just checks out, how are you going to reduce the deficit? So far all you've come up with is a suggestion on stopping deficit increase in the best-case scenario.
    Yes, defense contractors and government contractors will see this.

    It's not really a big if, since we have decades of revenue numbers to work with.

    This would loser the deficit over time...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Except, if that means they'll need to pay more for what their current taxes cover. Then they'll have less liberty.
    Health insurance, fire insurance, safety insurance, work insurance, road tolls, extortionist water prices, without even getting into Scrip of different natures.
    No, they will have freedom to choose what they spend their money on. Government is not known for their efficiency.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's literally not how the national debt works, no. Older bits of that debt are constantly paid off. It isn't like a single big credit card carrying a balance. It's like a whole bunch of 30-year mortgages that the nation is consistently able to keep up payments on just fine. There's still "debt", but it has a specific pay schedule and the US is meeting those obligations.



    Targeted spending cuts, depending on the context of how they affect outcomes.



    Nah. You're just resorting to slander because it's cheaper and easier than explaining yourself.
    And we keep adding more and more... I'm well aware of how the debt works. The issue is that the "funnel is continuously filling up. I simply ant to lower the flow into the funnel in the first place.

    You want to push more and more debt onto people who don't have a say in the matter.

    That's harm.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Yes it does. And you keep electing shitheads (ie GOP) who do a poor job of running it. They do things like the short-sided savings in water distribution and then end up spending more much later to fix the problem they created. Meanwhile some vulture is waiting in the wings to make everyone else's life more miserable.

    The theatre doesn't sell popcorn because people forgot to eat dinner. The theatre sells popcorn because people enjoy eating the shit while they watch the movie. The price isn't there to take advantage of people's lack of foresight, the price is there because that's how much it costs to run a movie theatre.
    Are we back to Flint, where the Democratic leaders voted to change to the cheaper water? Do you really want to go there?

    Well, they capitalized on the choices people made, and so do I.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    For fucks sake, like what specifically???!?!?!?!?!? How many times do you have to be asked this question without answering. List 5? 10? something specific. What individual liberties are being hindered and which ones cost you money? For all the fucking screaming and crying you're doing you should have a bunch of them at the ready to list.
    That was literally pointed out, and I brought numerous things throughout this thread. Hell, I even took the time to bold them... and people ignored it. So, refer to the previous times I answered that fucking question.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Hard to tell, you refuse to discuss your end goal.
    I've offered short-term solutions.

    My end goal is more individual liberty.

  6. #2326
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, do I, or do I not want government?
    You want a government run by and for the wealthy and corporations. Yes. Since you believe corporations and the wealthy should be allowed to spend more in political contributions that is what you want. As it's the result those policies will ultimately bring about.
    - Lars

  7. #2327
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    You want a government run by and for the wealthy and corporations. Yes. Since you believe corporations and the wealthy should be allowed to spend more in political contributions that is what you want. As it's the result those policies will ultimately bring about.
    I want the government to be run in a manner, where people can actually have individual liberty.

  8. #2328
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    No, they will have freedom to choose what they spend their money on. Government is not known for their efficiency.
    Maybe in your fantasy. In reality they wouldn't Since without water they would die. And with private water infrastructure water prices would soar. The CEO of Nestle would be happy as fuck, and you'd invest in that corporation and probably dance a happy fucking dance. Meanwhile most people would suffer.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I want the government to be run in a manner, where people can actually have individual liberty.
    Your arguments and ideas tell a very different story. Read some books on history and economy is my advice.
    - Lars

  9. #2329
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, defense contractors and government contractors will see this.

    It's not really a big if, since we have decades of revenue numbers to work with.

    This would loser the deficit over time...

    - - - Updated - - -



    No, they will have freedom to choose what they spend their money on. Government is not known for their efficiency.

    - - - Updated - - -



    And we keep adding more and more... I'm well aware of how the debt works. The issue is that the "funnel is continuously filling up. I simply ant to lower the flow into the funnel in the first place.

    You want to push more and more debt onto people who don't have a say in the matter.

    That's harm.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Are we back to Flint, where the Democratic leaders voted to change to the cheaper water? Do you really want to go there?

    Well, they capitalized on the choices people made, and so do I.

    - - - Updated - - -



    That was literally pointed out, and I brought numerous things throughout this thread. Hell, I even took the time to bold them... and people ignored it. So, refer to the previous times I answered that fucking question.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I've offered short-term solutions.

    My end goal is more individual liberty.
    And when you refuse to define what that actually means... yeah. You have stated you want to sell off all our infrastructure to corporations though. And that they should have unlimited financial influence over the political process in the short term. It’s not hard to see where that would lead, a ton of corporatist policies being enacted. Feel free to disagree at any time.

  10. #2330
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Maybe in your fantasy. In reality they wouldn't Since without water they would die. And with private water infrastructure water prices would soar. The CEO of Nestle would be happy as fuck, and you'd invest in that corporation and probably dance a happy fucking dance. Meanwhile most people would suffer.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Your arguments and ideas tell a very different story. Read some books on history and economy is my advice.
    Oh, I have, textbooks as well.

    You mean like Flint? is that what we want?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    And when you refuse to define what that actually means... yeah. You have stated you want to sell off all our infrastructure to corporations though. And that they should have unlimited financial influence over the political process in the short term. It’s not hard to see where that would lead, a ton of corporatist policies being enacted. Feel free to disagree at any time.
    I provided short-term solutions, did you address any of them?

  11. #2331
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Oh, I have, textbooks as well.

    You mean like Flint? is that what we want?

    - - - Updated - - -



    I provided short-term solutions, did you address any of them?
    Yes, I have explained how they’re corporatist. Now your term, one long term solution for funding government.

  12. #2332
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Yes, I have explained how they’re corporatist. Now your term, one long term solution for funding government.
    Which solutions are you talking about?

    Opposing things like abortion restrictions are corporatist?

    Pushing to legalize marijuana is corporatist?

  13. #2333
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Are we back to Flint, where the Democratic leaders voted to change to the cheaper water? Do you really want to go there?

    Well, they capitalized on the choices people made, and so do I.
    Yes, yes I do. Because I know this was a problem created by the GOP and only the GOP. On the plus side, Flint's getting new investments! They have some new charter schools. I hope they're not owned by the DeVos family.

    They sold people a product they like. You originally framed it as theatre's capitalizing on a people's mistakes (which is not remotely virtuous). Which is just more of you delivering terrible analogies instead of actually trying to convince us of your beliefs.

  14. #2334
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    22,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, defense contractors and government contractors will see this.
    So companies would need to lay off workers. That's going to reduce tax revenue and would increase government spending on welfare programs, you know that? It would also decrease personal spending, which in turn would have an impact on other companies not contracted by the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not really a big if, since we have decades of revenue numbers to work with.
    Decades of revenue numbers show that tax revenue does not stay the same, like, there are impressive large differences.

    Here's a list of tax revenue per year in the US:
    Code:
    FY 2018	$3.33 trillion
    FY 2017	$3.32 trillion
    FY 2016	$3.27 trillion
    FY 2015	$3.25 trillion
    FY 2014	$3.02 trillion
    FY 2013	$2.77 trillion
    FY 2012	$2.45 trillion
    FY 2011	$2.30 trillion
    FY 2010	$2.16 trillion
    FY 2009	$2.10 trillion
    FY 2008	$2.52 trillion
    FY 2007	$2.57 trillion
    FY 2006	$2.41 trillion
    FY 2005	$2.15 trillion
    FY 2004	$1.88 trillion
    FY 2003	$1.78 trillion
    FY 2002	$1.85 trillion
    FY 2001	$1.99 trillion
    FY 2000	$2.03 trillion
    FY 1999	$1.82 trillion
    FY 1998	$1.72 trillion
    FY 1997	$1.58 trillion
    FY 1996	$1.45 trillion
    FY 1995	$1.35 trillion
    FY 1994	$1.26 trillion
    FY 1993	$1.15 trillion
    FY 1992	$1.09 trillion
    FY 1991	$1.05 trillion
    FY 1990	$1.03 trillion
    Remember, that's under the current system where the government does not try to keep government debt out of their books whatever it takes. If you want to convince anyone of your great idea, you might want to show how it would've impacted the US over the past 20 years. That's a lot of math but I am sure you can do it. It's in hindsight, but at least you'd had something to show for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    This would loser the deficit over time...
    Wishful thinking is not the great economic policy you think it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  15. #2335
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    So companies would need to lay off workers. That's going to reduce tax revenue and would increase government spending on welfare programs, you know that? It would also decrease personal spending, which in turn would have an impact on other companies not contracted by the government.



    Decades of revenue numbers show that tax revenue does not stay the same, like, there are impressive large differences.

    Here's a list of tax revenue per year in the US:
    Code:
    FY 2018	$3.33 trillion
    FY 2017	$3.32 trillion
    FY 2016	$3.27 trillion
    FY 2015	$3.25 trillion
    FY 2014	$3.02 trillion
    FY 2013	$2.77 trillion
    FY 2012	$2.45 trillion
    FY 2011	$2.30 trillion
    FY 2010	$2.16 trillion
    FY 2009	$2.10 trillion
    FY 2008	$2.52 trillion
    FY 2007	$2.57 trillion
    FY 2006	$2.41 trillion
    FY 2005	$2.15 trillion
    FY 2004	$1.88 trillion
    FY 2003	$1.78 trillion
    FY 2002	$1.85 trillion
    FY 2001	$1.99 trillion
    FY 2000	$2.03 trillion
    FY 1999	$1.82 trillion
    FY 1998	$1.72 trillion
    FY 1997	$1.58 trillion
    FY 1996	$1.45 trillion
    FY 1995	$1.35 trillion
    FY 1994	$1.26 trillion
    FY 1993	$1.15 trillion
    FY 1992	$1.09 trillion
    FY 1991	$1.05 trillion
    FY 1990	$1.03 trillion
    Remember, that's under the current system where the government does not try to keep government debt out of their books whatever it takes. If you want to convince anyone of your great idea, you might want to show how it would've impacted the US over the past 20 years. That's a lot of math but I am sure you can do it. It's in hindsight, but at least you'd had something to show for.



    Wishful thinking is not the great economic policy you think it is.
    As it shows, it traditionally goes up... does it not?

    So, over time, if revenue goes up, and spending stays the same...

    I'll let you make the connection.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Yes, yes I do. Because I know this was a problem created by the GOP and only the GOP. On the plus side, Flint's getting new investments! They have some new charter schools. I hope they're not owned by the DeVos family.

    They sold people a product they like. You originally framed it as theatre's capitalizing on a people's mistakes (which is not remotely virtuous). Which is just more of you delivering terrible analogies instead of actually trying to convince us of your beliefs.
    SO, back to this... only the GOP fucked up Flint?

    Let's put this out there, Snyder and his band of merry fuckwads screwed up huge. But, to say that no Democrats fucked up, is straight disinformation. The Democrats voted for the cheaper option, which you just condemned. The Democrats voted to keep the cheaper option, even after two water boilings, and GM stopped using the water. the Democratic mayor chose to go on television and swear the water was safe, months after the EPA had tested higher lead levels. The Dems were in charge when they didn't use the corrosion inhibitors in the new water.

    I simply bought something someone wanted to sell.

  16. #2336
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    67,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    As it shows, it traditionally goes up... does it not?

    So, over time, if revenue goes up, and spending stays the same...

    I'll let you make the connection.
    Then, as both inflation and population growth continue to occur year after year, that spending actually covers less and less over time, leading to a direct reduction in how much benefit government programs can provide.

    That's the connection you keep trying to skip past.

  17. #2337
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Then, as both inflation and population growth continue to occur year after year, that spending actually covers less and less over time, leading to a direct reduction in how much benefit government programs can provide.

    That's the connection you keep trying to skip past.
    Yes, that's the point. That's the entire point of doing it. I'm not trying to skip it, that's the goal.

    Welcome to the conversation. It forces those government agencies to be more efficient with their money.

  18. #2338
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    22,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    As it shows, it traditionally goes up... does it not?
    So you want to walk back your statement that tax revenue stays the same? And again, that is under the current system, not your system. Show how your system would work, you've got decades of numbers to work with.

    Nothing about the part where people lose their job? Just ignoring how that would affect companies and revenue?

    Why do you hate capitalism so much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, over time, if revenue goes up, and spending stays the same...
    In the current system, not your system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I'll let you make the connection.
    There's none as they are two different systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  19. #2339
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    67,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, that's the point. That's the entire point of doing it. I'm not trying to skip it, that's the goal.

    Welcome to the conversation. It forces those government agencies to be more efficient with their money.
    That presumes, based on nothing, that there are efficiency gains to be made up.

    Realistically, you're arguing to reduce services to those who rely on them.

  20. #2340
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    So you want to walk back your statement that tax revenue stays the same? And again, that is under the current system, not your system. Show how your system would work, you've got decades of numbers to work with.

    Nothing about the part where people lose their job? Just ignoring how that would affect companies and revenue?

    Why do you hate capitalism so much?



    In the current system, not your system.



    There's none as they are two different systems.
    I never said tax revenue stays the same, did I?

    I literally just explained how it works.

    My recommendation does nothing to the current tax structure for 5 years, it merely puts a halt on government spending increases. So, that increase in revenue over the 5-years would lower the deficit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That presumes, based on nothing, that there are efficiency gains to be made up.

    Realistically, you're arguing to reduce services to those who rely on them.
    It presumes that tax revenues go up over time, which they do

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •