Originally posted by cliffw: Are some of a gender or race, not able to be considered for an opportunity, equal to those of those who were considered ? Opportunities are made, not given.
This sounds like disagreement with the first premise I listed: "P1. There is a difference in opportunities available, not just outcomes, for some groups"
Do you believe that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity, and that no group suffers from any kind of lack of opportunities available to other groups? If so, what do you think accounts for the socio-economic differences amongst groups particular to our country?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Ya' know, DEI is just the same as affirmative action that SCOTUS struck down.
SCOTUS did not strike down "affirmative action." They struck down the implementation of race-quota-based affirmative action in schools. I don't disagree with that. I also never said I agree with any particular implementation of Affirmative Action or DEI policies; I just described the rationale behind them. The SCOTUS decision even leaves room for DEI policies as long as they are not directly treating applicants differently based on race. I don't necessarily disagree with that: I think affirmative action quotas treat a symptom instead of the problem, and realistic equity policies need to address the underlying causes.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-05-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: Because it was never authorized by Fox News.
Dayum ! You should quit parading your stupid thoughts when you have them. Did Fox News deny it ? What network would not want to host a Presidential Debate, .
It was an offer by Trump.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: But the important point was that he tried to cancel the debate on ABC. He was trying to get out of it. He was doing exactly what 82TA was accusing Harris of doing.
Leftoids should quit parading their stupid thoughts when they have them ! Bloodbath, dictator, backing out of a debate. The list is long.
Is it true that Vlad is really hoping Harris wins the election? Why would he want Harris instead of Trump in the Oval Office? What reason could there possibly be for him to be thinking that? Is it even true?
Originally posted by NewDustin: This sounds like disagreement with the first premise I listed: "P1. There is a difference in opportunities available, not just outcomes, for some groups"
Do you believe that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity, and that no group suffers from any kind of lack of opportunities available to other groups? If so, what do you think accounts for the socio-economic differences amongst groups particular to our country?
I do think that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity. I think that desire accounts for the socio-economic differences.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I think affirmative action quotas treat a symptom instead of the problem, and realistic equity policies need to address the underlying causes.
Equity policies ? Pray do tell. Equity is something made, not given.
Anybody can moan and moan, complaining life is not fair 'cause his family being rich helped him. Are you gong to give all of your life gains to everybody in the world instead of you family ? People need to get over envy.
Describe a realistic equity policy.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-05-2024).]
Is it true that Vlad is really hoping Harris wins the election? Why would he want Harris instead of Trump in the Oval Office? What reason could there possibly be for him to be thinking that? Is it even true?
Originally posted by cliffw: I do think that everyone in the US has the exact same level of opportunity. I think that desire accounts for the socio-economic differences.
What about for minors whose desires cannot control their environments? Would you consider whether they have access to food, housing, medical care, and education components of opportunity?
quote
Equity policies ? Pray do tell. Equity is something made, not given. Anybody can moan and moan, complaining life is not fair 'cause his family being rich helped him. Are you gong to give all of your life gains to everybody in the world instead of you family ? People need to get over envy. Describe a realistic equity policy.
I don't really disagree with any of that, and I don't think it needs to come from a place of envy. I do, however, know that some segments of society do not have the same access to food, housing, medical care, or education. I don't disagree with efforts to address those things. Access to free/optional breakfast/lunch programs at schools is one example of a realistic equity policy -we can solve food insecurity for students during the week. Access to quality education is another -one there are multiple fiscally conservative solutions to, btw. So for that, how about a charter system similar to what Todd advocates for? How would that not be an equity program?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Can you explain to me why the Democrats seem to absolutely resist debates as much as possible, and why they resist one-on-one "unscripted" interviews?
Please answer my question...
Well Todd, you knew your question would not be answered by a leftoid.
Walz was blasted after dodging the question about the Hamas American murder. His response to the question was "thanks everybody".
Originally posted by BingB: Obviously you are unaware that the Trump administration's unfunded tax cuts cause deficit spending to DOUBLE over the Obama administration even BEFORE covid. All Trump did was run up the deficit to buy votes.
You've been corrected on this multiple times... I mean multiple, MULTIPLE times, and you are intentionally spreading misinformation.
The Trump Tax cuts resulted in a windfall, producing significantly more tax revenue than the year previously... and continued to do so in the subsequent years.
The PROBLEM was that Trump is guilty of passing the exorbitant spending bills, essentially from Democrats. It wasn't a tax problem, it was a spending problem.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You've been corrected on this multiple times... I mean multiple, MULTIPLE times, and you are intentionally spreading misinformation.
The Trump Tax cuts resulted in a windfall, producing significantly more tax revenue than the year previously... and continued to do so in the subsequent years.
The PROBLEM was that Trump is guilty of passing the exorbitant spending bills, essentially from Democrats. It wasn't a tax problem, it was a spending problem.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
If there is one member of this Forum that doesn't need perspective on how the government works, it is 82TA. (BTW, there are several more on here as well)
If there is one member of this Forum that doesn't need perspective on how the government works, it is 82TA..
He is completely clueless. He actually claimed that the US ran a government surplus at some point in 2019 when we had a $984 deficit. He claimed that it did not matter that Trump ran deficits twice as large as Obama. He does not understand how any of this works.
The Trump Tax cuts resulted in a windfall, producing significantly more tax revenue than the year previously... and continued to do so in the subsequent years.
The tax breaks COST more then they GENERATED.
That means the government LOST money.
Trump ran much larger deficits than Obama was after he got the economy back on track.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-07-2024).]
Revenues are going to hit all time highs nearly every year...that's how inflation works. To give you some perspective,
What information have you been using to correct him?
Inflation was 2.49% in 2018. Inflation was 1.76% in 2019. Inflation was 1.23% in 2020.
All under the new Trump Tax cuts. Whatever it is you think you're trying to say here, your association is incorrect.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
The tax breaks COST more then they GENERATED.
That means the government LOST money
Trump ran much larger deficits than Obama was after he got the economy back on track.
Once again, you are either intentionally being retarded, or you do not understand the difference between tax revenue and spending deficits.
I've now proven you wrong for the 5th time. You then get embarrassed and try to change what you meant.
YES, Trump increased deficit spending.
THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUMP TAX CUTS.
You said this above: "Obviously you are unaware that the Trump administration's unfunded tax cuts cause deficit spending to DOUBLE over the Obama administration even BEFORE covid."
... this is completely incorrect. The Trump Tax Cuts had absolutely nothing to do with this. As a matter of fact... the Trump Tax Cuts made the deficit spending NOT AS BAD as it could have been.
... TRUMP is guilty of passing outrageous spending bills. But that does NOT give you the right to literally make things up by suggesting that the Trump Tax Cuts led to increased deficit spending (which you stated), because that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the TRUTH.
Again, you're either extremely unintelligent and you can't seem to figure out how this works... or you are hoping I won't catch on.
EVERYONE HERE knows that the Trump Tax Cuts resulted in increased tax revenue.
As Old Joe said... we have a spending problem, not a tax problem.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: He is completely clueless. He actually claimed that the US ran a government surplus at some point in 2019 when we had a $984 deficit. He claimed that it did not matter that Trump ran deficits twice as large as Obama. He does not understand how any of this works.
No, you're misquoting again. I said for the first half the year, we were running a budget surplus.
You are a psychopath. This is your THIRD account on here. You've been banned twice, and you've created a "fake persona" every single time. Never in my life have I ever been so pathetic as to create a fake account, with a completely fake story about my life, to try to give me a "one up" on an internet message forum of about 7 people total.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
If there is one member of this Forum that doesn't need perspective on how the government works, it is 82TA. (BTW, there are several more on here as well)
Save your BS for someone who is gullible.
I'm not sure what's BS about anything I posted. Those aren't "leftist" sources and I'm not misrepresenting them in any way. I also agree that we have a spending problem. "Gullible" assumes there's a trick here...could you point to it?
The point Todd was making about tax cuts leading to the highest revenue ever absolutely needs perspective. It is true, but so is what I posted. You are free to find whatever source you like, that revenue will set a new record almost every year purely through inflation is demonstrable fact.
I am not assuming that anyone here doesn't know what they are talking about, but we're all guilty of mental biases, and those absolutely cloud your ability to see the entirety of the picture. While Todd does an excellent job of pointing those out in others (he has done so for me), he is still guilty of them himself. I assume he'll take the point I made into consideration, and while it may not change his overall view, he'll examine it and determine what the rational result of that is in the context of his argument. Otherwise, what is the point in engaging in conversation with folks who have a different viewpoint?
Edit: as I post this I see he has done so above
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-07-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Inflation was 2.49% in 2018. Inflation was 1.76% in 2019. Inflation was 1.23% in 2020.
All under the new Trump Tax cuts. Whatever it is you think you're trying to say here, your association is incorrect.
The article you posted attributed record high revenues to the tax cuts. It ignored that 90% of years over the last 10 years (under Trump and Obama) set a similar record. To claim those tax cuts were responsible for increased revenues or reduced deficits ignores the findings of the CBO and CRS, as well as a large body of reliable evidence. That's what I am trying to say.
Let's back-of-the-napkin math it out: The inflation rate of the year in question (2017) was 2.13% and revenues that year were $3.32 trillion. That's what...$70 billion dollars in inflated revenue? So if all things remained the same between 2016 and 2017 we would expect a revenue that was $70 billion greater, just to account for inflation, right? If we look at what the actual difference was, it was $3.32 trillion in 2017 and $3.27 trillion in 2016...so $50 billion greater. That's $20 billion less than inflation alone would account for.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-07-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: He is completely clueless. He actually claimed that the US ran a government surplus at some point in 2019 when we had a $984 deficit. He claimed that it did not matter that Trump ran deficits twice as large as Obama. He does not understand how any of this works.
Bwahahahaha.
You crack us all up!
Haven't you figured out yet that the ONLY reason anyone reads your posts is for the comedic relief?
EVERYONE HERE knows that the Trump Tax Cuts resulted in increased tax revenue.
They cost more than the revenue they raised. Let me explain.
Business "A" has $1 million in revenue with zero debt.
Business "B" borrowed $2 million dollars in order to generate $1.1 Million in revenue.
Based on your logic business "B" was better off, but that is not the way it works.
Unfunded tax cuts (tax cuts with no spending cuts) are nothing more than borrowing money from the government to put in people's pockets. So of course that will pour gas on the economy and increase revenue. It is the same argument some are using to say that student loan forgiveness will pour gas on the economy and increase revenue.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-07-2024).]
They cost more than the revenue they raised. Let me explain.
Business "A" has $1 million in revenue with zero debt.
Business "B" borrowed $2 million dollars in order to generate $1.1 Million in revenue.
Based on your logic business "B" was better off, but that is not the way it works.
Unfunded tax cuts (tax cuts with no spending cuts) are nothing more than borrowing money from the government to put in people's pockets. So of course that will pour gas on the economy and increase revenue. It is the same argument some are using to say that student loan forgiveness will pour gas on the economy and increase revenue.
NO ONE IS DENYING that Trump increased the Federal deficit.
The problem is, you're saying the tax cuts led to that. They did not... an increase in spending did.
Originally posted by NewDustin: The article you posted attributed record high revenues to the tax cuts. It ignored that 90% of years over the last 10 years (under Trump and Obama) set a similar record. To claim those tax cuts were responsible for increased revenues or reduced deficits ignores the findings of the CBO and CRS, as well as a large body of reliable evidence. That's what I am trying to say.
Let's back-of-the-napkin math it out: The inflation rate of the year in question (2017) was 2.13% and revenues that year were $3.32 trillion. That's what...$70 billion dollars in inflated revenue? So if all things remained the same between 2016 and 2017 we would expect a revenue that was $70 billion greater, just to account for inflation, right? If we look at what the actual difference was, it was $3.32 trillion in 2017 and $3.27 trillion in 2016...so $50 billion greater. That's $20 billion less than inflation alone would account for.
Everyone agrees that deficit spending will pour gas on the economy. They key is to create jobs and grow the economy with more deficit spending.
The last three years of Obama's administration he created MORE jobs and grew the economy at pretty much the same rate as Trump did in his first thee years, except Obama did it with about half as much deficit spending.
Trump needed MORE deficit spending than Obama to create fewer jobs and grow the economy at about the same rate.
This is a statement from two Republican members of the house. It is expressly partisan, and is (unsurprisingly, given its nature) full of faulty assumptions and bias. The Brookings article I posted already addressed their primary point: when adjusted for inflation and economic growth the revenues missed initial projections and were lower than they would have been without the cuts. I understand the necessity of "increased revenues" to overall support of the tax cuts, but so far you've been completely unable to show that outside of a investors.com opinion piece, and a partisan publication. That's because you're pining after economic metrics this policy just doesn't have. Why not focus on reduced unemployment, increased household income, increased corporate investments...you know, the positive impacts the tax cuts actually had?
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-07-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: They Trump Tax cuts cost more than the revenue they raised. Let me explain.
, this should be good. Let's just start with the fact that the money the government confiscates from the citizen is revenue.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Business "A" has $1 million in revenue with zero debt.
Business "B" borrowed $2 million dollars in order to generate $1.1 Million in revenue.
Based on your logic business "B" was better off, but that is not the way it works.
Ah, thanks. We knew you had no logic.
So tell us BungBob, did Business A, or Business B pay more in taxes ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Unfunded tax cuts (tax cuts with no spending cuts) are nothing more than borrowing money from the government to put in people's pockets.
By the way, I just borrowed three trillion dollars from you kids savings.
So tell us BungBob, did Business A, or Business B pay more in taxes ?
It is impossible to say because it depends on how much revenue was re-investing in the company and how much was pulled out as profit. But business A probably paid more taxes because the debt management for Business B would eat up the extra $100K in revenue.
However your question proves that the government has you thinking the way they want you to. Don't worry about borrowing an extra billion as long as it makes more revenue THIS YEAR. 82TA, Trump, and the government want you to think that increased revenue today is worth borrowing an extra Billion a year.
Rebuilding Obama's depleted military cost money, just wait until you see the spending to rebuild Joes mess he made.
Another sucker for the military industrial complex
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in 2023 the United States had $916 Billion in military spending. That is more than the next NINE countries COMBINED.
Of course we should have the most military spending since we also have the largest GPD. But we don't need to be feeding all this money into the military
The military advantage in modern warfare will be technological. It is expensive to develop the best technology, but not like trying to build more airplains and aircraft carriers or maintaining a huge standing army.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-08-2024).]
Loathe him or not, "everyone" does not agree with that statement.
Just like you will usually get the stink with the skunk, expect bingie's posts to carry the stench of fallacious absolutes. Sadly, it's a trait very common to inerudite adolescent "rhetoric".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-10-2024).]
Just like you will usually get the stink with the skunk, expect bingie's posts to carry the stench fallacious absolutes. Sadly, it's a trait very common to inerudite adolescent "rhetoric".
but some how the LIES the false claims the pure BS are deep on the nut-con side
lib's read news the con's demand only fake news con's false claims are all proven WRONG BUT REPEATED ENDLESSLY NO MATTER
YOUR CULT LEADER IS A SCUMBAG CROOK NO AMOUNT OF LIES AND SPIN CAN CHANGE THAT
i BET THE CREEP WILL EXPLODE ON THE DEBATE STAGE AND MELT DOWN
Post a link to a source that says deficit spending will not boost the economy. I believe that there is pretty much a consensus that deficit spending puts more money in the economy which will boost GDP. I am not talking about the long term effectrs.
All of this "You are wrong just because I say you are wrong" is getting tiresome.
. ' Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. ' ~ Thomas Jefferson . Monticello, July 30, 1816 ' Yep ! Kamala will fail terribly in the debate, because there is nothing there, there is no there in there, it's just the fake posturing of a ccp/pla sycophant, as plain as day, right before your very eyes ! ' Oakland, Ca voting Trump in '24 will be the tell-tale, the canary in the coal mine, the abandon ship signal alarm for the politicians eyeing certain defeat and expulsion from power. ' Kan't win with Kamala in '24 ! ' A failed campaign from the get, ' Interviews ? Naw, I'm not doing interviews, the people will discover who I am ! '
[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 09-09-2024).]
Post a link to a source that says deficit spending will not boost the economy. I believe that there is pretty much a consensus that deficit spending puts more money in the economy which will boost GDP. I am not talking about the long term effectrs.
All of this "You are wrong just because I say you are wrong" is getting tiresome.
I'm well aware of how this should work, and I wasn't just saying "you are wrong."
"Chokes in Mises" is a reference to Ludwig Von Mises. Mises was one of the most influential libertarian economists in US history. He was instrumental in bringing Austrian economics to the US. Mises (and the Austrian school in general) is extremely critical of government spending, and especially critical of any government spending that leads to a deficit. If you look into the Austrian school, you'll find the Mises Institute, George Mason University, and (occasionally) NYU as caches of economists who would disagree vehemently with your statement about deficit spending. Stretching the definition a bit (but leaving in all the criticism of deficit spending) you could include Cato Institute, The Foundation for Economic Education, and The Hayek Society in there as well.
If you want something more direct, here's a quote from Mises himself: "The great misconception implied in the demand for government spending as a means of 'creating jobs' is that the government can fund expenditures by creating money or borrowing, without realizing that this method only serves to depreciate the currency and distort the economic structure." -From 'Planning for Freedom' (1952)
Just because I didn't hyperlink a source for you in the first reply doesn't mean I wasn't citing a reasonable source to counter your point
I'm well aware of how this should work, and I wasn't just saying "you are wrong."
"Chokes in Mises" is a reference to Ludwig Von Mises. Mises was one of the most influential libertarian economists in US history. He was instrumental in bringing Austrian economics to the US. Mises (and the Austrian school in general) is extremely critical of government spending, and especially critical of any government spending that leads to a deficit. If you look into the Austrian school, you'll find the Mises Institute, George Mason University, and (occasionally) NYU as caches of economists who would disagree vehemently with your statement about deficit spending. Stretching the definition a bit (but leaving in all the criticism of deficit spending) you could include Cato Institute, The Foundation for Economic Education, and The Hayek Society in there as well.
If you want something more direct, here's a quote from Mises himself: "The great misconception implied in the demand for government spending as a means of 'creating jobs' is that the government can fund expenditures by creating money or borrowing, without realizing that this method only serves to depreciate the currency and distort the economic structure." -From 'Planning for Freedom' (1952)
Just because I didn't hyperlink a source for you in the first reply doesn't mean I wasn't citing a reasonable source to counter your point
All of these people agree that deficit spending is a bad thing in the long run. I agree with that.
All of them also agree that the reason it is difficult to end deficit spending is because CURRENT DEFICIT SPENDING BENEFITS THE CURRENT ECONOMY.
That is what Trump did when he cuts tax rates but did not cut spending. he ran up the deficit, but he pum[ed more money into the economy that boosted GDP.
Originally posted by BingB: All of them also agree that the reason it is difficult to end deficit spending is because CURRENT DEFICIT SPENDING BENEFITS THE CURRENT ECONOMY.
That is what Trump did when he cuts tax rates but did not cut spending. he ran up the deficit, but he pumped more money into the economy that boosted GDP.
The fiscally conservative argument is that without a corresponding reduction/check on spending all you will do is run up financially ruinous deficits. Trump's tax cuts were not necessarily popular amongst the Austrian crowd. The FEE has the most optimistic take on them, and even they dedicate an entire section to the need for spending cuts.
.
, this should be good. Let's just start with the fact that the money the government confiscates from the citizen is revenue.
