Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Redbeard wrote:At the same time, we have so many infrastructure problems that don't require a lot of skilled labor to address. Rather than take away entitlements, why doesn't the government require some community service as a condition of receiving them? You get a welfare check, if you're able bodied, sign up for some task. Helping paint a bridge, picking trash up off the streets, working a couple hours at a food kitchen. The government could easily draw some benefit from the money they're paying out for entitlements and the society as a whole would benefit. Not only that, but the welfare mentality would be addressed, people would get the feeling that they're working for their food again, and that has value.

That's a good idea.

biccat wrote:I'm not playing a game here, I've satisfied the burden of production on the issue by showing a source that provides the information requested. Your burden then is to show why the information provided is inaccurate, either due to bias or by showing contrary data.

So, your feeling is that an acceptable way to debate is to posit an idea, gathered via (your words here) "i have no idea who the hell the guy is, he just showed up as a result from a google search", and then the onus is on someone else to do your research on why it's not true?

Fair enough; challenge accepted. I submit that your original statement, "revenue increased because of the Bush tax cuts", is untrue. I have a source clearly disproving it here.

I've proved my case! Now, you must attempt to disprove it, while I argue against the bias of every single source you now provide!


Automatically Appended Next Post:


-------------------

Edit: If I can briefly go back On-T again, the market has staged a fair sized rally, 200+ points. Now I have a quandary. I've been beating myself up about not selling Apple when it was right around $400, especially when it was briefly $343. Now that's it's back at $360 wondering if I should pull the trigger or not.

Ouze wrote: Now that's it's back at $360 wondering if I should pull the trigger or not.

Do we have a finanical expert on tap here at Dakka OT Consulting here for Ouze the investor?

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm not playing a game here, I've satisfied the burden of production on the issue by showing a source that provides the information requested. Your burden then is to show why the information provided is inaccurate, either due to bias or by showing contrary data.

So, your feeling is that an acceptable way to debate is to posit an idea, gathered via (your words here) "i have no idea who the hell the guy is, he just showed up as a result from a google search", and then the onus is on someone else to do your research on why it's not true?

No, actually you're wrong.

I know that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the government, because that's what tax cuts do, based on historical trends. There is a temporary drop in revenue to the government as the economy slightly lags, then there's a surge in revenue as the money that would normally be collected as taxes is passed through the economy to create more income, and therefore more tax revenue.

However, I fully accepted that some people would dispute this, or claim I was making s**t up. So I googled "US Government revenue" and found that guy's site. I looked at it, made sure that it wasn't just some SWAGs and properly sourced, and included the link in my comment.

I never would have thought a simple graph showing government revenues from one year to the next could be so contentious.

Ouze wrote:Edit: If I can briefly go back On-T again, the market has staged a fair sized rally, 200+ points. Now I have a quandary. I've been beating myself up about not selling Apple when it was right around $400, especially when it was briefly $343. Now that's it's back at $360 wondering if I should pull the trigger or not.

You can't go day to day with this sort of thing.

I imagine that in the long term Apple will continue to trend upward. If I was going to sell it I'd do it on one of those post-huge-release spikes.

I don't know that I'd use contentious, per se, as that would indicate one or both of us was getting heated. I'm not heated, I just disagree with you. Here's more sources for my stance that you're incorrect, by the way (though less reliable them Time Cube, I fear).

On other things, like the video game thing, I agree with you. /eh

biccat wrote:Seriously, how can you blame Bush for starting the wars and not pass at least some of the blame onto Obama for continuing them?

"How can you blame Fred for setting the house on fire and not pass at least some of the blame onto Joe for not putting them out yet?". I think I'm being trolled here, I have a hard time believing someone seriously asked that.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ouze wrote:Edit: If I can briefly go back On-T again, the market has staged a fair sized rally, 200+ points. Now I have a quandary. I've been beating myself up about not selling Apple when it was right around $400, especially when it was briefly $343. Now that's it's back at $360 wondering if I should pull the trigger or not.

You can't go day to day with this sort of thing.

I imagine that in the long term Apple will continue to trend upward. If I was going to sell it I'd do it on one of those post-huge-release spikes.

Yeah, but I really need the money - my basement is flooding daily, and I don't know why, and because of the high humidity, the igniter in my dryer cracked, and so on. Also, maybe I should have mention this, but I bought it at the base of the recession - $80 a share. Since they pay no dividends, maybe it's time?

Ouze wrote:Yeah, but I really need the money - my basement is flooding daily, and I don't know why, and because of the high humidity, the igniter in my dryer cracked, and so on. Also, maybe I should have mention this, but I bought it at the base of the recession - $80 a share. Since they pay no dividends, maybe it's time?

No dividends and you've quadrupled your money? Why on earth would you even ask?

Also, there are plenty of better long-term growth positions you can take that would be a lot less riskier. Personally, I don't invest in consumer goods, simply because their markets are a lot more fickle.

Since I can't really dispute the Time Cube defense, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

biccat wrote:Seriously, how can you blame Bush for starting the wars and not pass at least some of the blame onto Obama for continuing them?

"How can you blame Fred for setting the house on fire and not pass at least some of the blame onto Joe for not putting them out yet?". I think I'm being trolled here, I have a hard time believing someone seriously asked that.

I can when Joe is the head of the Fire Department and rushed in screaming "stay back everyone, I'll take care of the fire!" Especially when he liberally sprays gasoline around the neighborhood while cackling maniacally.



When Joe takes an affirmative duty to correct a wrong and thereby precludes others from taking steps to correct that wrong, then Joe bears some responsibility for failing to act.

WarOne wrote:

Ouze wrote: Now that's it's back at $360 wondering if I should pull the trigger or not.

Do we have a finanical expert on tap here at Dakka OT Consulting here for Ouze the investor?

Frazzled recommends everyone invest in canned goods and shotguns.

Here's what Obama should have announced yesterday as he had three days to do this. Flanked by Reid and Boener they should have jointly announced:
Budget:
*The members of the bipartisan commission on debt reduction.
*Announce that, as executive officer, he was unilaterally freezing all spending to current budgetary levels until such time as the budget balances. If there is no actual budget, then spending would be capped at actual 2010 levels.
*Announce that, as executive officer, he was unilaterally ordering that all future budgets be done on a zeroline basis.

Economics:
* A suspension on all new rules until such time as the GDP is growing faster than 2.5%. All government rules put in place since Jan. 1 are now rescinded. Going forward, all new regulations would have to have an economic impact assessment done prior to implementation.
* A new, jointly agreed upon commission tasked to put forth a simplified tax structure designed to promote domestic investment and put corporate taxes at no higher level than the lowest 20% of the world. The commission would have a three month timeline and all three would announce a bill to be voted on in two days that would make this a binding up or down vote.
* New energy development would be put on fast track, including all deepwater areas of under US control.
* Not rescind the no pass/no play school regulation program.

Is the president allowed to order budgets? I thought he proposed them and they had to be passed by Congress.

US Presidents typically propose legislation via a member of the same party submitting the legislation officially.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is the president allowed to order budgets? I thought he proposed them and they had to be passed by Congress.

He doesn't have to spend the entire budget.

Indeed, American companies such as GE and Google are being killed by our high corporate taxes! When will this yoke be lifted from their weary necks, and they can innovate under the freedom of a 20% tax bracket?

biccat wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

biccat wrote:Seriously, how can you blame Bush for starting the wars and not pass at least some of the blame onto Obama for continuing them?

"How can you blame Fred for setting the house on fire and not pass at least some of the blame onto Joe for not putting them out yet?". I think I'm being trolled here, I have a hard time believing someone seriously asked that.

I can when Joe is the head of the Fire Department and rushed in screaming "stay back everyone, I'll take care of the fire!" Especially when he liberally sprays gasoline around the neighborhood while cackling maniacally.



When Joe takes an affirmative duty to correct a wrong and thereby precludes others from taking steps to correct that wrong, then Joe bears some responsibility for failing to act.

So, are you alleging that Obama made the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because that's what your analogy suggests.

Frazzled wrote:US Presidents typically propose legislation via a member of the same party submitting the legislation officially.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is the president allowed to order budgets? I thought he proposed them and they had to be passed by Congress.

He doesn't have to spend the entire budget.

How do you acknowledge that the President doesn't actually make the budget and then immediately turn around and put the impetus right back on him? Wouldn't it be the Congress doesn't have to spend the entire budget?

Ouze wrote:Indeed, American companies such as GE and Google are being killed by our high corporate taxes! When will this yoke be lifted from their weary necks, and they can innovate under the freedom of a 20% tax bracket?

Cut out all loopholes except accelerated depreciation methods for domestic capital investment. Come on people this isn't hat hard.

Ouze wrote:Indeed, American companies such as GE and Google are being killed by our high corporate taxes! When will this yoke be lifted from their weary necks, and they can innovate under the freedom of a 20% tax bracket?

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but there's an argument to be made that comprehensive tax reform could lower the statutory rates, eliminate complexity, and increase revenue.

Essentially, rather than have a 35% tax with enough credits to zero it out, you apply a lower tax rate, but eliminate nearly all credits.

It's one way to actually encourage smaller companies, which are the engines of economic growth.

But it won't happen, because while theoretically a tax (rate) cut, it'll be an increase in the tax actually paid.

The opposite happened this taax year, when the "Making Work Pay" credit lapsed, but OASDI taxes went down 2%. It's a tax "cut", but only for those making over $40k (for married couples), those under that actually pay higher taxes now than before.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:US Presidents typically propose legislation via a member of the same party submitting the legislation officially.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is the president allowed to order budgets? I thought he proposed them and they had to be passed by Congress.

He doesn't have to spend the entire budget.

How do you acknowledge that the President doesn't actually make the budget and then immediately turn around and put the impetus right back on him? Wouldn't it be the Congress doesn't have to spend the entire budget?

He is the executive officer. CEO. He directs the actual agencies to do or not do. This is time honored tradition at the state level and occurs at the federal as well.
Congress may say "your budget is 20MM duccats" but there's no law requiring him to spend 20MM duccats. Indeed, even if there was one, what is Congress going to do?
Besides Congress would love it. Its plausible deniability. They like that, and it balances the budget.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

Ouze wrote:Indeed, American companies such as GE and Google are being killed by our high corporate taxes! When will this yoke be lifted from their weary necks, and they can innovate under the freedom of a 20% tax bracket?

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but there's an argument to be made that comprehensive tax reform could lower the statutory rates, eliminate complexity, and increase revenue.

Essentially, rather than have a 35% tax with enough credits to zero it out, you apply a lower tax rate, but eliminate nearly all credits.

It's one way to actually encourage smaller companies, which are the engines of economic growth.

But it won't happen, because while theoretically a tax (rate) cut, it'll be an increase in the tax actually paid.

The opposite happened this taax year, when the "Making Work Pay" credit lapsed, but OASDI taxes went down 2%. It's a tax "cut", but only for those making over $40k (for married couples), those under that actually pay higher taxes now than before.

Exactly.

Monster Rain wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the same time, we have so many infrastructure problems that don't require a lot of skilled labor to address. Rather than take away entitlements, why doesn't the government require some community service as a condition of receiving them? You get a welfare check, if you're able bodied, sign up for some task. Helping paint a bridge, picking trash up off the streets, working a couple hours at a food kitchen. The government could easily draw some benefit from the money they're paying out for entitlements and the society as a whole would benefit. Not only that, but the welfare mentality would be addressed, people would get the feeling that they're working for their food again, and that has value.

That's a good idea.

It's actually not as good an idea as you think, for a lot of reasons.

First, few able bodied people really collect welfare. Most adults that do are single mothers, and are getting the money generally to care for their children.

Unemployment is different, because people pay into the system, and are in theory looking for work.

Second, you now have to hire people to supervise these projects, buy supplies, etc. The potential for graft is enormous.

Third, you run into problems with contractors as well as public employee unions, who are wondering why people making less than minimum wage are doing jobs they should be doing.

By the time you paid enough to actually try to get some labor out, you'll probably spend more than the labor is worth.

Polonius wrote:So, are you alleging that Obama made the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because that's what your analogy suggests.

It's unquestionable that he increased spending in Afghanistan. Whether this made the situation worse (I assume is the missing word there) depends on which side of the fence you're standing on. However, taking the idea that all war spending is bad, then Obama certainly made the situation worse in Afghanistan.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, are you alleging that Obama made the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because that's what your analogy suggests.

It's unquestionable that he increased spending in Afghanistan. Whether this made the situation worse (I assume is the missing word there) depends on which side of the fence you're standing on. However, taking the idea that all war spending is bad, then Obama certainly made the situation worse in Afghanistan.

True, while bringing Iraq spending way down, and at least slowing the growth of overall spending on the two wars.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf (see page 7)

To continue the fire analogy, you're still madder at the guy who started one fire, began to put it out, only to start a second fire, than you are at the guy who helped put out the second fire and then diverted the resources to fight the first.

There's something to be said for just buggering out of there, and I'm sure the defense hawks on the right will say it if it's even attempted.

This is the problem, we're so busy trying to fix the blame, we don't fix the problem.

Lets assume everyone in Congress and the Oval office since 1994 are evil warmongering bride takers and move on. How do we fix THE PROBLEM NOW.

Polonius wrote:True, while bringing Iraq spending way down, and at least slowing the growth of overall spending on the two wars.

If he wanted to end the wars, he could have. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Obama has the power to withdraw troops to the U.S. He could have negotiated a peace treaty with Afghanistan and Iraq. By failing to do these things, he has perpetuated the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If your position is that these are both bad things, then their continuation is equally wrong.

I note with some amusement the sudden disappearance of the anti-war left.

Polonius wrote:To continue the fire analogy, you're still madder at the guy who started one fire, began to put it out, only to start a second fire, than you are at the guy who helped put out the second fire and then diverted the resources to fight the first.

I'm not entirely convinced that starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessarily bad policy. I think that the continuation of the wars is inappropriate, and that it was poorly conducted, but that wasn't my call.

Monster Rain wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the same time, we have so many infrastructure problems that don't require a lot of skilled labor to address. Rather than take away entitlements, why doesn't the government require some community service as a condition of receiving them? You get a welfare check, if you're able bodied, sign up for some task. Helping paint a bridge, picking trash up off the streets, working a couple hours at a food kitchen. The government could easily draw some benefit from the money they're paying out for entitlements and the society as a whole would benefit. Not only that, but the welfare mentality would be addressed, people would get the feeling that they're working for their food again, and that has value.

That's a good idea.

One could argue that Americorps and Teach for America are exactly this sort of thing. Essentially the federal government pays people to do work for charities and private enterprises or, in the case of VISTA public works.

biccat wrote:I note with some amusement the sudden disappearance of the anti-war left.

I'm not sure how much time you spend on left-wing news sites (My guess, not much) but they haven't "gone" anyway. The wars are still extremely unpopular. Go to any left-wing news aggregator and do a search.

The Huffington Post takes Obama to task for the wars on a near-daily basis. Here's a featured piece from yesterday asking why we're even in Afghanistan. here's one bemoaning the lack of media coverage for war protests. Here's a major protest event piece from dailykos yesterday, planning a giant 9/12 style rally in October whose stated #2 goal is to end our wars.

biccat wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced that starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessarily bad policy. I think that the continuation of the wars is inappropriate, and that it was poorly conducted, but that wasn't my call.

I think that when considering the continuation of any conflict one has to acknowledge to the way the initiation of a conflict defines it. For example, the nature of forces initially committed to engagement necessarily determines how quickly they can be removed, redeployed, or alternatively supported.

As both Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, it is relatively easy to enter a conflict, but very difficult to change the course of one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:I note with some amusement the sudden disappearance of the anti-war left.

I'm not sure how much time you spend on left-wing news sites (My guess, not much) but they haven't "gone" anyway. The wars are still extremely unpopular. Go to any left-wing news aggregator and do a search.

The Huffington Post takes Obama to task for the wars on a near-daily basis. Here's a featured piece from yesterday asking why we're even in Afghanistan. here's one bemoaning the lack of media coverage for war protests. Here's a major protest event piece from dailykos yesterday, planning a giant 9/12 style rally in October whose stated #2 goal is to end our wars.

Indeed. Words like "betrayed" are common in many liberal opinion pieces regarding the war.

Ouze wrote:here's one bemoaning the lack of media coverage for war protests.

Then maybe I should have said "visible anti-war left." Gone are the massive protests and the breathless reporting of ten or fifteen "anti-war protestors" on a street corner.

It's almost like the media had a political agenda (that is, "political party" political, not "supporting a cause" political). Crazy, I know.

biccat wrote:
I know that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the government, because that's what tax cuts do, based on historical trends.

Its been shown that tax cuts affect behavior by placing additional money in the hands of consumers and investors, which goes on to create additional jobs. However, it has not been shown that this necessarily increases state revenue. It is true that tax cuts "pay for themselves" to some extent, but it is rare for the revenue so generate to cover the entire cost of the rate deductions.

biccat wrote:
There is a temporary drop in revenue to the government as the economy slightly lags, then there's a surge in revenue as the money that would normally be collected as taxes is passed through the economy to create more income, and therefore more tax revenue.

But not necessarily more tax revenue than would have been generated by higher tax rates.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:True, while bringing Iraq spending way down, and at least slowing the growth of overall spending on the two wars.

If he wanted to end the wars, he could have. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Obama has the power to withdraw troops to the U.S. He could have negotiated a peace treaty with Afghanistan and Iraq. By failing to do these things, he has perpetuated the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If your position is that these are both bad things, then their continuation is equally wrong.

I'm not an expert on security policy. I'm not arguing the merits of the war, then or now. I'm merely saying that it's not logically inconsistent to hold that entering a war was bad policy, but continuing it is good (or the best) policy.

I note with some amusement the sudden disappearance of the anti-war left.

They're simply wherever all the deficit hawk rightwingers were for 8 years. Partisans are, well, partisan!

Though you can make the argument that the Iraq War was the bigger problem for more of the protestors, and the situation in Iraq has gotten better by nearly any measure.

Polonius wrote:To continue the fire analogy, you're still madder at the guy who started one fire, began to put it out, only to start a second fire, than you are at the guy who helped put out the second fire and then diverted the resources to fight the first.

I'm not entirely convinced that starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessarily bad policy. I think that the continuation of the wars is inappropriate, and that it was poorly conducted, but that wasn't my call.

Polonius wrote:
Though you can make the argument that the Iraq War was the bigger problem for more of the protestors, and the situation in Iraq has gotten better by nearly any measure.

Quick question for clarification, are you saying that the situation in Iraq has gotten better so that's why there is less protest about it? I'm not arguing, just trying to figure out what you mean.