Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[TruthersLie]

No. Admit the truth. Nothing more nothing less.

So the 5 trillion that was added in 3 years is ALL from Bush? ALL of it? Really? Honestly? Truthfully?

So how long do Obama and the Democrats get a pass? 4 more years? 8 years? 12 years? Give me a sell by date...

It would make things much, much worse. We need to stimulate the economy not decrease it more.

yes... of course it would. Tell that to clinton and how he wrecked the economy and the US... and exploded.. the.... debt... oh wait.

Over the long haul it would save us a lot. It's urgently needed. Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't to a point that we need to implement austerity. Well, that's what two Nobel Prize winning Nobel Laureates say. But let's go with your speculation. Right?

Yes... of course we owe over 100% of the value of our country, and we are just exploding the debt MORE... at what point does the US become Greece or Spain? Hmmm? What is a few more billion amongst friends?

 

[TruthersLie]

It would make things much, much worse. We need to stimulate the economy not decrease it more.

So let me get this straight. I'll use a simple analogy.

You have a house that you owe LOTS of $$ on. You have a car you owe $$ on. You have a good job and you are paying your bills. Every month you use your credit card a little bit to get some more stuff. And you have done this for the last 10 years. You are living beyond your means, but every month you are able to pay the bills, so it is ok. Even though you have a few big loans, and your credit cards are filling up slowly.

You lose your job, have to change your employer and now instead of only using your credit cards a little, you decide you need to go out and make another LARGE purchase (a huge boat). And you are now using your credit cards to pay for the shortfall in your bills.

You don't change your lifestyle. You keep on saying, 'When I get a new job' I'll pay off those bills.'

Yet, you keep on spending. Now not only is it a new boat, you get a new car, and you need some outdoor stuff to go camping with and are looking at buying a cabin.

Even though you don't have the money, and are barely paying the minimum on your credit cards... but hey, they haven't reached their limits yet.

That is the US. Bush did it, GWB did it and now BO is doing it.

if your neighbor were living like that, what would you tell them? How about STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

So let me get this straight. I'll use a simple analogy.

You have a house that you owe LOTS of $$ on. You have a car you owe $$ on. You have a good job and you are paying your bills. Every month you use your credit card a little bit to get some more stuff. And you have done this for the last 10 years. You are living beyond your means, but every month you are able to pay the bills, so it is ok. Even though you have a few big loans, and your credit cards are filling up slowly.

You lose your job, have to change your employer and now instead of only using your credit cards a little, you decide you need to go out and make another LARGE purchase (a huge boat). And you are now using your credit cards to pay for the shortfall in your bills.

You don't change your lifestyle. You keep on saying, 'When I get a new job' I'll pay off those bills.'

Yet, you keep on spending. Now not only is it a new boat, you get a new car, and you need some outdoor stuff to go camping with and are looking at buying a cabin.

Even though you don't have the money, and are barely paying the minimum on your credit cards... but hey, they haven't reached their limits yet.

That is the US. Bush did it, GWB did it and now BO is doing it.

if your neighbor were living like that, what would you tell them? How about STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

The government doesn't work like that. False analogy.

 

[TruthersLie]

The government doesn't work like that. False analogy.

It isn't the greatest analogy...but it works

So you mean to tell me the government can get as much debt as possible right? go buy that cabin. Use the credit cards.

if you disagree with the analogy, feel free to explain how it is a false analogy

 

[Belz...]

Because of the obsessive efforts of the left which seem to be in a large part based on wealth envy and attempts to try to equalize the wealth distribution rather than an equitable way to fund the government.

Well, there's your problem. You are unaware of reality.

 

[Belz...]

The best chance to get rich and stay rich is to live in a nation that ensures that people who are disadvantaged have some benefits from living in that society. Human beings are our greatest asset. Give everyone an opportunity and don't hold poor people back with taxation. Progressive tax rates don't keep the wealth from getting wealthy. On the contrary, it helps them.

I recently had a conversation on Youtube (I know, I know) about the topic of wealth inequality, and he (or she) said he was perfectly fine with a hypothetical where 1% of the population would own 90% of wealth rather than 40, because that's the name of the game. I guess he thought he'd be part of the 1% in that situation.

 

[Belz...]

Because I believe the fairest approach is to have everyone pay in the same proportion.

And this belief is wrong.

So present your evidence and support as to why a progressive tax is so much better than a flat tax.

You are being dishonest. This evidence has now been presented numerous times, and you ignore it because of ideology. You're not after evidence.

 

[Belz...]

How is that "fair" to those born disadvantaged? You seek fairness in a vacuum.

Right. Let's imagine a country in which military service is mandatory. For everybody. How would such a system be fair to the mentally or physically handicapped, or people who simply cannot engage in such demanding activities ? Even during conscription, some people were excluded.

It follows that the same applies to taxation: you simply cannot ask the poorest to contribute the same proportion of their earnings. It's not about wealth redistribution, it's simply a matter of logic and human compassion. The wealthy can afford to pay a greater portion at no noticeable effect to their standard of living, and the poor contribute to a much stronger economy if they are less poor. Everybody wins.

 

[Belz...]

And BTW, we desperately needed help from the GOP. It's congress that write the laws in the first place. Refusing to work with the administration to win back the White House isn't helping much.

Aside from Citizens United, or perhaps because of it, this is my big issue with US politics nowadays. This "us-vs-them" approach will make the US lose big time in the near future.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

It isn't the greatest analogy...but it works

So you mean to tell me the government can get as much debt as possible right? go buy that cabin. Use the credit cards.

if you disagree with the analogy, feel free to explain how it is a false analogy

I'm not doing so right now (phone) but I'm disinclined when people commit fallacies of the excluded middle.

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm not doing so right now (phone) but I'm disinclined when people commit fallacies of the excluded middle.

First you tell me that my analogy isn't accurate because "the government doesn't work like that." I ask you to explain how my analogy isn't correct, or to expand on your "the government doesn't work like that" statement. Now you have shifted to move away from "the government doesn't work like that" to that my analogy is using the false choice (or excluding the middle) logical fallacy.

Where in my analogy am I using the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Oh... I get it. Where I ask you when you think or say to someone who continues to borrow money to live a lifestyle that they can't afford to stop borrowing money, that is where the fallacy is.

Is that the fallacy you are implying in my analogy? (honestly I don't see a false choice dichotomy in my analogy. If you do can you explain it to me.)

 

[Beerina]

Bush was an ass for increasing spending so much at the end of his term.

Obama was an ass for keeping it going and saying tiny pullbacks were "draconian" and "extremist".

Will Romney be an ass and not reduce it that much or at least reduce it "somewhat" over the screams of "baby murderer!"? I don't know.


But I sure as holy hell wanna find out.

 

[Neally]

I've illustrated your contradiction several times. It's there for anyone to read. You can't answer and it's easy to see why: it demonstrates that you know the guy making $20k is getting the shaft; you just don't care - "being poor sucks." Of course, you want it to suck more.

Nope. The guy making $20K isn't getting the shaft. He's paying is fair share with a flat tax.

Really? You do know for the last page and a half we've been discussing income tax rates and not the cost of Ferraris or lampshades, right? You are the only one who to wants to bait the conversation into another topic.

You're the on that tried to use the issue of regressive as a justification for a graduated tax. Remember that? Now you don't have the courage to explain and justify that in other areas. Figures.

I just wanted to see you type it: that you understand and agree with the proposition that a flat tax hurts the poorest the most and the most wealthy the least. It's really quite callous and economically detrimental, but there it is.

Cry me a river. All stuff that costs money hurts the poorest the most.

Well, there's your problem. You are unaware of reality.

Do enlighten then. Or is it easier tossing out sarcastic comments?

And this belief is wrong.

Do enlighten then. Or is it easier tossing out sarcastic comments?

 

[stokes234]

Cry me a river. All stuff that costs money hurts the poorest the most.

Fortunately, most of the western world has developed beyond using "cry me a river" as a default stance towards other people's problems.

Do enlighten then. Or is it easier tossing out sarcastic comments?

Do enlighten then. Or is it easier tossing out sarcastic comments?

I'm no english teacher, but I don't think either remark there was sarcasm.

 

[RandFan]

So the 5 trillion that was added in 3 years is ALL from Bush? ALL of it? Really? Honestly? Truthfully?

That would be a straw man.

So how long do Obama and the Democrats get a pass? 4 more years? 8 years? 12 years? Give me a sell by date...

A pass for what? The economy was shrinking. We needed stimulus AND increased tax revenue.

yes... of course it would. Tell that to clinton and how he wrecked the economy and the US... and exploded.. the.... debt... oh wait.

Clinton raised tax rates.

Yes... of course we owe over 100% of the value of our country, and we are just exploding the debt MORE... at what point does the US become Greece or Spain? Hmmm? What is a few more billion amongst friends?

Never mind that austerity in Europe has resulted in their shrinking economies while our's has expanded. Hmmmm......

 

[RandFan]

You lose your job, have to change your employer and now instead of only using your credit cards a little, you decide you need to go out and make another LARGE purchase (a huge boat). And you are now using your credit cards to pay for the shortfall in your bills.

The analogy is fatally flawed. An individual isn't an entire economy.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

First you tell me that my analogy isn't accurate because "the government doesn't work like that." I ask you to explain how my analogy isn't correct, or to expand on your "the government doesn't work like that" statement. Now you have shifted to move away from "the government doesn't work like that" to that my analogy is using the false choice (or excluding the middle) logical fallacy.

Where in my analogy am I using the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Oh... I get it. Where I ask you when you think or say to someone who continues to borrow money to live a lifestyle that they can't afford to stop borrowing money, that is where the fallacy is.

Is that the fallacy you are implying in my analogy? (honestly I don't see a false choice dichotomy in my analogy. If you do can you explain it to me.)

The middle one was your response to my post.

 

[RandFan]

First you tell me that my analogy isn't accurate because "the government doesn't work like that."

An individual isn't an economy. The point you are missing is that the theory of stimulus spending is predicated on complex system dynamics. To argue that a single constituent element is equal to a complex dynamic system is to fail to understand what a dynamic even is.

In short, you cannot have a chain reaction with a single atom because a chain reaction is a complex dynamic. Likewise, an economy is also a complex system dynamic.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Nope. The guy making $20K isn't getting the shaft. He's paying is fair share with a flat tax.

No, he isn't. He's paying proportionally more money out of his pocket in taxes because more of his income goes towards things which are unavoidable (rent, food, power, etc). No matter how much scrimping and saving, he will always spend more of his check on these necessary expenses than a rich person.

Why isn't it any less fair to use an actual regressive tax? As in your fair share is the cost of government divided by the number of income earners?

You're the on that tried to use the issue of regressive as a justification for a graduated tax. Remember that? Now you don't have the courage to explain and justify that in other areas. Figures.

Figures? That I won't take the bait and let the conversation sway to whatever topic you wish? It's your non-sequitor.

Cry me a river. All stuff that costs money hurts the poorest the most.

And yet we take steps to minimize harm for necessity items such as food, housing, power, medical treatment, etc. as you well know. Cry me a river indeed.

 

[Belz...]

Do enlighten then. Or is it easier tossing out sarcastic comments?

Do enlighten then. Or is it easier tossing out sarcastic comments?

Oh, sarcasm is both fun and easy, but 1) that wasn't sarcasm and 2) I will be happy to oblige.

A) You are unaware of reality because you think the "left" (whoever that is) is envious of the wealthy. That is entirely wrong, and nonsensical.

B) Your belief is wrong as shown by Randfan, myself and others.