|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
07-29-2011, 09:41 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCricket
|
He also needs someone that knows more about the effective display of quantitative information. Oh, perhaps that was the point the administration sought with that graphic.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
07-29-2011, 09:45 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
|
|
I'M confused???
WTF does this mean??
Quote:
you are way confused dude
can you ansewer a quick question?
Are the poor lazy bums who don't deserve healthcare?
|
I'll ansewer your question if you can roto-router it out correctly...
|
07-29-2011, 10:01 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Larry,
You are confused if you think I am advocating that social security contributions be turned into a tax. IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! One part of the reason it happened is the enormous tax break the higher tax brackets received, not only with lower marginal rates, but also lower rates on capital gains. The biggest culprit was the political culture that told everyone that we could have it all without paying for it - there are plenty to share the blame on both sides of the aisle. One way they maintained the spending without returning taxes back to more effective levels was using the money that had been contributed toward social security. Now it is going to be some of those who can afford it least who suffer the consequences.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
07-29-2011, 10:09 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
He also needs someone that knows more about the effective display of quantitative information. Oh, perhaps that was the point the administration sought with that graphic.
|
what are you saying? ??
You did not agree with or disagree with the graph, simply that it was a poor display. So what are you saying? Your point?
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
|
07-30-2011, 12:07 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCricket
what are you saying? ??
You did not agree with or disagree with the graph, simply that it was a poor display. So what are you saying? Your point?
|
I'm saying that the design of that graph required too much deciphering and it wasn't clear at a glance what they were attempting to convey. Graphs ought be clear and easily interpreted. I assume that the numbers are correct and I'm not refuting them here. It looks like they depicted the growth of the debt with a graph that summed negative numbers downward. I think that growths, even negative aggregates, ought be depicted as increasing. The fact that these are negative is part of the graphic being titled debt. IMHO, the graph would be easier to understand if it was inverted.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
07-30-2011, 09:56 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
|
|
hey, we agree on something.
Yeah, a better graph would be nice, but get past that and the info is interesting.
A couple fo questions that came to my mind:
Okay, bush increase the debt by 7 Trillion, obama by 1.4 trillion(IIRC), the rest is due to poor economy downgrade. The graph appears to show this in a timeline as well. So, the question, did some of Bush's debt come from a poor economy as well? The graph does not depict this. (I hate bush so I don't care ).
ANother thing, these debts are depicted as Bushs's responsibility/fault. Were they? Or, did he inherit them from previous administations? I am sure the Afgahnastan/Irag war fall under him, but what about the rest.
I am not trying to defend Bush, but I am trying to point out the fallacy of blaming a president for out financial woes. These bills had to be approved by our elected clowns.
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
|
07-30-2011, 09:58 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Larry,
You are confused if you think I am advocating that social security contributions be turned into a tax. IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! One part of the reason it happened is the enormous tax break the higher tax brackets received, not only with lower marginal rates, but also lower rates on capital gains. The biggest culprit was the political culture that told everyone that we could have it all without paying for it - there are plenty to share the blame on both sides of the aisle. One way they maintained the spending without returning taxes back to more effective levels was using the money that had been contributed toward social security. Now it is going to be some of those who can afford it least who suffer the consequences.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
D-Ray:
They've been stealing the surplus ever since FICA was adjusted in the mid-80's. Soc Sec went "off-budget" even before then. It was fraud and it hurt the working poor.. BUT -- The working poor and middle class are SUPPOSED to be engaged in the support of Soc Sec and Medicare. That 14% (7% is a fiction also since folks like me pay the ENTIRE freight and in reality so does every worker) is supposed to represent the actual cost of the program. If you walk away from the actuarial and fiscal management of the programs (like you obviously think we've committed to doing) --- all you are doing is condoning the fraud of overcharging 1/2 the people for these programs. You become complicit in the act. I will not support USING SS/MEDICARE taxes as an EXCUSE to further Fed spending on other items.. The SPENDING has to be controlled.
Go ahead and have your class war skimishes on jet taxes, and income taxes and cap gains taxes. (Although Dems are apparently so functionally economically illiterate as to call for increases in the upper income brackets as a punishment to the rich when the CORRECT tool to punish them would be Cap gains and Death Tax). But for f746jk sake, don't dismantle the structure of Soc Sec and Medicare by lumping it all into one big entitlement bin..
And that's really non-negotiable.. Because everyone will know that SS/Medicare FAILED to even survive 70 years as conceived by FDR and Congress and they will NEVER again trust the Feds to institute such lofty sweeping "reforms". We will have blatant historical evidence that:
1) Congress couldn't keep their paws off of income assigned to these programs.
2) The lied and continued to lie about a "trust fund" when no such animal ever existed.
3) That their projections of economic cost for these programs and the management of these programs sucked.
4) That the FEDs will NOT take the responsibility to repair these programs or make the neccessary adjustments to the Fed fiscal debt to help coast these programs thru hard times.
And we will oppose you anytime in the future that you plan to do this to us again... And CERTAINLY you will be pressed to renege on shit like the ObamaCare plan if you really didn't MEAN to cut $500Bill from Medicare to pay for it...
|
07-30-2011, 06:43 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,909
|
|
Here's another interesting take from the ever snarky Maureen Dowd. She pretty much nails it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/op...tea-party.html
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
07-30-2011, 07:00 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
|
You don't need Maureen Dowd.. You can take comfort in the fact that the Professional politicians loitering around the Capitol managed to completely snooker those milk-faced tea party freshman at their first skirmish..
Remember the 1st budget negotiation showdown where the Repubs THOUGHT they won a $60Bill budget concession? Turns out that what they REALLY won was only worth about 0.8Bill.. Complete route.. Complete saps..
Power to the people!!!
|
07-30-2011, 09:03 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
It means that the Tea Party has made the GOP its bitch.
Unfortunately, the Tea Party is deluded.
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Last edited by BlueStreak; 07-30-2011 at 09:06 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 AM.
|