Say Anything Blog

I wonder what the tax-and-spend dems are going to think when they realize all their cut-back-on-oil rhetoric is going to cost the gubmint big, big bucks in tax revenue?

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

pilgrim
of the national debt accrued since this country began, 50% was under the Bushes. 70% accrued under the last three GOP presidents. tax and spend? at least they are not just spending and spending and spending. your party likes to pretend they are fiscally responsible, but nothing could be farther from reality.
i urge you to join me in despising both of our pathetic, self-aggrandizing big parties.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

tax and spend? at least they are not just spending and spending and spending.

Sparkie,

If, as seems to be the case, you are back-handedly endorsing a Democrat program of just taxing and taxing and taxing, and then spending and spending, and more spending, you are making an even bigger mistake than that which you criticize.

Every tax rate cut, from Calvin Coolidge to JFK, to Gerald Ford, to Ronald Reagan, to Bill Clinton (1997!) to George W. Bush, has resulted in increased economic activity and growth.  In the case of the taxes on capital, which Democrats have proposed to hike again, those cuts have more than paid for themselves… substantially more.

Furthermore, if you honestly believe that an Obama presidency coupled with Democrat control of both houses of Congress will result in fiscal responsibility, you far more hopelessly naive than any of us might have imagined.

We all know which taxes are going to raised by Democrats if they are given the opportunity - all of them!  So where are the spending cuts that would equal that fiscal responsibility you pine for?  The economy isn’t going to show any substantive growth and a corresponding growth in tax revenues collected under a Democrat-controlled Washington, DC.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

pilgrim
of the national debt accrued since this country began, 50% was under the Bushes.

Typical leftie ignorant, static analysis bullshit.  In fact, the bulk of our GDP was also accumulated during that time, so the percentage of debt relative to GDP has decreased.
This is what happens when ignorant propagandists tell only the info that supports their bullshit, while leaving out the rest of it.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

If I remember correctly, we previously used about 22 million barrels per day of fuel, so this is about the same 3-4% reduction in usage that driving miles and gasoline consumption is showing.

And yes, per Pilgrim’s point, it is devastating, along with reduced vehicle sales tax revenue, budgets that depend on transportation related tax revenues, starting with (ironically) transit budgets.

Bubba, I’m actually not sure I’m convinced that a decrease in gas tax revenues is all that devastating.  I think there are a lot of bureaucrats who would like us to believe that, but I’d like to see the numbers.

After all, less gas tax means less driving means less wear and tear on infrastructure means less money for maintenance.

I don’t know that to be true, but I’m not just going to buy into it either.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Methinks you’d have to assume a LOT of fat in the budget to cover for rising asphalt/concrete/etc.. costs and the fact that not all road damage is due to vehicle wear--up north we of course have a fair amount of frost heave that isn’t exactly kind of thoe roads, of course.

Need to run the numbers, of course, but it’s not a simple equation of “vehicle miles in damage to roads out” that would lend itself to a constant gas tax over decades.

batone
That was not an implicit endorsement of Dems. What I said is true. 70% of the total debt this country has incurred since it was founded happened on the watch of the last three Republican presidents.
YOU GUYS CANNOT PRETEND TO BE THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY.
My comment was aimed at Pil who singled out the Dems and was ranting about their spending.
I see that r108 can explain away that grossly irresponsible spending. How conservative!
The claim that your party is remotely financially responsible, in the slightest, is a figment of your collective imagination. Its about as real as the toothfairy.

SMACK. SMACK. SMACK. SMACK.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

SMACK. SMACK. SMACK. SMACK.

Sparkie,

Okay!  Now what?

You have offered your indictment irrespective of its accuracy or whether or not the rest of us agree with its significance.  Now what?

For what its worth, one could also say that George W. Bush is the biggest tax collector in our country’s history, since the federal treasuries have taken in more revenue during his 8 years in office than in any other similar 8 year period.  That too is a harsh, though essentially meaningless indictment.

If federal fiscal responsibility is important enough to you to have brought up the subject and indicted three GOP administrations in the process, don’t you think you ought to offer some sort of viable solution to a problem you felt was important enough to comment on?

“(D)espising both of our pathetic, self-aggrandizing big parties...” and sitting out the electoral process while sulking about it may be personally satisfying to you.  But its an essentially meaningless action to the rest of us, a kind of non-partisan mental masturbation, and it certainly doesn’t add to the credibility of anything else you might have to say

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I see that r108 can explain away that grossly irresponsible spending.

So many lies from you, Sparkie, so little time(or interest).  Your “analysis” is wrong, as I have already explained.  The deficit as a percentage of GDP has declined, which would tell you, if you knew anything about economics, that we are making money on our debt.  BTW, in order to have economic growth, one must have debt, which you confuse with spending on useless social engineering pyramid schemes, which is irresponsible.
The fact that Obama promises to ramp up spending considerable proves that, no matter how you lie about Republican spending, Dem spending is far worse, and they raise taxes to boot, which simply cuts off the tax base by discouraging investment.
Again, Sparkie, for God’s Sake, take an elementary econ class before you even attempt to deal with economic matters.  You simply show your abysmal ignorance on the subject.  Of course, that’s par for the course for lefties.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

BB: You assume that govt road maintenance is efficient; it is far from it.  Lots of fat to be trimmed.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I see that r108 can explain away that grossly irresponsible spending.

Sparkie,

This simply isn’t true!  R108 wasn’t “explaining away” the GOP spending.  His argument was that you implicitly placed far too much emphasis on that spending, and that as a percentage of our nation’s overall income, GDP, and total tax revenues as well, the debt has not only gone down of late, but is actually much lower than it has been during prior administrations.

In the real world, as a business grows, or as a family’s income increases, both can take on more debt when necessary because the percent of that income needed to service and pay down that debt diminishes as the income rises.

Its finance, kid, not rocket science.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

108; come up with the data and post on it, then.  Having walked a few blocks along the Via Appia Antica (2300 years old and doing fine), I’m extremely amenable to your hypothesis that we could keep roads fine for a lot longer than we do.  I just haven’t seen the data.

Bubba,

I know this is sort of off the subject, but it amazes me in the literal sense whenever I think about Roman roads that were so well engineered that many of the are still in use to some degree 2000 years later.

For a civilization that never invented electricity the intricacy and efficiency of their craftsmanship was incredible.

I wonder how much of our present day stuff will still be standing 2000 years from now?

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

I’m extremely amenable to your hypothesis that we could keep roads fine for a lot longer than we do. I just haven’t seen the data.

That wasn’t my point, which was about the efficient use of the funds from gas taxes to keep our roads in repair.  I think govt is so bloated and inefficient that they run on money, rather than performance, and so will claim that the reduced revenue will make it impossible for them to continue to do their jobs.
The Via Appia was not subjected to anywhere near the stress of our modern highways, in terms of traffic volume and loads, so I don’t know if your equivalence really applies here.  I do agree that it’s a great road for its time, however.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Pilgrim; yes, it’s remarkable, and noteworthy that apart from concrete instead of cobblestones on top and rebar to reinforce the concrete, Roman roads were built a lot like the Autobahn.  And per 108’s point, the Via Appia Antica (there is also a new one roughly parallel, built around 1650) still carries bus and truck traffic. 

I would tend to guess that if we started building crucial roads like this, we might end up with a lot fewer orange cones each summer.  That’s the crucial point where I’d expect a good look at waste.  (again, 108, you cannot simply assume your conclusion of lots of waste....gotta provide the proof in terms of the roads departments of the country)

we might end up with a lot fewer orange cones each summer.

Interesting point.  If roads are so important than why is it acceptable for the government to pay someone to block it off while nobody works on it until the first weeks of October.

This is a sore point of mine.  The government needs to look at building roads taking into account future costs of maintenance, replacement and inconvenience to the people that use the roads.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Bubba,

Bite your tongue!  Without the need to rebuild roads and bridges every few years, Democrats would be forced to find a new means of distributing federal earmark monies and the unions that support those Democrats would become totally irrelevant!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

(again, 108, you cannot simply assume your conclusion of lots of waste....gotta provide the proof in terms of the roads departments of the country)

Yeah, the economic inefficiency of govt needs to be proven.  /sarcasm

Since they don’t work for profit, and since they aren’t fiscally responsible for the outcome of their work, and since they have incentive to work as slowly and expensively as possible, it’s structural.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

So, BB, it’s not an “assumption” at all; it’s based on sound economic principles and a knowledge of how govt does things.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

R108 check your figures

, the bulk of our GDP was also accumulated during that time, so the percentage of debt relative to GDP has decreased.

Actually, if I read those numbers correctly, the debt to GDP ratio has been approximately constant under W.

What was Sparkie saying again?

By the way, whoever drew those lines for the administrations is an idiot:

You don’t mark it from the day the president took office.

You mark it from when their policies had a chance to take effect.  Clearly in 2001, we had the last Clinton budget (just as in 1994 we would have had the last GHWB budget), so you need to push the numbers forward a year.  Over the period when W’s fiscal policies have been in effect, the public debt in GDP ratio has fluctuated from 35-38%.  And that includes the effect of a recession that ended at the start of his first fiscal period.

Here is a graphic via Wikipedia for both public and total debt.

I believe Woof posted the wrong graphic BTW, I think we were discussing public debt.

Charts seem the same

By the way, whoever drew those lines for the administrations is an idiot:

You don’t mark it from the day the president took office.

You mark it from when their policies had a chance to take effect…

C, that’s what the squiggly line is for.

And in related news:

Excuse me, you were saying?

SMACK.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Bite your tongue!  Without the need to rebuild roads and bridges every few years, Democrats would be forced to find a new means of distributing federal earmark monies and the unions that support those Democrats would become totally irrelevant!

Good point.  My tongue is bleeding profusely.  :^)

And 108, I agree that government generally tends to be inefficient.  However, if you want to craft policy around that assumption, you’ve got to flesh out exactly where the money is being wasted. 

Me, I’d start with taking a looking at spending vs. the fiscal year and looking at month 1 and month 12 vs. average--the difference is “gotta spend or we lose our funding” waste.  You also look at replacement schedules for equipment, compensation for people vs. the private sector, and the lifetime cost of building roads “as we do it” vs. the cost of “doing it like the Via Appia Antica or better.”

RBB, that graphic demonstrates the sole moment of success of federal government in the last 20 years.

But you truly are a buffoon if you attribute it to Bill Clinton.  It of course was the republican majorities in the house and senate that accomplished this.  It’s unfortunate that they were derailed, but it was a brief moment of fiscal sanity by our federal government no matter who was responsible.

WOOF, they are.  I was pointing towards the public debt curve as more apropos of the above discussion.

My other point is from the start of Bush’s fiscal policies, public debt has remained more or less constant.  For whatever its worth, it has stayed well below the peak value during the Clinton administration.

And in related news: SMACK.

Let me see...the Democrats were in control of Congress during Reagan’s presidency, but the Republicans controlled Congress for most of Clinton’s! Very telling indeed!

Perhaps when Sparkless and boob reach junior high school and finally get that civics lesson about spending bills originating in the House, they won’t need as much smack to get them through the day? (Or reliance on cartoons to get their education!) heh.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Didn’t bush have the same gop majorities in the house and senate that accomplished $482,000,000,000 deficit? Who derailed that gop. Oh yeah, that gop derailed that gop.

For the future of America, McCain must be stopped.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Didn’t bush have the same gop majorities in the house and senate that accomplished $482,000,000,000 deficit?

Historychallengedboob: Try, try, try to think back to September of 2001 and think, think, think really hard if anything outside of the control of the Presidency may have happened to change the nation’s economy. Anything, Bueller? Anything at all???

Now think of the last couple of years boob. Do the names Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ring a bell? Boobller? Boobller?

By the way, whoever drew those lines for the administrations is an idiot:

And yet, when a cartoonist draws the same lines, you fall for it hook, line and stinker! Heh. Maybe it’s a little more complicated than that? Come back when you’ve got that civics class under your belt!

For the future of America, rbb must not breed! Heh.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

...if you want to craft policy around that assumption, you’ve got to flesh out exactly where the money is being wasted.

Again, it’s not an “assumption”; it comes from a basic understanding of the structure of govt fiscal behavior.  The govt simply isn’t fiscally responsible in the way private business is, as I have already explained in detail.  The policy recommendation is very simple: Return as much as possible to the private sector, where there is fiscal responsiblity to cost/benefit, and strictly monitor the rest, using private sector standards of performance.  Govt wages tend to be higher than those in the private sector for comparable work.  That’s just one example.
From an economic perspective, govt is inherently inefficient.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

RBB: Didn’t bush have the same gop majorities in the house and senate that accomplished $482,000,000,000 deficit?

Guess who lost the majority in 2006, too.

I agree with Robert108, there were extenuating circumstances, but bridges to nowhere didn’t help any.

For the future of America, McCain must be stopped.

At least that’s what the labor unions are saying.

What a bunch of horse shit.

Lets see:
Reagan spent the Soviet Union into an economic implosion and ended the Cold War without our firing a shot. That deficit was to the advantage of the whole world. What he did was set the stage for the economic growth of America that would occur under Billy Jeff and the Republican Congress, that Arkansas whore hopper and his bull dike wife were beneficiaries of Republican forces and the only thing he did for most of his term was not screw it up!

Bush Sr let the Democrats roll him and he increased taxes, increasing taxes is always bad for the economy. Bush Sr. was a moderate Republican with no core values and he almost screwed up the opportunities Reagan handed to him, and don’t forget he too had to deal with that mad dictator from Iraq.

Billy Jeff was getting blow jobs while Osama Bin Laden was killing our people around the world and plotting the strikes of 9/11, his administration benefitted from the false Dot Com boom, the closing of military bases and savaging the military and intelligence budgets, which made Bin Laden’s strikes on 9/11 possible; and he benefitted from 6 years of a conservative Republican dominated Congress. Nevertheless, even with all that on his side, we started into a recession near the end of his term, because leave it to Democrats to bring disaster out of victory every time.

Under Bush-II, we got hit by the corporate scandals, 9/11 and the need to take the war to Islamic terrorists on three fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan and Homeland Security) among other significant hits to our economy, negative circumstances that would have taken this country into the economic sewer, if Bush and the Republicans did not keep taxes low and allow the marketplace to do its job. Nonetheless, until the Democrats took over Congress, gas prices were reasonable, our economy was and is booming and we have had what in every other administration would be called full employment.

So, rbb your cute little pictures are based on false impressions of reality. Yours is a twisted mind and irrational logic.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Good one, Neiman; nothing like the facts to refute leftie liars.  One addition: the expense of rebuilding our military and intel assets after Clinton gutted them for eight years.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert108: Yes, god point, I forgot about the rebuilding costs of the militray and our intelligence services.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

And, of course, Reagan had to do the same thing to rebuild the damage Carter did to our national defense capabilities.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.