America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by teedubbya. 56 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
The deficit
teedubbya Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
No big deal anymore. MAGA
Gene363 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
Not true, but the only response from the parliament of whores will be to raise taxes or invent new taxes instead cutting government spending.
teedubbya Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
MAGA

Parlement of whores was all R. Now half R. Ang the big pile of orange **** Prez. He’s great though and the deficit no longer matters.
teedubbya Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
To be clear the orange carnival barker isn’t a real R nor are many of the Congress. The party. Of law and order is no longer. I’m not pretending it doesn’t ,are sense. Just disappointed by the support for this dung heap.
gummy jones Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
its repulsive

id venture 80% of the goons are big gov advocates regardless of parties

the base never seems to care as long as their pet project gets funded
ZRX1200 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
The deficit.

Now I’m upset because I hate Cheeto, and I have to use every argument I can.

dstieger Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
List the Congressmen who got reelected by promising to spend less on stuff. Rand Paul and Mike Lee come to mind...cannot think of another.
It is political suicide. Screw the deficit. We only got 12 years before Global Warming wipes out humanity....who cares about debt?
tailgater Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
The voters WANT a deficit.
There is no other explanation for who we elect.

Everyone wants free stuff. The new wave of socialists are by no means original in their intent, they're just the most obvious.
It's now socially acceptable to mortgage our children's future in the name of propping up big government.
Free stuff.
Restrictive regulations on unfounded problems.
We'll spend hundreds of billions, perhaps more, on climate change with no possible means to measure the impact our dollars will or won't have.
Lost in all the hoopla surrounding "man made climate change" is the severity of our influence. If we have control over 1% of climate change and we somehow completely eliminate our influence, then there is still 99% change that's going to occur. Instead of preparing to adapt to a possible change, we're going to go broke in futile pursuit of Don Quixote's windmills.
So it's not far fetched to simply shrug our shoulders at the prospect of drowning in deficit debt. Because it truly won't matter.

victor809 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
The voters WANT a deficit.
There is no other explanation for who we elect.

Everyone wants free stuff. The new wave of socialists are by no means original in their intent, they're just the most obvious.
It's now socially acceptable to mortgage our children's future in the name of propping up big government.
Free stuff.
Restrictive regulations on unfounded problems.
We'll spend hundreds of billions, perhaps more, on climate change with no possible means to measure the impact our dollars will or won't have.
Lost in all the hoopla surrounding "man made climate change" is the severity of our influence. If we have control over 1% of climate change and we somehow completely eliminate our influence, then there is still 99% change that's going to occur. Instead of preparing to adapt to a possible change, we're going to go broke in futile pursuit of Don Quixote's windmills.
So it's not far fetched to simply shrug our shoulders at the prospect of drowning in deficit debt. Because it truly won't matter.



Dear lord the stupid hurts.

Tail... you really need to back off your "socialists want to spend all our money and blah blah blah" .... it's dumb. It shows your obvious bias against facts....

Our US budget deficit is about $1Trillion a year.

How much money do you think the "socialists" want to spend on.... well.... anything? You think their contribution is even going to put a dent in that deficit?

The total US budget is about 3.8 Trillion (give or take).
The total Mandatory spending is 2.5 Trillion (give or take).
Then you have our interest on debt.... about 0.3 Billion

That means the ENTIRETY of the Discretionary spending is our deficit.
Don't blame the "socialists"... that's... dumb.
Every single budget item in discretionary spending adds to our deficit.

whining about the socialists wanting green energy is the equivalent to complaining about Drafter eating a "wafer thin mint". Sure... he probably can't afford to eat it. But it was likely the 10 course meal ahead of that which really was the problem.
ZRX1200 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Nobody grabs one part without missing the bigger point just to feign outrage like you buddy.
ZRX1200 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
“The voters”

He’s correct
teedubbya Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Are you ok with an exploding deficit Z? I’ve never been no mater who has been in office. It was one of my few complaints about Reagan.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I'm not ok with an exploding deficit.... Not ok with war either... Or starvation... Or malaria... Or illegal deforestation... Or poaching... Or carrot top... God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...
victor809 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
It's amazing how it's always the other guy's stuff that's definitely exploding our deficit. Never whatever our thing is.

The only way we are going to get near managing our debt is a significant tax increase. We cannot actually reduce spending enough at this time without shutting down every single aspect of the government (including military). Reducing spending is great, and we should do it. But unless we increase taxes, we are "pro deficit". Tax revenue should have been increased, not decreased.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
That sounds good... Unfortunately, every politician sees a tax increase as an opportunity for spending increases...
Gene363 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
opelmanta1900 wrote:
That sounds good... Unfortunately, every politician sees a tax increase as an opportunity for spending increases...


Exactly!
teedubbya Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Just accept it huh.
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
No I’m not Teedubya, and I’m not going to pretend it’s selective outrage for me.....I also know the POTUS role...the POTUS is a cog in the wheel even if he’s a sharply dressed half brown guy. I don’t get more or less upset when he’s orange.

So we’re playing the “its Ok it’s my guy” accusation game yet we don’t get posts the other way.

The continuation of current social programs the feds operate are not sustainable, so I do have MAJOR issues with more going forward. Is it or is it not within their enumerated powers and role. That’s always my question.
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Dear lord the stupid hurts.

Tail... you really need to back off your "socialists want to spend all our money and blah blah blah" .... it's dumb. It shows your obvious bias against facts....

Our US budget deficit is about $1Trillion a year.

How much money do you think the "socialists" want to spend on.... well.... anything? You think their contribution is even going to put a dent in that deficit?

The total US budget is about 3.8 Trillion (give or take).
The total Mandatory spending is 2.5 Trillion (give or take).
Then you have our interest on debt.... about 0.3 Billion

That means the ENTIRETY of the Discretionary spending is our deficit.
Don't blame the "socialists"... that's... dumb.
Every single budget item in discretionary spending adds to our deficit.

whining about the socialists wanting green energy is the equivalent to complaining about Drafter eating a "wafer thin mint". Sure... he probably can't afford to eat it. But it was likely the 10 course meal ahead of that which really was the problem.


This.
Based on my quote:
"The new wave of socialists are by no means original in their intent, they're just the most obvious."

Pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim I said.

Someone else recently commented that you have pre-programmed retorts and don't even pay attention to what you read.
I'm not sure if it's lack of attention, or of comprehension.

Either way.



teedubbya Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
ZRX1200 wrote:
The deficit.

Now I’m upset because I hate Cheeto, and I have to use every argument I can.




I was responding to this because it seemed to say I’m being selective. I am not. I’m not seeing anything from the Pres or either party to address the issue. There sure is a a lot of howling about everything else though.

Maybe I’m just pissed I paid more in taxes this year but spending went up much more. And the President players and played more than a passive role. He did shut down things for fiscal issues, it just happened to be for the more important wall.
ZRX1200 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
No that wasn’t even directed at you, you’re always pretty consistent.

Although sometimes I do post at you as the devils advocate with the opposing viewpoint.
dstieger Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
This should be required viewing for every American. Many (most?) Congressional committee meetings are unwatchable grandstanding fiascos. Some of those that take place way outside the spotlight are much more educational. This is one of them. It is long, but if you just watch the opening statements beginning around 12:00, you'll get a lot to think about
https://www.c-span.org/video/?456149-1/national-debt-economy
victor809 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
This.
Based on my quote:
"The new wave of socialists are by no means original in their intent, they're just the most obvious."

Pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim I said.

Someone else recently commented that you have pre-programmed retorts and don't even pay attention to what you read.
I'm not sure if it's lack of attention, or of comprehension.

Either way.

Hah. Oh I pay attention. And I comprehend your sentences. Maybe you don't? Let's look at it again:

someone who totally hates everyone who wants to spend government money, not just the "socialists" wrote:

Everyone wants free stuff. The new wave of socialists are by no means original in their intent, they're just the most obvious.
It's now socially acceptable to mortgage our children's future in the name of propping up big government.
Free stuff.
Restrictive regulations on unfounded problems.
We'll spend hundreds of billions, perhaps more, on climate change with no possible means to measure the impact our dollars will or won't have.
Lost in all the hoopla surrounding "man made climate change" is the severity of our influence. If we have control over 1% of climate change and we somehow completely eliminate our influence, then there is still 99% change that's going to occur. Instead of preparing to adapt to a possible change, we're going to go broke in futile pursuit of Don Quixote's windmills.


So... while yes... you said "by no means original.... just the most obvious"... your "others" you then rant against include:
"big government" (usually something people whining about "socialists" also lump in)
"free stuff" (that's definitely something people whining about "socialists" like to harp about)
"restrictive regulations" (ok... not technically socialist, but has been lumped in with the "green new deal" as the evil du jour)
"climate change" (see above)


While I will say right now, I shouldn't have specifically said you were harping on "socialists" I should have said "liberals" or something else similar. But... my point stands. Nowhere in your rant did you actually harp on anything that doesn't fit neatly into your "I hate the libs because they're the ones who want to spend all the free money that they don't make or pay taxes ever on" mentality. But, as I pointed out, the ENTIRETY of our "discretionary budget" is our deficit. How much of our discretionary budget do you think actually applies to any of the crap you whined about above?

So, yeah... you threw a "no means original" in there. But nowhere did you complain about military spending. Nowhere did you mention Homeland Security.... the VA... Trump's "wall" request (which exceeds the entirety of our HUD and Health expenditures) ... basically, you ignored ALL the big ticket items, to complain about stuff that's barely a blip on existing budgets. How much do you think is actually spent by the government on climate change? How much do you think is actually spent on "restrictive regulations"? and how much do you think is spent on "free stuff"?

What percentage of our $1 Trillion (give or take) discretionary budget is the stuff you chose to specifically list in your whining?

To go back to my original analogy:
whining about the socialists, who are not original in their intent but are the most obvious while also highlighting only liberal causes which are minor parts of the discretionary budget is the equivalent to you pointing out the "wafer thin mint" and 2 pats of butter Drafter ate are "the most obvious" problems. Sure... he probably can't afford to eat it. But it was likely the 10 course meal ahead of that which really was the problem, which you still ignored.
delta1 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
so....if we make Drafter eat less we can reduce the budget...and have a healthier Drafter...win-win...
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Drafter's food comes out of his budget... Cause I can't get free gubment cheese damnit.. Mad
ZRX1200 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
I’ll wait for the cliff notes Vic
tailgater Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
ZRX1200 wrote:
I’ll wait for the cliff notes Vic


With Vic it's the Cliff Clavin's notes.

Speyside Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Norm's are better, " Beer ".
teedubbya Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Record deficits with a “good” economy. What could go wrong?
victor809 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
Record deficits with a “good” economy. What could go wrong?


Glad you put that "good" in quotes... aren't we headed back to 25,000?
delta1 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
cons keep throwing out their new pejorative to describe libs: "socialist" -- cuz that's what Fox News has directed cons to call all Dems...

insinuates that libs just want to take GOP money and use it to give free stuff away...without acknowledging how much wealth the GOP has handed to the wealthiest class and to corporations...(can you say "oligarchs"?)

that's not what Dems are trying to accomplish...spending public revenue raised by the collection of taxes on specific programs designed to help the poor and the average American -- that's not even socialism....it just sounds bad, cuz cons used "socialism" and "communism" to describe enemy authoritarian nations during the Cold War...
frankj1 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Corporate Welfare sounds better?
HA!
Speyside Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Humanitarian, empathy, and selflessness sound better.
tailgater Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
cons keep throwing out their new pejorative to describe libs: "socialist" -- cuz that's what Fox News has directed cons to call all Dems...

insinuates that libs just want to take GOP money and use it to give free stuff away...without acknowledging how much wealth the GOP has handed to the wealthiest class and to corporations...(can you say "oligarchs"?)

that's not what Dems are trying to accomplish...spending public revenue raised by the collection of taxes on specific programs designed to help the poor and the average American -- that's not even socialism....it just sounds bad, cuz cons used "socialism" and "communism" to describe enemy authoritarian nations during the Cold War...


LOL!
I see what you did there.




teedubbya Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The last farm bill money grab wasn’t exactly capitalism.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Speyside wrote:
Humanitarian, empathy, and selflessness sound better.

Government mandated empathy and selflessness... That should work...

There was a time when this country relied heavily on churches for these things...
teedubbya Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I think the true colors of the evangelicals as of late makes for interesting discussion. But I do think our leaders and America should stand for those things just not necessarily as institutionalized processes. Then again I didn't see anything suggesting government mandated.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
You thought the socialists were gonna make those taxes optional?
teedubbya Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
opelmanta1900 wrote:
You thought the socialists were gonna make those taxes optional?



No but at least they wont call them tarrifs and pretend someone else is paying for them


I keed I keed
opelmanta1900 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Actually meant to send you an article I stumbled on the other day... By a well known economist explaining how in fact China is definitely paying the tariffs... I'll look for it...
victor809 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

2019 deficit is bigger than the 2018 deficit which is bigger than the 2017 deficit which is bigger than the 2016 deficit....

and the dow is at about 25,600 right now. Barely up from a year ago this time.
teedubbya Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Actually meant to send you an article I stumbled on the other day... By a well known economist explaining how in fact China is definitely paying the tariffs... I'll look for it...



I'll read it but I can say without doubt we are paying it. it is how it mechanically works no matter how someone tries to spin it.

Even trump admits it in his actions. He is lifting or delaying some because he doesn't want prices to go up for Christmas.

Edit... but after reading it if my mind changes I will admit it. Facts are facts.... but my guess is it is a convoluted trickle down type theory rather than a hard and fast mechanical who pays it sort of thing. Because to be honest that's just not really disputable. It takes spin.

As for trickle down itself the tax breaks for corporation sure didn't seem to work that way but the import taxes do. Weird how corporations share the tax burden but not the tax break.
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:


Even trump admits it in his actions. He is lifting or delaying some because he doesn't want prices to go up for Christmas.



To be fair, he didn't "admit" anything... that could be a 3 month delay due to cowardice, or because north Korea wrote him a really nice, sweet, romantic letter asking him to spare the chinese these evil tariff taxes...

It could be coincidence the delay is to Dec 15.

But, standard economic theory, accepted by literally everyone, is that these tariffs are not going to be borne by the producer.
Speyside Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
If China chooses to take the tariff hit so as their exports do not decrease they take pay the tariff taxes and American consumers do not. I China chooses not to take the tariff hit their exports decrease and American consumers take the tariff hit if they choose to buy those Chinese products. This is not rocket science.
teedubbya Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The importers pay the tarrif not the exporter.
teedubbya Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA) is breathing a small sigh of relief as President Trump delays the implementation of additional tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese Goods.

"The announcement today that the Trump Administration will be delaying the additional 10% tariff on some footwear until December 1 is an acknowledgment that tariffs are indeed paid by Americans,” the group’s president and CEO Matt Priest said in a statement. “It is no coincidence that the Administration is allowing certain shoes to come in without raising taxes in hopes that prices do not rise at retail during the holidays. Our industry's loud unified voice left a clear impression that shoe tariffs are already extremely high, upwards of 67.5%, and any further tariffs would directly raise costs on consumers and cost footwear jobs."

Priest, also says while the FDRA is pleased with the decision to delay new tariffs on certain shoes, they are not satisfied.

"We will continue to fight for any exclusions on new tariffs and we will fight to delay new tariffs on shoes until the entire tariff threat is lifted off the backs of American families,” he said.
victor809 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
The importers pay the tarrif not the exporter.


To be fair, the importers negotiate with the exporter frequently. So they can say "hey, I've got a 15% tariff I now have to pay, can you lower your price to me by 15% so I can keep selling?"

But that's a negotiation.... and isn't likely going to go all one way. Maybe the exporter drops their price 7.5% and the importer has to then raise their price 7.5%.... or some other negotiated split.

But there is almost 0 chance that all the exporters will willingly lower their price 15% (off their already slave labor prices) across the board just to allow the importer to pay those extra tariffs and keep sales exactly where they are. Any president who says that is an absolute idiot and probably should have their degree from wharton revoked for having zero understanding of fundamental business practice.

teedubbya Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
How much Americans pay in tariffs
So how much do Americans currently pay in tariffs? Here’s an example:

Start with a shoe that costs $25 to make in China. Add the average 11 percent footwear tariff when it hits U.S. shores, and now it costs $27.75. A typical retail markup is anywhere from three to five times the cost of the shoe. Using the low-end retail multiplier of three, and that shoe now sells in a retail store for $83.25. Which means $8.25 ($2.75 in tariff on the $25 cost multiplied by three) of that $83.25 price tag was a tariff, paid by the consumer.

What if there’s a further 25 percent tariff levied on that shoe on top of what exists from the 1930 tariff?

The $25 shoe with a 36 percent tariff has a base cost of $34. Taking the retail multiplier of three times, and now the retail price tag is $102, with $27 of that price a tariff ultimately paid by the consumer.

While the retail multiplier of three to five may seem to suggest there is lots of wiggle room for retailers to absorb the tariff instead of passing it onto the consumer, industry groups say the average margin on a pair of shoes is around 2 to 3 percent once factoring in all the players in the supply chain that take a piece of that markup and all the costs that go into running that supply chain.

“It’s like insanity breeding more insanity. More tariffs are going to have a multiplier impact; hurt the GDP, hurt the economy, hurt everything we stand for,” Helfenbein says. Further tariffs will cause a chain reaction where retailers cut back orders, raise prices and lay off workers, he says.

The key is Americans pay it whether passed on to the consumer or not. It is not a tax on the Chinese. It is an import tax, you chose to import, pay more tax. Maybe you will produce here instead.



You may agree but don't misrepresent the mechanics. We can't tax them in this instance, we have to tax us.
teedubbya Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
victor809 wrote:
To be fair, the importers negotiate with the exporter frequently. So they can say "hey, I've got a 15% tariff I now have to pay, can you lower your price to me by 15% so I can keep selling?"

But that's a negotiation.... and isn't likely going to go all one way. Maybe the exporter drops their price 7.5% and the importer has to then raise their price 7.5%.... or some other negotiated split.

But there is almost 0 chance that all the exporters will willingly lower their price 15% (off their already slave labor prices) across the board just to allow the importer to pay those extra tariffs and keep sales exactly where they are. Any president who says that is an absolute idiot and probably should have their degree from wharton revoked for having zero understanding of fundamental business practice.




This CAN happen but the tax is still paid by the importer. The exporter may choose to help offset the difference but it is clearly a tax on us, not them and what happens downstream may vary.
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA) is breathing a small sigh of relief as President Trump delays the implementation of additional tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese Goods.

"The announcement today that the Trump Administration will be delaying the additional 10% tariff on some footwear until December 1 is an acknowledgment that tariffs are indeed paid by Americans,” the group’s president and CEO Matt Priest said in a statement. “It is no coincidence that the Administration is allowing certain shoes to come in without raising taxes in hopes that prices do not rise at retail during the holidays. Our industry's loud unified voice left a clear impression that shoe tariffs are already extremely high, upwards of 67.5%, and any further tariffs would directly raise costs on consumers and cost footwear jobs."

Priest, also says while the FDRA is pleased with the decision to delay new tariffs on certain shoes, they are not satisfied.

"We will continue to fight for any exclusions on new tariffs and we will fight to delay new tariffs on shoes until the entire tariff threat is lifted off the backs of American families,” he said.


Doesn't Ivanka trump have a footwear line? (answer- yes she does).

I read an interesting analysis of this earlier today... essentially was looking at these industry specific delays to the tariff and really implied that the white house is no longer really enacting a trade war as much as they are specifically picking winners and losers.

Wonder if anyone peripheral to the white house made any shares purchases right before this announcement.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>