Warren Buffet knows nothing about business

[AzCat]

Here's the version with federal (blue), state (red) and local (green) spending (state & local data go back only to 1904): 



How much is enough lefties?  If you spend half and half of the remainder is private spending imposed by regulatory fiat I'll suggest that you're headed the way of the former Soviet Union and for much the same reason.  Of course we might get lucky as our federal debt will almost certainly surpass the level which sucked Greece into the  toilet (and many others before them) prior to government controlling 100% of everything in the pseudo-private sector.  I'd prefer foreign creditors imposing an austerity budget on the US to the carnage of a completely command-and-control economy. 

 

I think we need to both raise taxes and cut spending.  You can't claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility without a combination of the two at this point.

Wrong as usual.  Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell on how to keep all of Obama's spending, make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent, index the AMT for inflation and still balance the budget by 2016.  The problem is that the new crop of politicians wouldn't be able to pay off anyone who's not already on the take so it'll never happen.


 

[Jeffy]

Here's the version with federal (blue), state (red) and local (green) spending (state & local data go back only to 1904): 



How much is enough lefties?  If you spend half and half of the remainder is private spending imposed by regulatory fiat I'll suggest that you're headed the way of the former Soviet Union and for much the same reason.  Of course we might get lucky as our federal debt will almost certainly surpass the level which sucked Greece into the  toilet (and many others before them) prior to government controlling 100% of everything in the pseudo-private sector.  I'd prefer foreign creditors imposing an austerity budget on the US to the carnage of a completely command-and-control economy. 

 

I think we need to both increase income and cut spending.  You can't claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility without a combination of the two at this point.

Fixed it for you.  It's much more logical now.

[michigancat]

Wrong as usual.  Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell on how to keep all of Obama's spending, make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent, index the AMT for inflation and still balance the budget by 2016.  The problem is that the new crop of politicians wouldn't be able to pay off anyone who's not already on the take so it'll never happen.

Actually, you do agree with me.  There's no way you can just plug in that guys numbers and balance the budget at this point.  In a perfect world, of course it would be easy to cut spending enough eliminate the income tax in less than 10 years.  It's just a little tougher in reality.

[AzCat]

Wrong as usual.  Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell on how to keep all of Obama's spending, make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent, index the AMT for inflation and still balance the budget by 2016.  The problem is that the new crop of politicians wouldn't be able to pay off anyone who's not already on the take so it'll never happen.

Actually, you do agree with me.  There's no way you can just plug in that guys numbers and balance the budget at this point.  In a perfect world, of course it would be easy to cut spending enough eliminate the income tax in less than 10 years.  It's just a little tougher in reality.

Try again.  Hint: Watch the video this time, you're not smart enough to get away with bluffing your way through a discussion.  Hint 2: They're not his numbers, they're the CBO's numbers (you know: the ones the Administration and Congress base everything, like spending, budgeting, etc. upon).  

 

[michigancat]

Wrong as usual.  Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell on how to keep all of Obama's spending, make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent, index the AMT for inflation and still balance the budget by 2016.  The problem is that the new crop of politicians wouldn't be able to pay off anyone who's not already on the take so it'll never happen.

Actually, you do agree with me.  There's no way you can just plug in that guys numbers and balance the budget at this point.  In a perfect world, of course it would be easy to cut spending enough eliminate the income tax in less than 10 years.  It's just a little tougher in reality.

Try again.  Hint: Watch the video this time, you're not smart enough to get away with bluffing your way through a discussion.  Hint 2: They're not his numbers, they're the CBO's numbers (you know: the ones the Administration and Congress base everything, like spending, budgeting, etc. upon). 

 

I'm not disputing his numbers.  I'm agreeing with you that the political climate won't let it happen.

[AzCat]

Wrong as usual.  Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell on how to keep all of Obama's spending, make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent, index the AMT for inflation and still balance the budget by 2016.  The problem is that the new crop of politicians wouldn't be able to pay off anyone who's not already on the take so it'll never happen.

Actually, you do agree with me.  There's no way you can just plug in that guys numbers and balance the budget at this point.  In a perfect world, of course it would be easy to cut spending enough eliminate the income tax in less than 10 years.  It's just a little tougher in reality.

Try again.  Hint: Watch the video this time, you're not smart enough to get away with bluffing your way through a discussion.  Hint 2: They're not his numbers, they're the CBO's numbers (you know: the ones the Administration and Congress base everything, like spending, budgeting, etc. upon).  

 

I'm not disputing his numbers.  I'm agreeing with you that the political climate won't let it happen.

They're not his numbers, they're the CBO's numbers.  It's so simple, so fast, and yet, despite the fact that it's absolutely mandatory in order to avoid something that will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park, and despite the fact that every politician in DC right now can have everything they've just done and want to do, it still can't happen.  Pretty clear this place is:

 

[Sugar Dick]

The Federal Government is an overinflated, under-performing, inefficient bureaucracy.  Anyone who actually tries to argue against that is so fu*c'king clueless they aren't worth arguing with.  It makes Floyd Mayweather look frugle

[AzCat]

Wrong as usual.  Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell on how to keep all of Obama's spending, make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent, index the AMT for inflation and still balance the budget by 2016.  The problem is that the new crop of politicians wouldn't be able to pay off anyone who's not already on the take so it'll never happen.

Actually, you do agree with me.  There's no way you can just plug in that guys numbers and balance the budget at this point.  In a perfect world, of course it would be easy to cut spending enough eliminate the income tax in less than 10 years.  It's just a little tougher in reality.

Try again.  Hint: Watch the video this time, you're not smart enough to get away with bluffing your way through a discussion.  Hint 2: They're not his numbers, they're the CBO's numbers (you know: the ones the Administration and Congress base everything, like spending, budgeting, etc. upon). 

 

I'm not disputing his numbers.  I'm agreeing with you that the political climate won't let it happen.

Oh, and you still need to watch the video so you'll know what "it" is (which you clearly don't at this point).

[michigancat]

Wrong as usual.  Here's Cato's Dan Mitchell on how to keep all of Obama's spending, make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent, index the AMT for inflation and still balance the budget by 2016.  The problem is that the new crop of politicians wouldn't be able to pay off anyone who's not already on the take so it'll never happen.

Actually, you do agree with me.  There's no way you can just plug in that guys numbers and balance the budget at this point.  In a perfect world, of course it would be easy to cut spending enough eliminate the income tax in less than 10 years.  It's just a little tougher in reality.

Try again.  Hint: Watch the video this time, you're not smart enough to get away with bluffing your way through a discussion.  Hint 2: They're not his numbers, they're the CBO's numbers (you know: the ones the Administration and Congress base everything, like spending, budgeting, etc. upon). 

 

I'm not disputing his numbers.  I'm agreeing with you that the political climate won't let it happen.

Oh, and you still need to watch the video so you'll know what "it" is (which you clearly don't at this point).

I watched the entire video, and I understand the numbers came from the CBO.  (I enjoyed the cute April 15 is a regular day graphic)

YOU were the one who said the CBO's numbers would never be put in place.  I AGREE WITH YOU.  YOU ARE TRYING TO ARGUE WITH SOMEONE THAT AGREES WITH YOU.

[AzCat]

I watched the entire video, and I understand the numbers came from the CBO.  (I enjoyed the cute April 15 is a regular day graphic)

YOU were the one who said the CBO's numbers would never be put in place.  I AGREE WITH YOU.  YOU ARE TRYING TO ARGUE WITH SOMEONE THAT AGREES WITH YOU.

We don't agree at all.  "Raising taxes", that is jacking up marginal rates in a desperate attempt to punish the successful, simply doesn't work. It never has and it never will:



As useful public policy it's an utter failure.  We don't have a tax or revenue problem, we have dual problems of over-spending and over-regulation.  The only path out lies in slashing the amount of government, preferably to the bone, and leaving the resources it presently squanders in the private sector where they will be employed to the benefit of the people.

[mortons toe]

Azcat, how do the "too big to fail" banks feel about slashing the amount of government?... It seems to me that these @$$holes are the ones driving the car over the cliff.

[LickNeckey]

I thought it would be obvious when I started the list, but I will spell it out.  Government is a very inefficient and wasteful.

Any Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) should be able to understand the glaring problem, it's pretty obvious:



Add in an additional what, 15% of GDP for imposed federal regulatory costs today versus essentially 0 for the first 150 or so years of the republic and it becomes even more clear: this is absolutely unsustainable.  I give it a decade, maybe one and a half to complete economic collapse if nothing major is done.  

I can't believe that in the 1940's and 1950's the federal government tried to totally screw us by building roads and bridges and a military to defeat the Nazi's.  I wish they just would have butted out.  I mean who even uses roads and bridges and the military anyway>

[AzCat]

Azcat, how do the "too big to fail" banks feel about slashing the amount of government?... It seems to me that these @$$holes are the ones driving the car over the cliff.

As bad as the bailouts were they, along with Obama's failed "stimulus" (state / union employee bailout), and the lefty economic boogeyman of the war on terror are mere temporary warts on the ass of the rising tide of federal spending:  



Shouldn't have happened but the bailout isn't a significant problem nor is it a long-term one.

[AzCat]

I thought it would be obvious when I started the list, but I will spell it out.  Government is a very inefficient and wasteful.

Any Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) should be able to understand the glaring problem, it's pretty obvious:



Add in an additional what, 15% of GDP for imposed federal regulatory costs today versus essentially 0 for the first 150 or so years of the republic and it becomes even more clear: this is absolutely unsustainable.  I give it a decade, maybe one and a half to complete economic collapse if nothing major is done.  

I can't believe that in the 1940's and 1950's the federal government tried to totally screw us by building roads and bridges and a military to defeat the Nazi's.  I wish they just would have butted out.  I mean who even uses roads and bridges and the military anyway>

You'll note that a curious thing happens after wars: war spending ends and overall outlays fall back towards pre-war norms.  Happens with every war budget large enough to be visible on the spending curve.  Try again.

[LickNeckey]

You are right it didn't cost anything to establish and maintain basis in Europe and Asia following WWII.

Defense spending in the 1930's was about was about 1.9 Billion a year.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1935_0.html

in the 1940's it was 93.7 Billion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1945_0.html

in the 1950's it was 47.2 Billion

so if you call a 45 billion dollar increase inn spending a return to pre-war levels you are right and i apologize for my ignorance.

oh yeah and we built those silly interstates that nobody uses too

[AzCat]

You are right it didn't cost anything to establish and maintain basis in Europe and Asia following WWII.

Defense spending in the 1930's was about was about 1.9 Billion a year.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1935_0.html

in the 1940's it was 93.7 Billion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1945_0.html

in the 1950's it was 47.2 Billion

so if you call a 45 billion dollar increase inn spending a return to pre-war levels you are right and i apologize for my ignorance.

oh yeah and we built those silly interstates that nobody uses too

Nice dodge but post-war rebuilding that ended a half-century ago has ZERO bearing on our present problems.  Specifically: what post-war rebuilding spending do you think can be eliminated today in order to erase the present federal budget deficit?  What post-war rebuilding spending can be eliminated to erase the federal debt?  You'd better find an awful lot becuase entitlements, public employee pensions and interest on existing debt are about to double spending off present levels.  

 

[06wildcat]

If there's one thing big business loves to demonize but would hate to see go away, it's regulation.

[LickNeckey]

Dodge what?  My intial post was in relation to the graph about spending as % of gdp and explained the large increase was due to the creation of an interstate highway system and the necessary increase in military spending.

Your response was that

"You'll note that a curious thing happens after wars: war spending ends and overall outlays fall back towards pre-war norms.  Happens with every war budget large enough to be visible on the spending curve.  Try again."

I noted that after WWII spending in no way fell back to pre-war norms, even though that budget is obviously large enough to be visible on the curve.  

Also to say that "post-war rebuilding that ended a half-century ago has ZERO bearing on our present problems" is also misleading.  As my initial point was stating WWII changed the fundamental size and nature of our military and as a resultant fact it's budget.  Dwight Eisenhower expressed concern over the development of a "Military Industrial Complex" currently known spending is somewhere on the order of 663 billion dollars for this fiscal year.  However when figuring in the DOD's "Black Budget" that number easily exceeds 700 billion dollars.  This trend in spending began following WWI and continues to this day.  It  can be argued that this spending and that spent during the cold war created much of the debt we now hold and inherently the interest incurred.

Furthermore a large percentage of the pensioners and entitlements you speak of are a result of the increase in defense spending.  Servicemen, reserves, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, NSA and other agencies make up over half of government workers in this nation.  Now if you want to call servicepeople heroes in times of war and cut their benefits for ensuring your freedom in times of peace you will truly pass the test of being a Republican.

[Kat Kid]

I watched the entire video, and I understand the numbers came from the CBO.  (I enjoyed the cute April 15 is a regular day graphic)

YOU were the one who said the CBO's numbers would never be put in place.  I AGREE WITH YOU.  YOU ARE TRYING TO ARGUE WITH SOMEONE THAT AGREES WITH YOU.

We don't agree at all.  "Raising taxes", that is jacking up marginal rates in a desperate attempt to punish the successful, simply doesn't work. It never has and it never will:



As useful public policy it's an utter failure.  We don't have a tax or revenue problem, we have dual problems of over-spending and over-regulation.  The only path out lies in slashing the amount of government, preferably to the bone, and leaving the resources it presently squanders in the private sector where they will be employed to the benefit of the people.

Graph is crap because the scale is crap.  Revenue after Bush tax cuts went down.  alot.

[Sugar Dick]

I watched the entire video, and I understand the numbers came from the CBO.  (I enjoyed the cute April 15 is a regular day graphic)

YOU were the one who said the CBO's numbers would never be put in place.  I AGREE WITH YOU.  YOU ARE TRYING TO ARGUE WITH SOMEONE THAT AGREES WITH YOU.

We don't agree at all.  "Raising taxes", that is jacking up marginal rates in a desperate attempt to punish the successful, simply doesn't work. It never has and it never will:



As useful public policy it's an utter failure.  We don't have a tax or revenue problem, we have dual problems of over-spending and over-regulation.  The only path out lies in slashing the amount of government, preferably to the bone, and leaving the resources it presently squanders in the private sector where they will be employed to the benefit of the people.

Graph is crap because the scale is crap.  Revenue after Bush tax cuts dotcom bubble, 9/11, Enron and Worldcom fiascos went down.  alot.  went back up after all that was sorted out

[LickNeckey]

Azcat you dodge'n me?

I'll try again.

Dodge what?  My intial post was in relation to the graph about spending as % of gdp and explained the large increase was due to the creation of an interstate highway system and the necessary increase in military spending.

Your response was that

"You'll note that a curious thing happens after wars: war spending ends and overall outlays fall back towards pre-war norms.  Happens with every war budget large enough to be visible on the spending curve.  Try again."

I noted that after WWII spending in no way fell back to pre-war norms, even though that budget is obviously large enough to be visible on the curve. 

Also to say that "post-war rebuilding that ended a half-century ago has ZERO bearing on our present problems" is also misleading.  As my initial point was stating WWII changed the fundamental size and nature of our military and as a resultant fact it's budget.  Dwight Eisenhower expressed concern over the development of a "Military Industrial Complex" currently known spending is somewhere on the order of 663 billion dollars for this fiscal year.  However when figuring in the DOD's "Black Budget" that number easily exceeds 700 billion dollars.  This trend in spending began following WWI and continues to this day.  It  can be argued that this spending and that spent during the cold war created much of the debt we now hold and inherently the interest incurred.

Furthermore a large percentage of the pensioners and entitlements you speak of are a result of the increase in defense spending.  Servicemen, reserves, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, NSA and other agencies make up over half of government workers in this nation.  Now if you want to call servicepeople heroes in times of war and cut their benefits for ensuring your freedom in times of peace you will truly pass the test of being a Republican.

[mortons toe]

the "Military Industrial Complex" was a gigantic step for the jooz...