Talking Point that Irks Me: Not a Revenue Problem

[IBCoupe]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11 ... -spending/

"We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem," as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday.

Really guys? See, I thought the problem was that revenues and spending weren't in balance with one another. That sounds like a "balance" problem to me. That one side of the balance sheet is higher than the other is not necessarily an indication that it's too high. Maybe it's too high. Maybe the other side's too low. Or maybe we can just be honest and say that the problem is simply that they're not aligned - that way no option for resolving the issue is taken off the table.

If you don't have enough money for all the groceries on your list, what do you do? Well, you could not buy them, sure. Or you could go out, work harder, and make more money, so that you can have whatever your heart desires. Or you could compromise: work a little harder, and buy a little less than what you'd really like.

[heliochrome85]

you are too smart for the republican platform. its as simple as that.

[96Qowner]

During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised the American people a "net spending cut". Instead, he signed a "stimulus" bill that spends $800 billion, and he has proposed a budget that would:

* Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;
* Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout;
* Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending;
* Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels;
* Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade;
* Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
* Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion;
* Assume a rosy economic scenario that few economists anticipate;
* Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and
* Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation)

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016- nearly double the amount accumulated under President Bush over the same number of years. Overall, the public debt level would double over the next decade to $15.4 trillion ($12.5 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars). (See Chart 1.) At 67 percent of GDP, this would constitute America's largest debt burden since immediately following World War II.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... ional-debt

[i]Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $32,000 per household by 2019- an inflation-adjusted $8,000-per-household expansion of government. Even the steep tax increases planned for all taxpayers would not finance all of this spending: The President's budget would add trillions of dollars in new debt.[/i]

You sure we don't have a spending problem? What could you possibly base that conclusion on? Or is it merely opinion ...

[heliochrome85]

DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THAT THE US ECONOMY FELL APART?
ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT IT IS STILL IN BAD SHAPE?
WHO STABILIZED THE ECONOMY? AND HOW WAS IT DONE?


im literally shaking with rage. i consider myself a reasonable guy. id hope that that would be the opinion of me here. but your arguments are consistantly intellectually equivalent to a palin tweet. you absolutely refuse to attempt at factual based arguments. its beyond old.

[96Qowner]

Yep, you do seem just packed full of rage. It even prevents you from reading articles, I guess. Read the article - your big bold loud question is answered there.

Or is the Heritage Foundation another one of those worthless biased sources?

[heliochrome85]

jesus christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

thanks for answering my questions.

[96Qowner]

LOL. Okie, dokie.

I'll assume you're just a heckler unless you can show otherwise. Those that blind themselves to other opinions are doomed to remain ignorant.

[heliochrome85]

yup. im ignant. its pretty astonishing ive gotten this far in life without opening a book.


i hope your doctors are as uneducated as I am.

[Eikon]

k.. let's settle down a bit please.

To the original point.. We do have a problem with both revenue and spending... BUT, we have much more control over spending, hence, spending is the bigger problem. A poor economy leads to lower incomes less spending, which limits tax revenue. That is a difficult fix. So I think the point of the article is that we need to fix what we have the most control over and that is spending.

[IBCoupe]

I'd say that we have a fair amount of control over each. There's been two bipartisan commissions now that have come out with both spending- and revenue-based solutions. But the damning fact is that even the people who say it's only a spending problem won't come up with enough spending cuts to fix that problem.

[IBCoupe]

You sure we don't have a spending problem? What could you possibly base that conclusion on? Or is it merely opinion ...

As I wrote before, jackass, we have a revenue-spending imbalance. That's the problem. Nothing you posted negates that argument. Try again.

[96Qowner]

"Jackass" is not a conversation. I doubt anyone comes here to read insults and heckling. If you have intelligent something to offer, offer it.

I posted the increases in spending by the Obama administration. They're dramatic, even after accounting for Bush's responsibility in the early 2009 numbers.

[heliochrome85]

If you have intelligent something to offer, offer it.

you first.

[96Qowner]

Nah, I already did. You, on the other hand, have posted several times and not offered a single intelligent thing - just smarmy wise-cracks.

[IBCoupe]

"Jackass" is not a conversation. I doubt anyone comes here to read insults and heckling. If you have intelligent something to offer, offer it.

I posted the increases in spending by the Obama administration. They're dramatic, even after accounting for Bush's responsibility in the early 2009 numbers.

So with the three posts that I've made on this thread, the only word you read was "Jackass?" Just give up; this obviously doesn't work well for you.

ONCE AGAIN, jackass, that spending is up is not indicative of a problem purely "spending" in nature. Try reading the OP and then responding. The problem isn't that spending is up (for the Nth time), it's that spending and revenues are not in line with each other. ONCE AGAIN, jackass, nothing you posted negates that fact. So we can raise revenues, decrease spending, or both. When you say the problem is that spending is up, the obvious solution is to lower spending, right?

Wrong: that spending was there for a reason. Maybe the reason's no good anymore. Maybe it should be revisited. But saying "just spend less" is an absolutely retarded approach because it completely ignores the fact that cutting the spending could end up creating bigger, perhaps non-fiscal problems. Social Security, Medicare and Defense: touch those third rails if you're serious about the deficit problem. Otherwise, let the adults figure it out, because without hitting those (if tax increases are off the table), we could stop paying government employees completely and still not break even.

[96Qowner]

Alright, I see that you're having trouble communicating without insults. I'll respond when you can control yourself. We had a good lively debate one day, and I respected you for that. I suspected that you had been in competitive debate in school, as I was. This crap isn't even worth responding to.

Disappointing.

[IBCoupe]

If I knew it was that easy to make you go away, I'd have thrown in superfluous insults from the very beginning. No, but really, I only do that when I'm annoyed - you apparently have made an art-form of missing the point. Here you go, pookums: HIGH SPENDING ISN'T A PROBLEM IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. Thus, the problem can't be that spending is high. The problem must be that spending is not in line with revenues. If it helps, try reading that very slowly.

And, no, I've never had any formal debate training. Law school hasn't even taught me how to debate any better. I was just born this way.

[96Qowner]

The hallmark of the Left. Insult anyone who disagrees with you until they go away. Don't listen, don't learn.

[IBCoupe]

Says the guy who responds to the OP by making the same mistake the OP was pointing out.

Dude, at least don't make this easy for me.

[IBCoupe]

Here's the bit I edited in after you started responding:

Here you go, pookums: HIGH SPENDING ISN'T A PROBLEM IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. Thus, the problem can't be that spending is high. The problem must be that spending is not in line with revenues. If it helps, try reading that very slowly.

[96Qowner]

Nah, I'll wait to talk to someone who can can control himself.

[IBCoupe]

Promise?

[AZhitman]

But the damning fact is that even the people who say it's only a spending problem won't come up with enough spending cuts to fix that problem.

...and the people who say it's a revenue problem won't come up with FAIR and equitable solutions to increasing revenue.

Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Interestingly enough, those are the same people who seem to think I'm not kicking in my fair share, and they're also the one who cover their ears when anyone recommends cuts to "feel-good" programs or limitations on handouts, foreign aid, or porkbarrel spending.

So, let's have a little less one-sidedness. No one's calling you a jackass just because you're only presenting one side of the argument, IB.

...if you had the answers, you'd be getting paid for your opinion.

[IBCoupe]

But the damning fact is that even the people who say it's only a spending problem won't come up with enough spending cuts to fix that problem.

...and the people who say it's a revenue problem won't come up with FAIR and equitable solutions to increasing revenue.

False equivalence - I'm pointing out that their argument is inconsistent with their policy. I'm telling you that their position is undesirable to them. You're pointing out that the opposite ideological position is undesirable to you.

So, let's have a little less one-sidedness. No one's calling you a jackass just because you're only presenting one side of the argument, IB.

...if you had the answers, you'd be getting paid for your opinion.

It's only one-sided because the Democrats don't have a uniform bad argument. Maybe they have many bad arguments, but they're not a single one offered as the party line. That's why I wrote "Talking Point that Irks Me" as the thread subject.

[AZhitman]

False equivalence - I'm pointing out that their argument is inconsistent with their policy. I'm telling you that their position is undesirable to them. You're pointing out that the opposite ideological position is undesirable to you.

When you're done playing Twister, let me know.

It's only one-sided because the Democrats don't have a uniform bad argument. Maybe they have many bad arguments, but they're not a single one offered as the party line.

Ugh. Overanalysis ranks right up there with navel-gazing in my hierarchy of time-wasters and accomplishment-preventers.

What difference does it make? I see their position as a "uniform bad argument". You don't. It's far from objective.

[IBCoupe]

Forgot to add:
I'm not offering an answer. I'm offering criticism of a wrong answer.

[AZhitman]

Of course. Absolves one of a lot of responsibility.

Anyone can be a critic.

[IBCoupe]

When you're done playing Twister, let me know.

I wasn't playing it in the first place. You not liking the opposing argument is not the same as the opposing party not liking its own argument.

Ugh. Overanalysis ranks right up there with navel-gazing in my hierarchy of time-wasters and accomplishment-preventers.

What difference does it make? I see their position as a "uniform bad argument". You don't. It's far from objective.

The difference: a bad argument thought up on your own is more respectable than a bad argument disseminated and blindly adopted in order to create a wall of lies. A bad argument that's the product of individual thought and creativity doesn't irk me, and thus, it doesn't get its own thread.

EDIT: Individual bad arguments can be addressed on an individual basis. Talking points methodically control the conversation, and in this case prevent real progress on the solution of a problem.

[IBCoupe]

Of course. Absolves one of a lot of responsibility.

Anyone can be a critic.

Right, but here's where I think you and I are disconnecting, Greg: it's the message that bothers me, not the proposed solution. And by providing my own message, I sort of am rising above the level of "critic."

I've said more than once that one of the possible solutions is to just cut spending to be in line with our revenues. I don't think that'll work, but it's a defensible position. What the talking point does is attempt to take two of three possible solutions to the problem off the table, by mischaracterizing the nature of the problem. That's what bothers me about it, and I explained as much earlier in the thread, if not in the OP itself.

The Republican Party line: The problem is that spending is high.

Reality: The problem is that spending is higher than our revenues can afford.

[AZhitman]

Maybe they're just making it more understandable to the populace? They're not mutually exclusive. Just not detailed enough for detail oriented people like us.

You and I can comprehend the difference. Can middle America?

And your position that the difference between the two intentionally "creates a wall of lies"? It's a stretch. Fo realz.