All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/8/2012 12:36 PM
Google "cut spending and encourage economic growth".   Read whoever you see fit.    It really isn't impossible to do both.
11/8/2012 12:54 PM
You're having a hard time explaining yourself.

I thought it would be easy for you to answer a simple question. Would you prefer the president and congress to put economic growth ahead of deficit reduction?

From the CBO:

The illustrative policy would reduce primary deficits by a cumulative $2.0 trillion between 2012 and 2021 relative to CBO’s baseline projections, before taking account of any economic effects of the policy...In the short term, while the economy is relatively weak and economic growth is restrained primarily by a shortfall in demand for goods and services, the policy would decrease the demand for goods and services even further and thus reduce economic output and income.

11/8/2012 12:55 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Google "cut spending and encourage economic growth".   Read whoever you see fit.    It really isn't impossible to do both.
Cutting spending only encourages growth if the money is kept in the economy through tax cuts. But tax cuts don't reduce the deficit.
11/8/2012 1:11 PM
For ****'s sake.  I don't know if you're a complete idiot or a work in progress.

Answer this:

If the gov't quit funding PBS, would that reduce the deficit?    Would it slow economic growth? 
11/8/2012 1:12 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/8/2012 12:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Google "cut spending and encourage economic growth".   Read whoever you see fit.    It really isn't impossible to do both.
Cutting spending only encourages growth if the money is kept in the economy through tax cuts. But tax cuts don't reduce the deficit.
Not directly - necessarily, but indirectly, they cause a rise in GDP due to an increase in discretionary spending by individuals and businesses - as history has shown us.  It's that rise that increases revenues to the treasury - reducing deficits if spending is contained.  Clinton didn't balance the budget due to his raising of taxes, it was due to economic growth.  Some have argued that his tax increases inhibited some of that growth, but I don't have a problem with those rates as they were (in that context - not presently).
11/8/2012 1:16 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake.  I don't know if you're a complete idiot or a work in progress.

Answer this:

If the gov't quit funding PBS, would that reduce the deficit?    Would it slow economic growth? 
It would reduce the deficit by less than one quarter of one percent. I'm sure the economic effect would be equally unimpressive.

I'm not talking about one miniscule cut. I'm talking about "cutting the deficit in half."
11/8/2012 1:17 PM
New question:

Do you think that cutting the deficit in half would negatively affect the economy?
11/8/2012 1:21 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/8/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake.  I don't know if you're a complete idiot or a work in progress.

Answer this:

If the gov't quit funding PBS, would that reduce the deficit?    Would it slow economic growth? 
It would reduce the deficit by less than one quarter of one percent. I'm sure the economic effect would be equally unimpressive.

I'm not talking about one miniscule cut. I'm talking about "cutting the deficit in half."
I'm talking about cutting the ******* deficit.    It wasn't built in one day with one expenditure.

Do you think there are other gov't programs that could be cut/reduced that also would not hurt economic growth?

It's ******* idiots like you that built the goddam deficit with your "Well, it's only a few thousand dollars.  Go for it" attitude.    Multiply a few thousand by a few thousand and, well, here we are.
11/8/2012 1:27 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/8/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake.  I don't know if you're a complete idiot or a work in progress.

Answer this:

If the gov't quit funding PBS, would that reduce the deficit?    Would it slow economic growth? 
It would reduce the deficit by less than one quarter of one percent. I'm sure the economic effect would be equally unimpressive.

I'm not talking about one miniscule cut. I'm talking about "cutting the deficit in half."
I'm talking about cutting the ******* deficit.    It wasn't built in one day with one expenditure.

Do you think there are other gov't programs that could be cut/reduced that also would not hurt economic growth?

It's ******* idiots like you that built the goddam deficit with your "Well, it's only a few thousand dollars.  Go for it" attitude.    Multiply a few thousand by a few thousand and, well, here we are.
I don't give a **** what you cut, if you reduce the deficit by half right now, the economy dives back into a recession. That's a fact.
11/8/2012 1:35 PM

Why does it have to be "cut in half" on day ******* one?

Do you not understand that the deficit can be reduced one dollar at a time and not in multi-million dollar increments?

What the **** is wrong with you?   Do you need meds?  Or are you just so stupid that you can't wrap your brain around a thought that didn't materialize in your head first?
 

11/8/2012 1:50 PM
Here's why you, and you ilk, annoy me so:

In 2012, PBS/NPR was subsidized about 450m.    Is that 1.1 trillion?  No.   Is 450m a significant amount of money?  Yes, yes it is.  

And I'm sure that there are many, many other programs that can be cut/reduced.    If you "only" get to 1B, that's a fine start.    And, if it's like PBS, cutting it will have no impact on the economy.

Yet people like you say "It's only 450m.  That doesn't cut the deficiit in half tomorrow."   Which, if you can't tell, I find to be a moronic attitude.
11/8/2012 1:52 PM
The standard you (or whoever) are holding Obama to (his promise to cut the deficit in half his first term) is exactly what I'm talking about. That would have thrown us back into a recession.

Would you rather cut the deficit in half or stay out of another recession?

11/8/2012 1:55 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 1:50:00 PM (view original):
Here's why you, and you ilk, annoy me so:

In 2012, PBS/NPR was subsidized about 450m.    Is that 1.1 trillion?  No.   Is 450m a significant amount of money?  Yes, yes it is.  

And I'm sure that there are many, many other programs that can be cut/reduced.    If you "only" get to 1B, that's a fine start.    And, if it's like PBS, cutting it will have no impact on the economy.

Yet people like you say "It's only 450m.  That doesn't cut the deficiit in half tomorrow."   Which, if you can't tell, I find to be a moronic attitude.
That's still $450 million dollars that is coming out of the economy. That will have a negative effect. Sure, it may be smart long term to make the cut, but is that where our focus should be right now? I don't think so.
11/8/2012 2:00 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/7/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing for tax and spend. I'm arguing that both congress and the president should put economic growth ahead of deficit reduction.

Do you disagree?

Page 3.

Use "whoever".   I set no standard.  Obama set his own standard.   You didn't specifically state that the deficit had to be cut in half with programs cuts on Day 1.    I sort of think you made that portion up as you went along when you realized that programs can be cut without slowing economic growth.    The deficit wasn't created in one day.  It won't be eliminated in one day. 

11/8/2012 2:02 PM
I could go back and find where I asked if there are any TV stations/shows that run without government funding but it's rather pointless.   I have about 400 channels.  I'm sure some are looking for good people.    If PBS went under(and I doubt it would), the workers at PBS have at least 400 places to look for employment.
of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.