death tribble Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings An astronomy chart printed in The Times yesterday shows Saturn and Mars west of Venus. So I am thinking that it is Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narf the Mouse Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings It's Foxbat's birthday today! : Happy Foxbat Day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Don't forget to send him all your unused xp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings There is no such thing as truly unused xp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings A while back President Obama got into some flack for saying “You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.” Yeah, but apparently it was OK last week for Michelle to take the kids to Vegas on the taxpayer dime, and then we've got this: [snip]White House chief of staff Jack Lew said in a statement. "He was outraged by the excessive spending, questionable dealings with contractors and disregard for taxpayer dollars." He was outraged by the excessive spending? President Obama, may I remind you of two words: "Bailout" and "Stimulus"? I mean, look Mr. President, I voted for you, and I like you a lot more than any of these Republican clowns, but attitudes like this combined with statements like yours explain why your re-election isn't a slam dunk. JG He apparently thinks it is. I looked up the definition of arrogance, and found that his picture has been added to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan D. Hurricanes Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Don't forget to send him all your unused xp. I'm in XP debt. Born that way, will die that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings He was outraged by the excessive spending? President Obama, may I remind you of two words: "Bailout" and "Stimulus"? He apparently thinks it is. I looked up the definition of arrogance, and found that his picture has been added to it. Bailout was Bush Stimulus was an attempt at stirring employment. This was someone blowing money for no good reason (entertaining your employees isn't a good enough reason) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Stimulus was an attempt at stirring employment. A successful attempt, I might add. Compared to what unemployment would have looked like without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Bailout was Bush Stimulus was an attempt at stirring employment. This was someone blowing money for no good reason (entertaining your employees isn't a good enough reason) I thought that it was both, but Obama more than doubled ($60 in 2009 what Bush blew ($25 in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings A successful attempt' date=' I might add. Compared to what unemployment would have looked like without it.[/quote'] How can we compare it to something that only exists as a "What If"? and IIRC, he promised that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings How can we compare it to something that only exists as a "What If"? Ask almost any economist what would have happened without the stimulus. and IIRC, he promised that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%? Maybe it wouldn't have if the GOP had passed the size of stimulus he asked for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings I thought that it was both' date=' but Obama more than doubled ($60 in 2009 what Bush blew ($25 in 2008.[/quote'] as far as I remember you may be right...but you're wrong on the amounts. The $25billion was the GM Bailout which was paid back. The Banks got 700 Billion from Bush (Publically) and I'm not sure but I think Obama's contribution was very similar but the banks ALSO got a 7.7 Trillion dollar bailout (well, nigh-interest free loans which they then bought bonds with and earned interest from the government on the money the government gave them...) and I'm not sure how long that went on...and who's presidencies that was covered by. Let me check. Edit: Checked. According to Bloomberg the 7.77 trillion in low interest loans (which netted the banks 13billion in interest payments from the government...) began in 2007 and hit a high of 1.2 trillion for one day (December 5th, 2008) The Fed tried to keep that a secret from congress(and did so until this year) Obama took office January 20th, 2009. So yeah. There is that. Additionally the $500Billion TARP was also created in 2008, before Obama took office, but his administration has administered it. oops, forgot my cites. TARP article Bloomberg Bailout Article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Ask almost any economist what would have happened without the stimulus. Can you point me to one that has a history of being a fiscal conservative? I might give that one a little more credence. (And we're not out of the water yet.) Maybe it wouldn't have if the GOP had passed the size of stimulus he asked for. "It is impossible for a government to spend its country into prosperity because it is impossible for it to tax its country into prosperity." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Can you point me to one that has a history of being a fiscal conservative? I might give that one a little more credence. (And we're not out of the water yet.) "It is impossible for a government to spend its country into prosperity because it is impossible for it to tax its country into prosperity." yeah you say that. Any cites for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings yeah you say that. Any cites for it? Does this count? City of New Orleans trumpets balanced budget in 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Does this count? City of New Orleans trumpets balanced budget in 2011 Depends...does the increase in property tax revenue count? For the first two months of 2012, the Budget Committee was told, the city had total revenue of $162.8 million, a sharp increase from the $149.2 million received in the same period in 2011. Much of the rise was due to faster recording of property tax payments, which showed an increase of $7.3 million for the two months. Sales and hotel tax collections for the same period totaled $26.8 million, a gain of $2.2 million from January and February 2011. In addition, sanitation fee collections were $2.2 million higher than for the same two months in 2011, when higher fees approved by the council had not fully taken effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Depends...does the increase in property tax revenue count? The bit about "when higher fees approved by the council had not fully taken effect" is of note, so it is possible that some of the $2.2 M gain in sanitation fee collections was from that raise. However, if the article is accurate, it's overall revenue increased ~13.6 M. A lot more than the $2.2 M. So, at face value and in my inexpert opinion, I believe that New Orleans did not stoop to the unsustainable tactic of trying to tax itself into prosperity. Inheriting a prospective shortfall of $97 million, officials responded by cutting and renegotiating several major contracts, imposing unpaid furloughs for city workers, reducing overtime and spending tens of millions in dollars in unexpected one-time revenue. Kopplin said he does not foresee a need for furloughs this year unless an unexpected emergency, such as a hurricane, results in reduced revenue and higher expenditures. The unaudited numbers show the city spent $484 million in general fund dollars in 2011, a $44 million reduction from 2009 and down $12 million from 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings The bit about "when higher fees approved by the council had not fully taken effect" is of note' date=' so it is possible that some of the $2.2 M gain in sanitation fee collections was from that raise. However, if the article is accurate, it's overall revenue increased ~13.6 M. A lot more than the $2.2 M. So, at face value and in my inexpert opinion, I believe that New Orleans did not stoop to the unsustainable tactic of trying to tax itself into prosperity.[/quote'] They lowered their federal income, and lowered their "One time Expenditures" not sure what those mean, but they increased revenue by increased taxes along with reduced spending. But the spending had to happen before the increased revenue occurred - which for a government comes from...taxes. So your sig's premise is still rather simplistic and flawed...since The Government of New Orleans used stimulus payments and federal aid to clean up and then recouped the money through a combination on increased tax revenues and cost cutting. Which makes perfect sense but since one group only wants to see the cost cutting angle they limit the possibility of recovery - not to mention that when they're in charge they use the magic money tree and never seem to make those deep cuts they want to and only seem to grow the deficits which only matter when the Dems are in charge. And Reagan grew the government quite a bit so if it was the problem it was his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Gillen Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Like I said: Obama's better than his alternatives but he's not making it easy on himself. JG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Like I said: Obama's better than his alternatives but he's not making it easy on himself. JG None of them do. We kind of expect them to be experts at everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings They lowered their federal income' date=' and lowered their "One time Expenditures" not sure what those mean, but they increased revenue by increased taxes along with reduced spending.[/quote'] How can a city lower "their federal income"? And I'm missing the part of the article that mentions one time expenditures -- can you quote it for me? True, there was a tax increase in sanitation fees -- which at most accounted for an extra $2.2 M out of the $13.6 M increase in revenue -- one sixth. Hardly a "We need to pay for all this stuff so let's raise taxes!" mindset IMO. But the spending had to happen before the increased revenue occurred - which for a government comes from...taxes. The increased revenue stated ($2.2 M) was from sanitation fees collected in 2012. The budget was balanced in/for 2011, with the 2011 fees/taxes... So your sig's premise is still rather simplistic and flawed... Simple? Yes. It's a simple concept. Don't spend your kid's money. Flawed? Not uless you approve of spending your (and possibly other people's) kid's money, leaving them in the hole. since The Government of New Orleans used stimulus payments and federal aid to clean up and then recouped the money through a combination of increased tax revenues and cost cutting. Let's see. $2.2 M from Increased taxes (sanitation fees). ~$94.8M in cuts (they were facing a $97 M shortfall, yes?). A ~43:1 ratio in favor of cost cuting. Again, not seeing New Orleans' 2011 budget as an example of "taxing into prosperity" thinking. New Orleans balanced its budget in 2011 from current revenue sources, meaning it did not have to dip into its meager reserves or now-exhausted federal loans. The budget for 2011 did not use any money from federal loans. What I don't know is what monies (if any) were in the 2011 budget to service these federal loans. If you can find a more detailed source of info for their budget, please share. I kinda doubt that they just skipped paying Uncle Sam the minimum/interest that was due (if any at this time). But I admit this is purely an opinion and I have no current proof. Which makes perfect sense but since one group only wants to see the cost cutting angle they limit the possibility of recovery. Whish is it, "makes perfect sense", or "limit the possibility of recovery"? And how does having a balanced budget limit the possiblity of recovery? Or did I misunderstand your above statement? - not to mention that when they're in charge they use the magic money tree and never seem to make those deep cuts they want to and only seem to grow the deficits which only matter when the Dems are in charge. Who is this "they" you speak of when you say "when they're in charge"? There is always a "they" in charge, unless noone is. I applaude Kennedy for cutting taxes instead of doing a "stimulus": To me, it's not about which team is at bat, its what game plan both teams are trying to use. A plan where you consistently spend more than you make is like a plan where you loose your hat. And Reagan grew the government quite a bit so if it was the problem it was his. "But he did it first!"? Really? Nice try to divert there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings How can a city lower "their federal income"? And I'm missing the part of the article that mentions one time expenditures -- can you quote it for me? True, there was a tax increase in sanitation fees -- which at most accounted for an extra $2.2 M out of the $13.6 M increase in revenue -- one sixth. Hardly a "We need to pay for all this stuff so let's raise taxes!" mindset IMO. The increased revenue stated ($2.2 M) was from sanitation fees collected in 2012. The budget was balanced in/for 2011, with the 2011 fees/taxes... Simple? Yes. It's a simple concept. Don't spend your kid's money. Flawed? Not uless you approve of spending your (and possibly other people's) kid's money, leaving them in the hole. Let's see. $2.2 M from Increased taxes (sanitation fees). ~$94.8M in cuts (they were facing a $97 M shortfall, yes?). A ~43:1 ratio in favor of cost cuting. Again, not seeing New Orleans' 2011 budget as an example of "taxing into prosperity" thinking. The budget for 2011 did not use any money from federal loans. What I don't know is what monies (if any) were in the 2011 budget to service these federal loans. If you can find a more detailed source of info for their budget, please share. I kinda doubt that they just skipped paying Uncle Sam the minimum/interest that was due (if any at this time). But I admit this is purely an opinion and I have no current proof. Whish is it, "makes perfect sense", or "limit the possibility of recovery"? And how does having a balanced budget limit the possiblity of recovery? Or did I misunderstand your above statement? Who is this "they" you speak of when you say "when they're in charge"? There is always a "they" in charge, unless noone is. "But he did it first!"? Really? Nice try to divert there. the arcticle said: The 2011 spending total included $17 million in one-time or nonrecurring revenue, down from $35 million in 2010 and from $56 million in 2009, Kopplin said. In addition, the 2009 and 2010 budgets included a total of more than $80 million from federal loans or from the city's fund balance, or reserve account, while in 2011 no money came from those sources. Sorry, their income from Federal Loans - by the way I'm not sure how much of their spending went to paying back to the federal loans. (And the article represents the unaudited version of their budget...much of either of our arguments could dissolve when it's audited...if the results are released) All I'm saying is that without the increased tax revenue they would still be in the red. So a balanced approach of taxes and cuts got them there. Neither absolute. The "They" and Reagan bits were my snark and I apologize. I didn't mean "he did it first," so much as Reagan (and the GOP since him) constantly rail against big government while growing it in practice - rather disingenuous if you ask me; but at least Reagan tried to pay for it by increasing taxes - but since this derail was mostly me calling out your sigs I kind of feel I've stuck my foot in it I don't believe the "no tax increase pledge" plan will ever come close to ending our deficits as none of the administrations since we started running a deficit have managed to curb spending drastically enough to make do with the revenue the government gets - particularly when the government cuts its revenues. Clinton came closest by a combination of cuts, tax increases, a fortunate economic boon, and some book cooking. At least that's how I see it. I've been wrong before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings Sorry' date=' their income from Federal Loans - by the way I'm not sure how much of their spending went to paying back to the federal loans. (And the article represents the unaudited version of their budget...much of either of our arguments could dissolve when it's audited...if the results are released).[/quote'] True. I hope that there is little difference between this "first draft"(?) and the audited (to the cent?) budget. But there is bound to be some difference, I guess, since the budget we are talking about is an estimate (i.e., not the finalized, audited budget). All I'm saying is that without the increased tax revenue they would still be in the red. So a balanced approach of taxes and cuts got them there. Neither absolute. Well, the article said that for 2012 they are running $2.2 M higher in sanitation fee collections, but are running $9 M in the black (from memory, don't have the time to pull the article back up). So, it is possible that even without the sanitation fees increase that they would still be in the black (so far for 2012). I am not against *ever* raising a fee or tax -- but IMO it should be primarily to offset an increased cost to the government to provide an essential service (like sanitation, for example). Perhaps the landfill costs went up, or (very likely) the fuel costs went up, or something else started costing the city more. IMO it shouldn't be to fund yet another program that contributes to governmental bloat. The "They" and Reagan bits were my snark and I apologize. I didn't mean "he did it first' date='" so much as Reagan (and the GOP since him) constantly rail against big government while growing it in practice - rather disingenuous if you ask me; but at least Reagan tried to pay for it by increasing taxes - but since this derail was mostly me calling out your sigs I kind of feel I've stuck my foot in it [/quote'] No problem. Well, not all growth is equal. IIRC (and it is possible I don't) most of Reagan's increase of government was in the military. While it is possible to have 'too big' of a military, I find having a big military to be preferable to having a big population dependent upon the teat of the government (this is my off-the-cuff example of different kinds of growth). And IIRC, Reagan started his first term with a large tax cut (which really helped stimulate the economy), and later on (second term?) raised taxes a small amount on two occasions (I don't have the details in front of me). Also, I don't always agree with what Presidents (and more truthfully, Congress) of either animal have done. I don't prescribe to "President X did it, so it must be good/bad because I am of the same/opposing party as him". I don't believe the "no tax increase pledge" plan will ever come close to ending our deficits as none of the administrations since we started running a deficit have managed to curb spending drastically enough to make do with the revenue the government gets - particularly when the government cuts its revenues. Clinton came closest by a combination of cuts' date=' tax increases, a fortunate economic boon, and some book cooking.[/quote'] I've already stated my general idea on when it is okay to increase a tax/fee. There are other reasons I believe to also be valid, but I won't go into them here. The main problem as I see it is that the federal government is out of control. When was the last time the expenditures from one year to the next stayed the same, or actually shrank? It does not know how to say "no" to itself, like it is a moneyaholic -- that is co-dependent. Uncle Sam in a Moneyaholic co-dependent. He is drunk on the money he gets from us, and he needs us to need him. And IMO 'he' is using that money to increase its own power and control, in part by inducing more and more people to "take the easy way" and let the government support them when it is possible for them to support themselves*. Once you are effectively dependent upon Uncle Sam, it is not easy (IMO) to break away. *This is not a rail against unemployment or other forms of "safety nets". It's just that the safety net should not become a bed and breakfast. At least that's how I see it. I've been wrong before. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Gillen Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings My Twitter account is recommending that I follow the Dalai Lama. I can't decide which is weirder ... that it thinks I have anything in common with the Dalai Lama' date=' or that the Dalai Lama is on Twitter.[/quote'] If the Goddamn Batman is on Twitter, then the Dalai Lama is on Twitter. JG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Re: Musings on Random Musings If the Goddamn Batman is on Twitter, then the Dalai Lama is on Twitter. JG The Dalai Lama is the Goddamn Batman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.