Bridenstine vs. Sullivan

[Red Arrow]

Something else I didn't find out until last night: how the poverty line is calculated. 3 times what you need to buy the CPI basket of food, apparently. We are not one of the countries that calculates it relative to average income.

Wow! What a clever way to adjust your country's image.  A third or fourth world country where 90% of the people cannot feed themselves can base the poverty level on average income and declare that maybe 50% of them are not in poverty.  A rich country like the USA could adjust poverty to those without a flat screen TV, a new car every 3 years..... by averaging in the richest.   I obviously think setting the poverty level on a cost of living makes more sense.

[/quote]We already have a flat tax when all tax is taken into account.[/quote]

If one buys into all of your premises, which I don't.  I understand that we need to fix the way SS works to make it more agreeable to you regarding how it is treated.

It's not as if we aren't losing around a trillion dollars a year to tax evasion as it is. ...  I'd rather go after the tax evaders first, then see where we stand and make adjustments from there.

I can agree with going after the evaders first.  Are you paying your OK state sales tax on internet/mail-order items?   I use the easy add on on the OK State Income Tax Form 511.

[nathanm]

I obviously thing setting the poverty level on a cost of living makes more sense.

I don't have much disagreement with that. The argument goes, however, that the measurement fails to account for regional differences in housing cost or even the large increase in out of pocket medical costs that has arisen since the "three times food" measurement was introduced. Some folks take it further and point out that wealth is largely relative. Should people who have any TV be considered out of poverty? What about those with a $100 wal-mart special flat screen? Should that disqualify them? A car? Or just a car less than a decade old? I can see both sides of the coin. Take the TV for example: It's not only used for entertainment these days. It has become, sadly, our primary source of news and news-like entertainment.

[Red Arrow]

I don't have much disagreement with that. The argument goes, however, that the measurement fails to account for regional differences in housing cost or even the large increase in out of pocket medical costs that has arisen since the "three times food" measurement was introduced. Some folks take it further and point out that wealth is largely relative. Should people who have any TV be considered out of poverty? What about those with a $100 wal-mart special flat screen? Should that disqualify them? A car? Or just a car less than a decade old? I can see both sides of the coin. Take the TV for example: It's not only used for entertainment these days. It has become, sadly, our primary source of news and news-like entertainment.

OK, playing along with the regional concept, how local do you want to take it?  What is the poverty level in Malibu Beach, CA?  If someone cannot afford to live there do we give them financial assistance or tell them to live somewhere else?  3 baskets of food may not be enough.  A $100 TV from Walmart with an antenna is probably justified even if just for news and Stormgasm.  Cable or dish, probably not.  53" home entertainment center, definitely not.  A car in NYC, definitely not.  Money for public transit in NYC, Philly, Boston, maybe.  An older car around here, most likely yes.  Details and where to draw the line can be quite arbitrary.  One of my cousins qualifies for disability due to injuries from a fall on an icy (untreated but nowhere else to walk) sidewalk.  In order to get disability benefits, she had to sell her paid-for Bonneville Pontiac and buy a lesser grade car on payments because the Bonneville was deemed to be a luxury car.

Edit: Typos abound today.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Your statement depends on who's interpretation of the numbers you believe.

I believe there will be a place where spending will be as low as most Americans will be willing to go.  It may not be below present spending levels.  I don't know where all the bridges to nowhere are hiding but there are more there.  I am sure of that.  When we finally get to raising taxes, I believe everyone chips in some.  Even the bottom.

Actually, the is not really a whole lot of interpretation in subtracting one number from another and looking at the difference.  Most of the world has been doing it for at least a couple thousand years.  Well, except for the Murdochian Cult - they obviously don't understand the concept since they continue to say that 2 - 1 is 3.  But the REST of the REAL world gets it.

As for rate of change - well, that's just the slope of a line formula, y = mx + b.  So easy, even a caveman could do it.  But apparently Fox news has no cavemen on payroll.

As for everyone paying income tax - well even the poorest among us pay it - well, they would if corporations paid any, since every single dollar spent on a product from a corporation has the income tax built in.  Well,...again, if the corporations paid any tax... 

Maybe that would be a good place to start - rather than landing on the poorest and making them lose their earned income credit as the first step, how about just delaying it long enough to get all the corporations and the 1% ers to pay a proportionate percentage first.  Then, if the crisis really IS as bad as all that, then let the poor pay kick in a little more.  Since they really know how to live with so much less to start, they certainly won't miss it as much as the 1%ers.

[nathanm]

Actually, the is not really a whole lot of interpretation in subtracting one number from another and looking at the difference.  Most of the world has been doing it for at least a couple thousand years.  Well, except for the Murdochian Cult - they obviously don't understand the concept since they continue to say that 2 - 1 is 3.  But the REST of the REAL world gets it.

I suspect that it's the pesky dollar sign that makes people think that arithmetic suddenly doesn't apply.

[Red Arrow]

Actually, the is not really a whole lot of interpretation in subtracting one number from another and looking at the difference. 

Try this: (Demonstrates the principle)

Your predecessor spent $100.
You spend $200. 
Your successor spends $350.

You have added $100 to spending. You have doubled your predecessor.  You increased spending !00% over your predecessor.

Your successor has increased spending by $150 while you only increased spending by $100.  He increased spending by $50 more than you did.
If your successor wants to look good, he points out that while you increased spending by 100%, he only increased spending by 75%,  (150/200)*100 = 75%.  His rate of increase is 25% less than yours.

There are plenty of other accounting tricks to make a case either way.

[Red Arrow]

As for everyone paying income tax - well even the poorest among us pay it - well, they would if corporations paid any, since every single dollar spent on a product from a corporation has the income tax built in.  Well,...again, if the corporations paid any tax...  

And of course the rich don't buy anything so they don't participate in paying the income tax of corporations that do pay income tax.

Maybe that would be a good place to start - rather than landing on the poorest and making them lose their earned income credit as the first step, how about just delaying it long enough to get all the corporations and the 1% ers to pay a proportionate percentage first.  

I don't believe I said anything about making the 99%ers pay first.  My vision is to have everyone start paying at the same time.

[Red Arrow]

I suspect that it's the pesky dollar sign that makes people think that arithmetic suddenly doesn't apply.

Nah, it's that pesky dollar sign that makes them ignore assumptions about spending and saving.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Try this: (Demonstrates the principle)

Your predecessor spent $100.
You spend $200. 
Your successor spends $350.

You have added $100 to spending. You have doubled your predecessor.  You increased spending !00% over your predecessor.

Your successor has increased spending by $150 while you only increased spending by $100.  He increased spending by $50 more than you did.
If your successor wants to look good, he points out that while you increased spending by 100%, he only increased spending by 75%,  (150/200)*100 = 75%.  His rate of increase is 25% less than yours.

There are plenty of other accounting tricks to make a case either way.

So THAT is where you got all confused! - the reality about deficits and subtraction is this;

Your predecessor spent 110 more than he brought in.
Your predecessor then spent 190 more than he brought in.

Then you spend 160 more than you bring in.
Then 150, and then 110.

The two interesting things in this data - the deficits have been cut almost in half from where they were with predecessor (as well as the change in slope from positive to negative - that is a good thing.)  (This is where the simple subtraction comes in!)

And at the same time, the overall increases in total spending are increasing at the lowest rate of the last 50 or 60 years.  The slope has gone from tangential asymptote to casual rise.

[erfalf]

The two interesting things in this data - the deficits have been cut almost in half from where they were with predecessor (as well as the change in slope from positive to negative - that is a good thing.)  (This is where the simple subtraction comes in!)

And at the same time, the overall increases in total spending are increasing at the lowest rate of the last 50 or 60 years.  The slope has gone from tangential asymptote to casual rise.

Let's forget that most of the bailouts were one time shots. You act like Obama really cut spending. He did nothing of the sort. You know as well as I they (not just just Obama) would have made it permanent if they thought they could get a way with it.

In reality, under Obama the deficit has only decreased by about 17% since the last Bush budget. And is actually higher than the last full year of the Bush administration. If you want to keep ringing that bell go ahead. But I think it has been thoroughly debunked.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Let's forget that most of the bailouts were one time shots. You act like Obama really cut spending. He did nothing of the sort. You know as well as I they (not just just Obama) would have made it permanent if they thought they could get a way with it.

In reality, under Obama the deficit has only decreased by about 17% since the last Bush budget. And is actually higher than the last full year of the Bush administration. If you want to keep ringing that bell go ahead. But I think it has been thoroughly debunked.

Never said OR implied that he cut spending.  What has happened is that deficits are about half (42%), and the rate of growth of spending is the lowest in decades.  These are good things in and of themselves.

I would really love to know how you get a 17% number in reductions of 1900 down to 1100.  Public school math?  Or maybe private, creationist religious school?  Real math give 42%, which is close to half.

Well, you certainly have debunked nothing - all you gotta do is look at Federal Debt history to see the numbers I have used.  Step away from the "Fox"!!

[guido911]

I'm planning next year to be claiming seven or eight of the TulsaNow posters as dependents already.

Whose your daddy?

[Red Arrow]

Never said OR implied that he cut spending.  What has happened is that deficits are about half (42%),

No spending cuts.  Haven't raised taxes. Deficits are down 42%.

Corporations are hoarding money.  Unemployment is down but still bad.

Where's the money coming from?

[RecycleMichael]

Where's the money coming from?

I'm guessing inheritance.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No spending cuts.  Haven't raised taxes. Deficits are down 42%.

Corporations are hoarding money.  Unemployment is down but still bad.

Where's the money coming from?

The economy is slooooowwwwwwwllllllyyyyyy growing into the situation.

Big mixed bag of carp in the economy.  Everywhere but housing and employment there is good news - some.  Spend some time actually looking around through this - some of it back to the 50's;  http://www.crgraphs.com/

LOTS of good info there.  Retail and trade are better than at any time during Bush.  Or any time before that, too.  Intermodal transportation is down (truck boxes on trains) but truck traffic is big (ATA truck tonnage).  Go figure - I would have expected the opposite.  But that goes to the increased retail.  Drivers I know are busy as a one armed paper hanger - and still being pushed to break the law and drive illegal hours.  Like always.

#2 of 9 under GDP graphs - even residential is slightly positive.  Go figure on that one, too.  Unexpected.

Housing and Construction investment is a catastrophe, and since that is what, about 1/3 or 1/4 of the economy (??) when it is a mess, the economy is a mess.  11 of 15 shows how big the real estate "bubble" was.  Crazy, irrational exuberance....

Manufacturing is a bright spot.  Kind of.  1 of 8 - the rate of growth of utilization is running about 4 times the Bush era rate.  But look at the overall trend - from the 60's.  Not good at all as far as I am concerned.  But hey, we gotta have our Japan and China made junk....but it is probably better than fighting a war with either one.