Reply With Quote
how on earth did you know i was talking to you? lol
yes, it does.
how on earth did you know i was talking to you? lol
Really how?
You are? Your comment did not make any sense as no one named Yoni commented in this thread.
sure
I just disagree with your point. Americans are being taxed in relative terms at the lowest levels since the 1960's. We have a $14T debt and your solution is to decrease revenue. Let's get the debt manageable, then we can talk about reducing revenue. Deal?
Seriously you are not making any sense.
What did I state was my solution? The tax comparison was unrelated to my solution for reducing the debt.
Ok. The Heritage Foundation's supports a flat tax which will ultimately reduce revenue, which I believe is irresponsible. Feel free to expound on how your plan on for reducing the debt. I'll expect more than answer of reducing spending. Are you in favor of the Ryan budget? If so can you detail which loopholes you would eliminate in order to pay for the tax cuts he proposes?
Heritage believing in what they say doesn't make it "right". It's still an opinion.
The fact certain lawmakers (and mostly from only one party) rely on such opinion to make policy is where it gets partisan and stupid.
Reagan was living proof that "starving the beast" is mere wishful thinking.
PoopDeck is not Yonivore.
His name is Andrew and he is a world onto himself. Just ask him.
, follow the links at his precious list.
A few things about him from people who are skeptical of him and his list:
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011...-of-confusion/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/...ain-900-times/
He goes from website to webiste, ala Cosmored and plays at the Skeptical Avenger and/or Libertarian Avenger.
Most definitely NOT Yonivore's sock puppet.
The Heritage Foundation does not support reducing spending?
Why is it so difficult to comprehend reducing spending? These plans are freely available online,
A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget (Cato Insitute)
Saving the American Dream (Heritage Foundation)
Plan To Restore America (Ron Paul)
All things held equal, if I increase government spending, I will increase GDP.
True or False?
I see you are still peddling your lies,
Rebutal to "Poptech's list of Confusion"
Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times"
Why weren't the plans applied when the party that include some of those guys controlled Congress and the Executive?
Apparently reducing spending is very difficult...
A flat tax, if done right, should be revenue neutral.
What a flat tax does though, is remove all the "gimmies" to all levels.
At this point, I am firmly convinced that our tax code is far, far too complex, and the simple act of filling out taxes sucks out a lot of effort from our economy that could be better spent elsewhere.
A flat tax with a very generous per person exemption would be one doable solution.
Never happen though. Our crappy consitution has made sure of that.
Yeah, I went there.
That is an illogical statement because all things cannot be equal when you increase government spending since you have to drain capital from the private sector in one form or another to do so.
GDP is actually declining
I made no representation about the veracity of anything, goober.
I was merely pointing out that you are not Yonivore, and showing criticisms of your obsession with AGW skepticism.
The rebuttals speak to this obsession and demonstrate to my reading that you are slightly unhinged, and that anyone should take your claims of fact with a fair amount of extra skepticism.
The fact that you can't or won't address this:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=32
Says all anyone needs to know.
The majority were not fiscal conservatives or libertarians.
Where did I say the Heritage Foundation did not support reducing spending?
Which one of these plans do you subscribe to?
So if someone fabricates a post of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about my work that is perfectly sane but if I compose a complete and thorough refutation exposing everyone of their lies, misinformation or strawman arguments I am now "unhinged". Fascinating logic there.
So cutting spending is very hard. I thought so.
I can write "Let's save Amerika!" in a piece of paper and it's just as good as anything Ron Paul, Heritage and Cato writes... crofl
A word of note:
I am an accountant, about 3 classes shy of a masters. I have quite a few hours of graduate level finance and economics under my belt. I really like economics, and re-read my textbooks for fun.
The question was a very specific one, meant to test/demonstrate your understanding of economics.
You failed.
The question could be answered by taking just one undergraduate course in macro-economics.
Have you ever taken such a course?
The point being is they are taking any reduced revenue into account through reduced spending.
I will take any of the three over the current administration's spending spree. Personally I like Ron Paul's plan.
I said nothing about the sanity of anyone other than you. That would, if you really cared, cons ute a pretty direct strawman. You know this, so that charge will be glossed over in any response of yours. If someone were as obsessed with you as you were with them, that would make them slightly unhinged as well.
That is why I stopped bothering to debunk your claims after the first demonstrable up on your part.
I am not butthurt that someone like you makes specious claims. Your words do far more to harm your credibility than anything else I could do.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions