Around $9 trillion in annual unreported Federal spending

[danefan]

What is your fixation with the baseline? We aren't talking about a baseline. The Dems I've heard talk about this aren't talking about a baseline. They are talking about any tax decreases at any time without regard to a baseline. How many ways can I say it? Just how thick is your skull?

It's pretty thick. These tax concepts really give me fits, especially considering I don't deal with them very frequently.

Are you saying that someone is claiming that any decrease from full 100% taxation of GDP of federal expenditure?

If you have an example of someone saying this I think it would be great to show it. If not, I think you're reading way too far into someone's statements for the sake of sensationalism.

[AZGrizFan]

What is your fixation with the baseline? We aren't talking about a baseline. The Dems I've heard talk about this aren't talking about a baseline. They are talking about any tax decreases at any time without regard to a baseline. How many ways can I say it? Just how thick is your skull?

It's pretty thick. These tax concepts really give me fits, especially considering I don't deal with them very frequently.

Are you saying that someone is claiming that any decrease from full 100% taxation of GDP of federal expenditure?

If you have an example of someone saying this I think it would be great to show it. If not, I think you're reading way too far into someone's statements for the sake of sensationalism.

[JohnStOnge]

All,

During this recent discussion of the "Buffet Rule," Obama has been referring to failing to adopt that rule as "spending." He's saying that if we don't raise taxes on millionare that is "spending."

This kind of thing has been a very consistent aspect of Democratic Party rhetoric over the past 20 or so years. I will admit that most of the time it has been referring to tax cuts as spending. They're not. But, even worse, they are now referring to failing to RAISE taxes on a particular group as such.

[JohnStOnge]

Are you saying that someone is claiming that any decrease from full 100% taxation of GDP of federal expenditure?

No. But that is the logical conclusion based on the extension of their rhetoric. They are taking the position that money not collected by the government in taxes is spending. Like saying that the Bush spent X billion on "tax cuts for the rich." That is absolute nonsense. It's not spending at all.

If I have a business and I'm charging $2 per unit for what I'm selling then I decide I need to lower the cost to $1.75 per unit I am not "spending" $0.25 per unit more for production. If I make $60,000 one year and %50,000 the next that doesn't mean I "spent" $10,000 more in the second year.

I'm not optimistic about it happening but it's way past time for the dominant media to call Democrats on constantly calling tax cuts, tax deductions, and failing to raise taxes "spending." It's NOT spending.

[danefan]

All,

During this recent discussion of the "Buffet Rule," Obama has been referring to failing to adopt that rule as "spending." He's saying that if we don't raise taxes on millionare that is "spending."

This kind of thing has been a very consistent aspect of Democratic Party rhetoric over the past 20 or so years. I will admit that most of the time it has been referring to tax cuts as spending. They're not. But, even worse, they are now referring to failing to RAISE taxes on a particular group as such.

I'd like to see the context of the statements you refer to. Any representative links available?.

[danefan]

Are you saying that someone is claiming that any decrease from full 100% taxation of GDP of federal expenditure?

No. But that is the logical conclusion based on the extension of their rhetoric. They are taking the position that money not collected by the government in taxes is spending. Like saying that the Bush spent X billion on "tax cuts for the rich." That is absolute nonsense. It's not spending at all.

If I have a business and I'm charging $2 per unit for what I'm selling then I decide I need to lower the cost to $1.75 per unit I am not "spending" $0.25 per unit more for production. If I make $60,000 one year and %50,000 the next that doesn't mean I "spent" $10,000 more in the second year.

I'm not optimistic about it happening but it's way past time for the dominant media to call Democrats on constantly calling tax cuts, tax deductions, and failing to raise taxes "spending." It's NOT spending.

There are hundreds of government expenditures cloaked as tax deductions, credits, etc.

Tax cuts can very easily be a mechanism by which the government provides subsidies.

There is no more clear example of government spending than a subsidiary enabled via the tax code.

[JohnStOnge]

There are hundreds of government expenditures cloaked as tax deductions, credits, etc.

Tax cuts can very easily be a mechanism by which the government provides subsidies.

There is no more clear example of government spending than a subsidiary enabled via the tax code.

I completely disagree with that. When someone makes money they are not being "subsidized" because government doesn't take it from them.

A subsidy is when you already have money and you give it to somebody. It is not when you say, "I otherwise would be taking your money but in this case I won't."

I can't believe you would call something like that a "clear example" of government spending. It's NOT spending. Spending is when you have money and you spend it on something. It's not when you never take possession of somebody else's money to begin with.

[danefan]

There are hundreds of government expenditures cloaked as tax deductions, credits, etc.

Tax cuts can very easily be a mechanism by which the government provides subsidies.

There is no more clear example of government spending than a subsidiary enabled via the tax code.

I completely disagree with that. When someone makes money they are not being "subsidized" because government doesn't take it from them.

A subsidy is when you already have money and you give it to somebody. It is not when you say, "I otherwise would be taking your money but in this case I won't."

I can't believe you would call something like that a "clear example" of government spending. It's NOT spending. Spending is when you have money and you spend it on something. It's not when you never take possession of somebody else's money to begin with.

Example A - government wants to spur innovation in the widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that says for every widget you make the government will pay 40 cents on the dollar in the form of a grant. The government gains no equity ownership and the grant is not in the form of a debt.

Example B - government wants to spur innovation in a widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that entitles the manufacturer to a tax credit equal to 40% of the cost to manufacture widgets. The credits never expire and are transferable.

In which example is the government spending?

[AZGrizFan]

I completely disagree with that. When someone makes money they are not being "subsidized" because government doesn't take it from them.

A subsidy is when you already have money and you give it to somebody. It is not when you say, "I otherwise would be taking your money but in this case I won't."

I can't believe you would call something like that a "clear example" of government spending. It's NOT spending. Spending is when you have money and you spend it on something. It's not when you never take possession of somebody else's money to begin with.

Example A - government wants to spur innovation in the widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that says for every widget you make the government will pay 40 cents on the dollar in the form of a grant. The government gains no equity ownership and the grant is not in the form of a debt.

Example B - government wants to spur innovation in a widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that entitles the manufacturer to a tax credit equal to 40% of the cost to manufacture widgets. The credits never expire and are transferable.

In which example is the government spending?

Example A, because they're taking someone ELSE'S money and giving it to the Widget company. I agree with JSO here.

[danefan]

Example A - government wants to spur innovation in the widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that says for every widget you make the government will pay 40 cents on the dollar in the form of a grant. The government gains no equity ownership and the grant is not in the form of a debt.

Example B - government wants to spur innovation in a widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that entitles the manufacturer to a tax credit equal to 40% of the cost to manufacture widgets. The credits never expire and are transferable.

In which example is the government spending?

Example A, because they're taking someone ELSE'S money and giving it to the Widget company. I agree with JSO here.

Why does it matter where the money comes from? The question is whether the Government is spending. Maybe its just semantics to some extent.

In Example A, the 40% is an increase on the "expense" side of the ledger. In Example B, the 40% is a decrease on the "revenue" side of the ledger.

The bottom line is the same from both the government's and the manufacturer's perspective isn't it?

[kalm]

Oh JFC. Of course it's a semantics argument and a dumb one as Z pointed out three posts into this thread (which should have ended it).

JSO and Graddy, you have to pay for shit. You may not like the shit that government has committed to paying for, but Dane points out, that's a whole other argument.

[CitadelGrad]

Oh JFC. Of course it's a semantics argument and a dumb one as Z pointed out three posts into this thread (which should have ended it).

JSO and Graddy, you have to pay for shit. You may not like the shit that government has committed to paying for, but Dane points out, that's a whole other argument.

So the government isn't obligated to exercise fiscal responsibility? I guess what belongs to the government belongs to the government and what belongs to everyone else also belongs to the government.

[kalm]

Oh JFC. Of course it's a semantics argument and a dumb one as Z pointed out three posts into this thread (which should have ended it).

JSO and Graddy, you have to pay for shit. You may not like the shit that government has committed to paying for, but Dane points out, that's a whole other argument.

So the government isn't obligated to exercise fiscal responsibility? I guess what belongs to the government belongs to the government and what belongs to everyone else also belongs to the government.

Paying your debts isnt a fiscal responsibility?

I remember when conks used to not believe in a free lunch.

[AZGrizFan]

Example A, because they're taking someone ELSE'S money and giving it to the Widget company. I agree with JSO here.

Why does it matter where the money comes from? The question is whether the Government is spending. Maybe its just semantics to some extent.

In Example A, the 40% is an increase on the "expense" side of the ledger. In Example B, the 40% is a decrease on the "revenue" side of the ledger.

The bottom line is the same from both the government's and the manufacturer's perspective isn't it?

Why does it matter? Because in example A, they're spending money they've already collected (from somewhere/somebody else). In Example B, they're never collecting the money in the first place. One is spending. One is not. You can't "spend" something you never collected. In this scenario I agree with JSO.

[CitadelGrad]

So the government isn't obligated to exercise fiscal responsibility? I guess what belongs to the government belongs to the government and what belongs to everyone else also belongs to the government.

Paying your debts isnt a fiscal responsibility?

I remember when conks used to not believe in a free lunch.

Incurring debts that you can't repay without debasing the currency and creating inflation isn't fiscal responsibility.

[GannonFan]

Why does it matter where the money comes from? The question is whether the Government is spending. Maybe its just semantics to some extent.

In Example A, the 40% is an increase on the "expense" side of the ledger. In Example B, the 40% is a decrease on the "revenue" side of the ledger.

The bottom line is the same from both the government's and the manufacturer's perspective isn't it?

Why does it matter? Because in example A, they're spending money they've already collected (from somewhere/somebody else). In Example B, they're never collecting the money in the first place. One is spending. One is not. You can't "spend" something you never collected. In this scenario I agree with JSO.

You know, I have to agree with AZ on this one - dane's example actually goes to point out the difference between the two. In one case you collect tax revenue that you need, and in the other case you assume you'll collect everything (i.e. the entire GDP) and then pick and choose what you actually collect. There is that odious idea that all the money is at the disposal of the government and it's at their discretion as to what you ultimately receive. Granted, I still don't think Dems would take that principle to its logical conclusion, but I can certainly see vestiges of it sneaking into political conversations, especially recently.

[AZGrizFan]

Why does it matter? Because in example A, they're spending money they've already collected (from somewhere/somebody else). In Example B, they're never collecting the money in the first place. One is spending. One is not. You can't "spend" something you never collected. In this scenario I agree with JSO.

You know, I have to agree with AZ on this one - dane's example actually goes to point out the difference between the two. In one case you collect tax revenue that you need, and in the other case you assume you'll collect everything (i.e. the entire GDP) and then pick and choose what you actually collect. There is that odious idea that all the money is at the disposal of the government and it's at their discretion as to what you ultimately receive. Granted, I still don't think Dems would take that principle to its logical conclusion, but I can certainly see vestiges of it sneaking into political conversations, especially recently.

You say that like it pains you to do so.

[Cap'n Cat]

You say that like it pains you to do so.

Z,
Haven't read a word of this Conk mental masturbation thread, but, just wanted to come in and call you a dick.


Dick.

[AZGrizFan]

You say that like it pains you to do so.

Z,
Haven't read a word of this Conk mental masturbation thread, but, just wanted to come in and call you a dick.


Dick.

Thank you. From you, that's a compliment.

[Cap'n Cat]

Z,
Haven't read a word of this Conk mental masturbation thread, but, just wanted to come in and call you a dick.


Dick.

Thank you. From you, that's a compliment.

[kalm]

Paying your debts isnt a fiscal responsibility?

I remember when conks used to not believe in a free lunch.

Incurring debts that you can't repay without debasing the currency and creating inflation isn't fiscal responsibility.

Thank you for agreeing with me!

[JohnStOnge]

Example A - government wants to spur innovation in the widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that says for every widget you make the government will pay 40 cents on the dollar in the form of a grant. The government gains no equity ownership and the grant is not in the form of a debt.

Example B - government wants to spur innovation in a widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that entitles the manufacturer to a tax credit equal to 40% of the cost to manufacture widgets. The credits never expire and are transferable.

In which example is the government spending?

Example A because in that instance the government has taken possession of money already then spends it in the form of a grant. Example B coulb be spending if it's the type of credit...i forget the term for it...where the government actually GIVES you money if your tax liability goes below zero. But otehrwise it's not spending

The first example is, "I will pay you to do this." The second example is a case of, "If you do what I'd like you to do I wont' take as much of your money by force as I otherwise would." The first is spending. The second is not.

[kalm]

Example A - government wants to spur innovation in the widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that says for every widget you make the government will pay 40 cents on the dollar in the form of a grant. The government gains no equity ownership and the grant is not in the form of a debt.

Example B - government wants to spur innovation in a widget industry because Congress thinks it is good for the country. A law is passed that entitles the manufacturer to a tax credit equal to 40% of the cost to manufacture widgets. The credits never expire and are transferable.

In which example is the government spending?

Example A because in that instance the government has taken possession of money already then spends it in the form of a grant. Example B coulb be spending if it's the type of credit...i forget the term for it...where the government actually GIVES you money if your tax liability goes below zero. But otehrwise it's not spending

The first example is, "I will pay you to do this." The second example is a case of, "If you do what I'd like you to do I wont' take as much of your money by force as I otherwise would." The first is spending. The second is not.

The US government has given 100's of billions of dollars in subsidies to for-profit oil and nuclear companies over the last 50 years. Is that spending, or allowing these companies to keep what's rightfully theirs? Do those subsidies support "free market" principles?

[JohnStOnge]

The US government has given 100's of billions of dollars in subsidies to for-profit oil and nuclear companies over the last 50 years. Is that spending, or allowing these companies to keep what's rightfully theirs? Do those subsidies support "free market" principles?

It depends on what you're describing as "subsidies." If you're talking about a tax deduction that's not a subsidy. If you're talking about a tax credit it could be a subsidy if it results in the government actually giving money to an oil company.

[kalm]

The US government has given 100's of billions of dollars in subsidies to for-profit oil and nuclear companies over the last 50 years. Is that spending, or allowing these companies to keep what's rightfully theirs? Do those subsidies support "free market" principles?

It depends on what you're describing as "subsidies." If you're talking about a tax deduction that's not a subsidy. If you're talking about a tax credit it could be a subsidy if it results in the government actually giving money to an oil company.

If that subsidy is granted to one energy industry and not another or is granted in a greater amount, it's not a subsidy? What if it's subsidized insurance?