TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Ron Paul Supporters
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I suppose you are right; really, what's the difference between 1 trillion and 2 trillion anymore?

well i looked through those links and i couldn't find what i had asked for; sure we can point to the stimulus and TARP as a definitive increase for specific purposes, but i thought you deficit hawks were referring to something else?

transarmstrong for instance completely ignores the real spending elephant in the room, the medicaid prescription drug subsidy bill, but that was actually signed in 2003.

i dunno, it has seemed to me over the last several years that the increase in deficits has implied to lazy people that there's been a corresponding increase in spending, but i am unaware on what that spending has been for.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well i looked through those links and i couldn't find what i had asked for

Didn't you ask what the money was spent on? Every single one of those links will show you what money was spent on. In addition, they show increases in spending from 2006, which was the year you were using as a benchmark.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Didn't you ask what the money was spent on? Every single one of those links will show you what money was spent on. In addition, they show increases in spending from 2006, which was the year you were using as a benchmark.

The point you seem to be missing is that there is a huge chunk of history constituting those expenditures.

I bring up 2006 because I had just assumed people were offering critiques of the Paul budget plan because they had followed the links in the OP and actually skimmed the plan itself.

quote:

The Ron Paul budget plan Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul�s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

Rolling blackouts? Enlighten me, I was 12. I like to have my beliefs challenged and shaken up a bit. WTF do I know about state energy policy? Is it even a president's place to intervene?

George Bush's Medicare prescription drug subsidy is routinely bashed by Paul in media appearances fwiw.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker The point you seem to be missing is that there is a huge chunk of history constituting those expenditures.

But this does not invalidate anything that I have posted. He asked whether there really was an increase in spending since 2006 and on what. I provided links that show 1) There has been an increase in spending, and 2) What the money was spent on.

I'm starting to feel like you are arguing with me for the hell of it.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Rolling blackouts? Enlighten me, I was 12. I like to have my beliefs challenged and shaken up a bit. WTF do I know about state energy policy? Is it even a president's place to intervene?

You're espousing some very radical ideas for such an ignorant person.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Didn't you ask what the money was spent on? Every single one of those links will show you what money was spent on. In addition, they show increases in spending from 2006, which was the year you were using as a benchmark.

what i was asking for was a estimation of the increase in real spending since 2006. i couldnt find it, sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I'm starting to feel like you are arguing with me for the hell of it.

I'm simply pointing to where you and others like you are taking events out of historical context to reframe them to suit your arguments; heavily reliant on a historically inaccurate narrative.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what i was asking for was a estimation of the increase in real spending since 2006. i couldnt find it, sorry.

Interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I'm simply pointing to where you and others like you are taking events out of historical context to reframe them to suit your arguments; heavily reliant on a historically inaccurate narrative.

I posted links with data and information that show and explain what money was spent on and how much. What on earth are you talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Interesting.

well i was hoping for a link like i provided you, with a nice pretty graph that was easily understood.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I posted links with data and information that show and explain what money was spent on and how much. What on earth are you talking about?

I was under the impression that you were trying to provide intellectual support to TranceArmstrong and were therefore justifying the information you provided as relevant. If it is just information, the propublica sources I would actually vouch for, myself, then I apologize. I hope that clears up the confusion.

Is a decentralized national energy policy going to precede certain doom for California? If no, then I don't think I'm being that radical. Did a lack of action by the Energy department result in the blackouts? Did california over-regulate/deregulate the electricity industry as surely, other states have done? Would a Ron Paul presidency have much impact on an electricity crisis in one state?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker 2006 is as far back as the narrative mythology goes. On January 1, 2012, that will change to 2007. Something about five years being the maximum historical retention the average Ron Paul voter is capable of holding.

Is anything I've said as unnecessary as this?



edit: sorry for this back and forth nonsense about 2006. I brought up 2006 because the Paul plan specifically states for some departments to cut spending back to 2006 levels.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well i was hoping for a link like i provided you, with a nice pretty graph that was easily understood.

I provided multiple links that contain graphs and data that should be easily understood. I am truly baffled by the fact that you don't understand a single one of them but unfortunately, I can't help you read and comprehend. You're on your own there. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I provided multiple links that contain graphs and data that should be easily understood. I am truly baffled by the fact that you don't understand a single one of them but unfortunately, I can't help you read and comprehend. You're on your own there. Sorry.

i looked at the graphs and data of 4/5 links you posted. nowhere did they indicate a significant increase in spending over the period we're talking (TARP & stimulus aside). the graph i provided to you was evidence of this.

so what im left suspecting is that you just assume there's been a massive increase in spending (possibly due to debt level increases) because that's how your worldview approaches the topic, rather than you having any concrete examples to show us. it took me 2 mins to find a graph that suggests you're wrong. since they are your sources, how hard could it be to provide a single one that supports your position?

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Is a decentralized national energy policy going to precede certain doom for California? If no, then I don't think I'm being that radical. Did a lack of action by the Energy department result in the blackouts? Did california over-regulate/deregulate the electricity industry as surely, other states have done? Would a Ron Paul presidency have much impact on an electricity crisis in one state?

You're missing the point which is this: You don't have the faintest understanding of the circumstances surrounding a single event in recent history. You, however, are arguing for a very radical approach to governance that in its current form has already led, specifically, to that event. Without an understanding of one single event amid numerous events and conditions that deregulation has already caused, what remotely qualifies you to be advocating for further deregulation?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i looked at the graphs and data of 4/5 links you posted. nowhere did they indicate a significant increase in spending over the period we're talking (TARP & stimulus aside). the graph i provided to you was evidence of this. so what im left suspecting is that you just assume there's been a massive increase in spending (possibly due to debt level increases) because that's how your worldview approaches the topic, rather than you having any concrete examples to show us. it took me 2 mins to find a graph that suggests you're wrong. since they are your sources, how hard could it be to provide a single one that supports your position?

I suppose I just don't know what your definition of "massive" or "significant" is or even what amount you would have to see in order to think it is a large amount. To me, hundreds of billions of dollars is significant but if it isn't to you, then I guess we will disagree on the severity of the increase in spending from 2006 to now.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker You're missing the point which is this: You don't have the faintest understanding of the circumstances surrounding a single event in recent history. You, however, are arguing for a very radical approach to governance that in its current form has already led, specifically, to that event. Without an understanding of one single event amid numerous events and conditions that deregulation has already caused, what remotely qualifies you to be advocating for further deregulation?

Can you give us a specific example of something that directly relates to what you are saying here? And expand on the specific types of deregulation that have already occurred on that event and how further deregulation would make that single event worse?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I suppose I just don't know what your definition of "massive" or "significant" is or even what amount you would have to see in order to think it is a large amount. To me, hundreds of billions of dollars is significant but if it isn't to you, then I guess we will disagree on the severity of the increase in spending from 2006 to now.

well, the two spikes in this graph seem to signify a massive increase in spending to me.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_12s1li0181360_608cs_F0xF0fF0sF0l

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Can you give us a specific example of something that directly relates to what you are saying here? And expand on the specific types of deregulation that have already occurred on that event and how further deregulation would make that single event worse?

Perhaps tomorrow. I have to go to sleep and it will be an excruciatingly long post. The simple gist of what I'm saying, however, is that deregulation will precipitate more instances like the one I raised if not further exacerbate already festering conditions. A lot of what I would raise in such a post can already be found peppering the Occupy Wall Street thread.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, the two spikes in this graph seem to signify a massive increase in spending to me. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...cs_F0xF0fF0sF0l

That chart just shows government spending as a percent of GDP. In other words, how much of the country's resources is used up by the state in a percentage, which in the graph you are looking at shows massive spikes during major world wars, which makes sense. What we need to look at are the graphs that show total government spending. That is what will show you how much government has actually spent and then, from there, you can do further research to find out where the money went.

Edit: Not that it helps your argument but I did notice that the graph you linked to does not have 'Total' selected (which will show as the yellow portion of the graph by default). Your graph just shows Fed, State, and local spending as separate percentages. If you are interested to see the change and difference, you'll have to scroll down just a tiny bit to the section that allows you to customize the chart in order to see that.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Perhaps tomorrow. I have to go to sleep and it will be an excruciatingly long post. The simple gist of what I'm saying, however, is that deregulation will precipitate more instances like the one I raised if not further exacerbate already festering conditions. A lot of what I would raise in such a post can already be found peppering the Occupy Wall Street thread.

I understand that you believe government deregulation will exacerbate current problems but I'm interested to read specifically why you believe that, in addition to giving actual real world examples. I look forward to reading your explanation tomorrow!

Edit: I just went through every single one of your posts in the OWS thread and none of them discussed government deregulation. In fact, the word 'deregulation' pulls 1 hit in that entire thread and it was used by pkcRAISTLIN, which even he didn't explain why deregulation of government is necessarily bad for an economy.

ok, so i found some numbers, and expenditure has increased by 1.5T since 2006. these aren't nominal figures but that shouldnt be too important. probably more of an increase than i had expected though.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT In fact, the word 'deregulation' pulls 1 hit in that entire thread and it was used by pkcRAISTLIN, which even he didn't explain why deregulation of government is necessarily bad for an economy.

in the context of the GFC, poor government oversight (especially by the fed) led to lax lending habits as well as the growth in systemic risk:

quote:

He [Greenspan] noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today�s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/b...my/24panel.html

in my personal view, capitalism is anarchic and requires regulation to limit negative externalities and protect consumers and investors.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/b...my/24panel.html in my personal view, capitalism is anarchic and requires regulation to limit negative externalities and protect consumers and investors.

Without quoting someone else, can you explain in your own words exactly why? Can you also give specific examples of a market that was deregulated by the government and go through why that deregulation caused or created a negative impact on the economy or sector that it was a part of?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Can you give us a specific example of something that directly relates to what you are saying here? And expand on the specific types of deregulation that have already occurred on that event and how further deregulation would make that single event worse?

And what currently vital national regulations would be impacted by a Paul presidency, despite potentially being of questionable constitutionality? And why having 50 states set their own industry, education, energy, housing, etc policy is ignorant and radical? Why cutting some sectors back to 2006 levels of spending might not be an unwise choice for a country that is on shaky financial grounds?

I'm a leftist on more issues than I'm a rightist; I'm open and willing to hear why federal government interventionism (in any sector) will have precisely its desired effect. I'm just always annoyed to see Ron Paul dismissed as quickly as he is when "serious" opinion would have us choose between Obama and Mitt Romney. To me, that's equally as crazy as RP "deregulating everything" and sending the country to hell is to you. (EddieZ, not doombot)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.