|
FAO: Ron Paul Supporters (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| 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? :conf: |
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. |
|
|
| 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?
| 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. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| 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? |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| 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. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| 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? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| 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. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
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. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| 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. :conf: |
|
|
|
|
