Welcome to PatsFans.com

IRS "Turning Over Every Rock" to Raise Revenue: Obama Targeting Overseas Assets

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jul 13, 2009.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13



    Amtrack & US Postal Service are 2 examples of vast government inefficency. The comparison to state government is purely a straw. Efficent compared to which of the 50 state governments? NY, NJ, CA, WY?

    Besides many of those governments are doing stuff they have no business doing.
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Individuals DO NOT carry as much debt per capita as they're stuck with through the government debt. The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is if you use numbers that include the mortgage left on a home as "debt" but that's idiotic thinking, even people who are upside down can get out of most of that debt quickly. Take away mortgages and just look at actual debt, what's owed minus what the person owns is worth and your statement is patently false. I can't speak to corporations.
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    How do you know they're inefficient? They may not be worth the money, but that does not mean they're inefficient. The arguments, as I'm sure you know, for maintaining railway for mass transit, has to do with broad national objectives.

    I've always found the PO to be extremely efficient. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had anything lost (at least of importance) and never had anything inappropriately delayed. As far as AmTrak goes, I have no idea if it's inefficient or if it's just a bad business that we should get out of. AmTrak costs us about $1 billion/year and transports something like 30 million people. How that compares with the cost of interstate highways I do not know.

    That's a different issue.
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13


    Do you see how much money the post office loses? Or how much Amtrack costs? You must be kidding. If you believe what you are saying you have no clue and will spin to justify any sort of government control or spending or tax....
  5. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I just can't believe that someone can articulate as well as patters, be so naive and misinformed about the effectiveness of the federal government at spending tax dollars..........
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    The PO delivers mail door-to-door. It's not an efficient model, but people like it. I myself think they should just raise postage to 50 cents. I'll gladly pay. I don't know why they keep raising only a penny or two at a time. Is there a better model for postal delivery? I don't know, but I do know that people like getting and sending mail still, and like it delivered to their door.

    Most government services are not profitable. But, the cost to the taxpayer for daily postal delivery or for rail service is a lot less than the cost of, for instance, the military. Do you think the military is inefficient because it doesn't turn a profit? I don't know the degree to which the government provides electrical and other services in rural areas, but those things too were not profitable. In fact, the infrastructure cost a fortune, and we'll probably never get our money back. But, sometimes national objectives can't be run on a for-profit basis. Those things that fit that category get government money, whether it's Amtrak, the military, the courts, or social services.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Debt is debt, whether it's a mortgage or credit card bill. Our government certainly has the resources to pay its bills, but the opposition to taxation causes us to borrow. That's a political issue. As I said, democracy may be inefficient in some ways, but I don't think you've shown an example of government inefficiency. I think the government runs fairly well. What doesn't work in your neighborhood? At least where I am in Cambridge, we have mass transit, safe neighborhoods, clean water, pretty clean air, nice parks, reliable currency, and so on. Inefficiency to me means that the government spends more on a project than it needs to. I'm sure there are cases of that, but I don't think there's vast inefficiency.
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Prove that there's mass inefficiency. There are programs you and I disagree with, but that does not mean they are inefficient. I'm sure you can come up with examples of some inefficiency, but I don't think it's any worse than the private sector. Now, if you're saying the government should lower salaries and get rid of unions, well that's a different issue. That's politics.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13

    If government were efficent in their economic activities then communism would have been a rousing success. Of course it like we are seeing with obamanomics was a disaster.
  10. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I gave you examples.......EVEN THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS INEFFICIENT.........no prove to me that they are beyond your own personal say-so

    Findings, Guiding Principles, and Recommendations (cont.)

    Great inefficiencies exist in the accessing and delivery of federal resources.
    Federal community and economic development assistance is spread across a multitude of programs and agencies. The exact count depends on precise definitions and missions. What is certain is that multiple federal programs are funding similar activities, creating both added burdens for communities needing access to assistance and added inefficiencies in resource delivery.

    A recent analysis by the Center for Rural America at the Kansas City Federal Reserve found that federal assistance for community and economic development is disbursed into approximately 180 programs with average annual federal outlays of $188 billion.

    In 2000 the Government Accountability Office (then called the General Accounting Office) identified 10 agencies and 27 subagency units administering 73 programs related to economic development. These 73 programs can be used to fund one or more of six basic economic activities:

    * Planning and developing economic development strategies.
    * Constructing or renovating nonresidential buildings.
    * Establishing business incubators.
    * Constructing industrial parks.
    * Constructing or repairing roads and streets.
    * Constructing water and sewer systems. 18

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported that some of the key community and economic development programs are ineffective and fail to produce or document results and outcomes sufficient to justify the costs. While the Committee was not asked to review the effectiveness of any specific current federal program, including those noted in OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis, the Committee has found that access to federal economic development assistance is inefficient and cumbersome due to the wide variety or programs, regulations, and application processes.
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    You embarrass yourself. Debt is not debt. If I have a mortgage for $100K with a house worth $80K I am only $20K in debt because the house is basically a liquid asset I can sell. If I have a credit card with $100K on it, I'm screwed.

    Seriously, what kind of (insert whatever insult you choose) would claim that debt is debt ???
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Well, I don't know how you measure what the government is worth. Clearly, on the world market our credit is still sky high, so I presume our government is worth more than its debt.

    Whether you carry a $100k mortgage or $100k in credit card debts, if you have $100k in equity in your home, you're in the same boat. While there are technical differences, of course, the fact remains that debt is debt, and one's solvency is measured by how the market interprets the value of your assets. The same is true for the government.
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I'm saying that you are factually incorrect to use the mortgage amount in calculating personal debt. If the country currently has negative equity in all mortgages then using that negative number and averaging it out is appropriate. But to use mortgage amounts without offsetting by property value is just wrong.
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    All I'm saying is debt is debt, and credit worthiness is measured by a number of different variables. Our government has extremely high creditworthiness. Of course, when calculating debt you have to look at assets. If you want to do that with individuals, then let's do it with the government as well. What are the assets of our government? I'd say it's really the total worth of our people. I am factually in including mortgages when we're talking about debt. We are not talking about assets.
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +509 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    In that case what you're saying is worthless.

    Next time you're asked the winner of the 2007 SB tell the person :

    New England 14.

    See if that answers the question.
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    As I said, if you want to talk about assets, that's fine. Then the national debt is not as big a concern as some would claim.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13


    You thought it was a big deal when Bush was running a deficit 10% of what BO is running. Guess it depends on partisan advantage rather than % of GDP and it's impact on the economy.

    Patters if the gov is borrowing all the available capital there is none left for the private sector to create real jobs. This concept seems to escape you.

    Government id VOERHEAD. Some overhead is necessary, overhead shouldn't be the biggest element in the economy if you want a healthy growing economy.

    BTW the government is never efficient because it is a monopoly and has no competition or incentive to be efficient.
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    No, I never thought it was a big deal except in the sense that I thought Bush's spending priorities were amiss. I also thought the issue was a good way to expose Republican hypocrisy. But, I'm not against deficit spending.

    I don't think we're nearly at that point yet. As a percent of GDP we've spent more in the past, and our economy is still extremely rich. The government is borrowing in part to provide capital since the banks were not willing or able to do so.

    It has oversight in our country -- far more than any business. Right now, we have various good government groups, the MSM, as well as anti-Obama groups looking hard to find proof that the government is wasting money. So far, they don't have many good examples.
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13

    So Patters what will you say when unemployment goes north of 12%?

    THese policies are doing exactly what I predicted BEFORE the election. This is not because I 'want' BO to fail, my wishes are irrelivant, it is because this is the result of the policies you favor. If he get his health care and carbon tax things will get far worse.
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Obama's economic policy are sound, and rooted in tried and tested economic theory, and Republican economic policies would have created a far greater crisis, namely the collapse of our financial institutions and major companies, leading to an even worse social crisis than we have now.

    Republican economic policies gave us this mess, so why in the world would anyone expect those policies to get us out of this mess?

    Unemployment may well climb, but that just underscores the utter failure of the Republican Party even when it controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. I will also add that if we don't get health care and the climate bill, I think the recession will last longer. Those two programs will help revitalize our economy. That's why Republicans are so afraid of them. As a party without ideas, they certainly don't want the party of ideas to succeed.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>