Jump to content
Caecus

Why the wall is a great idea

Recommended Posts

A lot of messy nonsense above. But...

 

Trump's plan(s) over time have included a ton of different options, a wall/fence/physical barrier is just one part of that plan. It is not a standalone issue.

 

For example:

 

The Budget proposes sizable investments in a border wall; border security technology and equipment; funding to hire additional CBP and ICE law enforcement officers; and increased capacity to detain and deport illegal aliens. • The Budget requests over $2.2 billion in high-priority investments in border security technology, infrastructure, and equipment to help CBP prevent, detect, and interdict illegal border crossings. These investments include: o $1.6 billion for new border wall in locations identified by the Border Patrol as necessary to obtain operational control of the border and impede illegal crossings. o $183 million for aircraft and other aviation assets to help identify and track illegal border crossings and support enforcement actions on the ground. o $149 million for critical equipment and facility needs, such as Border Patrol stations, vehicles, and radios. o $182 million for surveillance technology, such as towers, radars, cameras, and sensors, to give the Border Patrol situational awareness in high-risk areas. o $107 million for road maintenance to give Border Patrol access to difficult to reach locations. o $44 million to recapitalize non-intrusive inspection equipment at ports of entry, anticipating that stronger enforcement between the ports may lead to increased contraband flowing through official border crossings. o These funds are all in addition to the 2018 Budget request of $2.6 billion for these activities, as well as an additional $15.56 billion the Administration is seeking in 2018 for border security as a result of the Congressional caps deal.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FY19-Budget-Fact-Sheet_Border-Security.pdf

 

Also, setting aside the fact that generally politicians on both sides of the aisle have done nothing material to seek a balanced budget or attempt to reduce the debt.

Securing the border and ensuing immigration reform would probably be revenue positive in the long run because it would allow the US to more adequately prevent crime, deal with drug trafficking etc. and would provide a legal status for many people (and ideally) provide more visas and things for skilled trades and other areas where we have a skill gap.

Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just  that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

If you want to balance the budget in the long term you are going to need to reform entitlements anyway.

 

 

 

Edited by Commander Thrawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

A lot of messy nonsense above. But...

 

Trump's plan(s) over time have included a ton of different options, a wall/fence/physical barrier is just one part of that plan. It is not a standalone issue.

 

For example:

 

The Budget proposes sizable investments in a border wall; border security technology and equipment; funding to hire additional CBP and ICE law enforcement officers; and increased capacity to detain and deport illegal aliens. • The Budget requests over $2.2 billion in high-priority investments in border security technology, infrastructure, and equipment to help CBP prevent, detect, and interdict illegal border crossings. These investments include: o $1.6 billion for new border wall in locations identified by the Border Patrol as necessary to obtain operational control of the border and impede illegal crossings. o $183 million for aircraft and other aviation assets to help identify and track illegal border crossings and support enforcement actions on the ground. o $149 million for critical equipment and facility needs, such as Border Patrol stations, vehicles, and radios. o $182 million for surveillance technology, such as towers, radars, cameras, and sensors, to give the Border Patrol situational awareness in high-risk areas. o $107 million for road maintenance to give Border Patrol access to difficult to reach locations. o $44 million to recapitalize non-intrusive inspection equipment at ports of entry, anticipating that stronger enforcement between the ports may lead to increased contraband flowing through official border crossings. o These funds are all in addition to the 2018 Budget request of $2.6 billion for these activities, as well as an additional $15.56 billion the Administration is seeking in 2018 for border security as a result of the Congressional caps deal.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FY19-Budget-Fact-Sheet_Border-Security.pdf

 

Also, setting aside the fact that generally politicians on both sides of the aisle have done nothing material to seek a balanced budget or attempt to reduce the debt.

Securing the border and ensuing immigration reform would probably be revenue positive in the long run because it would allow the US to more adequately prevent crime, deal with drug trafficking etc. and would provide a legal status for many people (and ideally) provide more visas and things for skilled trades and other areas where we have a skill gap.

Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just  that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

If you want to balance the budget in the long term you are going to need to reform entitlements anyway.

Still my argument. I think it's reasonable to fund certain aspects of the Trump budget, such as road improvements, a wall in certain sections of the border, and other "surveillance technology." And if you look at the bipartisan bill passed before the shutdown, all of those things are included. And yes, a wall in small sections of the border where it makes sense should be funded. Just not $5.8 billion for a continuous 30 foot concrete wall along the entire southern border, which most people familiar with border security would agree is useless or has a low cost/benefit ratio in most areas. Not to mention going through the eminent domain shitstorm, that alone is going to cost you the entire 5.7 billion in legal fees. Notice how even in the FY19 budget published by the WH, there isn't any mention of a stupid, fiscally irresponsible 5.7 billion dollar continuous 30 foot concrete border wall. It's because even everyone in his own white house thinks Trump's idea of a continuous wall is stupid. 

 

Let's be clear here, the debt may have skyrocketed under Obama, but the reason was largely due stimuli to the economy to combat the Great Recession. Republicans were correct in saying that we need to make changes to government spending to deal with the rising debt. What they did instead when they control all three branches of government was (A) not make any significant changes to spending and (B) cut taxes. The Trump tax cuts happened at a time when the American economy is at its peak strength, and when taxes should be rising to curb the deficit. So yes, politicians on both political sides have contributed to the debt, but at least Democrats have the excuse that they raised the debt to get the economy going again. Why did Republicans cut taxes again? Oh yeah, it's because all those billionaires and corporate investors need the extra dollars. Both deserve blame for the stupidity going on, but one side deserves more. 

 

Some corrections here: immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crime than native-born Americans. And again, do not mistake my argument for a lack of a continuous border wall (that is a waste of taxpayer money) as me being against border security. I would entirely agree with a border wall, if say, another country was fronting it. I mean, why not accept something that's free. But again, you got to be either a dumbass or a socialist to believe that money grows on trees. And I don't see no socialists here. I would agree with you on the last sentence regarding increased skilled labor and immigration to supplement the traditional "trickle-down" economics idea of the tax cuts to begin with, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump administration has been providing less visas (9% drop in 2017, and 12% drop in 2018) and are looking to get rid of Dreamers (who hold down real jobs and contribute to the US economy). So, good sentiment, unfortunately, Trump doesn't share yours. 

 

Also, also. It's true that the government revenues grew to a record level this year, but this is misleading. You need to compare the government revenues of the Trump Tax cuts to the government revenues that you would have gotten under the old tax system, not compare the revenues to the previous year. In which case, the actual amount of money that the previous system would have gotten (according to the CBO) is $3.5 billion, around $202 billion more than the measly $14 billion. That extra $202 billion would have covered the increased $127 billion in spending for this year.

 

If you want to balance the budget, stop electing short-sighted !@#$ who want your approval numbers more than a good future for your children. Reforming entitlements is on a long list of things, but at the top of the list is stop electing dumb shits like Trump who wastes taxpayer money, erodes America's geostrategic position on the world stage, and spends more time misspelling words on twitter than actually learning how to govern properly.

 

 

 

Literally everything I've mentioned above is easily googiable. Let me know if you need references. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Still my argument. I think it's reasonable to fund certain aspects of the Trump budget, such as road improvements, a wall in certain sections of the border, and other "surveillance technology." And if you look at the bipartisan bill passed before the shutdown, all of those things are included. And yes, a wall in small sections of the border where it makes sense should be funded. Just not $5.8 billion for a continuous 30 foot concrete wall along the entire southern border, which most people familiar with border security would agree is useless or has a low cost/benefit ratio in most areas. Not to mention going through the eminent domain shitstorm, that alone is going to cost you the entire 5.7 billion in legal fees. Notice how even in the FY19 budget published by the WH, there isn't any mention of a stupid, fiscally irresponsible 5.7 billion dollar continuous 30 foot concrete border wall. It's because even everyone in his own white house thinks Trump's idea of a continuous wall is stupid. 

No one has advocated a 30 foot concrete wall along the entire border. So that's a strawman. It has been a fake news creation since the start.

50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Let's be clear here, the debt may have skyrocketed under Obama, but the reason was largely due stimuli to the economy to combat the Great Recession. Republicans were correct in saying that we need to make changes to government spending to deal with the rising debt. What they did instead when they control all three branches of government was (A) not make any significant changes to spending and (B) cut taxes. The Trump tax cuts happened at a time when the American economy is at its peak strength, and when taxes should be rising to curb the deficit. So yes, politicians on both political sides have contributed to the debt, but at least Democrats have the excuse that they raised the debt to get the economy going again. Why did Republicans cut taxes again? Oh yeah, it's because all those billionaires and corporate investors need the extra dollars. Both deserve blame for the stupidity going on, but one side deserves more. 

Not really. The biggest contributors to debt growth were reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements.

Tax revenues are higher this year than they have ever been, and the tax cuts have spurred growth. So wrong again. If we can have a good run of 3+% growth and 2% inflation that will help a lot with reducing the debt burden relative to the nominal economy and revenues. But we'd still need to reduce the growth in government spending to under that 5% on a nominal basis for make gains long term.

50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Some corrections here: immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crime than native-born Americans. And again, do not mistake my argument for a lack of a continuous border wall (that is a waste of taxpayer money) as me being against border security. I would entirely agree with a border wall, if say, another country was fronting it. I mean, why not accept something that's free. But again, you got to be either a dumbass or a socialist to believe that money grows on trees. And I don't see no socialists here. I would agree with you on the last sentence regarding increased skilled labor and immigration to supplement the traditional "trickle-down" economics idea of the tax cuts to begin with, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump administration has been providing less visas (9% drop in 2017, and 12% drop in 2018) and are looking to get rid of Dreamers (who hold down real jobs and contribute to the US economy). So, good sentiment, unfortunately, Trump doesn't share yours. 

Illegal immigrants contribute a lot of crime actually. Especially when it comes to criminal gangs and drug and human trafficking. But regardless, you need a secure border first before you can expand and reform immigration. We've been down the amnesty with a promise of reform path before and it left us in this situation decades later.

50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Also, also. It's true that the government revenues grew to a record level this year, but this is misleading. You need to compare the government revenues of the Trump Tax cuts to the government revenues that you would have gotten under the old tax system, not compare the revenues to the previous year. In which case, the actual amount of money that the previous system would have gotten (according to the CBO) is $3.5 billion, around $202 billion more than the measly $14 billion. That extra $202 billion would have covered the increased $127 billion in spending for this year.

Except that the tax cuts will provide greater revenue long-term especially when you consider the large amount of investment that has already occurred with the changes to the corporate side of the code. The biggest problem we have had for decades is that our tax code was set up to double tax corporations on their US operations and income disproportionately weakening small and medium sized businesses and manufacturers based in the US, this caused the shift of many large supply chains outside of the US. That trend is reversing now and this influx of private investment will lead to higher growth rates in the long run, higher employment levels at higher wages, and higher long run revenues. If you are going to demand we compare revenue lost under the past system then you need to consider the impact of the current system on our well-being.

50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

If you want to balance the budget, stop electing short-sighted !@#$ who want your approval numbers more than a good future for your children. Reforming entitlements is on a long list of things, but at the top of the list is stop electing dumb shits like Trump who wastes taxpayer money, erodes America's geostrategic position on the world stage, and spends more time misspelling words on twitter than actually learning how to govern properly.

Like which people? If we want politicians to make and real changes we are going to need term limits. So far Trump has upheld most of his campaign promises and done a lot of unpopular (but important) things, so I think your criticism is clearly misguided. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

No one has advocated a 30 foot concrete wall along the entire border. So that's a strawman. It has been a fake news creation since the start.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-border-wall-a-look-at-the-numbers

 

I tried not to include anything outside of Fox News, because I know that you think only Fox News exists as "news." I'm surprised I had to go find this shit for you. 

 

28 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Not really. The biggest contributors to debt growth were reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements.

I wonder what caused reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements (and other stimulus spending)? Maybe, perhaps, it was the near total collapse of the world economy 10 years ago? Dipwad. 

30 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Tax revenues are higher this year than they have ever been, and the tax cuts have spurred growth. So wrong again. If we can have a good run of 3+% growth and 2% inflation that will help a lot with reducing the debt burden relative to the nominal economy and revenues. But we'd still need to reduce the growth in government spending to under that 5% on a nominal basis for make gains long term.

Except that the tax cuts will provide greater revenue long-term especially when you consider the large amount of investment that has already occurred with the changes to the corporate side of the code. The biggest problem we have had for decades is that our tax code was set up to double tax corporations on their US operations and income disproportionately weakening small and medium sized businesses and manufacturers based in the US, this caused the shift of many large supply chains outside of the US. That trend is reversing now and this influx of private investment will lead to higher growth rates in the long run, higher employment levels at higher wages, and higher long run revenues. If you are going to demand we compare revenue lost under the past system then you need to consider the impact of the current system on our well-being.

So, are you saying that there have been increased tax revenue or not until the long term? You are presenting a red herring here. Double taxation of corporations has nothing to do with deindustrialization, which also has nothing to do with the fact that THE TRUMP TAX CUT LOST 200 BILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE LAST YEAR. Nothing here refutes that argument, most notably because it's a FU.CKING FACT. List me a single goddamn source that shows the CBO or any think tank group which thinks the Trump tax cuts doing anything other than increasing the debt for any time between now and the end of the republic. I f.uckin dare you. 

 

41 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Illegal immigrants contribute a lot of crime actually. Especially when it comes to criminal gangs and drug and human trafficking. But regardless, you need a secure border first before you can expand and reform immigration. We've been down the amnesty with a promise of reform path before and it left us in this situation decades later.

Actually, no. And you're right, this is a red herring and I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime

 

43 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Like which people? If we want politicians to make and real changes we are going to need term limits. So far Trump has upheld most of his campaign promises and done a lot of unpopular (but important) things, so I think your criticism is clearly misguided. 

Disagree. Trump has alone contributed to the significant acceleration of the deficit timeline, has had more members of his administration out because of corruption scandals than any president in US history, has had the other half of his administration resign because they either couldn't lie for him, couldn't obstruct justice for him, or plain thought he was a dumbass, openly tried to undermine NATO and privately toyed with the idea of pulling the US out, held private talks with an enemy of the United States and confiscated his interpreters notes to cover up god knows what, and has spent more time golfing and tweeting than actually fixing any problems we mentioned above. 

 

The only thing you could really say about Trump and his achievements are the two supreme court seats. Good for you, now you can prevent abortions and gay people from getting married in your visionary hellscape where China dominates world politics and owns the US via debt obligation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Caecus said:

where China dominates world politics and owns the US via debt obligation.  

Only 1/20. I suppose that is more than Warren's native ancestry, though.

On 1/19/2019 at 1:52 AM, Caecus said:

Engage, my friend, don't just sit there and criticize my sentence structures. 

Why? Both side bring the same, used up arguments and deny the other side's. Politics today is more toxic than the Agbogbloshie Dumpsite.

Edited by WISD0MTREE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Caecus said:

So Like I said, no one advocated a 30 ft concrete wall along the entire border. Thanks for confirming it.

19 minutes ago, Caecus said:

I tried not to include anything outside of Fox News, because I know that you think only Fox News exists as "news." I'm surprised I had to go find this shit for you. 

Yes, thanks again for proving my point.

19 minutes ago, Caecus said:

I wonder what caused reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements (and other stimulus spending)? Maybe, perhaps, it was the near total collapse of the world economy 10 years ago? Dipwad. 

I never said the reduction in revenue wasn't due to the recession. I also didn't attempt to make this a pointless Obama vs. Trump or republicans vs. democrat debate. I literally said that neither party has done anything about deficit reduction. But the border wall will likely save money if anything and will not be a major blip in comparison to the actual drivers of our growth in government spending.

Entitlements are not stimulus spending. So you should really learn what you are talking about.

19 minutes ago, Caecus said:

So, are you saying that there have been increased tax revenue or not until the long term? You are presenting a red herring here. Double taxation of corporations has nothing to do with deindustrialization, which also has nothing to do with the fact that THE TRUMP TAX CUT LOST 200 BILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE LAST YEAR. Nothing here refutes that argument, most notably because it's a FU.CKING FACT. List me a single goddamn source that shows the CBO or any think tank group which thinks the Trump tax cuts doing anything other than increasing the debt for any time between now and the end of the republic. I f.uckin dare you. 

Revenues are the highest they have ever been this year. 

Its not a red herring at all. Capital investment occurs in the areas where the expected return on investment is highest, with the US global tax system and the highest statutory rate in the industrialized world the US was noncompetitive and this shifted investment overseas and prevented the repatriation of billions of dollars, a lack of investment means that we end up with lower growth and lower employment. Both of those reduce revenues and increase costs as people rely more on government programs and pay less in taxes.

If the tax cuts increase growth over the prior tax system then of course the tax cuts will increase revenue over time. You are going to have to be more specific about "the end of the republic" 

But if you look at the CBO estimates they said https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook.pdf that over a 10 year period the tax cuts increase economic growth by a cumulative .7% (which is basically no change at all). And that revenues increase by $1.088 Trillion due to economic factors and revenues decrease by $1.690 trillion over that period on the basis of legislative changes. So 2/3 of the tax cuts are made up for by growth even assuming that that growth benefit is negligible. If the impact of the tax cuts were to spur growth by 1% per year and compound on itself, or even a half a percent per year the revenue would increase even more. 

As with any sort of budget modeling it all comes down to assumptions. We have already seen a quick uptick in growth in the past couple of years and I think that we are going to see continued boons from an economy running at full employment for a while.

19 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Actually, no. And you're right, this is a red herring and I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime

I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like is a red herring.

19 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Disagree. Trump has alone contributed to the significant acceleration of the deficit timeline, has had more members of his administration out because of corruption scandals than any president in US history, has had the other half of his administration resign because they either couldn't lie for him, couldn't obstruct justice for him, or plain thought he was a dumbass, openly tried to undermine NATO and privately toyed with the idea of pulling the US out, held private talks with an enemy of the United States and confiscated his interpreters notes to cover up god knows what, and has spent more time golfing and tweeting than actually fixing any problems we mentioned above. 

Ah yes, back to this old narrative. I see you have returned to your fanatical bs.

19 minutes ago, Caecus said:

The only thing you could really say about Trump and his achievements are the two supreme court seats. Good for you, now you can prevent abortions and gay people from getting married in your visionary hellscape where China dominates world politics and owns the US via debt obligation. 

Yep, you are definitely the rational one here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is more that illegal immigration has ceased to be a major issue. Since the GFC in 2007, illegal immigration has slowed as prosperity has increased on the Mexican side of the border and the US has been grappling with increased inequality and unemployment. The bigger problem with things like the wall is optics, i.e, the wall signals that America is turning in on itself and is no longer the land of opportunity.

 

The other aspect is what a former sociology professor described as the nature of Trump's charismatic authority (Weber). Charismatic authority depends on being able to deliver results. Trump said that he'd build a wall, and if he can't build a wall, he loses approval from his base. The Dems stalling on the wall, beyond the mere optical and symbolic value, is intended to destroy Trump's ability to circumvent bureaucratic - legal authority in the Constitution and institutions of the United States and will continue until the Dem approval rating begins dropping faster than Trump's approval rating as a result of the government shutdown. Which is why I bother to compare Rienne to Pelosi in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

So Like I said, no one advocated a 30 ft concrete wall along the entire border. Thanks for confirming it.

!@#$, stop trolling. 

19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

I never said the reduction in revenue wasn't due to the recession. I also didn't attempt to make this a pointless Obama vs. Trump or republicans vs. democrat debate. I literally said that neither party has done anything about deficit reduction. But the border wall will likely save money if anything and will not be a major blip in comparison to the actual drivers of our growth in government spending.

Entitlements are not stimulus spending. So you should really learn what you are talking about.

The border wall isn't going to save money, it's going to waste money. Entitlements are what allow more spending in the economy to occur for retired and disabled individuals, which stimulates the economy. Go learn economics before lecturing professor dipwad. 

19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Revenues are the highest they have ever been this year. 

Read my argument. I'm not debating whether or not revenues are the highest they have ever been. I'm saying that despite that, the old tax code would have generated $202 billion more than the tax cuts. Maybe then, we could have bought a wall. It's like you can't read. READ DAMN IT.

19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Its not a red herring at all. Capital investment occurs in the areas where the expected return on investment is highest, with the US global tax system and the highest statutory rate in the industrialized world the US was noncompetitive and this shifted investment overseas and prevented the repatriation of billions of dollars, a lack of investment means that we end up with lower growth and lower employment. Both of those reduce revenues and increase costs as people rely more on government programs and pay less in taxes.

If the tax cuts increase growth over the prior tax system then of course the tax cuts will increase revenue over time. You are going to have to be more specific about "the end of the republic" 

But if you look at the CBO estimates they said https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook.pdf that over a 10 year period the tax cuts increase economic growth by a cumulative .7% (which is basically no change at all). And that revenues increase by $1.088 Trillion due to economic factors and revenues decrease by $1.690 trillion over that period on the basis of legislative changes. So 2/3 of the tax cuts are made up for by growth even assuming that that growth benefit is negligible. If the impact of the tax cuts were to spur growth by 1% per year and compound on itself, or even a half a percent per year the revenue would increase even more. 

See everything above? See how there isn't a single source that makes your point that the tax cuts will be reducing the debt

You've reduced income and blamed the expenses as the reason why you can't get out of debt. Go learn accounting, dipshit. 

19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like is a red herring.

!@#$, read the source. I don't see you citing anyone for your bullshit. I was at least expecting some article from InfoWars, but I suppose even that is beyond you.

19 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Ah yes, back to this old narrative. I see you have returned to your fanatical bs.

Yep, you are definitely the rational one here.

I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like *AS* (correct grammar buddy) "fanatical bs." 

 

Add 5th grade English grammar to your list of subjects you should crack a book for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Only 1/20. I suppose that is more than Warren's native ancestry, though.

Why? Both side bring the same, used up arguments and deny the other side's. Politics today is more toxic than the Agbogbloshie Dumpsite.

Because I'm out to prove that one side of "used up" arguments is so indefensibly stupid and moronic that people should be reminded that they are. And they should be ashamed for having said indefensibly stupid and moronic arguments. 

 

Look at every argument in this thread that's against mine. Everyone has either quietly left after I make them eat their own arguments, or like Mr. Commander Thrawn, denies that my argument exists and claims that I'm somehow the idiot here when he can barely read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Caecus said:

!@#$, stop trolling. 

The truth is trolling now? Calling someone a troll is the lowest form of trolling.

8 minutes ago, Caecus said:

The border wall isn't going to save money, it's going to waste money. Entitlements are what allow more spending in the economy to occur for retired and disabled individuals, which stimulates the economy. Go learn economics before lecturing professor dipwad. 

Sure it will.

Stimulus means that you are taking some short run government action to make up for a demand gap due to a drop in private sector economic activity. Like deficit spending. Entitlements are the normal ongoing income of people, if you wanted to make social security or medicare stimulative you would need to create an abrupt temporary increase in benefits. So no you need to learn what you are talking about.

8 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Read my argument. I'm not debating whether or not revenues are the highest they have ever been. I'm saying that despite that, the old tax code would have generated $202 billion more than the tax cuts. Maybe then, we could have bought a wall. It's like you can't read. READ DAMN IT.

Your argument is stupid because it takes one year in isolation rather than the long term trend. I would much rather give up a small amount of money now and have a significantly better economy and higher revenues for future years.

We still would have had a deficit under the old system even if we assume that there was no change to growth, so I don't see how you can say we could have bought a wall then without any problem.

8 minutes ago, Caecus said:

See everything above? See how there isn't a single source that makes your point that the tax cuts will be reducing the debt

I didn't argue that the tax cuts would reduce the debt. I said the wall and immigration reform would be revenue generating and I said that the deficit and debt are not driven by tax cuts but instead by low growth, and entitlements and that neither party has done anything about it. You are the one who has this pointless and irrelevant fixation on debt. But I do know if we want to reduce the deficit and eventually the debt then we need much higher growth than we have seen for the past two years.

If we can have 3% real GDP growth and reduce the growth of the government budget to 3% or less we would eventually balance simply through inflation.

8 minutes ago, Caecus said:

You've reduced income and blamed the expenses as the reason why you can't get out of debt. Go learn accounting, dipshit. 

Well I am a CPA, so I think I know accounting better than you.

There are two ways to balance a budget, increase revenues or decrease expenses. The government increased revenues this year, but it increased expenses more from a baseline that was already in deficit.

8 minutes ago, Caecus said:

!@#$, read the source. I don't see you citing anyone for your bullshit. I was at least expecting some article from InfoWars, but I suppose even that is beyond you.

I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like *AS* (correct grammar buddy) "fanatical bs." 

 

Add 5th grade English grammar to your list of subjects you should crack a book for.

What is that "source" supposed to be arguing against? It doesn't address any of my points.

Here's a tip, if you are going to call people names, at least be capable of arguing against actual arguments. Your own sources disprove you and don't support your arguments or contradict mine.

 

10 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Because I'm out to prove that one side of "used up" arguments is so indefensibly stupid and moronic that people should be reminded that they are. And they should be ashamed for having said indefensibly stupid and moronic arguments. 

 

Look at every argument in this thread that's against mine. Everyone has either quietly left after I make them eat their own arguments, or like Mr. Commander Thrawn, denies that my argument exists and claims that I'm somehow the idiot here when he can barely read. 

Well, when your own sources disprove your assertions and you respond to 101 different strawmen with personal attacks and no substance, that seems pretty clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Commander Thrawn said:

The truth is trolling now? Calling someone a troll is the lowest form of trolling.

The truth is, Trump has been talking about a 30 foot concrete wall spanning the southern border for 2 years now. Even his "sample" walls are all 30 feet tall. Literally ask anyone whether or not the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUKIN STATES (which, surely you can reasonably say is "somebody") wants that wall. So yes, you are trolling. 

3 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Sure it will.

Stimulus means that you are taking some short run government action to make up for a demand gap due to a drop in private sector economic activity. Like deficit spending. Entitlements are the normal ongoing income of people, if you wanted to make social security or medicare stimulative you would need to create an abrupt temporary increase in benefits. So no you need to learn what you are talking about.

No it won't. Cite me, !@#$.

No, entitlements are not normal ongoing income. That's taxpayer money being dumped into the economy for people to spend when they otherwise don't have that money. That's called a stimulus. So no u. 

6 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Your argument is stupid because it takes one year in isolation rather than the long term trend. I would much rather give up a small amount of money now and have a significantly better economy and higher revenues for future years.

And your argument is stupid because you are claiming that you're making more money from cutting taxes when you are obvious not. Just in case if you forgot your own dumbass argument:

On 1/20/2019 at 1:22 AM, Commander Thrawn said:

Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just  that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

Oh, and this: 

20 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

But if you look at the CBO estimates they said https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook.pdf that over a 10 year period the tax cuts increase economic growth by a cumulative .7% (which is basically no change at all). And that revenues increase by $1.088 Trillion due to economic factors and revenues decrease by $1.690 trillion over that period on the basis of legislative changes. So 2/3 of the tax cuts are made up for by growth even assuming that that growth benefit is negligible. If the impact of the tax cuts were to spur growth by 1% per year and compound on itself, or even a half a percent per year the revenue would increase even more. 

Literally the only source you have says that the tax cuts don't add shit. Read your own argument. 

 

12 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

I didn't argue that the tax cuts would reduce the debt.

Ah huh. What's this then?

On 1/20/2019 at 1:22 AM, Commander Thrawn said:

Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just  that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

 

 

15 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Well I am a CPA, so I think I know accounting better than you.

There are two ways to balance a budget, increase revenues or decrease expenses. The government increased revenues this year, but it increased expenses more from a baseline that was already in deficit.

Ok, Mr. CIA Seal Team Six who's going to hunt me down and kill me. What's your field, son? 1040 turbo tax with a single W-2?

Account me this, u dumb !@#$. When the government loses $202 billion dollars in unrealized revenue due to the Trump tax cuts, is that increasing or decreasing income? 

 

17 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

What is that "source" supposed to be arguing against? It doesn't address any of my points.

Here's a tip, if you are going to call people names, at least be capable of arguing against actual arguments. Your own sources disprove you and don't support your arguments or contradict mine.

Omg. That immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans. Holy shit, read your own arguments! Do I literally have to quote you line by line? Here:

 

23 hours ago, Caecus said:

Some corrections here: immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crime than native-born Americans.

 

22 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Illegal immigrants contribute a lot of crime actually.

(which, I assumed the correct verb here to be "commit")  

21 hours ago, Caecus said:

Actually, no. And you're right, this is a red herring and I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime

 

 

I'm drawing the line at posting synopsis of the articles I cite and spoon-feeding your dumbass. If you're too god damn lazy to read basic articles I post, stop pretending like you know what they say. Unlike you, everyone else here can read them and know you're a dumb !@#$. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Caecus said:

The truth is, Trump has been talking about a 30 foot concrete wall spanning the southern border for 2 years now. Even his "sample" walls are all 30 feet tall. Literally ask anyone whether or not the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUKIN STATES (which, surely you can reasonably say is "somebody") wants that wall. So yes, you are trolling.

Then surely you can find the proposal, budget, etc. that has a 30 foot wall. Instead of what has been proposed which is using natural barriers in addition to existing fences/walls/etc. to secure the border.

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

No it won't. Cite me, !@#$.

Well if you really think it will help you to come around. https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration

 

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

No, entitlements are not normal ongoing income. That's taxpayer money being dumped into the economy for people to spend when they otherwise don't have that money. That's called a stimulus. So no u. 

Yes they are, people who recieve social security get regular checks and use that money for living expenses. Entitlements are not taxpayer money being dumped into the economy as a result of a crisis.

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

And your argument is stupid because you are claiming that you're making more money from cutting taxes when you are obvious not. Just in case if you forgot your own dumbass argument:

No, I said that revenues were the highest they have ever been. Which is a fact. Your inability to comprehend my argument doesn't make me wrong.

 

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

Literally the only source you have says that the tax cuts don't add shit. Read your own argument. 

It says that revenues increased $1.088 trillion. 

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

Ah huh. What's this then?

Its exactly what you quoted.

"Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just  that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart"

I never said that tax cuts will reduce the debt, as you can read for yourself if you have the ability. I said that it is wrong to argue "that tax reform increased the deficit and debt to crisis levels." 

There are two reasons for this.

1. the deficit and debt are not at crisis levels.

2. the driver of the debt is spending and spending growth, not a loss of revenue, we were in a deficit position before tax reform, and revenues increased this year, but spending increased faster.

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

Ok, Mr. CIA Seal Team Six who's going to hunt me down and kill me. What's your field, son? 1040 turbo tax with a single W-2?

Account me this, u dumb !@#$. When the government loses $202 billion dollars in unrealized revenue due to the Trump tax cuts, is that increasing or decreasing income? 

Ummm...? I already told you I'm a CPA. What are your credentials?

Its decreasing revenues, but as I already said there's the caveat that over time revenues will be higher because of the additional growth.

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

Omg. That immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans. Holy shit, read your own arguments! Do I literally have to quote you line by line? Here:

So? I didn't argue that. As you helpfully quoted I said that immigrants contribute a lot of crime. Which is a fact.

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

I'm drawing the line at posting synopsis of the articles I cite and spoon-feeding your dumbass. If you're too god damn lazy to read basic articles I post, stop pretending like you know what they say. Unlike you, everyone else here can read them and know you're a dumb !@#$. 

You haven't addressed a single one of my points. You clearly can't read and so you can only make personal attacks because of your own sloppiness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do relax, gentlemen.

It's not like resolving the problem here will have any real impact in the real world, so just enjoy the debate in a civilized manner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chief Wiggum said:

Do relax, gentlemen.

It's not like resolving the problem here will have any real impact in the real world, so just enjoy the debate in a civilized manner.

When mods try to tell us what to do

 

tenor.gif

Edited by Arizona Robbins
Gif broke
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've seen the OOC forum used in ages shhh Wiggum let them fight overmoderating is what killed it in the first place

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arizona Robbins said:

Did you jst call me fat?

xyeIcKI.gif

 

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

This is the first time I've seen the OOC forum used in ages shhh Wiggum let them fight overmoderating is what killed it in the first place

Anyway, sorry for derailing the topic. We just got a barrage of reports and tried to ensure the discussion wouldn't get out of control.

yi2gkvl.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.