Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Geezer how is that chart wrong or bias?

---

Quote:

---

That it apparently assumes that the Bush-era tax cuts never go away?

---

Quote:

---

just a note that it's from the CBPP?

---

Quote:

---

That it apparently assumes that the Bush-era tax cuts never go away?

---

Quote:

---

That it has nothing to do with discretionary spending, which seems to be what we've been discussing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Aside from the fact there's no link to substantuating data, just a note that it's from the CBPP? (one assumes that's the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) That it apparently assumes that the Bush-era tax cuts never go away? That it has nothing to do with discretionary spending, which seems to be what we've been discussing?

It'd be like me inserting a chart showing the number of folks who believe Pres. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. into a discussion of immigration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
You can call me Nick, I don't mind at all.

Okay you are going to have to explain to me how government spending has increased the price of gas. To my knowledge oil, from which we get gasoline, is bought and sold on an open market around the world and has nothing to do with government spending.

Now about your parent's business I don't know enough about it to comment past this. If it was a long term business and went under after the economy went to hell you really can't blame business taxes on that. You can blame a lot of factors that lean to the tanking economy, but the taxes have stayed pretty much the same. Unless you are talking about state taxes.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

just a note that it's from the CBPP?

---

Not good enough. You have to show that it's wrong, or biased. Before that you can suspect, but you can't assume.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That it apparently assumes that the Bush-era tax cuts never go away?

---

That doesn't make it wrong, or biased. If the graph were to assume the Bush tax cuts will be repealed in 2013, well that would be an assumption too, wouldn't it? The graph shows a particular future where the Bush tax cuts are kept indefinitely; part of the purpose of the graph I suspect is to make the case that this shouldn't happen.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That it has nothing to do with discretionary spending, which seems to be what we've been discussing?

---

Discretionary spending wasn't the original topic of the thread (you ought to know, you started it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Wow that is a lot of misunderstanding.

The US has been off the gold standard since the 30's. Plus the gold standard had it's own problems. At this point all industrialized countries use fiat currency.

As was said sigma-six is a joke and has been known to be for awhile.

Fuck gold? After talking about the gold standard.

You know, you really did not make a lick of sense and did not answer my question. US government spending has zero to do with the price of gas.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Misunderstanding maybe, probably more talking over each other's heads is more likely....

The problem with the gold standard was obvious.... the price of gold wasn't going up at the time, and since everyone was having 8 kids back in those days, there had to be a way to split the stock without paying dividends....

The only problem with that, what's called "fiat currency" is that it doesn't mean anything more than a "promise"... and once we give all of our gold and steel and copper to China as we've been doing behind the scenes for the last 15 or so years, that promise doesn't mean anything more than the crops our farmlands can bear, since it wouldn't be economically feesable to ship our farm lands and farmers to China when they could just make us a 3rd world country growing food for them....

With the debt we have now, I wouldn't be surprised if before I die many people here are starving even though we grow so much food but we need to send 70% of our official crop to China....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm paying ridiculous property taxes.... I think it's time this property starts paying for itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
As for Six-Sigma being a joke, give me legitimate links about that. My old company fired me from a 55k a year job without hesitation after the buyout based off of those principals.... and that was only 2 years ago... It started with GE and has made its way everywhere since then. I'm not joking, I know just about everything about Six Sigma there is to know. The only reason I don't have a "black belt" in it is because I'm not on board.....

The fact that I worked in an environment free to learn the system inside and out while never believing a word of it was for the benefit of mankind was a mistake of my old company which I'm sure the buyers "fixed" after I was released....

You might not agree with Six Sigma, and I commend you for that, but the fact is that it's real, and for any large company looking to improve the bottom line, they're all jumping on board....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
As for Fuck Gold, after talking about the Gold Standard, well sure Nick....

When the US Dollar was tied to Gold, the US dollar meant something....

Today, US dollars aren't even backed up on the fabric they're printed on.

Today, I own ZERO grams of gold.

Today, I have 10,000 dollars of worthless, unbacked US currency to my name.

Today, Every day that goes by my worthless US dollars are worth less every 24 hour cycle that passes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
All of that being said, US spending has EVERYTHING to do with the price of Gas.

If we were tied to Gold, then when gold was 800 bucks an ounce and gas was 4 bucks a gallon, well.... at over 1,600 bucks an ounce for gold today, we'd be paying only 2 bucks a gallon for gas (given no external forces changing those 4 years)....

Hope that explains it for you...

---

Quote:

---

You have to show that it's wrong, or biased. Before that you can suspect, but you can't assume.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't think so.

---

Quote:

---

I just have to note your differing responses to pretty thorough Washington Post and Politifact (not really hotbeds of Republican thought) articles

---

Quote:

---

vs. an unsupported graph, blaming someone else for the deficit, with no clear cites or indication of how its figures were arrived at.

---

Quote:

---

So then it's not analysis, it's opinion and editorializing.

---

Quote:

---

spending overall was the topic. But I did bring up discretionary spending as well, citing a Politifact article. Nickerson also provided figures for it. No mention of deficit, however.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Should not be hard to find the data on their website...oh here it is...

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490]

Or not.

Here's the graph from your cite.



Here's Kiki's graph.



So which one's correct? The figures never lie, right?