[PhantomPholly]

Your terminology is atrocious - there is no such thing as "tax income" and it is only natural and expected that any reasonable person would have seen it as "income tax," particularly given the mishmash of additional numbers you threw out without explanation. Attempting to place the burden of comprehension on others for your poor communications does not make you right, it just makes you a poor communicator.

We have only ever been discussing Federal taxation and spending in any of our discussions (primarily this thread, now hundreds of pages, but also in other threads) - bringing State and Local into it without being clear is your mistake, not mine. Trying to make sense of your haphazard number-slinging is pointless if you aren't clear in your communications.

If I omitted line items when writing late at night off the top of my head when enumerating our mandatory spending obligations, it does not change the essential reality of the matter. The point is that even as of last year we could shut down the Federal government and still be upside down - and the trend is increasing, not decreasing. Trying to weasel it because I omitted line items is simply an attempt to deflect from the essential message, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

The actual number was about 110% for 2011. It will certainly be higher for 2012. I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research for you to dig out the remaining 9% hidden in the government budget for someone who keeps confusing subjects and introducing extraneous information into the discussion, and it is pretty much obvious from previous discussions with you that you would not have accepted the data that clearly illustrated that fact due to their sources. It is in there, but if you bother to download the OMB spreadsheet (as I initially did) you will begin to understand that much is hidden in their through purposeful obfuscation.

It continually amazes me that you are so mesmerized by your ideology that you find yourself forced to look for a flaw in syntax rather than accept simple facts.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

It continually amazes me that you are so mesmerized by your ideology that you find yourself forced to look for a flaw in syntax rather than accept simple facts.

You misunderstand.
My comment had nothing to do with ideology... just math.

You are incorrect.
I did not look for a flaw in syntax.
Although I see irony in that you complain about your not correctly reading my syntax , instead of reading it as I wrote it ... and then complain that I took your syntax as you wrote it... yeah I see some irony there.

I took what you wrote as it was written ... and that is what I replied to ... and yes the facts here are simple ... your original claim as it was written does not seem to be supported by the numbers... thank you for correcting yourself.

The only claim I was making is that ... as it was written what you were originally claiming did not add up with the numbers I was finding ... and I asked you to clarify... it was a question ... and I'm sorry you misunderstood.

I am not psychic ... I took what you wrote as it was written ... I understand people make mistakes in communicating ... and that happens ... I misunderstand people too myself on occasion.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by IamIan

You misunderstand.
My comment had nothing to do with ideology... just math.

You are incorrect.
I did not look for a flaw in syntax.
Although I see irony in that you complain about your not correctly reading my syntax , instead of reading it as I wrote it ... and then complain that I took your syntax as you wrote it... yeah I see some irony there.

I took what you wrote as it was written ... and that is what I replied to ... and yes the facts here are simple ... your original claim as it was written does not seem to be supported by the numbers... thank you for correcting yourself.

The only claim I was making is that ... as it was written what you were originally claiming did not add up with the numbers I was finding ... and I asked you to clarify... it was a question ... and I'm sorry you misunderstood.

I am not psychic ... I took what you wrote as it was written ... I understand people make mistakes in communicating ... and that happens ... I misunderstand people too myself on occasion.

Well we've discussed the topic enough I assumed you'd understand the context. Ok, I'll take that as my bad.

Simple question: Do you now understand that our entitlement programs alone consume more than our entire tax revenues, and that that trend will increase if significant change does not occur?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Well we've discussed the topic enough I assumed you'd understand the context. Ok, I'll take that as my bad.

Simple question: Do you now understand that our entitlement programs alone consume more than our entire tax revenues, and that that trend will increase if significant change does not occur?

The one 'simple' question you presented ... to me reads as multiple questions rolled together into a almost yes or no type of format.

As a vague / generic answer I would answer:
What most people I've talked to , seem to call or consider 'entitlement' programs ... together , do currently occupy a significant portion of the government's budget ... and it is currently a more significant portion of the government's budget than it used to be long ago in the historic past.

- - - - - -

Before being more specific than that ... In an effort to avoid another misunderstanding / miscommunication ... I would want to have better clarification and specification on the separate parts of that question... such as the following:

#1> What specific programs are being labeled as 'entitlement programs'? It has been my experience not everyone always agrees on that.

#2> What specific tax revenues are being included? As we saw just recently government tax revenue is very open ended statement ... international government? federal government? state government? local government? those are government tax revenues ... what counts and what doesn't?

#3> When analyzing the consumption or cost of something I think it is equally important to also look at the returns ... Some returns are better than others ... some investments give better returns than others ... some returns are not monetary ... some methods are less resource efficient than others ... etc ... but that raw cost paid out does not exist in a vacuum.

#4> Over what time period and what criteria are we looking at for 'that trend'? If this a last decade or two kind of thing or a last couple thousand years kind of thing?

#5> When looking at weather that trend will reduce , stay the same , or increase in the future ... over what time period and what criteria are we looking at? ... over the next 2 or 3 decades kind of thing or the next 2 or 3 thousand years kind of thing?

#6> As for the changes needed to alter the path of this 'trend' ... what is being considered 'significant'? Is 1% change significant? Are non monetary changes equally 'significant'?

#7> Is changing this trend worth the 'cost' to do so? Nothing is totally free, and nothing is more than 100% efficient.

#8> On what kind of scale? ... what is 1 year change to the trend worth compared to 1,000 year change to the trend? ... and what is the difference in cost to make that change over those time periods? ... some things are 'cost effective' over one time period but not over others.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by IamIan

The one 'simple' question you presented ... to me reads as multiple questions rolled together into a almost yes or no type of format.

Even our biggest liars in Washington understand and agree on what Entitlement spending is, and if you'd spent 1% of the time Googling it that you spent writing this disingenuous answer you would know.



The source of tax revenue (or money printing or borrowing) used to pay for such programs is irrelevant to understanding what they are.

They give zero return, they are not an investment.

The time period is now (> 100% of tax revenues) and the future, growing almost exponentially (and much faster than "global warming," if in fact there is such a thing).

The cost of not changing the trend is insolvency and total financial collapse, similar to the Weimar Republic.

Every once in a while you say something that makes me suspect that there is still a spark of reason in you. However, as soon as that happens you immediately post something like this as a follow up. Good luck you you.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

if you'd spent 1% of the time Googling it that you spent writing this disingenuous answer you would know.

You are incorrect.
I was not disingenuous at all.
Believe any piece of personal fiction you like. But your claim about me here is incorrect.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The source of tax revenue (or money printing or borrowing) used to pay for such programs is irrelevant to understanding what they are.

You misunderstand.

I will try to explain it again for you.

As I wrote above, I saw multiple questions woven together in your one question.

As I wrote above in post #2724 ... "Before being more specific than that ... In an effort to avoid another misunderstanding / miscommunication ... I would want to have better clarification and specification on the separate parts of that question... such as the following:" ... and I listed the parts I wanted clarification and specification on... this was honest ... straight forward ... and direct.

Understanding which programs you are counting is a separate issue from identifying the source of tax revenue... which is why I gave it a different # above ... Source of Tax was #2 ... identifying which programs was #1... they are different things ... but are both part of the question you asked.

You asked :

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Simple question: Do you now understand that our entitlement programs alone consume more than our entire tax revenues, and that that trend will increase if significant change does not occur?

Here again ... the way you wrote it ... reads as "our entire tax revenue" ... which would fall back into being more than just federal tax revenue ... and would include 'entire' tax revenue ... all sources of tax revenue ... which would also include international tax revenue, state tax revenue , local tax revenue, etc... any possible source of tax revenue would fall into the category of "our entire tax revenue".

Previously when you made a similar broad statement about government tax revenue ... after a long series of back and forth it was determined that you did not intend it as you wrote it ... that you only 'intended' for the more limited federal tax revenue piece of the the 'entire' ... which is why this time instead of me just assuming you wrote what you meant ... I wanted to ask the question ... in order to make sure we were both talking about the same source of tax revenue.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

They give zero return, they are not an investment.

Zero Net return or zero return at all?

As we discussed previously there is a significant difference... and as discussed before I am not suggesting they have a 'net' return ... just like I don't think there is anything with greater than 100% system efficiency ... but no net return is not the same as no return at all.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The time period is now

You misunderstand.
I'll try again.
The time period I asked about in #4 is the time period that the desired change is being attempted in.

For example:
Trying to accomplish the 'fair tax' style system you suggested previously from start to finish in less than 1 trillionth of 1 second ... is just not possible at all ... the time period is too small ... to try to go from start to finish of that same change over 1 year is very different than trying to accomplish that same change over 1,000 years.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The cost of not changing the trend is insolvency and total financial collapse, similar to the Weimar Republic.

That is a prediction ... bordering on fear mongering ... and like those who use similar fear mongering predictions about global warming ... I would also remind you to keep in mind the limits of what is known , vs what is not known.

This current discussion ... as far as I'm concerned ... has not yet reached the point of being able to make a decision about what the best course of action might be ... weather it is a direction you agree with or not ... I'm still trying to clarify and specify some of the multitude of questions ... or said another way ... the base ground work / foundation has not yet been laid.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Every once in a while you say something that makes me suspect that there is still a spark of reason in you. However, as soon as that happens you immediately post something like this as a follow up. Good luck you you.

Again with the insults?
I fail to see the point in your continuous stream of them ... but , whatever makes you happy ... as far as I'm concerned ... it only undermines your credibility.

- - - - -

As for the picture you posted ... which is different from previous lists you've posted ... you might have wanted to look a bit closer at it first.

The 3 items of the pie on the right in red $707B + $724B +$553B add up to = $1,984B ... which is less than the posted on the left side federal tax revenue ... of $2,200B.

If this graph is intended to represent identification for your question:

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Simple question: Do you now understand that our entitlement programs alone consume more than our entire tax revenues, and that that trend will increase if significant change does not occur?

Than it is just simple math to see that your own numbers of $2.2T is larger than $1.984T ... so if this is the data you want to use ... under this data the answer is just ... no ... as in your presented data here shows that the programs indicated do not cost more than the federal tax revenue ~90% of it is rather larger ... but it is not as you wrote "more than" ... our "entire tax revenue" would make it an even smaller % once state tax revenue , local tax revenue , etc... were also added in.

[david85]

It never ceases to amaze me how you manage to complicate things, Ian.

In all the time I've seen you in action on this thread, I've never been able to fully explain it. But, whatever makes you happy.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

It never ceases to amaze me how you manage to complicate things, Ian.

In all the time I've seen you in action on this thread, I've never been able to fully explain it. But, whatever makes you happy.

Sorry ... That is something I struggle with.

When I try to 'keep it simple' ... I end up ... more often than I like ... in misunderstandings with people ... if I try to specify and clarify the issue then it gets more complicated.

I don't try to make things complicated for the sake of being complicated.

I just find it difficult to find that 'happy' medium ... where the things being discussed are specified and clear , but not too complicated.

Not something that 'makes me happy' ... I find it a struggle ... And sometimes I find it makes me the opposite of 'happy' ... but for me at least ... it has always been a bit of a between a rock and hard place kind of issue.

[IamIan]

Interesting connection from what has been learned from Nuclear Weapons being applied to better understand climate.

Link

Tracing radioactive carbon as it cycles through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere has been crucial to understanding anthropogenic climate change.

Interesting baby step toward reducing one of the impact arguments.

Link

The manufacturers hope to have recycled rare earths account for around 10% of national demand by fiscal 2025.

[Beemer]

There is no "Anthroprogenic" climate change. Besides, all the "carbon" that we dig up and release was captured from the Earth's atmosphere originally anyway. It belongs out in the biosphere. We are natures answer to giving this life giving atom back to the living structure of the planet.

Where's the tipping point?