CBO: April Was Best Month For Federal Budget in History

a reply to: RadioRobert

No, border apprehensions are used as a proxy because there's no way to know how many border crossings didn't result in apprehensions.

But if you want to play stupid games in defense of the moronic wall — under Obama and now Trump, the number of border patrol agents has gone up substantially. By 2011, there were twice as many border patrol agents as in 2004. Which in turn means more patrols.

Assuming that illegal border crossers haven't developed invisibility cloaks, it's more than reasonable to assume that the chances for an individual crosser to encounter a border patrol has increased proportionately. In other words, the crossings resulting in apprehension could very well represent an increasingly large portion of the total crossing attempts.

So maybe I should find a graph which better captures how far down illegal border crossings have fallen compared to previous years?

Which will only make my argument against the need for a wall that much more compelling.

a reply to: luthier

So you won't be sending your $68 in?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Oh I am. It's called inflation.

Especially when you mess with cpi in trade wars.

a reply to: luthier

SMH.... so you're not, but you want credit for it. How very "libertarian" of you.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

SMH.... so you're not, but you want credit for it. How very "libertarian" of you.

Unless you are in middle school you may want to work on your argument.

a reply to: luthier

LOL look in the mirror and repeat that.

You're a bernie sanders "libertarian," aren't you?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

LOL look in the mirror and repeat that.

You're a bernie sanders "libertarian," aren't you?

Does that really make sense to you or are you just stringing together any type of ad hom you can think of?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Or you could just admit that you misrepresented the graph and additionally left it unlabeled. Because that's the hallmark of honest discussion as opposed to my "stupid games" noticing it...

Also, I thought you said: "there's no way to know how many border crossings didn't result in apprehensions."

But now you're offering to show me: "how far down illegal border crossings have fallen"

How can you document for me a decrease in a number you say you cannot even quantify?

a reply to: luthier

I just don't believe you're a libertarian at all.

How do you feel about David Koch?

When you run the government like a business then you need those little profit centers now and then to keep the train chuggin along. Happy when something works, like we all should.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I don't have any feelings toward the koch brothers.

They donated a lot of money to NY Presbyterian when my wife worked there. That was nice.

Here are a couple things to think about before you get nutty defending turf trying to win...

Does increasing spending and decreasing revenue make sense when it never has been sustainable?

Do you take a lesser job and spend more throwing money in the market hoping it all works out?

What is the relationship of the cpi and inflation?

Or would you rather go over political talking points that have nothing to do with economics?

My favorite Washington crud people are Justin Amash and Rand Paul.

That doesn't mean I pray to them every night. I disagree with them sometimes.

a reply to: luthier

Does increasing spending and decreasing revenue make sense when it never has been sustainable?

That's a false premise that shows a complete lack of economic understanding. Lowering rates is not necessarily lowering revenues (as evidenced by the record revenues brought in last month).

What is the relationship of the cpi and inflation?

More economic ignorance. CPI is a measure of inflation, there is no relationship, they are the same thing.

My favorite Washington crud people are Justin Amash and Rand Paul.

So you agree, we should privatize medicare and social security?

a reply to: theantediluvian

That's right, you don't know the real numbers.
The report, if you read it, does lay out the concerns and the basic fact, regardless of trend, is that there are still half a million a year caught.
Still a major problem.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: theantediluvian

Or you could just admit that you misrepresented the graph and additionally left it unlabeled. Because that's the hallmark of honest discussion as opposed to my "stupid games" noticing it...

Also, I thought you said: "there's no way to know how many border crossings didn't result in apprehensions."

But now you're offering to show me: "how far down illegal border crossings have fallen"

How can you document for me a decrease in a number you say you cannot even quantify?

It's just a chart doing the rounds on social media, regularly reposted with no understanding.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Does increasing spending and decreasing revenue make sense when it never has been sustainable?

That's a false premise that shows a complete lack of economic understanding. Lowering rates is not necessarily lowering revenues (as evidenced by the record revenues brought in last month).

What is the relationship of the cpi and inflation?

More economic ignorance. CPI is a measure of inflation, there is no relationship, they are the same thing.

My favorite Washington crud people are Justin Amash and Rand Paul.

So you agree, we should privatize medicare and social security?

Lowering rates has always lowered revenue because of spending. There is no sign what so ever that spending freezes are on the horizon.

Period. End of story. There has never been a sustained increase in revenue since the 60's from tax cuts...

One month is nothing at all to bank on. Your premise is Ludacris.


The cpi and inflation are not the same. You have a real problem there. Maybe figure out why they are no the same.

No social programs should not be privatized. That would be a serious mistake. Taking public tax money and giving it to corporations imo is unethical most of the time.

Any other silly arguments to address?

a reply to: Dfairlite


Poor Democrats. They love government power and money, but also swear that they will reverse the tax cuts that have flooded the government with money. What will be their platform now? Smaller government?

a reply to: luthier

Lowering rates has always lowered revenue because of spending.

That's not even a cogent sentence. Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

There is no sign what so ever that spending freezes are on the horizon.

Agreed.

There has never been a sustained increase in revenue since the 60's from tax cuts...

That's weird, I see a number of them right here

The cpi and inflation are not the same.

In the way that the marks on the tape measure are not the same as a tape measure you're right. But in any real world or economic sense you're 100% wrong. (Is a tape measure without marks, a tape measure?)

Maybe figure out why they are no the same.

Maybe figure out how to type a sentence before lecturing me on subjects you obviously know little to nothing about.

No social programs should not be privatized. That would be a serious mistake.

There goes that libertarian mask you were trying to wear.

Taking public tax money and giving it to corporations imo is unethical most of the time.

Consider this: for social security you get about 90 cents for every dollar you put in, back. Do you really think privatization would do worse?

Any other silly arguments to address?

This is my favorite line. Spew BS and claim the other guys arguments are BS. Classic!

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Lowering rates has always lowered revenue because of spending.

That's not even a cogent sentence. Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

There is no sign what so ever that spending freezes are on the horizon.

Agreed.

There has never been a sustained increase in revenue since the 60's from tax cuts...

That's weird, I see a number of them right here

The cpi and inflation are not the same.

In the way that the marks on the tape measure are not the same as a tape measure you're right. But in any real world or economic sense you're 100% wrong.

Maybe figure out why they are no the same.

Maybe figure out how to type a sentence before lecturing me on subjects you obviously know little to nothing about.

No social programs should not be privatized. That would be a serious mistake.

There goes that libertarian mask you were trying to wear.

Taking public tax money and giving it to corporations imo is unethical most of the time.

Consider this: for social security you get about 90 cents for every dollar you put in, back. Do you really think privatization would do worse?

There has never been a sustained growth from tax cuts. Go ahead and point out when.

The cpi is used to control inflation. It has been since we were taken off the gold standard.

The reason is we get cheap goods from over seas. Without that inflation would be terrible.

Which is why trade wars are a dumb idea. Also a total misunderstanding of why strong economies have trade imbalance. They aren't working in factories. They have better jobs.


This is fun.

Ps you have no idea why ssi has failed. Lol!

Love the grammar falacy. Usually a sign of desperation...

a reply to: Dfairlite

Also let me clarify a few things since you are a disengenous debater and purposely avoid trying to understand the argument being presented to you.


The nature of government is to expand. Tax cuts without spending freezes have never worked unless they are taken from the supply side.

It is not a libertarian philosophy at all to take tax payer money and give it to corporations, launder the money, and then return it to the people usually at a lesser rate due to the inflationary spending. Since the size of the debt is snowballing the interest is destroying the value of the dollar. When the global economy levels, like China asks more for goods the cpi will increase more rapidly then even iflationary spending most likely.

Printing money to pay the debt is even worse then throw in unforseen problems. Like war which take that printed money put into the market and destroy it further.

If you believe these bandaid aproaches are correct or privatization of social programs is somehow libertarian you need to take some philosophy classes. Being against privatizing social programs has zero to do with libertarianism. Maybe pick up a book by hyek. Heck even read Milton.

a reply to: theantediluvian
you folks make me smile.
If Trump was for breathing, and tweeted about it, you would likely be against it. What is the democratic platform all about these days? I mean, other than "Trump must go".