politicartoons | (no subject)

At this point, I think it's safe to assume you cannot answer the question. If that changes, we'll continue.

You're the one who doesn't understand basic governmental budgetary porcess. If you need me to explain it for you there not much hope for this being little more than a remedial civics meson for you. I'll pass.

You claim I don't understand it, but you're utterly unable to explain how a government can control the revenues it receives. Not my problem to fix.

You claim I don't understand it...

You're the one who's asking the question, not me.

I understand that they have revenue projections, I understand that the projections don't typically match reality. I understand full well that the government can say "we'll take in $2 trillion in revenue this year," and they won't take in $2 trillion.

And the government can say "we'll take in $2 trillion in revenue this year," and take in more than $2 trillion.

And the government can say "we project $2 trillion in spending this year," but spend more than $2 trillion.

And the government can say "we project $2 trillion in spending this year," but spend less than $2 trillion.

(rhetorically) How on earth could any government operate without any control revenues or spending?

This is truly the mystery of the ages. Or at least a mystery for you. Please do let us know when you figure this out.

Right. What you've described is clear evidence that they cannot control revenues. That's the point. They can, however, control spending.

No. What I described is parallel situations for revenues and spending. If you're saying that under those circumstances you can control spending, but not revenues, it's up to you to explain how on earth a government can intervene to adjust spending, but not intervene to adjust revenues.

Please do tell us.

Easy: the government simply cannot guarantee any level of revenue coming in. It can try to by all sorts of means, but it is fundamentally incapable of actually doing so.

The government is absolutely able to limit its expenditures and adjust to what comes in. There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways.

the government simply cannot guarantee any level of revenue coming in.

True.

the government simply cannot guarantee any level of spending going out.

Also true.

The government is absolutely able to limit its expenditures and adjust to what comes in.

True.

The government is absolutely able to adjust its revenues to what goes out.

Also true.

There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways.

True.

There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that a spending policy will result in predictable ways.

Also true.

If you're trying to make some point about how government controls spending, but not revenue, you're not doing a very poor job of it.

the government simply cannot guarantee any level of spending going out.

Also true.

Untrue, actually. The government, at any time, can stop spending.

The government is absolutely able to adjust its revenues to what goes out.

Also true.

Untrue, actually. As I noted:

"There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways."

If you're trying to make some point about how government controls spending, but not revenue, you're not doing a very poor job of it.

Only because you're simply saying things that aren't true.

Untrue, actually. The government, at any time, can stop spending.

Sure. And the government, at any time, can raise revenue.

The government is absolutely able to adjust its revenues to what goes out.

Also true.

Untrue, actually.

If it's true for spending it's true for revenue.

As I noted:

"There is significant difficulty in guaranteeing that setting a tax rate will result in those subject to it acting in predictable ways."

This holds for spending as well.

Sure. And the government, at any time, can raise revenue.

Can try to raise revenue. They cannot guarantee success.

If it's true for spending it's true for revenue.

How? That doesn't make any sense? Revenue is an attempt to take money from a population. Spending is actual distribution of money. They can control to the penny how much goes out. They cannot ensure that any specific amount comes in.

Can try to raise revenue. They cannot guarantee success.

I'm not sure what you mean by guarantee success, they are the ones with the guns.

They can control to the penny how much goes out.

If they can control to the penny how much goes out, they can also control to the penny how much comes in. It's just a matter of legislation.

Your idea of compliance is very different than what's historically been possible.

Historically speaking...

When was the last time a tax hike didn't raise revenues?

It's not a question as to whether revenues can be raised, it's a question as to whether we're actually able to predict how much will come in.

You seem to be under the false impression that we can exactly predict spending, but not revenues. This is not surprising for someone who has certainly never written and tried to adhere to a budget.

But by all means, keep pretending your fantasies are reality.

It does add so much to your credibility.

You seem to be under the false impression that we can exactly predict spending, but not revenues. This is not surprising for someone who has certainly never written and tried to adhere to a budget.

You assume wrong, as expected.

All this time and you have yet to show your work, either, so I suppose we're all set. You'll take the last word, I expect.

To start: His second line item assumes incorrectly that tax cuts have a cost. They do not - the spending was the problem.

To finish: All this time and you have yet to show your work, either

I appreciate your admission that you've been unable to defend your own statement here. It's a refreshing bit of honesty.