- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Trick question! Cav units have troops, not companies.
As i noted, I was not in the army
Trick question! Cav units have troops, not companies.
Lowering available revenue is not a cost.
...opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs.
Actually I would call it an opportunity cost.
Well, if you want to use the word in a way it was not originally intended just to try to defend a point, that's up to you.Actually I would call it an opportunity cost.
Taxes were REDUCED for a temporary period. Just like a sale at the gas station. Say gas = taxes. The price is reduced for lets say a weekend. The gas station will make less money during that time in hopes to gain profit in other areas. THing is, the ultra rich will not be spending more or even investing more because of the sale at the fuel pump. Not from anything Ive seen. Maybe someone can provide factual information on that topic.
Anyhow, temporary tax reduction of COURSE costs the goverment. You are reducing the amount taken in!!! Duuuhhh!
Well, if you want to use the word in a way it was not originally intended just to try to defend a point, that's up to you.
Of course, one might also argue that it is an opportunity gained, so...
Not having that infantry company to begin with is not.
tax cuts are not government spending
is saving money spending?
The problem is the only things republicans cut taxes on is big business and their own special interests.
Revenue that is spent represents a cost.Sure an oppotunity could be gained, but there is also a cost. The government would lose revenue.
Yes of course. It's government spending that isn't "free" - that should be obvious, obvious Child.So do you agree, that tax cuts cost nothing, that they are revenue neutral, that they are free?
Revenue that is spent represents a cost.
Revenue that is not generated is not.
Conceptually, the two are very different. This should be plain on its face.
I notice how you didnt use defintion 1a/b.you would have to define cost.
I notice how you didnt use defintion 1a/b.
If you have to hunt for a definition of a word you want to use in order to mae a point, it should tell you something.
I did. You had to dig for a definition and you bypassed those that are most common.i notice how you can't refute what i posted.
I did. You had to dig for a definition and you bypassed those that are most common.
Anyone that cannot discern between expenditure and income not generated really should not be posting here.
Ah. Your panties are in a bunch. That explains it.how silly....i'm a financial analyst, and btw, that would be anyone WHO cannot discern, in case you missed english 101. see, two can play at that game.
Ah. Your panties are in a bunch. That explains it.
:roll:
None was necessary, as your response did not counter my previous criticism.once again, no refutation. thanks for being so reliable.
None was necessary, as your response did not counter my previous criticism.
your criticism was invalid, as well as insulting. that's the way you roll, evidently.
No... it wasnt. The only way for your point to stand was for you to stretch the definition of the term beyind its common meaning. That criticism is completely valid; nothing you have said since chnages that in any way.your criticism was invalid...
So he calls you out on being the self appointed grammar police with the "WHO" vs. "THAT" and the criticism is invalid. Uh huh. You apparently roll the same way.
I didnt do that first -- did that after explaining why your position is unsupportable, something you apparently still fail to grasp. The truth may hurt, but it is still the truth.i guess you missed the part where he insulted my intelligence first.
What the matter? Dont like free speech?anyway, who the hell asked you?
And YOU evidently don't know that when you have to dig and dig and dig for a defintion that suits you, it speaks volumes about the soundness (that is, th elack thereof) of your position.You and goobie evidently DON'T know that many words have more than one definition.
Ahh... moving the goalposts.and that reduced revenue has the same freaking effect as increased cost.