Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course spending cuts translate to increased wealth in the private sector. More important than that is that a smaller government means more freedom and privacy. I'm willing to give up a great deal to get the government out of our bedrooms, out of our emails, off of our phones, out of our GPS, and off of our chat boards.
I saw Ron Paul on John Stossel's show yesterday(sat). They were talking about what would happen if the gov't were to increase spending cuts making gov't smaller. They were discussing what would happen to the poor if gov't became smaller. Ron Paul said that by making gov't smaller people would become wealthier because they would be keeping more of their money that's being taxed to fund larger gov't and this would end up making people wealthier. Do you see spending cuts making people wealthier in this way?
Ah yes during the early 20th century when teddy was president and government was very small it was a virtual utopia of financial wealth for the average person of course
Ah yes during the early 20th century when teddy was president and government was very small it was a virtual utopia of financial wealth for the average person of course
They had freedom, freedom, and more freedom. They were also largely debt free. Could be an interesting discussion.
I think Teddy was the first president to stand up to the robber barons.
These are the same guys who think we don't need any regulations in commerce and we should get rid of civil rights laws (straight out the loony bin).
Yea, the "regulations" that let Wall Street and Big Banks and the Stock Market wipe out America's savings, and the "civil rights" that make sure white people get denied jobs so that less qualified preferred minorities can get no-show jobs. Silly not to want that.
I saw Ron Paul on John Stossel's show yesterday(sat). They were talking about what would happen if the gov't were to increase spending cuts making gov't smaller. They were discussing what would happen to the poor if gov't became smaller. Ron Paul said that by making gov't smaller people would become wealthier because they would be keeping more of their money that's being taxed to fund larger gov't and this would end up making people wealthier. Do you see spending cuts making people wealthier in this way?
Double talk at its best. Did you see how much Pork he added to the last bill? Cutting spending would good, cut out sending money to our enemies, cut of the money being spent on civilian corporations such a hailburton, stop pork riders being added to any bill and make them stand on their own, go to a flat tax, just to name a few of the ways to cut or gain more revenue.
Casper
Ah yes during the early 20th century when teddy was president and government was very small it was a virtual utopia of financial wealth for the average person of course
How many people moved to the United States when Teddy was president? That should tell you that it was, in fact, a utopia of financial wealth for people.
How about when Hoover and FDR were presidents? Government control of the economy kept us in a depression for 15 years.
How many people moved to the United States when Teddy was president? That should tell you that it was, in fact, a utopia of financial wealth for people.
How about when Hoover and FDR were presidents? Government control of the economy kept us in a depression for 15 years.
People moved because the situation was better off than where they were was all.....that doesn't mean they had vast stores of financial wealth......just look at the standard of living for the time for proof of that one. And in america you have at least a chance to move up whereas in many other nations you didn't But if you think people had it better back then compared to today...then you need to do some studying of history I'm afraid. And the country that was least effected by the depression was japan which did incredible amounts of government spending and control over the economy.
They had freedom, freedom, and more freedom. They were also largely debt free. Could be an interesting discussion.
I think Teddy was the first president to stand up to the robber barons.
They didn't have credit cards either so that might be the reason .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
