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.
(Isn't it obvious that when you have a democrat president the economy just BOOMS and debt disappears and we have rich surpluses??)
No but its obvious that Clinton reversed Reagan's supply side tax policies, and then did all the things you said above. Its also obvious that Obama has cut GW Bush's debt growth rate in 1/2.
(And why do republicans keep making things terrible just so that brilliant democrats have more work to do to clean up the GOP messes?)
Because according to scientists the republican party is a "corporate propaganda group." The republican party's main purpose is to do supply side tax cuts.
Not that your post has much basis in reality, but to the bolded; go out see what you can get with a buck.... that should tell you what that note is worth.
Or perhaps you can pay for it in gold.... That never..... fluctuates....
What of any value can you buy with a paper buck? For that matter what can you buy of any value at all?
Perhaps you don't understand what value IS. A hint: There is not one item of value in a grocery store. There is one section in some but not all walmarts where you may buy an item of real value.
My posts always deal in reality no matter what you think. Unless you were old enough in 1957 to have handled paper notes then, chances are you have held a buck in your life yet.
Taxpayers today are exactly like slaves -- slavery is about your labor being used for the benefit of others. Today our government -- the politicians and ruling class believe they are entitled to confiscate as much of our wages as they like -- we no longer own our own labor, the government owns it.
Liberty means you own your own labor, you benefit from the work you do. The extreme taxation has turned us into nothing more than slaves who are not working for our own benefit any longer.
The only way to have our freedom is for taxpayers to determine their tax rates. When you have others deciding they have dibs on your income and profits, you have no freedom, you no longer own your own body or the work it produces.
Man last night i saw the local rag (paper) and in it is wind power plants related to Obama's green power acts...
These are on my mountains.. I don't recall hearing this a bit in the new. I have seen these last fall and i have seen a enviro impact statement where so many bald eagles are allowed to be cannon fodder.. I didn't like that much.
Then last night I find first of all no envrio impact was done to widen the road p the mts.. No abutters were notified.
Spain owns some of these generators and the Portuguese own the rest!
And last NH gets no power of it, just Mass does!
I will be wanting to hear what X governor Lynch has to say about this NOW.
A project like this should have been all over local news for 6 months in NH..
This might just end up getting torn down. It's ugly enough.
If America can borrow $20 TRILLION for hunger programs and schools and paid sick leave and other France like programs then why not?
It would only cost around 2%…
Good idea, progressives?
Who says US borrows money for social programs?
It borrows to maintain a fleet of 11 super carriers, F/35 stealth fighters, satellites, army troops in Afghanistan, nuclear submarines and CIA operations. It borrows to fund salaries, pensions and healthcare programs for veterans. It borrows to pay billions on the war on drugs in places like Columbia. Last but not least, it borrows to fund the largest inmate population on the globe and their facilities.
Now, which of these should be cut?
WTH kind of social programs will cost 20 trillion dollars, for starters?
And in short, no.
First of all. We can get out of Iraq and Afghanistan...which it appears to be what we are doing with a liberal as president. Next, we can not enter any more trillion dollar illegal wars like conservatives apparently support.
Then, we can tax the wealthy their fair share, since they benefit from our plutocracy the most.
Who says US borrows money for social programs?
It borrows to maintain a fleet of 11 super carriers, F/35 stealth fighters, satellites, army troops in Afghanistan, nuclear submarines and CIA operations. It borrows to fund salaries, pensions and healthcare programs for veterans. It borrows to pay billions on the war on drugs in places like Columbia. Last but not least, it borrows to fund the largest inmate population on the globe and their facilities.
Now, which of these should be cut?
Please point to the government report that says that all non-defense department spending is ONLY tax based while all defense department spending is with borrowed money.
WTH kind of social programs will cost 20 trillion dollars, for starters?
And in short, no.
First of all. We can get out of Iraq and Afghanistan...which it appears to be what we are doing with a liberal as president. Next, we can not enter any more trillion dollar illegal wars like conservatives apparently support.
Then, we can tax the wealthy their fair share, since they benefit from our plutocracy the most.
If America can borrow $20 TRILLION for hunger programs and schools and paid sick leave and other France like programs then why not?
It would only cost around 2%…
Good idea, progressives?
I have no idea what the OP means by "France like programs." I suspect the OP has no idea either. What I suspect this isn't a particularly serious thread.
Before government borrows, the purpose of the borrowing must have a positive purpose. During the Bush years, the government cut taxes and then experienced heavy deficits. It can be thus argued that the government borrowed trillions in order to give tax-cuts, which disproportionately fell on the wealthy. The same is true for the two wars, we started the wars in 2002 and 2003 and then cut taxes again in 2004. Now, we have nothing to show for that debt.
Contrarily, it is rational to borrow a significant portion of funds during a sharp recession or depression caused by a sudden lack of consumer demand. That's using the government to support demand and mitigate unemployment. This was done during the Great Depression and more recently during 2008 and 2009. Both examples were smaller stimulus than was actually needed to reverse the economic downfall but did, in fact, lessen the economic fall. A larger stimulus would have increased employment more and lowered the gap between potential GDP and actual GDP.
We also know that there is plenty of public investment needed, as proven by that recent bridge collapse. We could also improve schools and other public facilities. Doing so makes America more modern and able to compete internationally. That's an investment.
These short-term stimulus programs are not expensive as they by definition short-term. What is expensive is creating a new program and not identifying a funding source. Medicare Part D is such a system. It costs hundreds of millions a year and doesn't have a defined funding source.
Thus, if one wants to add permanent programs, one has to add taxes too.
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.
)
