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.
Taxes are the most popular topic of liberals …. the first group of humans ever to exist that think we don't pay enough taxes.. First ever … except for the groups who collect taxes that is.
The reality is, the debt is so great now, there isn't enough money in existence to pay it. If you taxed everyone at 100%, you wouldn't put a dent in the debt. Of course, that was true the moment the Federal Reserve took over, and the very first Federal Reserve Note was issued.
You see, if you create $1, and charge 3% interest on that one dollar, you now owe $1.03. But if you only created that one dollar, where will the 3 pennies come from, since they don't exist? Well, you have to create another dollar, but then you only have $2 but you owe $2.06. This is why there is never enough money to pay the debt. It was designed that way from the beginning, deliberately.
So raising taxes isn't the answer, and never will be. What needs to happen is we need to eliminate the FED, and dramatically reduce spending to levels that do not require endless borrowing.
First, when you use the expression that liberals think that "we don't pay enough taxes," who is the we? The entire GOP presidential candidate list wants to cut taxes on billionaires. Rubio's plan makes it so billionaires won't have to pay any taxes. If you think that's fair, vote for Rubio. I don't think the American people think that's fair.
Moreover, when the very, very rich get a tax-cut, the rest of us [we're the we] have to take on more of the tax burden.
Second, you complain about taxes and then you complain about debt. If you think the debt is too high, you don't reduce the debt by cutting taxes.
Third, as to your theory that there isn't enough money to pay today's debt, let me remind you that the debt was much bigger after World War II, in comparison to the economy. We never paid off that debt either and not only did the nation not fail, it flourished.
Fourth, if you want to reduce spending, then you are talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense because that's where the vast amount of spending is.
Fifth, your idea to get rid of the Fed and replace it with... with... with... oh, you didn't say. Well, you can't replace it with nothing. In any case, the 100 years that the Fed has been managing the economy are fair better managed than the preceding 100 years of booms and bust, hyperinflation and hyper-deflation.
Trump is a businessman. I'm sure he's regularly had to deal with people he didn't much care for and didn't agree with. I'd say there would be less gridlock under Trump, not more.
There is much evidence that Trump wasn't such a successful businessman, but let's suppose that he was. His record as a successful businessman should tell us that he knows how to create jobs. And this in turn means that we have every right to ask exactly what kind of a businessman he was.
Now, the truth is even under the best of circumstances, the case for electing a businessman as president would be very weak. A country is not a company, does any company sell more than 80% of what it makes to its own workers, the way America does? -- and competitive success in business bears no particular relationship to the principles of macroeconomic policy. So even if Trump were a true captain of industry, a latter-day Andrew Carnegie, this wouldn't be a strong qualification.
In any case, however, Trump isn't that kind of businessman. Trump used to build casinos, apartment buildings and hotels. But he lost a lot of money doing that, so he sold them and now makes money selling the rights to his name. I don't see how any of that has any translation into how that makes a good president.
The bolded is what will make me lose sleep at night. My husband is finally retired from the military but my boys are still in.
Rubio comes off as more of a warmonger to me than Trump, who seems to be more of a non-interventionist for most situations.
But even though I disagree with many of his positions, Rubio comes off as a decent human being. Trump sounds petty, vindicative and thin-skinned bashing anyone for the slightest insult in often inappropriate ways. His diplomacy would likely be destructive.
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.
