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.
You keep saying that without understanding the damage caused by injecting a newly printed/borrowed $3.2 trillion/year into the economy: massive $US devaluation and hyperinflation.
It doesn't matter. First, as I said, it's wrong and second, if we can not pay for wars, there is no reason we can simply not pay for health care. I never see you arguing to pay for the wars.
Quote:
That may well end up being true, eventually. If so, the 25% national VAT tax on all consumer spending can be adjusted downward, accordingly. Alternatively, some classes of consumer goods could be exempted from the tax.
It doesn't matter. First, as I said, it's wrong and second, if we can not pay for wars, there is no reason we can simply not pay for health care. I never see you arguing to pay for the wars.
It does matter. Injecting an additional borrowed/printed $3.2 trillion/year into the economy would massively devalue the $US and result in hyperinflation.
Sadly, you're making an emotional argument rather than a rational argument.
Quote:
So perhaps I do know more than some "think tank"?
Not necessarily. Your "guess" has no research backing up your premise. It might turn out the way you suggest, but it might not. There's no way to really tell until we actually do it. And what's needed to fund it is to implement a 25% national VAT tax on all consumer goods. If costs decrease, that can be adjusted downward, accordingly.
It does matter. Injecting an additional borrowed/printed $3.2 trillion/year into the economy would massively devalue the $US and result in hyperinflation.
Sadly, you're making an emotional argument rather than a rational argument.
I'll care when I start seeing the arguments to pay for the wars.
Quote:
Not necessarily. Your "guess" has no research backing up your premise. It might turn out the way you suggest, but it might not. There's no way to really tell until we actually do it. And what's needed to fund it is to implement a 25% national VAT tax on all consumer goods. If costs decrease, that can be adjusted downward, accordingly.
There is a ton of research available. It doesn't even take research to understand that it's less expensive to go see a doctor as opposed to going to the E.R.
Not even you can argue against that, even though you tried.
Very few companies offer a pension today. I argued it but in the end it's pretty much irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. Even union members aren't immune to having to endure massive pension benefits cuts because their pension fund simply did not have enough money to pay out what was promised. And you want to add insult to injury by taxing financial transactions, thereby reducing pension funds' investment yield which would cut their pension payouts even further? Sheer idiocy.
You are upset at me thinking a business needs to honor it's obligations?
I am upset at the sheer stupidity of your post.
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.
