Nobody's talking about raising taxes, although a millionaires tax is a good idea.
Did you even read my post? Because everything you replied with was in response to an argument I did not make. Helix suggested higher taxes. I replied to him and you because some of what I said applied to both of you, so I optimized my time.
Trump is planning to lower taxes -- primarily on the rich, which the result will be ballooning the deficit and higher income income inequality.
No Trump policy so far will grow the economy. He focused on gutting the environmental, under the false premise that regulations are a drag on the economy. That's malarkey. 75% of coal jobs disappeared before the EPA was created. Trump's immigration policy is a drag on the economy.
I never said everything Trump is doing would help the economy. I said some of it would help the economy. Just because you found a couple of things you don't like (none of which actually had anything to do with the economy) doesn't mean that my statement is not accurate. I stand by my statement.
Again, you are debating an argument I didn't make. I said that repatriation would return money and generate tax revenue. I then said that eliminating tax incentives to move companies out of the country would generate jobs. Don't conflate the two.
I warn people that before one makes a statement about numbers, they look at the numbers.
Spending, as a p% of GDP, is relatively constant and changes mainly due to the denominator, GDP.
That actually proves my point. When the GDP increases (and thus tax returns), so does spending. My statement was that spending increases everytime revenue increases. You proved that point. I don't talk in percentages because we don't budget by percentages. If you want to budget by percentages, I'd be all for it. 100% of tax revenue is the budget. 30% to defense, 10% to operational, etc.
I answered in post #11 why the balanced budget amendment doesn't work. I stand by that.
You can stand by it, but your assumption that the federal government and only the federal government is responsible for social spending is beyond ludicrous. First, nothing in the constitution gives the federal government the power to make social programs. You can't find it. It isn't there. Don't even try. Second, the states are fully capable of raising revenue and creating their own social programs. The federal government being hamstrung wouldn't end the possibility of unemployment. Third, even if we accept that the federal government has the power and should create social programs, there is no reason a balanced budget would prevent emergency spending. Emergency spending would just have to come at the expense of other programs.
We already have term limit, they're called elections.
Hahaha. Rrrrriiiiiiggghhhhhtttt. That's the problem. We allow politicians to buy our votes with new roads or parks. If the politician loses the incentive of becoming reelected, they are free to constrain the budget appropriately.
They do that every time they vote on a budget or appropriation.
They really don't, that's the problem. Every budget is loaded with riders that extend spending to the constituencies of "moderate" ruling party members as a bribe for their vote. There is no debate. There is a budget (well, except for the last 10 years or so...) and a bunch of bribes. There is no debate.
QE, is a tool used to change money supply and is a powerful tool for monetary policy.
Going back to the gold standard is plain stupid. There is no reason why a yellow metal, whose price changes when there is a mining discovery or a change in dentistry, should be the standard of the price of currency. Besides, if the U.S. does it and no other country does, what happens then?
I said we should go back to gold standard, did I? Find it. Show us where I said that!
