- Joined
- Sep 8, 2023
- Messages
- 30,037
- Reaction score
- 33,070
- Location
- Ohio, USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes.
After all, the wealthy are "job creators". (It's hard to type these words with a straight face...)
Yes.Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?
Trump’s Wasteful Tax Cuts Lead To Continued Trillion Dollar Deficits In Expanding Economy
If tax cuts actually paid for themselves, they would reduce deficits based on faster growth. Deficits shot up in the wake of the 2017 supply-side tax cuts. And CBO forecasts that those deficits will continue to stay high -- the opposite of tax cuts paying for themselves.www.google.com
Yes.Bills like HR 676 (Medicare for all) would have outlawed those profits.
You think the spending for 2 years was the problem. Try 100 years or the modern era.I am kinda sick of having to explain debits and credits on an accounting sheet.
Why didn't the Republicans reduce spending from 2016 to 2018?
YupSo besides culture war BS, there is no reason to vote GOP, because their economic message is a big old lie?
What have Republicans done in the past to reduce waste in military spending?
So by that metric, adopting a public system in the US would cost less then?
...
Didn't Vance and Trump say it was a waste of money?
Then stop pretending you actually care about it, because you are coming with excuses not to care about this issue.
Single payer systems provide better care at a fraction of the cost of the US system.
Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?
Trump’s Wasteful Tax Cuts Lead To Continued Trillion Dollar Deficits In Expanding Economy
If tax cuts actually paid for themselves, they would reduce deficits based on faster growth. Deficits shot up in the wake of the 2017 supply-side tax cuts. And CBO forecasts that those deficits will continue to stay high -- the opposite of tax cuts paying for themselves.www.google.com
No it doesn’t. Medical tourism isn’t just people coming here. People from here go other places too.Two points.
1. THe medical tourism suggests otherwise.
Huh? I said single payer systems provide better care at a fraction of the cost of the US system.2. So, you conceed the innovation point?
You think the spending for 2 years was the problem. Try 100 years or the modern era.
Various stuff. Why?
Possibly. THough likely with a decline in quality. And innovation.,
Yes. So?
My whole point was that it was a dead issue, becasue the left won. I'm not arguing that we should try to change that. I don't see how it can be changed in the foreseeable future.
No it doesn’t. Medical tourism isn’t just people coming here. People from here go other places too.
Huh? I said single payer systems provide better care at a fraction of the cost of the US system.
Doesn't seem like they take debt reduction seriously, if they are unwilling to take on waste in defense spending.
Don't Canadians live longer than Americans on average? Also it doesn't seem like you actually care about debt reduction if you are unwilling to see why other countries pay less for healthcare and what the US can learn from those other countries.
So are they right, was it a waste of money and what should be done to prevent something like the Iraq War in the future, if it was a waste?
Really, so did the left win in 2002 to 2006 and in 2016 to 2018? I think you are looking for excuse to complain about debt spending, but also do nothing to hold Republicans accountable when they go back on their promises to reduce debt. This adds to my beliefs that fiscal conservatism is a scam.
Never really heard much of that. Got any numbers on how big it is, especially relative to the other direction?
noAre you pretending to not know what innovation means?
Why do you think the US needs to reduce debt? Reducing debt reduces spending, reducing spending reduces revenue. Reductions in revenue result in reductions in GDP, reductions in GDP result in higher levels of unemployment.Doesn't seem like they take debt reduction seriously
The reality is that tax cuts do not need to be paid for. They do generate revenue.Republicans used to say tax cuts paid for themselves in increased revenue. They quit that some time ago.
Total BS. Every income tax cut in my lifetime has generated increased revenue. You are confusing spending with revenue.Reality is tax cuts increase the wealth of the wealthy and is paid for with borrowed money.
Why do you think the US needs to reduce debt? Reducing debt reduces spending, reducing spending reduces revenue. Reductions in revenue result in reductions in GDP, reductions in GDP result in higher levels of unemployment.
Of course, reductions in government spending can be offset by increases in private debt, for a short time anyway.
View attachment 67546418
There are several periods in this chart where government spending decreases and private sector debt increases.
Post WWII we see government cut back on spending and private debt increases.
View attachment 67546421
From 1980 to 1990 we see both government debt and private debt increase. From 1990-1995 we see private sector debt reduction, but in 1995 that changes as the government aggressively cuts spending and we see private sector debt once again increases at a higher pace than ever. 2008 hit we see government debt skyrocket and we see private debt once again falls.
View attachment 67546422
The takeaway?
Aggressive cuts to government debt transfer over to the private sector.
So how does the private sector benefit from government debt reduction?
And before someone is tempted, am I saying that the government can spend as much as it wants without consequence? No. I'm saying that cutting spending results in either a reduction in revenue or an increase in private sector debt.
I really do not give a shit what you suspect. The point is, at least in the US, income tax cuts generate revenue. I cannot speak for the land of maple leafs.Do I have to explain how debits and credits on a basic accounting sheet works? Because I half suspect you know how basic accounting works and are ignoring it on purpose rather than merely being uniformed.
The point you still attempting to avoid is that in the US income tax cuts do generate new revenue.Since many on the right think the government should be run like a business, I will just say a business that cuts costs, but doesn't actually bring in new money or reduces it's revenue streams tend to go out of business.
So if China attacks Taiwan and attempts to capture TSMC, the world largest and most advanced Semi Conductor manufacture, should the US get involved? Should we, in the event China succeeded in taking Taiwan, let China threaten the US by withholding advanced Semi Conductors? Do you think China should be able to dominate the South China Sea where 25% of all trade and 40% of the worlds oil travel.I personally want less interventionism and less military committments and then less military spending.
Because the 2 parties are funded owned by the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful are the recipient of the spending either directly or indirectly.So the years when the GOP had the Senate, Congress and White House don't count? Why didn't they reduce spending when they were given the opportunity to do so?
The reality is that tax cuts do not need to be paid for. They do generate revenue.
Total BS. Every income tax cut in my lifetime has generated increased revenue. You are confusing spending with revenue.
I really do not give a shit what you suspect. The point is, at least in the US, income tax cuts generate revenue. I cannot speak for the land of maple leafs.
The point you still attempting to avoid is that in the US income tax cuts do generate new revenue.
I personally want less interventionism and less military committments and then less military spending. TRUMPISM, should lead in that direction.
You seem to just want to socialize medice, because it is a big part of the economy and it gives you a stealth way to move towards socialism.
Too early to tell. Have less respect for arab cultures.
Repeatedly answered. YOu seem to be ignoring my primary point, which I made several times.
Why do you think the US needs to reduce debt? Reducing debt reduces spending, reducing spending reduces revenue. Reductions in revenue result in reductions in GDP, reductions in GDP result in higher levels of unemployment.
Of course, reductions in government spending can be offset by increases in private debt, for a short time anyway.
View attachment 67546418
There are several periods in this chart where government spending decreases and private sector debt increases.
Post WWII we see government cut back on spending and private debt increases.
View attachment 67546421
From 1980 to 1990 we see both government debt and private debt increase. From 1990-1995 we see private sector debt reduction, but in 1995 that changes as the government aggressively cuts spending and we see private sector debt once again increases at a higher pace than ever. 2008 hit we see government debt skyrocket and we see private debt once again falls.
View attachment 67546422
The takeaway?
Aggressive cuts to government debt transfer over to the private sector.
So how does the private sector benefit from government debt reduction?
And before someone is tempted, am I saying that the government can spend as much as it wants without consequence? No. I'm saying that cutting spending results in either a reduction in revenue or an increase in private sector debt.
I really do not give a shit what you suspect. The point is, at least in the US, income tax cuts generate revenue. I cannot speak for the land of maple leafs.
The point you still attempting to avoid is that in the US income tax cuts do generate new revenue.
Because the 2 parties are funded owned by the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful are the recipient of the spending either directly or indirectly.
I hear people speak about debt to GDP a lot as if that means something, as if 100% of GDP is a magic barrier that shall not be crossed. However, when you understand that a significant portion of US debt and dollars is held by foreign interests and that in turn the government replaces the dollars held abroad with deficit spending, it begins to make sense that debt has increased beyond the 100% debt-to-GDP threshold. Because a substantial portion of the money created by the US government is not driving demand in US markets it is used to trade or is saved abroad.OK, but the government has the power to create more money, which may explain why private debt is able to (so easily?) rise faster than GDP.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?