AngryOldGuy
double secret probation
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,917
- Reaction score
- 658
- Location
- Phx,Az
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
There's these things called 'roads' - you may have heard of them (heck, you might even have one in front of your house!) - and though some of the contractors rip off the taxpayer, it's REAL hard to keep and maintain a first-world infrastructure without keeping those roads in good working order at taxpayer expense. And let's not forget the nationwide regulation of those roads so you don't have wildly varying laws and regulation and signage between the states. And then there's air traffic control - y'know, it's sorta important to get the airlines to play nice with each other so they don't crash into each other. And let's not forget those people who record and assess your property...and protect your rights to your property (at least until eminent domain comes into play).
There's something called 'schools', too. You might not like them, Sam I am, but the better-educated the populace as a whole is (instead of restricting education to only those who can pay for it), the better off the nation is as a whole i.e. it's a heck of a lot easier to train someone even with an eighth-grade reading level than to train someone who can't read at all.
And you're an Old Guy - are you on Medicare? If you don't like it, you can always go out and pay for insurance out-of-pocket...and lucky for you, you can't be denied, thanks to this little something called 'Obamacare'. But if we got rid of Obamacare and Medicare, you and all your friends of a certain age can go out there and try to buy health insurance out-of-pocket, assuming, that is, that you can find an insurance company that would cover an Old Guy like you.
Of course there's organizations that are there to help you in your hour of need - like police, firefighters, courts, social services, and yes, even FEMA. Speaking of which, it's SO interesting how the same conservative lawmakers who were wanting to deny federal aid to the victims of Superstorm Sandy wanted federal aid to help out West, Texas when it got blown partially off the map.
And you're conservative, which means you probably love the military and think we don't spend enough on them - and they are certainly important to maintaining our way of life, since without them, the security of the oil that we import would be endangered.
I mean, c'mon, AOG, you can gripe about that evilbadsocialist guv'mint all you want...but you need it, as long as you live in America. Unless you want to run away to the Alaskan wilderness and go Galt...and see how long that lasts....
the government shouldn't be involved with any of that
US National debt: 16,940,690,852,125.42
yeah and? Running the country into bankruptcy IS the progressive thing to do?this is America, and that's the way it IS..
yeah and? Running the country into bankruptcy IS the progressive thing to do?
Um, 'scuse you, but what's important is NOT the total debt itself, but the debt-to-GDP which - in historical terms - isn't nearly so bad as it was during and immediately after WWII:
View attachment 67153691
And HOW did we fix all that debt after WWII? What were our top marginal tax rates in the 1950's? 90%.
Why, oh, why can't y'all see that we've been down this road before, that we were much worse off than now...but we were able to fix it. Why can't y'all allow yourselves to even consider fixing the economy in the same way we did then? We KNOW higher taxes worked then when things were much worse than now - but the conservative adherence to dogma is so strong that you can't allow yourselves to see it.
And apparently you're blind, yourself, in thinking that the ONLY factor was the level of taxation. Slash the federal government back to what it was in 1960 (you know, when that 90% marginal rate was in effect) and you'll solve the problem, too. But, "y'all" don't look none too amenable to that.
You'd be right if we were only looking at dollar amounts...BUT raw dollar amounts aren't what is important. What IS important is how the spending compares to the GDP...and the federal spending as a percentage of GDP did NOT skyrocket since the 1950's.
View attachment 67153695
Try again, friend.
I think we'd have a really good bull session over a few brewsZippos sell well, too.
I heartily agree that outside the first-world democracies, bribes are essential - one cannot take offense at the necessity to bribe, because that's just the way it is...and sometimes it's a very good thing, too.
But you obviously understand what I mean - without a strong, well-paid government (which must be overseen by a strong free press), the tax revenue necessary to build and maintain a first-world infrastructure is next to impossible.
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."
Is this not right?
Real dollar amounts are what solve deficits, "friend," not apple/oranges comparisons of GDP percentages.
You can eliminate a deficit by increasing your revenue or cutting spending, or both. The only option you have any interest in is increasing revenue, so you fight tooth and nail any suggestion to the contrary, as dishonestly as you need to.
If you eliminate the spending for things which weren't part of spending in 1960, you will more than balance the budget. That's fact. Does that mean it's what should be done? Not necessarily. But it's certainly an option other than simply raising taxes, which again is the only option you have any interest in considering.
clearly you've no idea that once you reach (unreachable for you) a certain point financially there are different 'rules' No one lends a million bucks to a poor man and do you suppose someone that commands mega-millions (as you say) might have some type of collateral? yes kiddies it is exactly this type of naivete that allows the continued destruction of the middle class in this country. Have fun with that.If a poor man owes $1,000,000 dollars, that's REALLY bad. If a mega-millionaire owns $1,000,000 it's not that big a deal.
more often than not you CANNOT grow your business without taking out loans...
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."
Is this not right?
That's awesome, so when our government 'dies' we'll be off the hook?
so let's spend spend spend like there's no tomorrow!
Just make sure to keep that party goin' till after I'm dead!
If a poor man owes $1,000,000 dollars, that's REALLY bad. If a mega-millionaire owns $1,000,000 it's not that big a deal. That in a nutshell is why it's disingenuous to concentrate only on the dollar amounts. Any successful businessman will tell you that you need to be able to have a line of credit. Almost all major companies do - it's called "stock".
If you run a business, it's nice not to owe anything, but more often than not you CANNOT grow your business without taking out loans...and likewise, it's VERY hard to grow a nation's economy without taking out loans to do so, and that's why it's not that big a deal if we do have a federal debt - as long as we're growing our economy to keep the debt-to-gdp ratio fairly level - which we have done pretty much since the early 1950's - then that's not that big a problem. If we grow the economy to the point that our tax revenue is greater than our total outgo for a particular year, then we've got a surplus, and if we're wise, we use that to pay down the debt.
BUT just as it is silly for a business to sacrifice its growth just to pay off its debt, it's silly for a nation to sacrifice the growth of its economy just to pay off its debt.
So it's okay with you if employers don't give a
damn about the safety of employers? And don't tell me that they do, because when it comes to a choice between money and safety for the workers, the employers will choose money almost every time.
clearly you've no idea that once you reach (unreachable for you) a certain point financially there are different 'rules' No one lends a million bucks to a poor man and do you suppose someone that commands mega-millions (as you say) might have some type of collateral? yes kiddies it is exactly this type of naivete that allows the continued destruction of the middle class in this country. Have fun with that.
You're just deflecting with a wall of irrelevant bull****. You eliminate a deficit by spending less than you take in. You can take in more, or you can spend less, or both. Math is math. These gymnastics only continue to prove I'm correct -- the only solution you're interested in at all is raising taxes, and you dishonestly claim it's the only way to do it.
What alternate Universe are you living in ?
On the Job safety has evolved into an almost totalitarian concept.
To the point where safety is over emphasized and over implemented.
How long have you been isolated in your bubble of retirement ? 30 years
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."
Is this not right?
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?