• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is spending more money that we don't have the way out of a recession?

so we borrow. we spend to invest on the premise of a greater return. it is not a new idea. we have done it to varying degrees since the nation was founded. are you aware that this nation has NEVER been out of debt?

Indeed. One of the first policies of Alexander Hamilton was to for the federal government to consolidate and assume the debt the states had yet to pay for fighting the American Revolution. Our country had a national debt before it was a country.
 
In my opinion, the only reason the middle and lower income people would need a tax break, was if we had run away inflation. That isn't the case now. What the middle and lower income folks need are jobs. The only way to create jobs is to cut the business owners some slack. Of course, you won't ever hear a politician say that, because that would be political suicide.

Tax cuts cause inflation. Evidence shows more inflation means more jobs (in the short run).
 
Because the Republicans don't want to raise taxes, and even provide tax breaks to those who can afford paying more taxes, than cut government spending on their pet programs for their campaign donors, such as farm subsidies and defense contractors.

I'm sure you have no problem with farm subsidies to the NFU, am I wrong?

You're speaking with a libertarian and not a republican. We can agree on cutting farm subsidies and defense contractors. But what's the point if you still wish to maintain the sleuth of entitlement programs and pension deals that are bankrupting treasuries across the country? In the end, Medicare is the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
 
if so, it does not do so very well.

firstly, you cannot spend money that you do not have any more that you can eat apples that you do not have or diddle girls that are not there.

But boy, doesn't it help to raise the debt ceiling in order to finance newer, unfunded liabilities? I'm sure having the power to mint coin and print money helps as well.

we DO have the monies that we are spending. we have borrowed it. we were obliged to borrow it because we are not collecting sufficient revenues to meet our obligations. we are not collecting sufficient revenues because some dip**** turned off the revenue stream by cutting taxes and increased the obligations by starting two very expensive wars. so, we borrow.

We can agree on the expensive, unnecessary wars. However, cutting taxes is a GOOD thing (which is why JFK did it in the early 1960s). I never heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity.

borrowing money to invest it is a pretty standard practice. in fact, that is why lending developed into an industry. borrowong more than you can pay back is risky, but your religion of wealth is based on that very same risk.

It is not ethical to force me to pay more in taxes in order to finance the lifestyles of older, more wealthier Americans. It is not ethical to force me to pay more in taxes because the California legislature can't keep a balanced checkbook. If I can't balance my own checkbook, is it ethical to force you to pay for my unfunded obligations? It is also not ethical to force me to pay more in taxes in order to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, a California rail train that goes nowhere, or to fund some ridiculous faith-based initiative in Alabama.

the government's obligation to you and me to protect the nation's wealth obliges sound safe borrowing and sound investing, not NO borrowing and NO investing.

It is very different if we're looking at a wartime economy and a peacetime economy. If the fate of our physical existence rests on our borrowing from other countries, then so be it. But if it's only meant to ensure that we keep interest rates artifically low and entitlement programs up-and-running, then it's wrong. If by "protecting wealth" you mean property, I agree. If by "protecting wealth" you mean maintaining a standard wealth equilibrium, I completely disagree.

safe borrowing means that you can pay the interest and whatever portion of the principle required by the lender for the period of time allowed by the lender. as long as you can pay the nut, your debt is responsible. If your investments prove sound, you can start paying off the principal. that is how it works.

Sure, it works the very same way in personal as in public debt cycles. You can get into a reasonable amount of debt, but eventually you're living way beyond your means. How many trillions of public debt do you consider living beyond our means?

if you have no money and you are unwilling to borrow, you get to live on whatever you have. I don't know if you have looked recently, but what we have would not keep a sparrow alive for more than a few days.

so we borrow. we spend to invest on the premise of a greater return. it is not a new idea. we have done it to varying degrees since the nation was founded.

Do you honestly think politicians can invest better than businessmen and women? Government can't do ANYTHING better than the private sector, least of all investment and savings.

are you aware that this nation has NEVER been out of debt?

geo.

Wrong. Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History
 
Last edited:
Indeed. One of the first policies of Alexander Hamilton was to for the federal government to consolidate and assume the debt the states had yet to pay for fighting the American Revolution. Our country had a national debt before it was a country.



I like this guy.
 
Don't most libertarians vote Republican? Jes wonderin!

nah they vote libertarian

there are at least a couple people who claim to be liberarians on this board who are socialists who think you cannot be free unless the government funds all of your desires with the money of others.
 
nah they vote libertarian

there are at least a couple people who claim to be liberarians on this board who are socialists who think you cannot be free unless the government funds all of your desires with the money of others.

IDK about that.. I guess the real libertarians do, but a lot of republicans say they are libertarians and they're just Conservative-Republican. Like Glenn Beck.. he's isn't a libertarian. He is more of a neocon who's ashamed to admit it
 
Don't most libertarians vote Republican? Jes wonderin!
Most libertarians are more disgusted by most Republicans than the Democrats.
 
nah they vote libertarian

Oh, I could've sworn that ole Libertarian Rand Paul claims to be Libertarian, but runs on the Republican ticket? Hmmmmm, must be a different one, eh? Of course, we know that Rand Paul doesn't really embrace all of the libertarian policies, he just wants their votes.

there are at least a couple people who claim to be liberarians on this board who are socialists who think you cannot be free unless the government funds all of your desires with the money of others.
I don't know any of those. The Libs I know, most of them have money, but they don't mind paying extra so that those that are less fortunate can have food to eat.
I know most conservatives, don't give a damn about them, they want to keep their little earnings all to themselves, unless of course, they can donate to the big corporations. They're hoping some of it will eventually trickle down. Poor schmucks.
 
IDK about that.. I guess the real libertarians do, but a lot of republicans say they are libertarians and they're just Conservative-Republican. Like Glenn Beck.. he's isn't a libertarian. He is more of a neocon who's ashamed to admit it

this would be the Glen Beck who called for the impeachment of George W Bush?
 
I don't know any of those. The Libs I know, most of them have money, but they don't mind paying extra so that those that are less fortunate can have food to eat.
I know most conservatives, don't give a damn about them, they want to keep their little earnings all to themselves, unless of course, they can donate to the big corporations. They're hoping some of it will eventually trickle down. Poor schmucks.

the people you know evidently aren't very indicative of the population as a whole:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition...

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative...

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
 
the people you know evidently aren't very indicative of the population as a whole:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition...

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative...

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

I don't give to charity because I think most charities operate as a business instead. For example, donations to the Red Cross go to pay the salaries of administrators of that organization rather than to the actual cause.

Because of that, I only give to one charity. It's a local charity, and all the staff volunteer their time, which leaves more money to go to the actually charity work.
 
you think people making 200K a year are the very richest of the rich?

tax cuts don't need to be paid for

when you learn that fact you might be better able to argue economic points.

Where the did I use the figure $200K? Hallucinate much?

Thinking that "tax cuts pay for themselves" is the kind of absurd idiocy that has gotten us into this mess we are in. Regressives have learned nothing.
 
Only to those who don't have an answer.

How does cutting $Trillon$ of tax obligation on the very richest of the rich, without paying for it and getting us ass deep in TWO unnecessary wars put on a Chinese Credit Card equal responsible govening? You answer first.



1. when has the govt ever cut TRILLIONS of tax obligations on the very richest of rich (note, your saying so doesn't count as evidence)

2. what proof do you have that either of the two wars you are referring to are/were unnecessary (again, just saying so isn't evidence)

3. what proof do you have that any of the expense incurred was backed/financed by the Chinese?


making exaggerated claims without any evidence to back them up = meaningless hyperbole

uncola = epic fail :lol:

2.
 
1. when has the govt ever cut TRILLIONS of tax obligations on the very richest of rich (note, your saying so doesn't count as evidence)

2. what proof do you have that either of the two wars you are referring to are/were unnecessary (again, just saying so isn't evidence)

3. what proof do you have that any of the expense incurred was backed/financed by the Chinese?


making exaggerated claims without any evidence to back them up = meaningless hyperbole

uncola = epic fail :lol:

2.

um......china holds the majority of our debt.
 
um......china holds the majority of our debt.

and how does that answer, or give proof, to any of the 3 questions posed above? I say again, since it doesn't seem to be sinking in...your saying it doesn't make it so.

item #1, in and of itself, is enough to dismiss uncola's entire statement as hyperbole. the govt has never cut TRILLIONS of tax obligations from anyone.
 
1. when has the govt ever cut TRILLIONS of tax obligations on the very richest of rich (note, your saying so doesn't count as evidence)

2. what proof do you have that either of the two wars you are referring to are/were unnecessary (again, just saying so isn't evidence)

3. what proof do you have that any of the expense incurred was backed/financed by the Chinese?


making exaggerated claims without any evidence to back them up = meaningless hyperbole

uncola = epic fail :lol:

2.

Sidesteps don't count as answers.

Speaking of 'epic fails."
 
Sidesteps don't count as answers.

Speaking of 'epic fails."

what you FAIL to comprehend is that you can't answer ridiculous questions with a logical reasonable answer..

of course cutting trillions of $$$$ in tax obligations on the very richest of the rich would not be responsible govt. the problem with your arguement is that the govt has never done so. hence your arguement is meaningless hyperbole.


of course getting involved in unnecessary wars is not responsible govt. yet again, you FAIL to provide any proof that the wars are/were unnecessary

ONE MORE TIME.....making exaggerated claims without providing any supporting evidence is meaningless hyperbole

question: do you still beat your wife?
 
what you FAIL to comprehend is that you can't answer ridiculous questions with a logical reasonable answer..

of course cutting trillions of $$$$ in tax obligations on the very richest of the rich would not be responsible govt. the problem with your arguement is that the govt has never done so. hence your arguement is meaningless hyperbole.


of course getting involved in unnecessary wars is not responsible govt. yet again, you FAIL to provide any proof that the wars are/were unnecessary

ONE MORE TIME.....making exaggerated claims without providing any supporting evidence is meaningless hyperbole

question: do you still beat your wife?

Get back to me should you ever choose to answer, diversions are boring and lame.
 
Get back to me should you ever choose to answer, diversions are boring and lame.

read the post, I did answer your question.

now, you tell me when the govt ever cut TRILLIONS of tax obligations from anyone. and you are correct...diversions are boring and lame.

still beating the wife?
 
But boy, doesn't it help to raise the debt ceiling in order to finance newer, unfunded liabilities? I'm sure having the power to mint coin and print money helps as well.
a nonargument, but what the hell, you have earned it.
We can agree on the expensive, unnecessary wars. However, cutting taxes is a GOOD thing (which is why JFK did it in the early 1960s). I never heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity.
it has become almost a cliche among conservatives to cite kennedy's cuts. But, remember, kennedy was cutting taxes while the ecomomy was strong and no real threat was looming... aside from the emerging conflict in S.E. Asia. It was the increasing cost (among other considerations) that many who knew him insist, that compelled him to start looking for a way OUT of V.N. Too, there were other considerations.... an election loomed:
Although certain influential business interests, not surprisingly, got behind the cuts, the projected federal deficit of nearly $12 billion still encountered resistance in Congress, though not enough to prevent enactment early in 1964, an election year.

JFK never lived to do forestall the crippling of the economy that the war caused ... and johnson... well...
economists proved less persuasive when they recommended tax hikes during the early Vietnam buildup under Johnson than they had when they had proposed tax cuts, which suggests that it was not just the intellectual merits of their case that was compelling but the politics of it.
Other domestic policies - John F. Kennedy - policy, election

and... the historical view of JFK's cuts is not all that rosy. yes, there was considerable expansion in the economy, but not necessarily to the benefit of Mack from Hackensack. Corporations are those that benefited most in the long term.

Kennedy was in something of a bind at the time. His economic advisors all advised against it and most economists thought it a bad idea. The outcome shows why:
Retrospectively, the Kennedy-initiated tax cuts have been viewed variously as triumphs of modern economic analysis and rational, technically based public policy or as the beginning of the end of fiscal responsibility and the start of an inflationary spiral.
dunno where you were in the 70's, but.... i know where i stand on that question. sorry.... i will have to return to the remainder later... off to work.
geo.
 
Don't most libertarians vote Republican? Jes wonderin!

We vote with the republicans largely on the economic issues, while we vote with the democrats largely on the civil liberty issues and foreign policy.

Sometimes, we're faced against both parties because sometimes both parties act as one (which is why I prefaced the above statement with the word "largely").

Classical liberalism is probably a better term to describe the kind of libertarian that I am. Originally, libertarianism came from the socialist-left of French politics. The kind of libertarianism we often see in America is actually the remnants of classical liberalism.

With that said, these classical liberals are the most consistent political party in terms of staying true to the ideas of individual rights and private property. And we recognize the incredible urgency to connect these two concepts together. Because you can't have one without the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom