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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
are you aware that this nation has NEVER been out of debt?
geo.
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.
You're speaking with a libertarian and not a republican.
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.
Most libertarians are more disgusted by most Republicans than the Democrats.Don't most libertarians vote Republican? Jes wonderin!
nah they vote libertarian
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.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
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.
this would be the Glen Beck who called for the impeachment of George W Bush?
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.
non-sequitor. meaningless hyperbole
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.
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.
um......china holds the majority of our debt.
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."
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.
a nonargument, but what the hell, you have earned it.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.
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: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.
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.
Other domestic policies - John F. Kennedy - policy, electioneconomists 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.
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.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.
Don't most libertarians vote Republican? Jes wonderin!
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?