Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can incorrectly call that a truth all you want to, but it doesn't make it one.Sounds nice and I'm sure it sells well with the "pass the buck" generation.
But the truth is, while tax cuts have inevitably lead to trillions in debt, our economy has shown no significant correlation in terms of lower taxes and better economic growth. If anything, the opposite is the case.
So, no thinks. While I can see the argument for temporary fiscal stimulus for the recession (and the stimulus bill does in fact contain hundreds of billions in tax relief) in the long term creating more debt is not better for the country.
We need to raise revenues, not cut them.
Somehow, our country managed to function just fine when the top tax rate was 91% in the 1950s and 70% in the 1960s. In fact, it was doing a lot better then than it did in the 00s with the tax cuts.
Debt is created by spending money you don't have. Key word is spending.
If I had to take a 50% cut in pay, but kept spending as if I didn't, then I would end up in debt to.
Ah, another graduate of the Limbaugh school of economics:
Limbaugh Principles of Economics 101.
(Liberals and other thinking people, please first take copious amounts of barbituates before continuing, otherwise there is no hope of any of the following making sense to you.)
1. Deficits = spending. Revenues are irrelevant. A surplus therefore cannot exist, since spending cannot be negative. That explains why there was no surplus under Clinton. See point 4.
2. Cutting taxes increases govt revenues (even though they are irrelevant see point 1). Thus, by lowering the tax rate to .0001%, the Govt will have quadrillions in tax revenues. Not that it would matter.
3. Higher tax rates do not increase revenues (which are irrelevant, see point 1) but do cause slower growth. The 1950s and 1960s and during Clinton when tax rates were higher and growth was stronger, and the 00s and during Reagan/Bush1 when taxes were lower but growth was subpar, are just anomolies to this undisputed rule.
4. Clinton never had a surplus. It's all a myth. There is no such thing. Even though all the Government records say he did. See point 1. Because if we acknolwedge that he did, it blows all our other BS out of the water.
There will be a test on this next Monday. Mountainman, you're excused as you've demonstrated superior knowledge of the principles.
The simple and unavoidable fact is that there is infinite money chasing finite assets. If we can just print more money when we feel we need to, all we're doing is creating too much money that can never be expected to remain tied up in a particular asset that is becoming too inflated.
You are knocking investors because they get scared and pull money out of an asset that appears to be approaching unsustainability, when that very action is the smartest move one could make. Expecting an asset to rise in value infinitely is ridiculous, and therefore pulling your hard earned money out of it when the tipping point is approaching is what a smart person does.
What you are referring to as a free market is nothing even CLOSE to one. When the medium of exchange is controlled by something other than merely the people who use it, there is not, nor can there ever be, a "free market".
Our market is subject to the daily decisions of really only a select few people, we're jsut "lucky" enough to participate in it.
You can incorrectly call that a truth all you want to, but it doesn't make it one.
Debt is created by spending money you don't have. Key word is spending.
If I had to take a 50% cut in pay, but kept spending as if I didn't, then I would end up in debt to.
Ah, another graduate of the Limbaugh school of economics:
Limbaugh Principles of Economics 101.
(Liberals and other thinking people, please first take copious amounts of barbituates before continuing, otherwise there is no hope of any of the following making sense to you.)
1. Deficits = spending. Revenues are irrelevant. A surplus therefore cannot exist, since spending cannot be negative. That explains why there was no surplus under Clinton. See point 4.
2. Cutting taxes increases govt revenues (even though they are irrelevant see point 1). Thus, by lowering the tax rate to .0001%, the Govt will have quadrillions in tax revenues. Not that it would matter.
3. Higher tax rates do not increase revenues (which are irrelevant, see point 1) but do cause slower growth. The 1950s and 1960s and during Clinton when tax rates were higher and growth was stronger, and the 00s and during Reagan/Bush1 when taxes were lower but growth was subpar, are just anomolies to this undisputed rule.
4. Clinton never had a surplus. It's all a myth. There is no such thing. Even though all the Government records say he did. See point 1. Because if we acknolwedge that he did, it blows all our other BS out of the water.
There will be a test on this next Monday. Mountainman, you're excused as you've demonstrated superior knowledge of the principles.
I don't know who Limbaugh is, but point #1 is incorrect, it states, Deficits = spending.
Obviously a fallacy, as debt = spending more than you have. If i have a dollar, and I spend a dollar, then I'm not in debt. I don't reach debt until I spend more than the dollar I have. Your attempt at creating a strawman argument has failed you, because I said nothing even remotely similar to what you are presenting.
You thought THIS bubble was bad, wait until the NEXT one happens. It's not just us who are printing money with reckless abandon. Every central bank in the world has debased its currency and printed in massive amounts, the next bubble is going to be international on a level that none of us can probably even contemplate.
We've been off the gold standard for 40 years. We've had a few boom and bust periods during that time. The fed initially focused on employment and was too loose with money, and we had inflation. Carter appointed Volcker who cracked down, caused a sharp recession in 82, but licked inflation.
In the early 80s we had the S&L thing and a bubble in the oil patch. In the 80s we had a over speculation bubble in the stock market and black Monday. In the early 90s we had a mild recession when oil spiked with the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Late 90s another over speculation bubble in the stock market as people got greedy with tech stocks. 00s it was real estate, juiced with trillions of loans for shoddy mortgages investers thought they had diversified the risk from.
It's a cycle. Sometimes its worse sometimes its not, but there's been no pattern of worsening "bubbles."
Why would you think the next inevitable over speculation will be worse?
You thought THIS bubble was bad, wait until the NEXT one happens. It's not just us who are printing money with reckless abandon. Every central bank in the world has debased its currency and printed in massive amounts, the next bubble is going to be international on a level that none of us can probably even contemplate.
We've been off the gold standard for 40 years. We've had a few boom and bust periods during that time. The fed initially focused on employment and was too loose with money, and we had inflation. Carter appointed Volcker who cracked down, caused a sharp recession in 82, but licked inflation.
In the early 80s we had the S&L thing and a bubble in the oil patch. In the 80s we had a over speculation bubble in the stock market and black Monday. In the early 90s we had a mild recession when oil spiked with the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Late 90s another over speculation bubble in the stock market as people got greedy with tech stocks. 00s it was real estate, juiced with trillions of loans for shoddy mortgages investers thought they had diversified the risk from.
It's a cycle. Sometimes its worse sometimes its not, but there's been no pattern of worsening "bubbles."
Why would you think the next inevitable over speculation will be worse?
Look at the Fed's M2 data. Never before has the monetary base been that high. When these banks do what everyone is hoping for them to do, which is lend, what do you think is going to happen to all that new money? There's already something like 5 trillion dollars waiting on the sidelines. Do you think THIS time around it's going to be diversified responsibly? No, because like you said, people are going to get greedy with it. So the last thing you want to do is give them even MORE money to get greedy with.
When prices hit their correction point, and people decide to start spending and investing again, we'll come out of the recession. There's plenty of money in the private sector already to sustain prosperity. We don't need the central bank printing more money simply because the smarter people who realize there's no good current reason to spend or invest what they have, aren't doing so.
Those who aren't spending are the SMART ones, whether you're willing to believe it or not. It's never WRONG to get out of an asset. Those who were lucky enough to have gotten out before the correction, were probably the smarter ones. Those who stayed in hoping prices would rise to infinity, were the dumb ones. History has proven MULTIPLE times already that an asset's value can only go so high. It's psychology. When people think there's too much inflation in value, they get out.
I'm not really sure what your beef is with that.
I'd take getting out too early ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, over staying in too long.
Erring on the side of caution is what I would refer to as smart. Your friend who missed the opportunity was far better off then those who stayed in the tech bubble for too long and lost EVERYTHING. You shouldn't be investing in the stock market if you haven't done your homework on how to smell a bubble. History is always your best guide.
We are taking our medicine now!
And that's why the Govt is $11 trillion in debt. The right won't compromise on taxes and the left won't compromise on spending. So the govt panders and does both. And the right is fine because they'd rather run up debt than pay more taxes. And the left is fine because they get their programs.
And our children and grandchildren get fucked, as those at the tea parties were lamanted while at the same time screeching "don't raise my taxes"!
We have no one to blame but ourselves the pass the buck generation. But the future will not judge us kindly I don't think.
No, we're not taking our medicine now because the government is trying to reflate the bubble and set us up for a bigger bust down the road.
That's why I voted for Ron Paul, the one who came out and had concrete ideas as to cutting spending.
That's why I voted for Clinton, the only one who had a concrete ideas to balance the budget.
You can incorrectly call that a truth all you want to, but it doesn't make it one.Sounds nice and I'm sure it sells well with the "pass the buck" generation.
But the truth is, while tax cuts have inevitably lead to trillions in debt, our economy has shown no significant correlation in terms of lower taxes and better economic growth. If anything, the opposite is the case.
So, no thinks. While I can see the argument for temporary fiscal stimulus for the recession (and the stimulus bill does in fact contain hundreds of billions in tax relief) in the long term creating more debt is not better for the country.
We need to raise revenues, not cut them.
Somehow, our country managed to function just fine when the top tax rate was 91% in the 1950s and 70% in the 1960s. In fact, it was doing a lot better then than it did in the 00s with the tax cuts.
Debt is created by spending money you don't have. Key word is spending.
If I had to take a 50% cut in pay, but kept spending as if I didn't, then I would end up in debt to.
Ah, another graduate of the Limbaugh school of economics:
Limbaugh Principles of Economics 101.
(Liberals and other thinking people, please first take copious amounts of barbituates before continuing, otherwise there is no hope of any of the following making sense to you.)
1. Deficits = spending. Revenues are irrelevant. A surplus therefore cannot exist, since spending cannot be negative. That explains why there was no surplus under Clinton. See point 4.
2. Cutting taxes increases govt revenues (even though they are irrelevant see point 1). Thus, by lowering the tax rate to .0001%, the Govt will have quadrillions in tax revenues. Not that it would matter.
3. Higher tax rates do not increase revenues (which are irrelevant, see point 1) but do cause slower growth. The 1950s and 1960s and during Clinton when tax rates were higher and growth was stronger, and the 00s and during Reagan/Bush1 when taxes were lower but growth was subpar, are just anomolies to this undisputed rule.
4. Clinton never had a surplus. It's all a myth. There is no such thing. Even though all the Government records say he did. See point 1. Because if we acknolwedge that he did, it blows all our other BS out of the water.
There will be a test on this next Monday. Mountainman, you're excused as you've demonstrated superior knowledge of the principles.
No, we're not taking our medicine now because the government is trying to reflate the bubble and set us up for a bigger bust down the road.
That's why I voted for Ron Paul, the one who came out and had concrete ideas as to cutting spending.
That's why I voted for Clinton, the only one who had a concrete ideas to balance the budget.
That's hilarious. If you think for one second Clinton wouldn't be doing the same things Obama is doing you're delusional.
For a balanced budget you need to have looked no further than Ron Paul.
You can incorrectly call that a truth all you want to, but it doesn't make it one.
Debt is created by spending money you don't have. Key word is spending.
If I had to take a 50% cut in pay, but kept spending as if I didn't, then I would end up in debt to.
Ah, another graduate of the Limbaugh school of economics:
Limbaugh Principles of Economics 101.
(Liberals and other thinking people, please first take copious amounts of barbituates before continuing, otherwise there is no hope of any of the following making sense to you.)
1. Deficits = spending. Revenues are irrelevant. A surplus therefore cannot exist, since spending cannot be negative. That explains why there was no surplus under Clinton. See point 4.
2. Cutting taxes increases govt revenues (even though they are irrelevant see point 1). Thus, by lowering the tax rate to .0001%, the Govt will have quadrillions in tax revenues. Not that it would matter.
3. Higher tax rates do not increase revenues (which are irrelevant, see point 1) but do cause slower growth. The 1950s and 1960s and during Clinton when tax rates were higher and growth was stronger, and the 00s and during Reagan/Bush1 when taxes were lower but growth was subpar, are just anomolies to this undisputed rule.
4. Clinton never had a surplus. It's all a myth. There is no such thing. Even though all the Government records say he did. See point 1. Because if we acknolwedge that he did, it blows all our other BS out of the water.
There will be a test on this next Monday. Mountainman, you're excused as you've demonstrated superior knowledge of the principles.
There was no surplus under Clinton because he stole money out of the Social Security fund to create the "surplus." That's not a surplus, that's theft. Could I go rob some guy on the street for his wallet and tell the judge I was trying to create a surplus?
That's why I voted for Clinton, the only one who had a concrete ideas to balance the budget.
That's hilarious. If you think for one second Clinton wouldn't be doing the same things Obama is doing you're delusional.
For a balanced budget you need to have looked no further than Ron Paul.
We have enough whackos in the country without one running it.
That's hilarious. If you think for one second Clinton wouldn't be doing the same things Obama is doing you're delusional.
For a balanced budget you need to have looked no further than Ron Paul.
We have enough whackos in the country without one running it.
So the person who would have actually balanced the budgets is a "whacko?"
I'll take it one step further, if the government has a surplus, then that means they've taxed people too much, if the government has debt, then that means they've spent too much.Ah, another graduate of the Limbaugh school of economics:
Limbaugh Principles of Economics 101.
(Liberals and other thinking people, please first take copious amounts of barbituates before continuing, otherwise there is no hope of any of the following making sense to you.)
1. Deficits = spending. Revenues are irrelevant. A surplus therefore cannot exist, since spending cannot be negative. That explains why there was no surplus under Clinton. See point 4.
2. Cutting taxes increases govt revenues (even though they are irrelevant see point 1). Thus, by lowering the tax rate to .0001%, the Govt will have quadrillions in tax revenues. Not that it would matter.
3. Higher tax rates do not increase revenues (which are irrelevant, see point 1) but do cause slower growth. The 1950s and 1960s and during Clinton when tax rates were higher and growth was stronger, and the 00s and during Reagan/Bush1 when taxes were lower but growth was subpar, are just anomolies to this undisputed rule.
4. Clinton never had a surplus. It's all a myth. There is no such thing. Even though all the Government records say he did. See point 1. Because if we acknolwedge that he did, it blows all our other BS out of the water.
There will be a test on this next Monday. Mountainman, you're excused as you've demonstrated superior knowledge of the principles.
I don't know who Limbaugh is, but point #1 is incorrect, it states, Deficits = spending.
Obviously a fallacy, as debt = spending more than you have. If i have a dollar, and I spend a dollar, then I'm not in debt. I don't reach debt until I spend more than the dollar I have. Your attempt at creating a strawman argument has failed you, because I said nothing even remotely similar to what you are presenting.
Sorry I'm being smart-assed, I can't help it some times. But I've seen these kinds of things so often and its what you hear on the Murdoch outlets.
So let's start with the basics and see if we can have a discussion.
A deficit or surplus for the Govt is a function of revenues and expenditures. If expenditures exceed revenues, the Govt has a deficit. If revenues exceed expenditures, the Govt has a surplus.
Are you with me so far?
I'll take it one step further, if the government has a surplus, then that means they've taxed people too much, if the government has debt, then that means they've spent too much.I don't know who Limbaugh is, but point #1 is incorrect, it states, Deficits = spending.
Obviously a fallacy, as debt = spending more than you have. If i have a dollar, and I spend a dollar, then I'm not in debt. I don't reach debt until I spend more than the dollar I have. Your attempt at creating a strawman argument has failed you, because I said nothing even remotely similar to what you are presenting.
Sorry I'm being smart-assed, I can't help it some times. But I've seen these kinds of things so often and its what you hear on the Murdoch outlets.
So let's start with the basics and see if we can have a discussion.
A deficit or surplus for the Govt is a function of revenues and expenditures. If expenditures exceed revenues, the Govt has a deficit. If revenues exceed expenditures, the Govt has a surplus.
Are you with me so far?
Occasional minor government deficit spending is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that the government can eliminate that debt in a short period of time. I believe we've crossed the threshold that is the point of no return. We can't spend our way out of debt, and the government seems to be the only entity that thinks it can.
Yes, we need to raise revenues, but spending billions in stimulus bills will not do that. The Stimulus bill provided temporary relief in the form of Green and Infrastuructural jobs. Now uou have Obama saying he'll slash the deficit in half by the end of his first term, yet what does go and do next? He proposes a $3 TRILLION budget, which would kick us to a budget deficit of $1 TRILLION. WTF??Sounds nice and I'm sure it sells well with the "pass the buck" generation.
But the truth is, while tax cuts have inevitably lead to trillions in debt, our economy has shown no significant correlation in terms of lower taxes and better economic growth. If anything, the opposite is the case.
So, no thinks. While I can see the argument for temporary fiscal stimulus for the recession (and the stimulus bill does in fact contain hundreds of billions in tax relief) in the long term creating more debt is not better for the country.
We need to raise revenues, not cut them.
Yes, we need to raise revenues, but spending billions in stimulus bills will not do that. The Stimulus bill provided temporary relief in the form of Green and Infrastuructural jobs. Now uou have Obama saying he'll slash the deficit in half by the end of his first term, yet what does go and do next? He proposes a $3 TRILLION budget, which would kick us to a budget deficit of $1 TRILLION. WTF??Sounds nice and I'm sure it sells well with the "pass the buck" generation.
But the truth is, while tax cuts have inevitably lead to trillions in debt, our economy has shown no significant correlation in terms of lower taxes and better economic growth. If anything, the opposite is the case.
So, no thinks. While I can see the argument for temporary fiscal stimulus for the recession (and the stimulus bill does in fact contain hundreds of billions in tax relief) in the long term creating more debt is not better for the country.
We need to raise revenues, not cut them.
Tax cuts are the only solution. It raises revenue by putting money into people's pockets, including that of businesses. Before Bush had to start saving the damn banks, the budget deficit situation was improving.
How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" right after espousing the so-called "tax cuts" in the stimulus? There may be some sort of tax cuts in the stimulus, but I have to ask how the stimulus itself is going to be paid for? Taxation. The government doesn't just have hundreds of billions of dollars sitting around waiting to be used on something.
What we need are tax cuts and significant spending cuts.
