Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[AntonToo]

Communes not Corporations !!!!!! Lmfao

Retard stop spamming.

 

[sakinago]

You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

 

[AntonToo]

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

Nice story. Little to do with reality.

Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.

For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.

If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.

 

[sakinago]

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

Nice story. Little to do with reality.

Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.

For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.

If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.

Did you really just type that?

So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?

 

[AntonToo]

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

Nice story. Little to do with reality.

Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.

For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.

If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.

Did you really just type that?

So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?

Where did I say NEVER? Read again and pay attention to words "for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off)"

As to the answer to the question WHEN? that much no one really knows.

 

[sakinago]

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

Nice story. Little to do with reality.

Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.

For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.

If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.

Did you really just type that?

So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?

Where did I say NEVER? Read again and pay attention to words "for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off)"

As to the answer to the question WHEN? that much no one really knows.

Wrong the question is still who, and it always has the same answer

 

[AntonToo]

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

Nice story. Little to do with reality.

Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.

For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.

If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.

Did you really just type that?

So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?

Where did I say NEVER? Read again and pay attention to words "for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off)"

As to the answer to the question WHEN? that much no one really knows.

Wrong the question is still who, and it always has the same answer

Ok answer simple question:

Who paid for the Iraq war? Did this spending increase or decrease our GDP over the last decade?

The answer is no one. Not only were the taxes not raised we actually got a TAX-CUT during this war. This spending and tax-cuts were on borrowed debt and both have so far expanded economy.

 

[sakinago]

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

Nice story. Little to do with reality.

Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.

For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.

If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.

Did you really just type that?

So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?

Where did I say NEVER? Read again and pay attention to words "for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off)"

As to the answer to the question WHEN? that much no one really knows.

Wrong the question is still who, and it always has the same answer

Ok answer simple question:

Who paid for the Iraq war? Did this spending increase or decrease our GDP over the last decade?

The answer is no one. Not only were the taxes not raised we actually got a TAX-CUT during this war. This spending and tax-cuts were on borrowed debt and both have so far expanded economy.

No the correct answer is...we still have to pay for it. If I buy something on a credit card, I'm still paying for it, plus interest. Just because I haven't paid for it at the moment, does not mean that I will not be footing the bill, that is not how debt works. And no you cannot say that, that spending is what grew out economy, the economy should always be growing with increased population and immigration. And have we been growing the economy in the past 14 years? Sure, but we've slown down a lot. American workers have not seen a raise in wages in 15 years despite increasing inflation, small business formation is now at a negative rate for the first time in like 50 years. And we have not been growing our GDP at a rate of over 5% in the last 10 years, despite growth demographically from birth rate and immigration legal or otherwise. And if the governments military spending was really helping grow GDP, we should all be fine and dandy since we've been at war for 15 freaking years.

What you're trying to describe is called helicopter money, and it only really works once, and it does not at all provide long term growth, why? Because the first time money falls into our lap from the metaphorical government helicopter, we'll sometimes go out and spend it on things we would not have bought before...the second time it happens, we turn around and either save the money or pay off debt, because we do not known when it will happen again, and what will make it happen, and many other variables that cause us to be "smart" with the money. This kills the velocity of money (velocity meaning how many hands does money move to). Which is why the Feds 0% interest rates are not working, since companies receiving QE and 0% interest rate loans from the fed are getting essentially free money, instead of investing and expanding business, they are turning around a dumping it right back into their own stocks, BC it's free freaking money, and that's a sure way to make money without having to take a risk. Now, is that practice actually growing and expanding our economy, or is it just inflating the stock market?

 

[danielpalos]

? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

It depends on the public policies. Promoting the general welfare should involve an investment in the general welfare that produces a multiplier effect on our economy.

 

[sakinago]

No they're separate.

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

It depends on the public policies. Promoting the general welfare should involve an investment in the general welfare that produces a multiplier effect on our economy.

Like the fed with 0% interest rates and QE

 

[danielpalos]

Lol what? How are they separate?

When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?

You are floating half-baked ideas.

It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.

Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.

It depends on the public policies. Promoting the general welfare should involve an investment in the general welfare that produces a multiplier effect on our economy.

Like the fed with 0% interest rates and QE

The rich got their bailout, and we didn't have another, Great Depression.

 

[eagle1462010]

GAO Fed Investigation

The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report: GAO Fed Investigation

Citigroup – $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley – $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch – $1.949 trillion
Bank of America – $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC – $868 billion
Bear Sterns – $853 billion
Goldman Sachs – $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland – $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase – $391 billion
Deutsche Bank – $354 billion
UBS – $287 billion
Credit Suisse – $262 billion
Lehman Brothers – $183 billion
Bank of Scotland – $181 billion
BNP Paribas – $175 billion
Wells Fargo – $159 billion
Dexia – $159 billion
Wachovia – $142 billion
Dresdner Bank – $135 billion
Societe Generale – $124 billion
“All Other Borrowers” – $2.639 trillion

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't it wonderful when you can hire entire departments to help you conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate, and take a tax write off for that labor cost.