Economics

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be serious or not. Do you want to make debt illegal?

Republicans have introduced 30 BBA's since Jefferson's to make debt illegal! Liberals killed them all.

 

[Dad2three]

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

Republicans want to make debt illegal!!

LMAOROG


I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.


Never in the history of this country have we started a war, let alone two wars and cut taxes. Until......................


Republicans are always the biggest spenders when they have control of the Federal Government; the spend hundreds of billions in corporate welfare by borrowing the money from China to do it.

 

[Rshermr]

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

Republicans want to make debt illegal!!

Now, now, ed. I keep asking you to stop lying. The national debt has increased way more under Republican presidents than under democratic presidents.
No politician wants no new debt, dipshit. Cmon, try something with a semblance of truth, at least.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does this mean you're not concerned with the debt/GDP ratio anymore since you don't like how GDP is calculated?

what the govt spends the more efficient private sector does not so there is a net loss to GDP which explains why East Germany and 128 others had such low GDPs and such high govt spending.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be serious or not. Do you want to make debt illegal?

Republicans have introduced 30 BBA's since Jefferson's to make debt illegal! Liberals killed them all.

lol, You NEED to grow a brain. How many bills has Ron Paul 'introduced'? IT'S CALLED GOVERNANCE, when the GOP is in charge, they don't do what they promised, except for the 1%ers of course!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No politician wants no new debt, dipshit.

of course if that was true liberals would not oppose a BBA to make debt illegal. isn't thinking fun?

 

[JimmieD]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be serious or not. Do you want to make debt illegal?

Republicans have introduced 30 BBA's since Jefferson's to make debt illegal! Liberals killed them all.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that you're correct (though I don't believe you've read all 30 BBA's [if 30 is the correct number] to determine their actual concents), why should we make government debt illegal?

And it's good to see you've completely abandoned your debt/GDP argument at this point. It was a circular to begin with.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, when the GOP is in charge,

a party is never in charge unless it has big majority in Congress, White HOuse, SCOTUS, press and people. CHeck out Constitution. This explains why Obama did not propose single payer and why NEwt could not pass his BBA. Do you understand now?

 

[Dad2three]

No politician wants no new debt, dipshit.

of course if that was true liberals would not oppose a BBA to make debt illegal. isn't thinking fun?

Balanced Budget Amendment, or Bogus Blather for America

There is nothing quite so dangerous as a proposal clad in the verbiage of “common sense,”

#1. A balanced budget amendment is NOT making the government run like a family or small business budget. The Republican notion would have “outlays” equal revenues. While this sounds like what small businesses and families might do, no families and small businesses actually DO this. If they did there would be no small businesses with a line of credit from their bankers to cover the gap in the timing between when payroll must be met or suppliers paid before accounts receivable come in. If families did this there would be no home mortgages, no credit cards, no student loans, and no automobile loans.



#3. A balanced budget amendment does not insure fiscal responsibility. Remember how the Bush Administration accounted for the operational expenses for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Administration simply didn’t put the military expenses in the budget, instead opting to categorize them as “emergency” or “supplemental.” Expect more of this if a balanced budget amendment is ever enacted.


#4. A balanced budget amendment is like trying to steer your car using only the rear view mirror. Budgets are built on projections


There are more explanations as to why the Balanced Budget Amendment idea is unbalanced, and the following articles are recommended reading:


Balanced Budget Amendment, or Bogus Blather for America | Desert Beacon

 

[Dad2three]

, when the GOP is in charge,

a party is never in charge unless it has big majority in Congress, White HOuse, SCOTUS, press and people. CHeck out Constitution. This explains why Obama did not propose single payer and why NEwt could not pass his BBA. Do you understand now?

REALLY? WHY do you continually truncate a persons comment to invalidate the INTENT AND CONTENT of the comment? Grow up and grow brain



BUT YOU BLAME OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING AFTER WRITING YOUR COMMENT? *shaking head*

 

[Rshermr]

No politician wants no new debt, dipshit.

of course if that was true liberals would not oppose a BBA to make debt illegal. isn't thinking fun?

Me poor ignorant con tool, bba's are brought forward by repubs all the time with their knowledge that they will not pass. Their trying to destroy the aca act has been the subject of at least that many republican bills, all with the knowledge that the bba would fail. And with the full knowledge that they were simply wasting the time of congress and insulting the intelligence of the american people. (Not in your case, of course, since you have no intelligence) In the case of no new debt, they not only do not expect the bba to pass, they know it will not and would vote against it if they had to. All theater, me poor ignorant con. What matters, me boy, is what they do and not what they say. Hell, even your great hero, r. Reagan TRIPLED the national debt, by creating more new debt than all presidents in the history of the US up until reagan's term.
Get a grip, me boy. AND STOP LYING.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why should we make government debt illegal?

then liberal govt has to raise taxes and expose the true cost of their failing programs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Me poor ignorant con tool, bba's are brought forward by repubs all the time with thier knowledge that they will not pass.

of course they would pass if liberals would support them. Newts passed HOuse and fell one vote short in Senate. Do you know which party killed it?

 

[Rshermr]

Me poor ignorant con tool, bba's are brought forward by repubs all the time with thier knowledge that they will not pass.

of course they would pass if liberals would support them. Newts passed HOuse and fell one vote short in Senate. Do you know which party killed it?

Makes no difference, me poor ignorant con tool. The whip of both parties knew it would fail. If it needed repub votes to fail, they would have gotten them.
By the way, apparently you admit that r. Reagan, your heroe, borrowed more money than all presidents before him. So you are saying he was a liberal???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

perhaps you would like to tell us the downside of the national debt.

1) it enables liberals to fund failed programs that they use to buy votes

2) it make govt bigger thus slows economic growth

3) it forces us to pay interest or waste money on failed programs on which there is a negative return

 

[JimmieD]

why should we make government debt illegal?

then liberal govt has to raise taxes and expose the true cost of their failing programs.

Revenues could also increase from a growing economy. Recent indications are this is actually happening too. If trends continue, the government will be in the black within a few years.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The whip of both parties knew it would fail.

which could be said of any bill, silly goose. Its didn't fail in House and fell one vote short in Senate.

 

[Rshermr]

perhaps you would like to tell us the downside of the national debt.

1) it enables liberals to fund failed programs that they use to buy votes

2) it make govt bigger thus slows economic growth

3) it forces us to pay interest or waste money on failed programs on which there is a negative return

So ed, the consumate con tool, says the following in explaining the national debt problem (in his puny little mind):

1) it enables liberals to fund failed programs that they use to buy votes

Ah, but repubs have historically backed more programs than dems. So, repub programs are ok, just dem programs are bad? Really, dipshit, that does not pass the giggle test.

2) it make govt bigger thus slows economic growth

Right. We know you are a libertarian, since you admit it. So you support no gov at all, essentially. Got it. Any proof that bigger gov slows economic growth. Now remember, your hero, r. reagan, increased the size of the gov and the economy grew faster than in most administrations, and much faster than it did when he decreased taxes in 1981 and created a recession. Really, me boy, you are way over your head. You can not show a time ever when increasing the size of the gov slowed economic growth.

3) it forces us to pay interest or waste money on failed programs on which there is a negative return

Pay interest, yes. Even your hero r. reagan, who (now pay attention if it is possible for you) tripled the national debt, found it was better to pay more interest and stimulate the economy. Way beyond you, I know.
And yes, we should go out and tear up those roads, and eliminate the military. All failed programs with negative returns.

You are way over your head, me boy, and again making no sense. I am afraid I need to put you back on ignore.

 

[Rshermr]

. The whip of both parties knew it would fail.

which could be said of any bill, silly goose. Its didn't fail in House and fell one vote short in Senate.

Which means, silly goose, it FAILED. Makes no difference if it passed the house. Because the bill did not pass, and ended up in the waste basket of history. As the repubs knew it would.
It is kind of like a libertarian country. You can theorize all you want, But in fact they ALWAYS fail and do not exist. Which makes you an idiot who backs a socioeconomic system that has never and will never exist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, it FAILED. Makes no difference if it passed the house.

of course it makes a difference. Many libs tried and failed with healthcare, for example, until Barry struck pay dirt building on the long long slow ascension of liberalism. Feel silly now?