Fewer Taxes for Real Economic Stimulus

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Taxes are the issue this week as Americans struggle to make the April 15th deadline to file their returns. It is a good time to contemplate the effects of big government and what it does to our country. The income tax is one of the most egregious encroachments on our liberties today. It is a form of involuntary servitude, which was supposed to have been outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Tax Freedom Day is defined as the day when the nation as a whole has theoretically earned enough income to fund its annual federal tax burden. For all of the days of the year before this day, you are a slave to government. For 2009, Tax Freedom Day will come on April 13th. Almost a century ago in 1910, before the mistakes of 1913-namely the inception of the Federal Reserve and our current income tax, Tax Freedom Day was January 19th, signifying a mere 5% tax burden. Somehow, our country functioned just fine.

Congressman Ron Paul - Fewer Taxes for Real Economic Stimulus - Texas Straight Talk

 

[Iriemon]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

The exception being the argument for fiscal stimulus in an recessionj economy of fear and panic where no one is spending.

I agree the stimulation is paid for with taxes. I also agree that because of the $11 trillion Republican debt using stimulus now is more problematic.

What we need are tax cuts and significant spending cuts.

How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The exception being the argument for fiscal stimulus in an recessionj economy of fear and panic where no one is spending.

I agree the stimulation is paid for with taxes. I also agree that because of the $11 trillion Republican debt using stimulus now is more problematic.

What we need are tax cuts and significant spending cuts.

How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

Ahh the "Paradox of Thrift." If no one is spending then that means they're saving, and that means there's more demand for future goods as opposed to present goods. If the government steps in with stimulus then it creates a bubble in present goods that is going to pop.

Calling it the Republican debt is disingenuous. I prefer the "$11 trillion Republicrat debt."

There will only be bigger deficits if we continue to spend recklessly. We need to significantly cut spending.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

The exception being the argument for fiscal stimulus in an recessionj economy of fear and panic where no one is spending.

I agree the stimulation is paid for with taxes. I also agree that because of the $11 trillion Republican debt using stimulus now is more problematic.

What we need are tax cuts and significant spending cuts.

How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

Ahh the "Paradox of Thrift." If no one is spending then that means they're saving, and that means there's more demand for future goods as opposed to present goods. If the government steps in with stimulus then it creates a bubble in present goods that is going to pop.

That also means there's no demand for current goods, and then more layoffs, more fear, less spending, less money ... etc. Add in a credit market frozen with crappy assets and you have a recipe for a disaster.

So I guess the question is when your caught on an outgoing tide, do you sit back and watch the boat float out to sea, or paddle like hell and worry about if you will hit the dock later?

Calling it the Republican debt is disingenuous. I prefer the "$11 trillion Republicrat debt."

The debt was $1 trillion when Reagan took office and $11 trillion when Bush2 left. Republican policies of tax cuts and military buildups and wars ran up this debt. It did go up $1.6T while Clinton was in office, but he inhereted a $340 B deficit and we had a surplus when he left. So I personally don't hold him much responsible for it.

IMO it's fair to call it the Republican debt. Obama may change that, however, depending how he does over time.

There will only be bigger deficits if we continue to spend recklessly. We need to significantly cut spending.

You didn't address my qeustion:

How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

And if we increase revenues, won't there be smaller deficits?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The exception being the argument for fiscal stimulus in an recessionj economy of fear and panic where no one is spending.

I agree the stimulation is paid for with taxes. I also agree that because of the $11 trillion Republican debt using stimulus now is more problematic.



How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

Ahh the "Paradox of Thrift." If no one is spending then that means they're saving, and that means there's more demand for future goods as opposed to present goods. If the government steps in with stimulus then it creates a bubble in present goods that is going to pop.

That also means there's no demand for current goods, and then more layoffs, more fear, less spending, less money ... etc. Add in a credit market frozen with crappy assets and you have a recipe for a disaster.

So I guess the question is when your caught on an outgoing tide, do you sit back and watch the boat float out to sea, or paddle like hell and worry about if you will hit the dock later?

Calling it the Republican debt is disingenuous. I prefer the "$11 trillion Republicrat debt."

The debt was $1 trillion when Reagan took office and $11 trillion when Bush2 left. Republican policies of tax cuts and military buildups and wars ran up this debt. It did go up $1.6T while Clinton was in office, but he inhereted a $340 B deficit and we had a surplus when he left. So I personally don't hold him much responsible for it.

IMO it's fair to call it the Republican debt. Obama may change that, however, depending how he does over time.

There will only be bigger deficits if we continue to spend recklessly. We need to significantly cut spending.

You didn't address my qeustion:

How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

And if we increase revenues, won't there be smaller deficits?

Yes, more layoffs during a recession. And what creates the recession? The government/Fed created bubble pops. So yes, there will be more problems so long as the recession lasts, but the solution is not to create another bubble for the future.

Were there no Democratic Congresses in that period? Also, the deficit and debt are not the same thing, and to create that surplus Clinton dipped into the Social Security fund. So that's a myth. Therefore, both parties are equally as responsible for the debt. Don't think I'm defending Republicans, because that is far from the case. They're very much to blame with their hyper-interventionism abroad, but Democrats deserve much of the blame as well.

I can say that because the revenue comes from the taxpayers, and stealing their money is wrong. The correct way to balance the budget is for the government to cut it's own spending drastically, and allow the people to keep more of the money they earn.

 

[Iriemon]

Ahh the "Paradox of Thrift." If no one is spending then that means they're saving, and that means there's more demand for future goods as opposed to present goods. If the government steps in with stimulus then it creates a bubble in present goods that is going to pop.

That also means there's no demand for current goods, and then more layoffs, more fear, less spending, less money ... etc. Add in a credit market frozen with crappy assets and you have a recipe for a disaster.

So I guess the question is when your caught on an outgoing tide, do you sit back and watch the boat float out to sea, or paddle like hell and worry about if you will hit the dock later?

The debt was $1 trillion when Reagan took office and $11 trillion when Bush2 left. Republican policies of tax cuts and military buildups and wars ran up this debt. It did go up $1.6T while Clinton was in office, but he inhereted a $340 B deficit and we had a surplus when he left. So I personally don't hold him much responsible for it.

IMO it's fair to call it the Republican debt. Obama may change that, however, depending how he does over time.

There will only be bigger deficits if we continue to spend recklessly. We need to significantly cut spending.

You didn't address my qeustion:

How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

And if we increase revenues, won't there be smaller deficits?

Yes, more layoffs during a recession. And what creates the recession? The government/Fed created bubble pops. So yes, there will be more problems so long as the recession lasts, but the solution is not to create another bubble for the future.

We just disagree. The mortgage crisis wasn't caused by the Fed. It was caused by too large financial institutions being willing to invest trillions in risky mortgages that they thought were less risky. And speculation fueled by a growing market, shoddy lending practices, and get rich quick infomercials.

That had little if anything to do with the Fed.

And I'd rather the Fed/Govt intervene now and worry about a "bubble" some years from now that watch the country sink into another great depression.

Were there no Democratic Congresses in that period?

Sure. The Dems increased taxes in 1993 which was the biggest reason we got a surplus budget.

But it wasn't the Dems that slashed taxes and increased military spending in the 80s and 00s. That was the Republicans, and in the 80s with the help of a few "gypsy moth" dems.

Also, the deficit and debt are not the same thing, and to create that surplus Clinton dipped into the Social Security fund. So that's a myth.

No myth. That's just propoganda from the Right.

Clinton ran a true surplus in 2000. It is true that the Govt borrowed from the SS trust fund; but during 2000 it paid down the public debt more than it borrowed, and total debt decreased.

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Therefore, both parties are equally as responsible for the debt. Don't think I'm defending Republicans, because that is far from the case. They're very much to blame with their hyper-interventionism abroad, but Democrats deserve much of the blame as well.

Give that all three Republican administrations exploded the deficits and debts; and the only Democratic administration since 1980 inhereted a record defict and turned it into a surplus, I don't share your "they're all equally blameworthy" attitude. The facts show otherwise.

I can say that because the revenue comes from the taxpayers, and stealing their money is wrong. The correct way to balance the budget is for the government to cut it's own spending drastically, and allow the people to keep more of the money they earn.

So in other words, you agree that increasing taxes and revenues will decrease the deficits, that's just not your preferred approach.

That's fine. But it doesn't undermine the accuracy of my statement that a tax increase will reduce the deficit.

What is more important to you? In an Obama administration where massive spending cuts are not going to happen, would you rather see continued large deficits and debt increases, or a tax increase that decreases the deficit?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That also means there's no demand for current goods, and then more layoffs, more fear, less spending, less money ... etc. Add in a credit market frozen with crappy assets and you have a recipe for a disaster.

So I guess the question is when your caught on an outgoing tide, do you sit back and watch the boat float out to sea, or paddle like hell and worry about if you will hit the dock later?

The debt was $1 trillion when Reagan took office and $11 trillion when Bush2 left. Republican policies of tax cuts and military buildups and wars ran up this debt. It did go up $1.6T while Clinton was in office, but he inhereted a $340 B deficit and we had a surplus when he left. So I personally don't hold him much responsible for it.

IMO it's fair to call it the Republican debt. Obama may change that, however, depending how he does over time.



You didn't address my qeustion:

How can you say "creating more debt is not better for the country" and then say we need to cut revenues further? If there are less revenues, won't there be bigger deficits?

And if we increase revenues, won't there be smaller deficits?

Yes, more layoffs during a recession. And what creates the recession? The government/Fed created bubble pops. So yes, there will be more problems so long as the recession lasts, but the solution is not to create another bubble for the future.

We just disagree. The mortgage crisis wasn't caused by the Fed. It was caused by too large financial institutions being willing to invest trillions in risky mortgages that they thought were less risky. And speculation fueled by a growing market, shoddy lending practices, and get rich quick infomercials.

That had little if anything to do with the Fed.

And I'd rather the Fed/Govt intervene now and worry about a "bubble" some years from now that watch the country sink into another great depression.



Sure. The Dems increased taxes in 1993 which was the biggest reason we got a surplus budget.

But it wasn't the Dems that slashed taxes and increased military spending in the 80s and 00s. That was the Republicans, and in the 80s with the help of a few "gypsy moth" dems.



No myth. That's just propoganda from the Right.

Clinton ran a true surplus in 2000. It is true that the Govt borrowed from the SS trust fund; but during 2000 it paid down the public debt more than it borrowed, and total debt decreased.

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

Source: Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Therefore, both parties are equally as responsible for the debt. Don't think I'm defending Republicans, because that is far from the case. They're very much to blame with their hyper-interventionism abroad, but Democrats deserve much of the blame as well.

Give that all three Republican administrations exploded the deficits and debts; and the only Democratic administration since 1980 inhereted a record defict and turned it into a surplus, I don't share your "they're all equally blameworthy" attitude. The facts show otherwise.

I can say that because the revenue comes from the taxpayers, and stealing their money is wrong. The correct way to balance the budget is for the government to cut it's own spending drastically, and allow the people to keep more of the money they earn.

So in other words, you agree that increasing taxes and revenues will decrease the deficits, that's just not your preferred approach.

That's fine. But it doesn't undermine the accuracy of my statement that a tax increase will reduce the deficit.

What is more important to you? In an Obama administration where massive spending cuts are not going to happen, would you rather see continued large deficits and debt increases, or a tax increase that decreases the deficit?

The problem with creating a bubble to avoid a painful recession is that when the new bubble pops it's going to be worse then what it is now. We need to take our medicine now while it's manageable, rather than letting it get worse.

Well I'll continue to support tax cuts because I still see taxation as nothing more than theft, and if this administration lets the debt continue to pile up then that's their fault.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, more layoffs during a recession. And what creates the recession? The government/Fed created bubble pops. So yes, there will be more problems so long as the recession lasts, but the solution is not to create another bubble for the future.

We just disagree. The mortgage crisis wasn't caused by the Fed. It was caused by too large financial institutions being willing to invest trillions in risky mortgages that they thought were less risky. And speculation fueled by a growing market, shoddy lending practices, and get rich quick infomercials.

That had little if anything to do with the Fed.

And I'd rather the Fed/Govt intervene now and worry about a "bubble" some years from now that watch the country sink into another great depression.



Sure. The Dems increased taxes in 1993 which was the biggest reason we got a surplus budget.

But it wasn't the Dems that slashed taxes and increased military spending in the 80s and 00s. That was the Republicans, and in the 80s with the help of a few "gypsy moth" dems.



No myth. That's just propoganda from the Right.

Clinton ran a true surplus in 2000. It is true that the Govt borrowed from the SS trust fund; but during 2000 it paid down the public debt more than it borrowed, and total debt decreased.

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

Source: Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)



Give that all three Republican administrations exploded the deficits and debts; and the only Democratic administration since 1980 inhereted a record defict and turned it into a surplus, I don't share your "they're all equally blameworthy" attitude. The facts show otherwise.

I can say that because the revenue comes from the taxpayers, and stealing their money is wrong. The correct way to balance the budget is for the government to cut it's own spending drastically, and allow the people to keep more of the money they earn.

So in other words, you agree that increasing taxes and revenues will decrease the deficits, that's just not your preferred approach.

That's fine. But it doesn't undermine the accuracy of my statement that a tax increase will reduce the deficit.

What is more important to you? In an Obama administration where massive spending cuts are not going to happen, would you rather see continued large deficits and debt increases, or a tax increase that decreases the deficit?

The problem with creating a bubble to avoid a painful recession is that when the new bubble pops it's going to be worse then what it is now. We need to take our medicine now while it's manageable, rather than letting it get worse.

We are taking our medicine now!

Well I'll continue to support tax cuts because I still see taxation as nothing more than theft, and if this administration lets the debt continue to pile up then that's their fault.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We just disagree. The mortgage crisis wasn't caused by the Fed. It was caused by too large financial institutions being willing to invest trillions in risky mortgages that they thought were less risky. And speculation fueled by a growing market, shoddy lending practices, and get rich quick infomercials.

That had little if anything to do with the Fed.

And I'd rather the Fed/Govt intervene now and worry about a "bubble" some years from now that watch the country sink into another great depression.



Sure. The Dems increased taxes in 1993 which was the biggest reason we got a surplus budget.

But it wasn't the Dems that slashed taxes and increased military spending in the 80s and 00s. That was the Republicans, and in the 80s with the help of a few "gypsy moth" dems.



No myth. That's just propoganda from the Right.

Clinton ran a true surplus in 2000. It is true that the Govt borrowed from the SS trust fund; but during 2000 it paid down the public debt more than it borrowed, and total debt decreased.

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

Source: Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)



Give that all three Republican administrations exploded the deficits and debts; and the only Democratic administration since 1980 inhereted a record defict and turned it into a surplus, I don't share your "they're all equally blameworthy" attitude. The facts show otherwise.



So in other words, you agree that increasing taxes and revenues will decrease the deficits, that's just not your preferred approach.

That's fine. But it doesn't undermine the accuracy of my statement that a tax increase will reduce the deficit.

What is more important to you? In an Obama administration where massive spending cuts are not going to happen, would you rather see continued large deficits and debt increases, or a tax increase that decreases the deficit?

The problem with creating a bubble to avoid a painful recession is that when the new bubble pops it's going to be worse then what it is now. We need to take our medicine now while it's manageable, rather than letting it get worse.

We are taking our medicine now!

Well I'll continue to support tax cuts because I still see taxation as nothing more than theft, and if this administration lets the debt continue to pile up then that's their fault.

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.

 

[Iriemon]

The problem with creating a bubble to avoid a painful recession is that when the new bubble pops it's going to be worse then what it is now. We need to take our medicine now while it's manageable, rather than letting it get worse.

We are taking our medicine now!

Well I'll continue to support tax cuts because I still see taxation as nothing more than theft, and if this administration lets the debt continue to pile up then that's their fault.

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.

 

[Paulie]

Iriemon how do you reconcile creating an even larger bubble years from now just to keep us from having to deal with the full effects of the current one?

Is it going to somehow bother you less 10 or 15 years from now when the next asset inflates its value to an unsustainable level and THAT correction happens?

What then? Spend another 10 trillion dollars we don't have, to save us from THAT deflationary inevitability?

I mean, when does that finally become tiresome for someone like you who agrees with what we're currently doing?

People won't spend, banks won't lend, and companies aren't employing the amount of people you think they OUGHT to, so we should just hit China up for another tril, and print whatever else we need? And just deal with the price inflation later on when it comes? And then when all those new dollars find a new asset to inflate, and it finally bursts from unsustainability, we just print more money again to reflate?

How do you not recognize the futility?

 

[Paulie]

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.

 

[alan1]

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.

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.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon how do you reconcile creating an even larger bubble years from now just to keep us from having to deal with the full effects of the current one?

I don't buy there will necessarily be a bigger "bubble" if we don't let the economy implode.

Is it going to somehow bother you less 10 or 15 years from now when the next asset inflates its value to an unsustainable level and THAT correction happens?

That has always happened and always will. Its the boom and bust cycle. It's driven by greed and panic. As long as you have free markets there have been boom and bust and always will, irrespective of Govt policy.

What then? Spend another 10 trillion dollars we don't have, to save us from THAT deflationary inevitability?

I do believe that our era of deregulation has resulted in letting companies get too large, too large to fail. We wouldn't have to spend these huge sums to keep them from dragging the economy into depression if they weren't so huge. We need to bring back anti-trust and regulation so that a very few financial institutions don't so dominate our economy.

I mean, when does that finally become tiresome for someone like you who agrees with what we're currently doing?

See above.

People won't spend, banks won't lend, and companies aren't employing the amount of people you think they OUGHT to, so we should just hit China up for another tril, and print whatever else we need? And just deal with the price inflation later on when it comes? And then when all those new dollars find a new asset to inflate, and it finally bursts from unsustainability, we just print more money again to reflate?

How do you not recognize the futility?

We are lucky our debt is in dollars we can inflate a bit, though that is not the preferred option.

The preferred option would have been to not run up $11 trillion in debt. But we the "pass the buck" generation wanted our tax cuts and spending too.

But whatever monetary or fiscal policy the Govt has you'll have "bubbles" and busts. Why? People are greedy and get "gold fever" and do foolish things when they think their gonna get rich. And then they panic and fear when things go bad. It's human nature and free enterprise - not Govt policy.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

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.

 

[Iriemon]

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 haven't had a financial crises like this since the great depression, so it is speculation as to what happens when we come out of it. Inflation is certainly a risk, though so far we have a greater danger from deflation. I'm guessing if inflation starts increasing the Fed will tighten the money supply, unless the economy is really tanking then it would probably say fuck it and figure that getting out of a depression is more of a concern that the effects of inflation. Just my guess.

 

[Paulie]

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.

 

[Iriemon]

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?