One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why is a 30 trillion national debt okay if a republican is in charge?
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
Feb 24, 2017 18:06:05   #
HedgeHog
 
PeterS wrote:
Trump intends to spend money on the infrastructure and on increasing the military and no one will care because we have tax cuts and plenty of distractions. How is it, if we put a couple bucks in a conservatives pocket they could give a fuk how large that makes debt increase?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/06/28/national-debt-would-increase-11-5-trillion-under-trump-report-says.html



Petey, Petey, Petey. Trump will be able to do more to pay off the debt, because he intends to "Free Gulliver"---to decrease taxes. I know you have trouble following how that mechanism works to elevate revenue, but that's how it is.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 18:07:20   #
HedgeHog
 
reconreb wrote:
O.K. ??? There have been reports that Trump had wee , wee party's in Russian hotel .. How about being a Nazi ? On and On you go .. O.K. So what ?? Until the debt. skyrockets we can only speculate . WE will hold Trump accountable if and when it happens ,, until then ... So what ???


And he didn't invite me? Why, the nerve!!

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 18:08:45   #
HedgeHog
 
MarvinSussman wrote:
1. During World War II, Americans working double shifts and weekends bought “War Bonds”. At peace, they cashed in their bonds for cars and homes, finally getting the prosperity that enough government spending could have given them a decade earlier, when Hitler’s spending gave Germans prosperity and made him popular and powerful.
2. Our GDP grows approximately $2 for each Congressional $1 spent again and again until either taxed, saved, or exported. Our Debt/GDP ratio dropped from 120% in 1944 to 30% during 35 prosperous years due to moderate inflation and heavy spending on veteran housing and education, the Marshall Plan, nuclear energy, the Korean War, Cold War rearmament, the Interstate Highway, the Man-on-the-Moon, and the Vietnam War.
3. Nobody would refuse a salary boost to avoid a tax hike but, to avoid a tax hike, this Congress refuses to boost our infrastructure! In our past, Congressional spending gave us national parks, dams, rural electrification, transistors, computers, the internet, jet planes, rocket ships, satellites, solar energy, LCD, the mouse, touch-screens, SIRI, search algorithms, GPS, genomics, nanotechnology, and the greatest pharmaceutical industry!
4. About 85% of Congress’ spending becomes cash for our tax payments. We save about 5% of it and spend the rest on imports. More deficit spending by Congress would give taxpayers more after-tax savings and more money to spend on Asian bargains.
5. Unless a trade surplus will always finance our annual net savings, members of Congress seeking a “balanced-budget” law are like fools commanding the tides to ebb!
6. Congress’ spending should be limited only by the onset of harmful inflation when it is controlled by moderate long-term interest rates and by adequate progressive taxes on discretionary incomes, financial transactions, and large estates. More spending would increase inflation; less spending would increase deflation and unemployment.
7. The Fed’s purchase of US debt cuts debt interest rates by reducing the supply. It also effectively reduces the debt and debt interest expense because the Fed gets the interest and principal at maturity and returns 94% of its annual profit to the Treasury.
8. If the interest rate on our federal debt is less than our GDP growth rate, the debt can grow indefinitely and safely since the Debt/GDP ratio will remain or descend well below 100%.
9. Foreign exporters will either accept our dollars and bonds or stop selling us goods. The US dollar’s reserve currency status favors US consumers, traders, etc., and requires that we maintain a large national debt, much of it held by foreign nations.
10. Increased output for the same input is anti-inflationary so inflation is not increased when Congress hires the unemployed to gain infrastructure and productivity. The goods that the unemployed now get with stamps would instead be bought with their salaries, ending the humiliations of the idle poor and the resentments of the working poor.
Excessive unemployment is due only to Congress’ refusal to build infrastructure.
1. During World War II, Americans working doub... (show quote)


Oh, jeez!!! The damn economist is baaaaaaack! You know, the one who is absolutely sure he knows everything!!

Maybe you're phishing. In any case, you are contemptible.

Reply
 
 
Feb 24, 2017 18:11:56   #
HedgeHog
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Weren't you listening? Trump be da man! He's promised to: end budget deficits, pay off the debt, end trade deficits, bring back jobs, etc. - and he'll do it by: reducing taxes by trillions on rich people and corporations, spend trillions on infrastructure, brow beat corporations on twitter, eliminate regulations designed to protect the environment/consumers/banking system, etc.

What's not to like? Remember the old adage designed to protect yourself from con artists; if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true. Here are some other examples: For this low, low introductory price, learn how to become debt free in as little as 6 months. Learn how to get rich by flipping houses - with no money down! Take this pill and lose weight guaaaaraaanteed! I will do everything you ever dreamed of - and it won't cost you a dime! I will build the most bestes wall you never saw - and Mexico will pay for it! The GOP was too stupid to design a replacement for Obamacare after having 8 years to work on it - but I, the great Donald - will design the finest, most wonderful, most excellent healthcare plan God ever thought of and it will lower your premiums to near zero, it will pay for 100% of everything and there will be no deductibles or copays!

Can you believe that people STILL buy that bullshit?
Weren't you listening? Trump be da man! He's promi... (show quote)


After Ovomit, the only way you can go is up. You are a loser, Ovomit is/was a loser, and America and the American people were losers under Ovomit. Can you see that, you gullible Geordie lad?

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 18:14:50   #
HedgeHog
 
The Leftist/Libs are beginning to make me sick again. I'm going to have to take a break.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 18:53:24   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
lpnmajor wrote:
and that justifies raising the debt? Wow! To think ya'll criticized Obama every day for raising the debt to pay for the wars Bush II started. If only he'd kept his promises, ya'll would have left him alone. Who knew?


I never said any of those things. My baasic argument was tha we don't know what Trump's policies will bring. We know what Obama's did.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 18:57:42   #
HedgeHog
 
crazylibertarian wrote:
I never said any of those things. My baasic argument was tha we don't know what Trump's policies will bring. We know what Obama's did.


Take it easy on him, cl. He's a Leftist/Liberal, you know. Still has trouble with cognition.

Reply
 
 
Feb 24, 2017 19:51:42   #
HedgeHog
 
MarvinSussman wrote:
1. During World War II, Americans working double shifts and weekends bought “War Bonds”. At peace, they cashed in their bonds for cars and homes, finally getting the prosperity that enough government spending could have given them a decade earlier, when Hitler’s spending gave Germans prosperity and made him popular and powerful.
2. Our GDP grows approximately $2 for each Congressional $1 spent again and again until either taxed, saved, or exported. Our Debt/GDP ratio dropped from 120% in 1944 to 30% during 35 prosperous years due to moderate inflation and heavy spending on veteran housing and education, the Marshall Plan, nuclear energy, the Korean War, Cold War rearmament, the Interstate Highway, the Man-on-the-Moon, and the Vietnam War.
3. Nobody would refuse a salary boost to avoid a tax hike but, to avoid a tax hike, this Congress refuses to boost our infrastructure! In our past, Congressional spending gave us national parks, dams, rural electrification, transistors, computers, the internet, jet planes, rocket ships, satellites, solar energy, LCD, the mouse, touch-screens, SIRI, search algorithms, GPS, genomics, nanotechnology, and the greatest pharmaceutical industry!
4. About 85% of Congress’ spending becomes cash for our tax payments. We save about 5% of it and spend the rest on imports. More deficit spending by Congress would give taxpayers more after-tax savings and more money to spend on Asian bargains.
5. Unless a trade surplus will always finance our annual net savings, members of Congress seeking a “balanced-budget” law are like fools commanding the tides to ebb!
6. Congress’ spending should be limited only by the onset of harmful inflation when it is controlled by moderate long-term interest rates and by adequate progressive taxes on discretionary incomes, financial transactions, and large estates. More spending would increase inflation; less spending would increase deflation and unemployment.
7. The Fed’s purchase of US debt cuts debt interest rates by reducing the supply. It also effectively reduces the debt and debt interest expense because the Fed gets the interest and principal at maturity and returns 94% of its annual profit to the Treasury.
8. If the interest rate on our federal debt is less than our GDP growth rate, the debt can grow indefinitely and safely since the Debt/GDP ratio will remain or descend well below 100%.
9. Foreign exporters will either accept our dollars and bonds or stop selling us goods. The US dollar’s reserve currency status favors US consumers, traders, etc., and requires that we maintain a large national debt, much of it held by foreign nations.
10. Increased output for the same input is anti-inflationary so inflation is not increased when Congress hires the unemployed to gain infrastructure and productivity. The goods that the unemployed now get with stamps would instead be bought with their salaries, ending the humiliations of the idle poor and the resentments of the working poor.
Excessive unemployment is due only to Congress’ refusal to build infrastructure.
1. During World War II, Americans working doub... (show quote)


And enhancing the life of the common working man.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 19:57:58   #
HedgeHog
 
MarvinSussman wrote:
1. During World War II, Americans working double shifts and weekends bought “War Bonds”. At peace, they cashed in their bonds for cars and homes, finally getting the prosperity that enough government spending could have given them a decade earlier, when Hitler’s spending gave Germans prosperity and made him popular and powerful.
2. Our GDP grows approximately $2 for each Congressional $1 spent again and again until either taxed, saved, or exported. Our Debt/GDP ratio dropped from 120% in 1944 to 30% during 35 prosperous years due to moderate inflation and heavy spending on veteran housing and education, the Marshall Plan, nuclear energy, the Korean War, Cold War rearmament, the Interstate Highway, the Man-on-the-Moon, and the Vietnam War.
3. Nobody would refuse a salary boost to avoid a tax hike but, to avoid a tax hike, this Congress refuses to boost our infrastructure! In our past, Congressional spending gave us national parks, dams, rural electrification, transistors, computers, the internet, jet planes, rocket ships, satellites, solar energy, LCD, the mouse, touch-screens, SIRI, search algorithms, GPS, genomics, nanotechnology, and the greatest pharmaceutical industry!
4. About 85% of Congress’ spending becomes cash for our tax payments. We save about 5% of it and spend the rest on imports. More deficit spending by Congress would give taxpayers more after-tax savings and more money to spend on Asian bargains.
5. Unless a trade surplus will always finance our annual net savings, members of Congress seeking a “balanced-budget” law are like fools commanding the tides to ebb!
6. Congress’ spending should be limited only by the onset of harmful inflation when it is controlled by moderate long-term interest rates and by adequate progressive taxes on discretionary incomes, financial transactions, and large estates. More spending would increase inflation; less spending would increase deflation and unemployment.
7. The Fed’s purchase of US debt cuts debt interest rates by reducing the supply. It also effectively reduces the debt and debt interest expense because the Fed gets the interest and principal at maturity and returns 94% of its annual profit to the Treasury.
8. If the interest rate on our federal debt is less than our GDP growth rate, the debt can grow indefinitely and safely since the Debt/GDP ratio will remain or descend well below 100%.
9. Foreign exporters will either accept our dollars and bonds or stop selling us goods. The US dollar’s reserve currency status favors US consumers, traders, etc., and requires that we maintain a large national debt, much of it held by foreign nations.
10. Increased output for the same input is anti-inflationary so inflation is not increased when Congress hires the unemployed to gain infrastructure and productivity. The goods that the unemployed now get with stamps would instead be bought with their salaries, ending the humiliations of the idle poor and the resentments of the working poor.
Excessive unemployment is due only to Congress’ refusal to build infrastructure.
1. During World War II, Americans working doub... (show quote)


The reason you are not an economist, Merv, is your very premises are infeasible and indefensible. When monies are accumulated by industry, they need to be invested in the future, not given to those who can and should work and add to a country's productivity. That is one way Socialism/Communism deplenishes resources, and Capitalism prepares for the future.

The challenge for capitalism today, given it is not first destroyed by the envious and those who feel unable to compete, is in the determination of how much of earned profits is to be used for present consumption and how much for future consumption. It will vary from industry to industry and from business to business.

I have told you this before.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 21:31:50   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
HedgeHog wrote:
And enhancing the life of the common working man.



Please tell how going to war helps the common man.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 21:36:17   #
HedgeHog
 
crazylibertarian wrote:
Please tell how going to war helps the common man.


That was sarcasm. It never works with the Leftist/Liberals, don't know why I use it so often.

My contention is the common working man can pretty much enhance his own life, if government would just get the hell out of the way!

Reply
 
 
Feb 24, 2017 21:41:15   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
HedgeHog wrote:
The reason you are not an economist, Merv, is your very premises are infeasible and indefensible. When monies are accumulated by industry, they need to be invested in the future, not given to those who can and should work and add to a country's productivity. That is one way Socialism/Communism deplenishes resources, and Capitalism prepares for the future.

The challenge for capitalism today, given it is not first destroyed by the envious and those who feel unable to compete, is in the determination of how much of earned profits is to be used for present consumption and how much for future consumption. It will vary from industry to industry and from business to business.

I have told you this before.
The reason you are not an economist, Merv, is your... (show quote)


I see it more as the conflict of human nature rather than the challenge for capitalism, as man is it's director. I'm not sure today's man has the foresight to even know there could be a problem. Mankind today is more like the one talent man in the biblical parable.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 21:49:30   #
HedgeHog
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
I see it more as the conflict of human nature rather than the challenge for capitalism, as man is it's director. I'm not sure today's man has the foresight to even know there could be a problem. Mankind today is more like the one talent man in the biblical parable.


And all thanks to that malignant 19th century European philosophical thought. Enervated what was a robust people.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 22:25:53   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
HedgeHog wrote:
And all thanks to that malignant 19th century European philosophical thought. Enervated what was a robust people.


I need to get educated on 19th century philosophy.

Reply
Feb 24, 2017 22:43:55   #
HedgeHog
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
I need to get educated on 19th century philosophy.


Up until 2 or 3 years ago, the only philosophy I ever read, besides what I learned in my logic courses, was Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Except for some of Marx on the labor theory of value.

But it is malignant, for sure. And interestingly, except for Rousseau, those major philosophers were all German: Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Engels. I don't know how much that has to do with German culture, or even Protestantism in Germany, but I think they put more of an emphasis on societal obligations than other peoples might have. And Hegel was just plain cognitively dysfunctional. He tried to understand the French Revolution; he saw it as being in the end, a good thing, but it's methods were horrific. Thus he seemed to focus on the idea that all of life and reality was contradictory.

But it's late; I can't handle any more fantasy tonight. I tend to lose touch with reality.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.