You have to ask how a guy making $174,000 a year can afford multiple million dollar homes. You see the people who really want socialism are those that don’t want to live by their own rules.
It turns out Voodoo Economics dont work. Corp Tax revenue down 33% spending up.
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
You have to ask how republicans against free healthcare for all can all have free healthcare. You see the people who really want capitalism are those that don’t want to live by their own rules.
I am a republican against free health care paid for by me and given out by the Gov't. It is not free, just paid for by others. And my insurance is not free.
Nothing you just typed makes a shred of sense
Senators who receive free healthcare don't support free healthcare (except for themselves obviously.)
No they don't. They buy their insurance through the exchange just like everyone else. The gov't pays for 72% of their plans.
FC is shocked to find that his favorite Occupy Democrats memes aren't factually correct.
Back to the original topic:
The issue that comes up with tax cuts isnt necessarily that the high end earners are paying in less, it has more to do with the fact that they are redirecting that money to lower earners who pay much lower rates thanks to our tax code. If the only metric that we can quantify is tax revenue and deficits then tax cuts will always appear bad in the short term. Of course if you have a graduated income tax system and more of the money comes into the hands of lower earning individuals then tax receipts will go down. In the end it still comes down to the single biggest conservative talking point in my lifetime: we HAVE to cut spending.
The issue that comes up with tax cuts isnt necessarily that the high end earners are paying in less, it has more to do with the fact that they are redirecting that money to lower earners who pay much lower rates thanks to our tax code. If the only metric that we can quantify is tax revenue and deficits then tax cuts will always appear bad in the short term. Of course if you have a graduated income tax system and more of the money comes into the hands of lower earning individuals then tax receipts will go down. In the end it still comes down to the single biggest conservative talking point in my lifetime: we HAVE to cut spending.
We are in so much debt that we are past the point of simply having to cut spending. We have to increase tax revenue, and cut spending, and ensure the income of the vast majority of American wage earners keeps pace with GDP.
Thats all fine and well, but when was the last time that a tax increase was predicated on paying down debt?
As much as I hate it when the term comprehensive is used in any government proposal, this is one time that it really has to be that way.
At this time, our debt is not above a sustainable level but it has to stop growing. The solution moving forward isnt in increasing income taxes, its in finding a way to redirect accrued assets towards paying down debt. Good luck figuring out how to do that.
At this time, our debt is not above a sustainable level but it has to stop growing. The solution moving forward isnt in increasing income taxes, its in finding a way to redirect accrued assets towards paying down debt. Good luck figuring out how to do that.
I don't understand how the protectionists on the right think we can ever grow our GDP to a level that can sustain our budget. It worked back in the 50s and 60s when our population was growing at 2%. Now we are under .7%. If we dont have more people to produce and to consume, and then we shut ourselves off from foreign populations, why would GDP grow?
His wife was stealing money from a University and bankrupting the University at the same time.
lmao
I'm sorry thats just funny coming from you. Don't you have some minorities to accuse of arson or something to keep you busy?
Bernie Sanders decries capitalism but reaps the benefits of it.
Flip the question around and answer it. Are there countries that have/had socialist economic systems that have been successful? Then define success and reverse the question.
Theocracies don't work, even though there are still some in existence. Manorialism existed for 200 times as long as capitalism. Caste systems for every bit as long. At what point do you have proof that a system isnt effective?
Flip the question around and answer it. Are there countries that have/had socialist economic systems that have been successful? Then define success and reverse the question.
Theocracies don't work, even though there are still some in existence. Manorialism existed for 200 times as long as capitalism. Caste systems for every bit as long. At what point do you have proof that a system isnt effective?
Your question has nothing to do with the topic.
I've never made a claim even remotely close to what you are asking me to prove.
His request is moronic.
Take all of the countries/areas I listed previously: could their economies benefit from more capitalistic reforms? Possibly. Could their economies benefit from more socialistic reforms? Also possibly. There is no proof in either direction, because it is a dumb question.
Really? Am I nuts or haven't quite literally billions of people in places like China and India been pulled out of poverty because they allowed more capitalistic reforms? When a country has impoverished its' people, I can't find a single modern example of that country improving the economic conditions for their people by tightening the government controls of the economy. Just look at Venezuela - former proclaimed socialist paradise. Their people are completely poor, impoverished, and dying, and yet things are actually getting worse because the government has only nationalized more industries and taken even greater control over the economy.
It isnt moronic, it just shows bias. His assumed point is valid and has evidence to prove it. At the same time, there are examples to the contrary. The important issue that is lost in the question is the fact that when economic systems change, there are benefits for some but how long can they last before things have to reset?
Soviet russia worked pretty well for the lower class for about a decade until it fell apart. Socialist Sweden made it much longer but it still ultimately was failing and needed a reset. Capitalism hasn't necesarily failed in and of itself but we dont last in perpetuity in capitalism before wealth consolidation leads to power consolidation.
but where is the line drawn between Socialist and Capitalist? And, why do some people need to draw that line at all?
China is more capitalist than ever, but they are still very much Communist. Vietnam as well.
Are Canada, Japan, and Europe, socialist?
Judging by the rest of the developed world, there is a happy medium of both socialism and capitalism...and the United States is off that medium using many different measurements.
China is more capitalist than ever, but they are still very much Communist. Vietnam as well.
Are Canada, Japan, and Europe, socialist?
Judging by the rest of the developed world, there is a happy medium of both socialism and capitalism...and the United States is off that medium using many different measurements.
There is no definitive line. Canada is generally a free market system but they socialized their healthcare system so they are unfairly categorized as being a socialist nation. I wouldn't call Japan a socialist country at all, or at least no more than the US is. Vietnam and China are better examples of central planning, and both have made a move towards free market manufacturing which has benefited them.
Breaking- mixed economies are the norm, not the exception.
You're right- we are off that medium compared to more socialist countries that you listed. Which is great. We live in a country that rewards innovation and risk taking by allowing the people taking those risks to keep more of their earned income. And as a result, we live in a country that absolutely dominates the world market when it comes to companies innovating and creating new markets. Do you think it's a coincidence that nearly every new tech company that grows like a weed is coming out of the US? And not Canada or the EU?
Oh please. 85 makes valid points but they are lost in translation. He correctly points out the merits of capitalism, and at the same time chemmie points out the faults, which are lost in insults.
You really are an asshole . Posts like this are shining examples . And I’ll pat you on the back for using cuck 2 posts in a row . It shows that you are really hip and cool man . Bravo
Last edited:
People are supporting tax cuts and thinking their middle class or upper middle class lives are going well while CEOs pocket 80% of money the government doesn't even have.
The 2k per year normal people got and the 20k per year their boss got will be paid for at some point by both's kids or grandkids, 11k in debt each.
Him and chemmie are upset with their own personal situations so they appear to be projecting their misery onto everyone else.
hes probably talking about his own situation and how pissed off he is about how he doesnt have more.
Are these "CEO's" not worth the money they are being paid? Are sports athletes worth the money they are being paid? Attorneys? Doctors?
Can you please let me know who deserves their salary and who doesn't? You seem to be an expert.
This has been a major fail by Trump. Hell, even Clinton had a budget surplus one year during economic boom. We've gone completely off the rails with deficit spending.
In fairness, it's a global problem. One economist I follow says for fiat currencies to succeed there has to be global cooperation in currency management. When that doesn't happen, the path of least resistance is to inflate away the value of the currency. And here we are today.
My only question is if the current monetary system falls apart in my lifetime or not. Still seems to have some legs. Hope it can hold up for another 50 years or so.
In fairness, it's a global problem. One economist I follow says for fiat currencies to succeed there has to be global cooperation in currency management. When that doesn't happen, the path of least resistance is to inflate away the value of the currency. And here we are today.
My only question is if the current monetary system falls apart in my lifetime or not. Still seems to have some legs. Hope it can hold up for another 50 years or so.
It's not about who's worth it and who's not and it's not about pay.
It's about tax cuts to a government that is already running a deficit. Now we run an even bigger deficit and the people republicans selected to receive the extra money are the filthy rich.
You're right- Republicans selected small businesses to benefit, who are the main job hirers in this country, and the companies who were paying some of the highest effective tax rates. Now they pay just 21%. Isn't that great?
Whoops I'm sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt your "rich people are meanies!" rant.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Offseason fodder: P4 non-conference game most interested- Latest: Victoryisourcry
-