Debt Clock. How long has it been since you looked?

[CJ7]

Reductions in taxes and increases in government spending would produce short-term economic benefits—but without offsetting actions to reverse the accumulation of government debt, future output and future incomes would tend to be lower than they otherwise would have been.


want a link?

[CJ7]

to be fair again, economist lean both ways

right favor trickle down theory ... hows that EVER worked out from a debt lowering standpoint?

[CuteOldGuy]

Only in government would not spending more than you take in be a bad economic policy. Really.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Sure, you can quote Goldman Sachs. Go ahead. See where it gets you. When you grow up, read some real economists and see if they say the same thing. I suggest Ludwig VonMises, Milton Friedman, and some Austrians. Even responsible Keynesians know that your ideas are bullshit. So go learn something and come back.

Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" should be required reading in every high school in the country. The Austrians rule!

Milton Friedman once observed hundreds of workers digging a ditch in China with shovels. He asked the state official overseeing the job why they weren't using the nearby earth moving equipment. The state official responded that the whole point of the project was to provide jobs and that using power equipment would defeat the purpose. Friedman responded that if their goal was to produce jobs they should be using teaspoons.

If the job was being done by American union labor, they probably would be using teaspoons.

[CJ7]

this isnt china, although it may be someday.

Nonetheless cash flow MUST continue in a down economy... if consumers cant spent and the government wont who is left to hold up what little economy there is?

an honest question expects an honest answer.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CJ7

this isnt china, although it may be someday.

Nonetheless cash flow MUST continue in a down economy... if consumers cant spent and the government wont who is left to hold up what little economy there is?

an honest question expects an honest answer.

Do stupid questions expect stupid answers?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Do stupid questions expect stupid answers?

apparently, youre too stupid to seperate one from the other.


next contestant please.

[CJ7]

oh, btw

that STUPID question was answered by the CBO ... you read their answer above

want a link

[Jackie S]

CJ7, to fix Social Security, I advocate removing the cap, and making ALL income subject to Social Security withholding, and make every citizen regardless of any other retirement sytems they might be in, subject to SS withholding.

Yes, I would pay more, as I usually top mine out about mid May, and I would also pay on my dividends and interest.

But ole Warren Buffet and George Clooney would as well. It would solve the SS problem with the stroke of a pen.

[CJ7]

damn Jackie you remind me of me .. I totally agree. Made that arguement before.

whats the cap rate now? $100K

a man making 100K pays 100% on 100K

Buffet and Gates make a billion$ , but pay up to 100K lowering their precentage rate to almost nada.

thats too logical, Gates cant stand that big a hit in the a$$

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CJ7

oh, btw

that STUPID question was answered by the CBO ... you read their answer above

want a link

I'm tired of this. On to the next dead horse

[LovingKayla]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

You along with all others who are not wealthy will suffer

Ok but to make it a fair statement I'd need to know what your definition of wealthy is.

[LovingKayla]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" should be required reading in every high school in the country. The Austrians rule!

You are my new crush.

[Sexyeccentric1]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Ok but to make it a fair statement I'd need to know what your definition of wealthy is.

Well wealthy enough that your buffered from a great depression or a serious recession. Wealthy enough that it will not affect you as much as most of the American people who are not wealthy or in the 1% category. But by all means let hell come and destroy what we have right, just let the economy fail because we don't want this president to succeed thereby letting our country succeed? So that we can rebuild from the wreckage and devastation of a failed economy? Start a new world and a new different economy?

Yea, I don't think so..

[CuteOldGuy]

If this President succeeds at what he is trying to do, the country will fail.