31 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderSo when has the US had a balanced budget in the last 100 years? It seems that there is no real good time to balaance a budget, hey marauder? I say tell the American people you wish to balance the budget and let them decide.
No, I don't. See John Maynard Keynes; balancing budgets in either depressionary or inflationary periods would lead to an aggravation of economic evils. In normal times, it might be a good idea to balance budgets, but history is replete with economic periods that are not normal and require countercyclical policies.
What do you mean "walk"? If ...[text shortened]... down. But you know what they would say to that, so you want to mislead them. Pathetic.
As far as Rangel walking, what I mean is he will not do any time. The old man is about half dead anyway so he might as well take an early retirement. Looking at trials such as OJ and Michael Jackson, to name a few, we all know that the rich and powerful rule the courts in the US. How much more then with someone with politically powerful friends? Like I said, Rangel will walk.
As for lying about her intentions, I never meant to say she should lie. What I am saying is that the goal SHOULD NOT BE to target certain legislation, rather, the goal SHOULD be to balance the budget and stop insane deficits. Then again, if Obama had taken my advice think of all the jobs that would never have been created. LOL.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyYou don't want the American people to decide; you want some provision in the Constitution that straitjackets decision-making and that will lead to pro-cyclical policies which will worsen unemployment in time of recession/depression and worsen inflation in times of boom. I oppose such an unthinking, dogmatic policy which will lead to disaster.
So when has the US had a balanced budget in the last 100 years? It seems that there is no real good time to balaance a budget, hey marauder? I say tell the American people you wish to balance the budget and let them decide.
As far as Rangel walking, what I mean is he will not do any time. The old man is about half dead anyway so he might as well take an ...[text shortened]... in, if Obama had taken my advice think of all the jobs that would never have been created. LOL.
The rest is just more idiot ranting and raving. There are plenty of convictions of politicians for criminal violations; in NY the long standing Senate majority leader just got sentenced to two years in prison (pending appeals). If Rangel "walks" it will be because a jury of his peers didn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (if anything he did even warrant criminal charges). I suppose you Tea Party morons have a better system in mind.
We know what you said; you suggested she hide her actual policy prescriptions because they would be unpopular. And your usual moronic LOLs aside, there is little debate in economic circles that the original stimulus prevented further massive job losses and perhaps a tip to depression; indeed, the trenchant criticisms of the time that the stimulus was too small has proven to be correct. But Republicans are taking no chances that policies might be enacted to help the economy out of its doldrums; they just filibustered a bill that would have authorized $30 billion in loans to small businesses as well as other tax cuts and hiring incentives. Partisan loonies like you are fervently hoping that the economy gets even worse and more people suffer as it is the only way people holding your fringe beliefs can possibly succeed in gaining power.
31 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderStaitjacket the decision making? EXACTLY!! In fact, my wife needs one as well everytime she walks into a mall.
You don't want the American people to decide; you want some provision in the Constitution that straitjackets decision-making and that will lead to pro-cyclical policies which will worsen unemployment in time of recession/depression and worsen inflation in times of boom. I oppose such an unthinking, dogmatic policy which will lead to disaster.
it is the only way people holding your fringe beliefs can possibly succeed in gaining power.
Having said that, I suppose we will now here how FDR spent the US economy out of the Depression. Well guess what, the US economy is what grew the US out of the Depression, not FDR's spending. In addition, it is well known that the economy has cycles. We have recessions and depressions, but what happens when government tries to spend their way out of the natural cycles? What you wind up with is nothing short of corporate welfare with the same CEO's and corporations remaining solidly in place that caused these down turns. As for the massive debt, I have already posted solemn warnings that Obama's own appointees had to say about the current fiscal disaster. Apparently Obama and company will just ignore these dire warnings. The bottom line is that the Republic can and will survive economic down turns but not a government that becomes insolvent.
As for your long list, it is duly noted. I would love to see it. How many more are there? In fact, your turning a blind eye to obvious executive abuses via executive orders is also duly noted. In fact, lets just give the executive branch even more power shall we?
Considering that most all of Obama's appointees to cabnet positions had to bail because they did not pay their taxes, I am shocked that 9 out of 10 of those in Congress are not in the big house. Then again, in marauders world a hand full of trophy convicts who do one or two years jail time is enough to suggest the system is "A" OK.
BTW: My prediction stands, Rangel walks.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyI'm still waiting for your detailed proposals of spending cuts and revenue increases which will eliminate the budget deficit. Nothing you have posted so far comes within a $1 trillion of doing so. I personally would attack it by addressing what caused it i.e. the massive increases in defense spending coupled with sharp drops in tax rates on the wealthy.
Staitjacket the decision making? EXACTLY!! In fact, my wife needs one as well everytime she walks into a mall.
Having said that, I suppose we will now here how FDR spent the US economy out of the Depression. Well guess what, the US economy is what grew the US out of the Depression, not FDR's spending. In addition, it is well known that the economy has ...[text shortened]... me is enough to suggest the system is "A" OK.
BTW: My prediction stands, Rangel walks.
I won't bother with an Economics lesson; your simplistic worldview is incapable of grasping the realities of the modern economy. Suffice to say that absent anti-cyclical government policies in the approximate 50 years from 1933-1980, our country would have been much poorer and would have experienced longer periods of negative growth. Debt in those periods was kept manageable, but that was before Reagan adopted the policies I earlier detailed.
Again, you find it necessary to do a lot of screeching filled with wild exaggerations and partisan posturing. You only make yourself look like an idiot by doing so, but hey it's your dime.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderHa Ha Ha,, try high unemployment, preventing Uncle Sam from collecting their normal share of taxes,, you are just dumb....
I'm still waiting for your detailed proposals of spending cuts and revenue increases which will eliminate the budget deficit. Nothing you have posted so far comes within a $1 trillion of doing so. I personally would attack it by addressing what caused it i.e. the massive increases in defense spending coupled with sharp drops in tax rates on the wealthy. ...[text shortened]... san posturing. You only make yourself look like an idiot by doing so, but hey it's your dime.
01 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderBut I have discussed what I would do. As we seem to agree, the big three in expenditure include social security, medicare and defense.
I'm still waiting for your detailed proposals of spending cuts and revenue increases which will eliminate the budget deficit. Nothing you have posted so far comes within a $1 trillion of doing so. I personally would attack it by addressing what caused it i.e. the massive increases in defense spending coupled with sharp drops in tax rates on the wealthy. ...[text shortened]... san posturing. You only make yourself look like an idiot by doing so, but hey it's your dime.
On social security.
I would raise the retirement age to adjust for people living longer, or do you think that the original FDR age for retirement was unfair? Of course, if I were an opponent of the whole system I would jab at the fact that the federal government raids these funds leaving a big old IOU, or are you a proponent of that as well?
On Medicare.
I would attempt true reform by focusing on fraud instead of simply trying to expand government and universal health care. After all, Obamacare did little to fight fraud which steals billions from tax payers annually.
On defense.
I would get the ##$$# out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, the reason we went there was for oil. So what to do about foriegn oil? The answer is natty gas which we have discussed as well as nuclear power. You may disagree but the bottom line is that unless the US begins to switch to other fuels, foreign oil will continue to own the US. No taxes on oil will do the trick with money that goes God knows where, what is needed is investment in other fuels now!! So convert government buildings to solar, build new wind mills, build nuclear power plants, begin to convert cars to natty gas, just do something other than creating the largest regressive tax in US history via cap and trade that corporate America is salivating at to make a buck or two.
01 Aug 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI await your rebuttal.
I'm still waiting for your detailed proposals of spending cuts and revenue increases which will eliminate the budget deficit. Nothing you have posted so far comes within a $1 trillion of doing so. I personally would attack it by addressing what caused it i.e. the massive increases in defense spending coupled with sharp drops in tax rates on the wealthy. ...[text shortened]... san posturing. You only make yourself look like an idiot by doing so, but hey it's your dime.
01 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHopefully money will flow from reform of Medicare/Medicaid fraud as well as raising the age for retirement and bringing home the troops. If I were in charge I would form a bipartisan committee to study how much revenue needs to be raised in addition to that and simply find a way to get it done. I would even flirt with a VATS if it meant energy independence with the stipulation that the VATS goes away after evengy independence had been achieved. I'm sure there are a myriad of ways to cut the bloated federal government to raise revenue.
Where's the revenue enhancements? And where is all this money for conversion to other energy sources going to come from?
I would also look at other countries which give tax breaks to those who convert to natty gas like we have discussed before. It seems to be a success by in large.
01 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76Sorry, I checked my facts and discovered I was wrong. Sorry!
Uh, ATY, you made that up out of thin air, didn't you?
***Taxing the wealthiest cannot wipe out the US debt.***
The debt is 13 trillion or so, and the top 1% have 3.5 trillion coming to them via inheritance. The next 10% have the same.
I was wrong. 😞