Dem Debate
-
I wouldn't lump in Social Security and Medicare which are paid for through payroll deductions your entire life with welfare and such.
I wouldn't lump in Social Security and Medicare which are paid for through payroll deductions your entire life with welfare and such.
It gets lumped in there because the money paid by workers have been spent by politicians on other things and they left an IOU in it's place. Just another reminder we have out of control spending.
-
i'm all for reducing taxes on "actual" job creators. Problem is that not all of those ultra rich are actually creating jobs. Well no I take that back, they're creating jobs alright...penny jobs in places like Indonesia that allow their workers to work with toxic substances that turn their children into monsters barely recognizeable as human.
We need to develop a class of job creators that do so right here in the U.S. Doing shit we were told was best left to developing countries. For example no real reason textiles can't come back. Especially if we were to legalize hemp. I know myself I'd have a slick business up within months if I could buy Hemp on the cheap.
-
As the dems tried to outdo each other on free government entitlement programs (even to non citizens but they want their votes) why wasn't it brought out that we are pushing 19 trillion in debt and how can we afford it? Where will the money come? New taxes??
What is needed most in this country are the job creators and more taxes only hurt job creation and job growth.
Austerity is not the only, nor necessarily best, way to reduce debt.
-
Sanders have my mofo vote. He be givin, I be takin. DHAnyway it looks like Trump won the dem debate lol.Grade: LOL !****************************Oh, that is FUNNY stuff !!!Of course, I watch it - but... did they get the dems to bicker at each other like they did with the reps?Sounds like they didn't go the "milk and cookies" route...
-
Austerity is not the only, nor necessarily best, way to reduce debt. Chris
******************************************
This doesn't make sense to me. Too much debt - you have to spend less,
stop spending so much...... stop accruing stuff and services you can't pay for.
Spending more to lessen debt ---- that sounds so weird I can't even think of
a dumb analogy for it.....
-
The best way is to have a balanced budget and not to go into debt in the first place. Japan had an economic meltdown in 1990 and they tried to spend their way out with stimulus programs that did not work and only made things worse (like Obama has done). The problem is when the economy started to recover and they tried to pay down the debt it put them back in a recession. I don't think Japan has ever fully recovered from it. You cannot spend your way out of a recession or debt.
If we are taking in a record amount of taxes (like we are right now) and the debt is not shrinking but still growing that is yet another clue we have out of control spending.
-
As the dems tried to outdo each other on free government entitlement programs (even to non citizens but they want their votes) why wasn't it brought out that we are pushing 19 trillion in debt and how can we afford it? Where will the money come? New taxes??
What is needed most in this country are the job creators and more taxes only hurt job creation and job growth.
Austerity is not the only, nor necessarily best, way to reduce debt.
-
O'Malley is the hardest left on gun control which surprised me.
Bernie Sanders was as I expected demanding the United States emulate Denmark and Sweden but not mentioning Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Presumably because those aren't the countries to emulate? Nobody's planning on a vicious hard line communist dictatorship, but democratic socialism. Hence scandinavia, not russia/cuba.
But he is clearly in the driver's seat of the income inequality Express.
Biggest problem with Hillary is that after all this time everyone, even the Democrats, realize that nothing she says comes from the heart.
Unlike her husband she's uncharismatic and not a very good liar.
It is, however, obvious that CNN didn't give shit number 1 about any of the other participants. Not even O'Malley.
None of the other have even the slightest chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency.
WSS
To your first reply I say that's quite true. If I am selling anabolic steroids I will tout athletic performance and quick and easy muscle building instead of impotence and cancer. But they all come from anabolic steroids you see.O'Malley is the hardest left on gun control which surprised me.
Bernie Sanders was as I expected demanding the United States emulate Denmark and Sweden but not mentioning Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Presumably because those aren't the countries to emulate? Nobody's planning on a vicious hard line communist dictatorship, but democratic socialism. Hence scandinavia, not russia/cuba.
But he is clearly in the driver's seat of the income inequality Express.
Biggest problem with Hillary is that after all this time everyone, even the Democrats, realize that nothing she says comes from the heart.
Unlike her husband she's uncharismatic and not a very good liar.
It is, however, obvious that CNN didn't give shit number 1 about any of the other participants. Not even O'Malley.
None of the other have even the slightest chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency.
WSS
To your second point, exactly true. Just as the Democrat media wants it to be.
WSS
-
OK, my point seems to have been missed somewhat. Seems you guys have quite a simplistic view of economics (colour me shocked!)
Let me give you an example - I was in debt from my student loans. My earning potential was limited and it would take me a long time to pay those loans off; so I took out another loan, went back to university, got my masters and now earn a lot more than I would have been otherwise. My debts will be paid off shortly and I'll be in a much healthier financial position.
Debt itself is not a problem. Basically everyone has debt, whether it's a mortgage, or a car or whatever. As long as the debt is serviceable, it's all good. Government spending on things that will generate money in the long run should be viewed as an investment, rather than just tacking more debt on, as they seem to be here.
As for losing weight - you basically need to create a calorie deficit, so if you're eating 3000 calories a day and burning only 100, your net is 2900. You'll get fat pretty quickly. Compare to professional athletes - swimmers, or JJ Watt, for example - who consume many thousands more calories each day, but burn many thousands more. They eat more food but are in better shape.
-
This gives a decent explanation of how that would work:http://aneconomicsense.com/2013/08/29/an-increase-in-government-spending-can-reduce-the-debt-to-gdp-ratio-econ-101/
Basically - short term, government spends money on big projects, creates demand for jobs, and also for infrastructure to support those jobs, and services around those jobs; those people get taxed, then spend the remaining money on other things boosting the local economy. More people have more money, spend more money, and the GDP goes up. As the article says, it's not the level of debt, it's debt-GDP ratio that you need to worry about (the serviceability of debt).
-
Obama came in to office and the democrats passed an almost trillion dollars of stimulus which we spent on cash for clunkers, solyndra and other not shovel ready jobs which I maintain we have very little to show for after a trillion dollar investment. Don't tell me it got us out of recession as if we have never been in recession before. We would have been better off doing nothing than wasting a trillion dollars and we would have gotten out of recession anyway.
The best way to raise revenue is to grow the pie and not gouge people with even higher taxation which never spurs the economy. Lower taxes, more job growth and more employed people paying taxes. That is the way to do it (and cut back on wasteful spending)
100 Wasteful Stimulus Projects That Actually Cost America Jobs
http://www.businessinsider.com/mccain-100-wasteful-stimulus-projects-2010-8
-
OK, my point seems to have been missed somewhat. Seems you guys have quite a simplistic view of economics (colour me shocked!)
Let me give you an example - I was in debt from my student loans. My earning potential was limited and it would take me a long time to pay those loans off; so I took out another loan, went back to university, got my masters and now earn a lot more than I would have been otherwise. My debts will be paid off shortly and I'll be in a much healthier financial position.
Debt itself is not a problem. Basically everyone has debt, whether it's a mortgage, or a car or whatever. As long as the debt is serviceable, it's all good. Government spending on things that will generate money in the long run should be viewed as an investment, rather than just tacking more debt on, as they seem to be here.
As for losing weight - you basically need to create a calorie deficit, so if you're eating 3000 calories a day and burning only 100, your net is 2900. You'll get fat pretty quickly. Compare to professional athletes - swimmers, or JJ Watt, for example - who consume many thousands more calories each day, but burn many thousands more. They eat more food but are in better shape.
OK, my point seems to have been missed somewhat. Seems you guys have quite a simplistic view of economics (colour me shocked!)
Let me give you an example - I was in debt from my student loans. My earning potential was limited and it would take me a long time to pay those loans off; so I took out another loan, went back to university, got my masters and now earn a lot more than I would have been otherwise. My debts will be paid off shortly and I'll be in a much healthier financial position.
Debt itself is not a problem. Basically everyone has debt, whether it's a mortgage, or a car or whatever. As long as the debt is serviceable, it's all good. Government spending on things that will generate money in the long run should be viewed as an investment, rather than just tacking more debt on, as they seem to be here.
As for losing weight - you basically need to create a calorie deficit, so if you're eating 3000 calories a day and burning only 100, your net is 2900. You'll get fat pretty quickly. Compare to professional athletes - swimmers, or JJ Watt, for example - who consume many thousands more calories each day, but burn many thousands more. They eat more food but are in better shape.
it comes down to job creation though. A masters degree with no job opportunities means little.
-
Chris - you are talking investment, which has it's merits. Of course people invest
in their future, schooling, etc.
But on a national scale, we have runaway debt. You measure your investment
with determined perceived rewards. On a national scale, being nearly? 20 TRILLION
in debt by the time Obamao leaves office...
we are in big, serious trouble. You don't go to college every year for all your life -
to get rewarded for you hard work and a career..
we have millions of people in a giant subculture that get by with unearned public dole.
There are plenty of people without skills to work, who don't want to have a career, hell,
getting free stuff and a free paid for existence IS their career. And, we spend too much money.
Consider this - if you gave ten thousand bucks to a cousin, and buy a 100,000 dollar car,
and buy a castle, and jet plane....
what kind of extra spending do you think it would take to not be bankrupt and unable to pay your
bills pretty quickly?
-
Chris - you are talking investment, which has it's merits. Of course people invest
in their future, schooling, etc.
But on a national scale, we have runaway debt. You measure your investment
with determined perceived rewards. On a national scale, being nearly? 20 TRILLION
in debt by the time Obamao leaves office...
we are in big, serious trouble. You don't go to college every year for all your life -
to get rewarded for you hard work and a career..
we have millions of people in a giant subculture that get by with unearned public dole.
There are plenty of people without skills to work, who don't want to have a career, hell,
getting free stuff and a free paid for existence IS their career. And, we spend too much money.
Consider this - if you gave ten thousand bucks to a cousin, and buy a 100,000 dollar car,
and buy a castle, and jet plane....
what kind of extra spending do you think it would take to not be bankrupt and unable to pay your
bills pretty quickly?
Consider this - if you gave ten thousand bucks to a cousin, and buy a 100,000 dollar car,
and buy a castle, and jet plane....
what kind of extra spending do you think it would take to not be bankrupt and unable to pay your
bills pretty quickly?
Borrow a trillion dollars, buy apple, pay off non-apple debts in two years, sell apple, pay off apple-loan. Next?
-
How much of that debt is military spending?
The driver of our debt are entitlement programs:
Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and other benefit programs, and interest on the debt made up 66 percent of federal spending in 2014.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
The driver of our debt are entitlement programs:
Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and other benefit programs, and interest on the debt made up 66 percent of federal spending in 2014.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
Even under the assumption that Heritage used accurate numbers, that's the deficit, not the debt you referenced earlier.
-
OK, my point seems to have been missed somewhat. Seems you guys have quite a simplistic view of economics (colour me shocked!)
Let me give you an example - I was in debt from my student loans. My earning potential was limited and it would take me a long time to pay those loans off; so I took out another loan, went back to university, got my masters and now earn a lot more than I would have been otherwise. My debts will be paid off shortly and I'll be in a much healthier financial position.
Debt itself is not a problem. Basically everyone has debt, whether it's a mortgage, or a car or whatever. As long as the debt is serviceable, it's all good. Government spending on things that will generate money in the long run should be viewed as an investment, rather than just tacking more debt on, as they seem to be here.
As for losing weight - you basically need to create a calorie deficit, so if you're eating 3000 calories a day and burning only 100, your net is 2900. You'll get fat pretty quickly. Compare to professional athletes - swimmers, or JJ Watt, for example - who consume many thousands more calories each day, but burn many thousands more. They eat more food but are in better shape.
OK, my point seems to have been missed somewhat. Seems you guys have quite a simplistic view of economics (colour me shocked!)
Let me give you an example - I was in debt from my student loans. My earning potential was limited and it would take me a long time to pay those loans off; so I took out another loan, went back to university, got my masters and now earn a lot more than I would have been otherwise. My debts will be paid off shortly and I'll be in a much healthier financial position.
Debt itself is not a problem. Basically everyone has debt, whether it's a mortgage, or a car or whatever. As long as the debt is serviceable, it's all good. Government spending on things that will generate money in the long run should be viewed as an investment, rather than just tacking more debt on, as they seem to be here.
As for losing weight - you basically need to create a calorie deficit, so if you're eating 3000 calories a day and burning only 100, your net is 2900. You'll get fat pretty quickly. Compare to professional athletes - swimmers, or JJ Watt, for example - who consume many thousands more calories each day, but burn many thousands more. They eat more food but are in better shape.
Stopped reading at colour
-
Sorry Chris. I read your fairy tale and still see that socialism is two sides of the same coin. I know you and many on the left think it's the panacea which is probably as silly as predicting that we will turn out to be a third world dictatorship.
I also understand the appeal. There are more poor people, who are usually poor because they are lazy, stupid or both, who would like to believe that their lives would be much better and they would be happier if we could only punish Wall Street, investment bankers, hedge fund managers etc etc etc. And even if it doesn't make our lives better we can take joy and punishing those who have more than we do. I get it.
Bottom line my comparison wasn't bad at all. In order to elevate the bottom 7/8 of the population we need to punish the top 1/8. I don't know nor do I care much about the history of Sweden and Denmark or Norway or how they came to be happy socialists. If they came from the same place the United States of America is today then fine. If they took some other path? Then the comparison isn't any more useful the my comparison with Cuba.
As far as my grasp on economics? Well let's just say if you are correct than every country in the world should be happy and prosperous if they would only follow your rules. I wonder why everyone does not.
WSS
-
chris since you seem to know a lot about econ, I think you're in the field right? anyway, can you explain the statement that "money is debt"? At least when it comes to U.S monetary structure. I learned about this some years ago, it was jarring to be made aware of how not just important..but how imperative debt is in our system. Like without it we can't create new money.
-
chris since you seem to know a lot about econ, I think you're in the field right? anyway, can you explain the statement that "money is debt"? At least when it comes to U.S monetary structure. I learned about this some years ago, it was jarring to be made aware of how not just important..but how imperative debt is in our system. Like without it we can't create new money.
chris since you seem to know a lot about econ, I think you're in the field right? anyway, can you explain the statement that "money is debt"? At least when it comes to U.S monetary structure. I learned about this some years ago, it was jarring to be made aware of how not just important..but how imperative debt is in our system. Like without it we can't create new money.
Money is debt? Not sure I've heard that one before. Context?
-
Just a note for those who think it should be a natural event for the United States to shift gears to a Danish form of socialism I took the liberty of checking the history. Apparently the Socialist party in power now has been there since 1959. Even then it was a group that split off from the Danish Communist Party, approved by the Soviet Union and having been around since 1919. One might think that difference in itself might draw some distinction between our European socialist friends and the USA.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login