Forums | MacLife

JakeTheTall wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Running a deficit in the height of a economic boom is irresponsible.  This is what the Republicans did.

I  suggest you wouldn't have had a  boom were it not for deficit spending.

Too-cheap money thanks to Chairman Greenspan, the currency imbalance with China, financial firms over-leveraging by using derivative to get around Reg T:  perhaps the timing of the boom would have been different, but there would have been one.

And, of course, the 2003-2007 "boom" was one of inflated real estate, overcapacity in construction, and unsustainable boom in financials.

I wonder what you'd see if you were to convert the growth figures of the years preceding the 2008 crash with the figures of indebtedness taken on by government corporations and consumers. Would they align?

I've always maintained that I prefer a tax and spend Democrat to a spend and spend Republican.

The Republicans have NOT demonstrated conservative fiscal responsibility these last 8 years. Indeed, the Regan fiscal policies were risky as well.

Just because something is in the commercial realm doesn't mean that it's viable, necessary, or profitable, and certainly doesn't mean it should be done. Companies that are for profit and are not fiscally responsible should pay the price. What is ironic is that Republican policies have been tatamount to saying that if a company is for profit they should be supported by government fiscal policy, regardless of whether they are being run in fiscally responsible way, make a profit or deficit. There is nothing inherently holy about private enterprise. It stands on its own two legs or it fails.

Republican policy has a problem with the the part about it fails. They don't want to tax companies for their usage of the infrastructure, they don't want to tax the companies for the common weal.

The way public debt is supposed to work is that it funds infrastructure-like long term investments, which include many worthwhile social programmes. And the security behind this indebtedness is the power to tax. Except, whenever the power to tax looks like it ought to be invoked, out come the excuses for limiting taxes. The power gets undermined by ideology. And eventually, you get screwed.

Dude, seriously?

Crushing debt will likely lead to a pull-out from A'stan, similar to the Soviet experience. That will make people feel bad.

To the barricades! Help! We're running low on flowers!

Pariah wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

The way public debt is supposed to work is that it funds infrastructure-like long term investments, which include many worthwhile social programmes. And the security behind this indebtedness is the power to tax. Except, whenever the power to tax looks like it ought to be invoked, out come the excuses for limiting taxes. The power gets undermined by ideology. And eventually, you get screwed.

This is the basis for my repeated assertions that post Reagan the republican's belief is that "everything is free" because they assert that we can continue to increase spending while cutting taxes. Thus, Everything is free.
Some historic figure said something to the effect that democracy will work until the public realizes they can wright themselves checks on the government account. This is what the republicans have done, they have sold the public on the idea that there needs be no link between spending and taxing, it's a lie and basically amounts to vote buying.
Here, look at what we can give you and it won't cost a penny.

I think you need to listen to the "Obama money" clip from Detroit and revise your thinking on political parties and getting something.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

"Obama money"

Already that term is becoming hip.

Do you want an Obama money clip?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

"Obama money"

Already that term is becoming hip.

It's a disturbing audio clip for sure.

I just find it astonishing that insane partisanship has become so insane, and such an absurd substitute for factual analysis, that people are even using it to avoid talking about the issues they're talking about!

I mean God forbid anyone should actually talk about the dollar.

I want your country back!

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

The way public debt is supposed to work is that it funds infrastructure-like long term investments, which include many worthwhile social programmes. And the security behind this indebtedness is the power to tax. Except, whenever the power to tax looks like it ought to be invoked, out come the excuses for limiting taxes. The power gets undermined by ideology. And eventually, you get screwed.

This is the basis for my repeated assertions that post Reagan the republican's belief is that "everything is free" because they assert that we can continue to increase spending while cutting taxes. Thus, Everything is free.
Some historic figure said something to the effect that democracy will work until the public realizes they can wright themselves checks on the government account. This is what the republicans have done, they have sold the public on the idea that there needs be no link between spending and taxing, it's a lie and basically amounts to vote buying.
Here, look at what we can give you and it won't cost a penny.

I think you need to listen to the "Obama money" clip from Detroit and revise your thinking on political parties and getting something.

So....
Am I supposed to take a trip to Detroit and look around for this clip you refer to?

Sternum wrote:

Or the fact that the 1% of the population that controls 99% of the wealth

That's inaccurate.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Sternum wrote:

Or the fact that the 1% of the population that controls 99% of the wealth

That's inaccurate.

Indeed, Citibank said it best.

Long live plutonomy!

In rough figures, the top 1% has 38% of the wealth and pays 34% of the income taxes (doesn't include state and local taxes which brings their total higher).

Doing a search I keep getting everyone saying the 1/99% thing taking it from something Moore said.
I suspect that would be accurate for a world number but not the US.