Federal Spending Explodes even WITHOUT bailout!

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Revenues are collapsing because the private markets are.

Dano's solution: collapse them further by revoking federal spending. If you have enough money (or if you don't), provide another tax cut to the top 1%, because that's worked so well before.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It should be well known by now, at least by those who remember and understand history, that governments do not create things, they take away things. Whether that's by restricting freedom or crushing free enterprise, they do nothing but destroy. To once again rely on government to fix the economy that they themselves broke is insanity.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It should be well known by now, at least by those who remember and understand history, that governments do not create things, they take away things..

Say something enough and it becomes true. So sayeth the ignorant masses.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Revenues are collapsing because the private markets are.

Dano's solution: collapse them further by revoking federal spending. If you have enough money (or if you don't), provide another tax cut to the top 1%, because that's worked so well before.

Watermark solution: Revive dead keynesian policies, get into steep debt and cling to delusion that you can always cut spending later.

The left's solution causes the same problem as well because tax increases mean less capital in private hands which limits ability to invest and spend in private markets. At least with lower taxes, the money flowing through the state is not partially siphoned off with useless bureaucracy that does nothing to increase productivity.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Watermark solution: Revive dead keynesian policies, get into steep debt and cling to delusion that you can always cut spending later.

And I'll bet that WM would have been one of those ranting and raving about Reagans keynesian ecomonic policies, but it's ok for a democrat to do it.

 

[KingCondanomation]

And I'll bet that WM would have been one of those ranting and raving about Reagans keynesian ecomonic policies, but it's ok for a democrat to do it.

Yep and don't forget, not only is it ok it's called "change".

 

[uscitizen]

It should be well known by now, at least by those who remember and understand history, that governments do not create things, they take away things. Whether that's by restricting freedom or crushing free enterprise, they do nothing but destroy. To once again rely on government to fix the economy that they themselves broke is insanity.

So business itself deserves none of the blame for the current problems ?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And I'll bet that WM would have been one of those ranting and raving about Reagans keynesian ecomonic policies, but it's ok for a democrat to do it.

Reagans policy wasn't influenced by Keynesianism, and the prime the pump part of Keynesianism was NEVER discredited, no matter what the neoliberals will have you believe.

Reagan's policy was running a deficit in boom time to make a boom bigger. Keynes always advocated paying off the debt when there's not a recession going on.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So business itself deserves none of the blame for the current problems ?

why? all they did was take advantage of the gaping holes that the government left them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Reagans policy wasn't influenced by Keynesianism, and the prime the pump part of Keynesianism was NEVER discredited, no matter what the neoliberals will have you believe.

Reagan's policy was running a deficit in boom time to make a boom bigger. Keynes always advocated paying off the debt when there's not a recession going on.

were you alive during that 'boom' time? Because I grew up in it and I can tell you that when it started, there was no 'boom' time.

My mother worked 3 part time jobs because there weren't any full times available. Reagans first years were not economically fun.

 

[uscitizen]

why? all they did was take advantage of the gaping holes that the government left them.

They lobbied hard for those loopholes.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They lobbied hard for those loopholes.

then who is to blame for giving them to those business?

 

[uscitizen]

then who is to blame for giving them to those business?

Our rented government I think.

Ban all paid lobbyists.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Our rented government I think.

Ban all paid lobbyists.

I agree with your sentiment, but it ultimately comes down to two entities...

the legislators that provided these loopholes and then our own stupid sorry asses for re-electing the same reps who fucked us over.

 

[uscitizen]

I agree with your sentiment, but it ultimately comes down to two entities...

the legislators that provided these loopholes and then our own stupid sorry asses for re-electing the same reps who fucked us over.

Not me, I did not vote for anyone in congress that was involved in that.

I have actually voted against a couple that were involved.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not me, I did not vote for anyone in congress that was involved in that.

I have actually voted against a couple that were involved.

as did I. My congressman, Marchant, voted no, but when I saw sen. cornyn voted yes (he said he did because he grabbed a few billion to help the hurricane victims down south) I voted against him.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The only people I voted for in congress were those that voted against or were challenging an incumbent. But everyones an idiot in mississippi, so they all would've voted against it anyway, and so I voted for all democrats.