Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    01 Dec '17 05:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    .......At the end of the day, people like you just shrug their shoulders and say how much worse it would have been without the stimulus with virtually nothing to back us such claims.....
    whodey even with a chart with labels and arrows and everything you would still find a way to wriggle away from the obvious and find an alt right catch phrase to bury your head in the sand....sad....

    You need to find someone who lived poor through the great depression to work out what life looks like when the money supply contracts(no stimulus) after a big crash.

    And in the crash of '29, what percentage of the unemployment, hunger, uncertainty and deprivation that the country was plunged into, would you say the wealthy experienced compared to ordinary folk, whodey? Care to draw me a chart??
  2. Standard member mchill
    Green Lantern
    01 Dec '17 06:29 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    The tax system is a scheme to reward your cronies and attack your political enemies.

    Corporations who give money to the winning side of an election can expect tax savings. Civilians, like conservative groups under Obama, can expect to be hunted down and targeted by the IRS. Incidentally, those conservative groups proved their case and apparently won a s ...[text shortened]... bt, it's about perfecting political power. It's really all just monopoly money. Nobody cares
    -At the end of the day, the government will always run huge deficits. That's because taxes are not about paying down debt, it's about perfecting political power. It's really all just monopoly money. Nobody cares-

    Wrong again Whodey. At the end of Bill Clinton's administration America had a surplus of over 100 billion dollars, and I assure you a lot of people care! Every dollar America runs as a budget deficit means America must issue paper IOU's and begins paying interest on that debt (see SH76's posts for details) the fact that we don't see this happening doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


    -That's because taxes are not about paying down debt-

    What in the name of heaven are you talking about?? Where do you think the money comes from to pay our national debt, or payroll for our armed forces, or the maintenance on our fleet of naval ships? It's called tax revenue Whodey!



    It would be nice if you got things right, just once in awhile!



    https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-surplus-if-we-can-keep-it-how-the-federal-budget-surplus-happened/
  3. 01 Dec '17 13:01
    Originally posted by @mchill
    -At the end of the day, the government will always run huge deficits. That's because taxes are not about paying down debt, it's about perfecting political power. It's really all just monopoly money. Nobody cares-

    Wrong again Whodey. At the end of Bill Clinton's administration America had a surplus of over 100 billion dollars, and I assure you a lot of peo ...[text shortened]... /www.brookings.edu/articles/a-surplus-if-we-can-keep-it-how-the-federal-budget-surplus-happened/
    As I recall, Obama supported the Bush tax cuts and Clinton even made an appearance to support the decision.

    Why?
  4. Standard member mchill
    Green Lantern
    01 Dec '17 15:50
    Originally posted by @whodey
    As I recall, Obama supported the Bush tax cuts and Clinton even made an appearance to support the decision.

    Why?
    Why don't you take a tiny break from your Liberal bashing and think about what I just wrote.
  5. 01 Dec '17 22:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @kmax87
    The supposed benefit of lowering taxes, is that the economy should grow bigger, which should generate more governmental revenue overall. Except that the voodoo economics scenario outlined has never really happened,
    This. This is the crucial thing. For the trickle-down idea speak all sorts of theories of economy professors who rely on grants from multi-nationals and billionaires. Against it speaks every single practical application of these theories, ever, often with disastrous results.
    I'm all for trying out new scientific ideas, but it's time whodey snd his Randian pals admitted that a. American economics isn't a science but a cargo cult, and b. trickle-down isn't a new idea, but an old one that has failed several times already.
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    02 Dec '17 00:25
    Originally posted by @shallow-blue
    This. This is the crucial thing. For the trickle-down idea speak all sorts of theories of economy professors who rely on grants from multi-nationals and billionaires. Against it speaks every single practical application of these theories, ever, often with disastrous results.
    I'm all for trying out new scientific ideas, but it's time whodey snd his Ran ...[text shortened]... ult, and b. trickle-down isn't a new idea, but an old one that has failed several times already.
    Your post could just as easily be turned around to economy professors (sic) who are sucking on the state teet pumping/pimping their own state worshipping poison to impressionable young minds Economy professors (sic) paid with money taken under threat of force from those that are opposed to their state worship on practical and moral grounds.

    You're welcome to try new scinetific theories, but you should try to convince others to voluntarily fund them.
  7. 02 Dec '17 07:49
    Originally posted by @whodey
    As I recall, Obama supported the Bush tax cuts and Clinton even made an appearance to support the decision.

    Why?
    Source for the claim that Obama supported the Bush tax cuts?
  8. 02 Dec '17 08:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    Your post could just as easily be turned around to economy professors (sic) who are sucking on the state teet pumping/pimping their own state worshipping poison to impressionable young minds Economy professors (sic) paid with money taken under threat of force from those that are opposed to their state worship on practical and moral grounds.
    What, you mean like that state-worshipper Hayek, who had to spent his career churning out statist propaganda because for most of it he taught at public universities such as the London School of Economics and the universities of Freiburg and Salzburg?

    The difference is that a researcher who doesn't churn out the ideological norms preferred by a think tank can easily be sacked. The tenure system at universities is much more conducive to ideological freedom. Hayek knew he wasn't going to be sacked for preaching free-market doctrine. Therefore, Hayek was free to speak his mind and (potentially) to change his mind - in a way that would be dangerous for someone working for a think tank.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Dec '17 13:27
    Originally posted by @mchill
    -At the end of the day, the government will always run huge deficits. That's because taxes are not about paying down debt, it's about perfecting political power. It's really all just monopoly money. Nobody cares-

    Wrong again Whodey. At the end of Bill Clinton's administration America had a surplus of over 100 billion dollars, and I assure you a lot of peo ...[text shortened]... /www.brookings.edu/articles/a-surplus-if-we-can-keep-it-how-the-federal-budget-surplus-happened/
    I don't think it would even be that hard to start running budget surpluses is we had politicians with the political will. A couple of points of tax hike here, a little trimming of spending there and presto, you're at a $200B surplus.

    We're not feeling the crunch right now because interest rates are so low but if God forbid, interest rates ever skyrocket, servicing the debt is going to be half of federal spending before you can spit and say "deficit hawk."

    That our politicians are totally oblivious to this very real danger is sad.
  10. Standard member mchill
    Green Lantern
    07 Dec '17 23:07
    Originally posted by @sh76
    I don't think it would even be that hard to start running budget surpluses is we had politicians with the political will. A couple of points of tax hike here, a little trimming of spending there and presto, you're at a $200B surplus.

    We're not feeling the crunch right now because interest rates are so low but if God forbid, interest rates ever skyrocket, se ...[text shortened]... y "deficit hawk."

    That our politicians are totally oblivious to this very real danger is sad.
    I agree, but sadly, political will and foresight is not a job requirement for lawmakers.
  11. 08 Dec '17 17:58
    Originally posted by @mchill
    The Conservative salesmen are at it again, and their little minions are hanging on their every word. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan analysts charged with estimating the costs of any tax bill, has already put out an initial report saying that the Senate GOP plan would add just over $1.4 trillion to the United States' debt by 2027, bringing t ...[text shortened]... wild-card-expected-wednesday-could-put-the-senate-gop-tax-bill-in-jeopardy/ar-BBFTeAL?li=BBnb7Kz
    Both political parties are at fault. Economic slavery is great for the elites with all the money. After all, it is only the poor they are screwing over. The rich think the poor are too stupid to become rich. That is how Social Darwinism starts. It is essential to believing the poor deserve it.