In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1833
Online now 2408 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Imagine it like this. The first picture is a pure laissez faire economy that follows normal boom/bust cycles. The second is an economy that uses keynesian principles to limit both.
Sorry but I am not seeing how taxes could accomplish that. I think that you would have to take your Keynesian graph and put it on a downward trajectory.
That's just an estimate, still two to go, I'd be more worried if it was a bigger number but its only .1%
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
Peaks and valleys are more evened out. Limit growth and use that tax surplus to stimulate during a bust period. It's a basic economic theory.
Woah, woah, woah, slow down, you just lost 3/4 of tBB.
Funny that the posters who want to lecture democrats on the economy are the ones who have trouble grasping economic theories taught in econ 101.
When in doubt just say "Government=bad"
Still Bush's fault.
Scored 4 touchdowns...in a single game. Polk High!
People don't bring up Bush to assign blame (except for Iraq really and the 4,500 soldiers who died there). We bring up Bush to show the hypocrisy of certain positions, thus lending credibility to the idea that motives may not be what they appear to be. For example, all of a sudden the GOP worries about deficits and debt, but blatantly ignored it under Bush. That is a position which shows that maybe deficits aren't important at all but are really a red herring to the actual goal of eliminating the New Deal programs that helped build the middle class to what it was in the 60s, 70s, and 80s until Reagan took over (and brought the neocons with him).
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
No Bush was/is never brought up to "assign blame".
We don't need them. Trying to reduce debt to gdp ratio by reducing spending will be self defeating. You can do this by also increasing the denominator.
Yes what we need is for a corrupt government that has no problem maintaining their corruption openly to have more control over the private sector. What a fucking disaster that would be.
So where's the Liberals concern with deficits and debt, hell Obama is Bush times infinity on the lack of fiscal constraint but I don't remember too many Congressmen(D) voting against Medicare part D or any other domestic program from 2000-2008.
This post was edited by NLeininger 15 months ago
Who do you think the government is?
Google is your friend my dear boy
9 democrats voted Yes for the bill containing medicare part D.
The GOP has no concern for deficits or debt. That is why they won't tell you what spending cuts they want. They want Obama to name them. That isn't how negotiating works. Obama wanted tax increases and named them. GOP wants spending cuts and...expects Obama to name the ones they want??? That doesn't make sense.
Obama doesn't have fiscal constraint or a lack of fiscal constraint. He doesn't pass spending laws, Congress does. Congress has the power of the purse and the power to take it away. That is why the debt ceiling fiasco is so ridiculous. On the one hand, Congress has passed laws telling Obama to spend so much money, and then they refuse to raise the ceiling so he can't acquire the funds to spend the money Congress has told him he has to.
Edit because I had no idea how many democrats voted for Part D.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by CockAtLaw 15 months ago
right...it's not about spending cuts as GOP have historically ran larger deficits. It's about GOP wanting to dismantle ss and medicare and they are using the debt/deficit to frame that argument. Here's an article to give context to my post. This has been a campaign in the works for decades. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/peter-peterson-foundation-half-billion-social-security-cuts_n_1517805.html
And here's another "interesting" piece. The "leninist strategy" propaganda campaign from the Cato Institute (conservative think tank). Note when it was dated, 1983.
Which allowed the stupidity of that bill to pass, but I do wonder how many would have voted for it, if Obama was president and wanted it.
Probably ever fucking one of them, much like their even shitter ACA bill.
4 MORE YEARS!! 4 MORE YEARS!!................ till we get rid of this loser.
The growth of debt is far outpacing GDP growth, if we are growing the economy 5% a year we are doing amazing, and we aren't there now. You can't just grow your way out of this debt. You have to cut spending also, and raise revenue. Spending is going to have to be cut at some point, it's unavoidable.
No it isn't. The idea that cutting profits during good times will mean that the bad times won't be as bad is just ridiculous.
The GOP has passed several budgets the past few years detailing spending cuts they desire. All of which died in the Dem controlled Senate. The Democrats however have not passed or proposed a budget at all since 2009.
Well the Dems didn't do anything to get rid of it later on. No rational person thinks the GOP isn't to blame for a lot of this. But the Dems are at least just as bad, and they haven't done a single thing to fix it either. At least the GOP is paying lip service to the problem, which sadly is the most we have got from either party on this issue, the Dems seem to think it doesn't matter.
Wherever fault lies it has to be fixed.
Ludwig Van Mises
Both sides are bad and a distraction, a la bread and circus, to keep the masses from asking realistic but tough questions.
I'm done now.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports