Still trying to confuse morons with facts, I see. You get an A for effort.in general, catastrophic and other plans were able to be grandfathered in
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Still trying to confuse morons with facts, I see. You get an A for effort.in general, catastrophic and other plans were able to be grandfathered in
Still trying to confuse morons with facts, I see. You get an A for effort.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is a common tactic when folks are too ignorant on a subject to intelligently discuss it, they resort to name calling. I see it in my high school class every day. Seems to be more common among freshmen girls and boys.How big an Old Boy are you anyway?
like i said, in general, catastrophic plans were able to be grandfathered in. if the companies decided to change them or drop them, there was nothing that could be done to make them keep them. in the realm of "political lies" this is pretty small potatoes.
One of the major issues that always comes up in any debate is, Do we need more government or less government. Objectivity usually carries no weight in any debate these days because we are so polarized. I think Milton Friedman addresses this best in the following youtube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2KHvGW0KaMHowever if the creation of those widgets produces a toxin that destroys the water table for 100 miles around the widget plant or causes children to be born with 3 heads then the government is just about the only entity that can theoretically hold the creator of those widgets responsible and help make sure other widget producers aren't destroying other things. Yes there are lawsuits but when you're talking about huge corporations they have mostly proven to be a non-deterrent.
The Constitution was written in a world without things that could so easily have global consequences.
I'm perfectly good with limits to government intervention and rolling back a lot of it, but to say that all government intervention should be done away with because it's not in the Constitution is attempting to live in a past that no longer exists in a modern world.
You confuse me with someone who’s interested in carrying on a conversation with anyone who distorts reality and refuse to acknowledge facts."Still trying to confuse morons with facts, I see. You get an A for effort."
And calling people morons simply because they do not agree with you does exactly what to carry this conversation forward in a meaningful manner how?
The real question is not more or less, it's better or worse.One of the major issues that always comes up in any debate is, Do we need more government or less government. Objectivity usually carries no weight in any debate these days because we are so polarized. I think Milton Friedman addresses this best in the following youtube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2KHvGW0KaM
I think we are on the verge of getting a whole lot less government, regardless of whether it is good or bad.The real question is not more or less, it's better or worse.
Here we go.WSJ said:In 2017, interest costs on federal debt of $263 billion accounted for 6.6% of all government spending and 1.4% of gross domestic product, well below averages of the previous 50 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates interest spending will rise to $915 billion by 2028, or 13% of all outlays and 3.1% of gross domestic product. Along that path, the government is expected to pass the following milestones: It will spend more on interest than it spends on Medicaid in 2020; more in 2023 than it spends on national defense; and more in 2025 than it spends on all nondefense discretionary programs combined, from funding for national parks to scientific research, to health care and education, to the court system and infrastructure, according to the CBO.
Aw, heck, let’s just give the rich another tax cut. That’ll fix it.I think we are on the verge of getting a whole lot less government, regardless of whether it is good or bad.
Here we go.
This could be an event on par with the collapse of the western Roman Empire in terms of its impact on world history.
Huh...what do you know about that, I'm rich :biggrin:Aw, heck, let’s just give the rich another tax cut. That’ll fix it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In fairness, the last six years of the Obama Administration set records for the collection of Federal revenues.Aw, heck, let’s just give the rich another tax cut. That’ll fix it.
Aw, heck, let's just let the government waste another trillion dollars. That'll fix it.Aw, heck, let’s just give the rich another tax cut. That’ll fix it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a fundamental point some are incapable of understanding.In fairness, the last six years of the Obama Administration set records for the collection of Federal revenues.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.*
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.*
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.*
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.*
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.*
FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.*
FY 2011 - $2.30 trillion.
FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
* Record revenue amount.
It would seem we do not have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Less government is better government - not because it is necessarily good, it is just a smaller amount of bad.The real question is not more or less, it's better or worse.
Well, cutting taxes nets the same result as increasing spending, so in that regard, I agree.In fairness, the last six years of the Obama Administration set records for the collection of Federal revenues.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.*
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.*
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.*
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.*
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.*
FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.*
FY 2011 - $2.30 trillion.
FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
* Record revenue amount.
It would seem we do not have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Generally, I would agree. I do believe in the Laffer Curve, maximizing revenues just depends on where you currently are on that curve. The highest marginal income tax rate (1942) was 100%. Congress cut that tax rate to 97% probably increased tax revenues.Well, cutting taxes nets the same result as increasing spending, so in that regard, I agree.
Unless, of course, you buy into the fallacy that cutting taxes for the rich results in higher pay and thus increase in revenue to make up for the cuts.
Here we agree. Also, locating the new "HQ2" right next to the seat of the legislature is probably just coincidental.It has never worked - like states and municipalities giving huge tax breaks to Amazon (or other “job producers”).
I disagree. When it comes to the United States avoiding the fiscal debacle heading our way, how much the Federal government spends matters very much. In fact, nothing matters more.It’s not how much you spend, it’s how you spend it.
Agreed. This is why I am not a Republican.Republicans have never wanted responsible spending because then they couldn’t criticize the Democrats.
The "general welfare" is about to be replaced with the "general disaster."Politics “trumps” the “general welfare” every time.