AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 31,381
- 9,200
- 1,340
Communes not Corporations !!!!!! Lmfao
Retard stop spamming.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Communes not Corporations !!!!!! Lmfao
You're going to have be more specific to what your referring to. I have a feeling you're equating the economy to the governments budget.
? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.
No they're separate.
Lol what? How are they separate?
When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?
You are floating half-baked ideas.
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.
No they're separate.
Lol what? How are they separate?
When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?
You are floating half-baked ideas.
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
No they're separate.
Lol what? How are they separate?
When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?
You are floating half-baked ideas.
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
Nice story. Little to do with reality.
Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.
For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.
If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.
Lol what? How are they separate?
When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?
You are floating half-baked ideas.
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
Nice story. Little to do with reality.
Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.
For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.
If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.
Did you really just type that?
So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
Nice story. Little to do with reality.
Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.
For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.
If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.
Did you really just type that?
So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?
Where did I say NEVER? Read again and pay attention to words "for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off)"
As to the answer to the question WHEN? that much no one really knows.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
Nice story. Little to do with reality.
Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.
For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.
If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.
Did you really just type that?
So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?
Where did I say NEVER? Read again and pay attention to words "for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off)"
As to the answer to the question WHEN? that much no one really knows.
Wrong the question is still who, and it always has the same answer
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
Nice story. Little to do with reality.
Our government has been running deficits almost continuously and for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off) there is not a relationship you describe.
For example, to date, taxpayers have not paid a single (REAL) penny for the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was simply added to the debt.
If we are to cut spending to address the budget it WILL be painful, just as raising taxes will be. It will reduce economic activity and the GDP output that reflects it, no free lunches here.
Did you really just type that?
So your point is just because citizens didn't pay off the war immediately...they are never going to pay for it?
Where did I say NEVER? Read again and pay attention to words "for the purposes of short and mid term consideration (that is to say before ANY of these deficits actually get paid off)"
As to the answer to the question WHEN? that much no one really knows.
Wrong the question is still who, and it always has the same answer
Ok answer simple question:
Who paid for the Iraq war? Did this spending increase or decrease our GDP over the last decade?
The answer is no one. Not only were the taxes not raised we actually got a TAX-CUT during this war. This spending and tax-cuts were on borrowed debt and both have so far expanded economy.
It depends on the public policies. Promoting the general welfare should involve an investment in the general welfare that produces a multiplier effect on our economy.? I'm not equating economy to government spending, it is just one component of economy.
No they're separate.
Lol what? How are they separate?
When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?
You are floating half-baked ideas.
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
It depends on the public policies. Promoting the general welfare should involve an investment in the general welfare that produces a multiplier effect on our economy.No they're separate.
Lol what? How are they separate?
When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?
You are floating half-baked ideas.
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
The rich got their bailout, and we didn't have another, Great Depression.It depends on the public policies. Promoting the general welfare should involve an investment in the general welfare that produces a multiplier effect on our economy.Lol what? How are they separate?
When a teacher or a cop, or Lockheed Martin gets paid by government and spends their earnings that somehow IS NOT economic activity?
You are floating half-baked ideas.
It can have an effect, that doesn't mean the 2 are one in the same. There's still a large private industry separate from the governments budget, whether local or fed.
I didn't say they are the same, I said they are components of the economy.
Let me put it to you this way, one feeds off of the other, it's still is a separate entity. Like a lamprey on a shark. Just because government hires a cop, or forms a contract with LM, citizens are still footing that bill. Government doesn't have its own money separate from what it taxes from the economy, it may print new money out of thin air (like they have been) but that still devalues our currency, so we get less bang for our buck, which is essentially another tax.
Like the fed with 0% interest rates and QE