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.
Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Are you of the opinion that no one has ever bothered to project the "shortfall" and to estimate what would be required to meet it?Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Have you ever taken the time to learn of the projected gap has been quantified?
What did you learn?
Been hitting that big bowl of vodka and paint chips I see.
Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
What you call spending, others call theft.
What we need is government to leave us alone by forcing it to stick to its constitutionally limited powers.
This would eliminate the need for an income tax. This wouldn't slow the growth of spending other people's money, it would end it.
If you have a plan that doesn't require armed government agents to force compliance, I'll listen. Until then, I reject the notion you know what's best for everyone else.
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
What you call spending, others call theft.
What we need is government to leave us alone by forcing it to stick to its constitutionally limited powers.
This would eliminate the need for an income tax. This wouldn't slow the growth of spending other people's money, it would end it.
If you have a plan that doesn't require armed government agents to force compliance, I'll listen. Until then, I reject the notion you know what's best for everyone else.
Quit bullshitting me. First your problem was unstainable fiscal position of federal government, now you switch to bitching about having to pay even current tax rates.
Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
You just supported Reagan! LOL. We spend way too much money, spending should be slashed.
How does the rate of growth of Federal spending under Reagan compare to that under Obama?Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
You just supported Reagan! LOL. We spend way too much money, spending should be slashed.
Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
You just supported Reagan! LOL. We spend way too much money, spending should be slashed.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
What you call spending, others call theft.
What we need is government to leave us alone by forcing it to stick to its constitutionally limited powers.
This would eliminate the need for an income tax. This wouldn't slow the growth of spending other people's money, it would end it.
If you have a plan that doesn't require armed government agents to force compliance, I'll listen. Until then, I reject the notion you know what's best for everyone else.
Quit bullshitting me. First your problem was unstainable fiscal position of federal government, now you switch to bitching about having to pay even current tax rates.
Both are true.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
What you call spending, others call theft.
What we need is government to leave us alone by forcing it to stick to its constitutionally limited powers.
This would eliminate the need for an income tax. This wouldn't slow the growth of spending other people's money, it would end it.
If you have a plan that doesn't require armed government agents to force compliance, I'll listen. Until then, I reject the notion you know what's best for everyone else.
Quit bullshitting me. First your problem was unstainable fiscal position of federal government, now you switch to bitching about having to pay even current tax rates.
Both are true.
No they are not as I carefully explained to you. We do not need to cut today's spending to be solvent in the long term, we simply need to slow it's growth to bellow revenues rate of growth.
Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
You just supported Reagan! LOL. We spend way too much money, spending should be slashed.
Did you take a lot of "Operations Management" and "Organizational Behavior" in b-school?
Cause your "grasp" of macro fails to rise to puerile...or even psittacine..
In 1907 Irving Fisher... presented a version... did not identify the originator of the joke. This is the earliest instance located....
It was once wittily remarked of the early writers on economic problems, “Catch a parrot and teach him to say ‘supply and demand,’ and you have an excellent economist.” Prices, wages, rent, interest, and profits were thought to be fully “explained” by this glib phrase...
Parrots, Laissez Faire, Supply and Demand, and Political Economy
How does the rate of growth of Federal spending under Reagan compare to that under Obama?Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.
Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
You just supported Reagan! LOL. We spend way too much money, spending should be slashed.
How does the rate of growth of Federal spending under Reagan compare to that under Obama?Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.
It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.
it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.
Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
You just supported Reagan! LOL. We spend way too much money, spending should be slashed.
It was too high in both cases
How does the rate of growth of Federal spending under Reagan compare to that under Obama?Your "realistic" scenario is fiscally unsustainable, as even the most cursory reading of history would reveal.
But I'm sure you know better.
Yea, pass.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, we don't need $nominal reduction in spending to have long term sustainable budget because revenues are growing as economy expands. All we need is long term spending to grow at slower rate than receipts.
You just supported Reagan! LOL. We spend way too much money, spending should be slashed.
It was too high in both cases
That's not what I asked......In fact, it could be asked about every president since Eisenhower's first term....
If you know, why don't you answer the question?
If you don't, you might find it instructive to look.....
