Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree18Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 3rd, 2015, 01:02 PM   #11
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
You are making a generalized comment without any specifics. I have no idea what your objection is.
Then you are taking an incredibly simplistic view of economics.
RNG is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 01:57 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
You are making a generalized comment without any specifics. I have no idea what your objection is.


JWK




If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Then you are taking an incredibly simplistic view of economics.
You are making another generalized comment without any specifics.


JWK
johnwk is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 02:19 PM   #13
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
We control our own currency john. So why should we even worry about our national debt? In fact we should be going deeper in debt to help solve our economic situation.
Because there is a break point for debt. Government, personal, Corporate..

There comes the point.. Debt breaks the back...

Either you Repay or you default when the ability to borrow ends.

We do not control our currency, the world Bank does, via the FED.

All the world debt has to do is change to the standard currency from the Dollar to the Yan Yen Mark or Ruble then we have lost ALL control.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 02:47 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
You assert The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment "is pure stupidity" but offer no explanation. Why?


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Do you see what's happening with Greece now?
The Fair Share Budget Amendment puts this country in the same situation Greece is in...does that sound like a good idea?
goober is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 05:00 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Do you see what's happening with Greece now?
The Fair Share Budget Amendment puts this country in the same situation Greece is in...does that sound like a good idea?
Yes! I do see what's happening in Greece. And Greece's current financial situation would not have happened had the government of Greece lived within the revenue raised from taxation.

The United States is headed down the same road as Greece, and the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would encourage Congress to live within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes.

Contrary to what you said above, it seems quite clear the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment would go a long way to prevent what has happened in Greece.

JWK



"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.
johnwk is offline  
Old June 7th, 2018, 06:43 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,917
Taxing consumption, our Founders way

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
You want to balance the budget, just pass a law that sets the tax rate on income over a million dollars at a rate that balances the budget.
You'll see a balanced budget, without excessive taxation ....

Another generalized and absurd comment without any details.



Taxing consumption, as our founders intended, would allow the market place to determine excessive taxation.


See Hamilton in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on consumption:


“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”




JWK
johnwk is offline  
Old June 7th, 2018, 07:45 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
Yep. As is usual with the usual suspects, their memories always fall short.

Bill Clinton did exactly that in '99, and we were on our way to a balanced budget, and a surplus.

Then comes W. with his $2 trillion tax cut for those same millionaires, and the balanced budget goes out the window, along with the surplus.

Now we have a whole new set of nimrods that still think the same failed policies will produce different results. Which is ironic as hell considering the fact the tax cuts is the main contributor to both the debt and the deficit.

This is the third time we've been through this. It started with Reagan. It never works in the long term, but the short term is a big ol' party.
leekohler2 is offline  
Old June 7th, 2018, 07:46 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Another generalized and absurd comment without any details.



Taxing consumption, as our founders intended, would allow the market place to determine excessive taxation.


See Hamilton in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on consumption:


“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”




JWK
He's right though. And sorry, but the rich will always find a way to avoid consumption taxes.
leekohler2 is offline  
Old June 7th, 2018, 09:07 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 10,592
Dear John,
Let's start with your Jefferson quote because it's a real doozy and gets to the heart of the topic:
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another..."

Bless Tom's heart, but when was the last time we had a "wise and frugal Government"? AND when was the last time men restrained themselves from injuring one another?

If I remember correctly (and I'm sure you correct me if I'm wrong) the last time this country's budget was balanced was under Andrew Jackson.
Quote:
On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID." That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free.
There's still some debate about Bill Clinton's "balanced budget". The Cato Institute says NO he didn't. Fact checks say it wasn't just Bill's policies but YES, it was during the Clinton Admin when it happened and YES the deficit was erased during that time. The debate continues.

The point is that since 1835 we the people have lived quite successfully (with exceptions) with a deficit and unbalanced budget. We are not a household. We have rarely had budget-conscientious lawmakers. Trump does not show an ounce of restraint. There are solid reasons why we do NOT need a balanced budget amendment.
1) The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars.
2) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.
3) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around.
4) Unbalanced budgets are successful anti-recessionary tools.
5) The government's deficit is our surplus. When the government spends more than it earns, WE EARN MORE THAN WE SPEND!!!

In 1937, in the midst of the Great Depression, we had finally reduced unemployment from 25% to 14%. Policymakers decided, “Hey, we should try to balance the budget!” Unemployment jumped back to 19% and it took almost until the war to get it back down.

You’d have thought we’d have learned our lesson. Apparently not.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntha.../#5d0117c2a499
Clara007 is offline  
Old June 7th, 2018, 09:16 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 18,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
You want to balance the budget, just pass a law that sets the tax rate on income over a million dollars at a rate that balances the budget.
You'll see a balanced budget, without excessive taxation ....
And then you'll see a loss of productivity. Can't make a buck, why bother?
caconservative is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
amendment, avoid, balanced, budget, candidates, fair, share



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pay your Fair Share, POTUS Obama TNVolunteer73 Current Events 3 April 13th, 2013 03:34 AM
Let's play the Rich don't pay their fair share Truth Detector Current Events 40 November 27th, 2012 01:22 PM
The rich most certainly are paying their fair share. Politicskid Taxes 668 October 26th, 2012 11:00 AM
House Rejects Balanced Budget Amendment Mom Current Events 13 November 19th, 2011 01:04 PM
Gay Marriage Is Issue Candidates Would Rather Avoid Cubbie Gay and Lesbian Rights 54 September 25th, 2008 08:50 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.