41–50 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an argument. You're just asserting that it's not possible.
The rise in government's share of the economy correlates with the rise in the economic ills. What is the basis for thinking there is an inflection point where the correlation reverses?
Heck, where's the evidence for your purported correlation in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not suggesting that I'm in favor of this, but the idea is that the country has plenty of wealth, it is just concentrated in older generations who were able to build it through decades of economic largesse, so, well, that's who should should be paying for it.
And I'm still not clear on how taxing the shit out of everyday working citizens somehow redistributes the wealth which is already hoarded by the 0.1%.
And people wonder why we want a socialist for president
Let's just call it what it really is: Ignorance of the masses. I can guarantee most of those burnouts have neither paid attention to history nor basic economics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama is not a socialist and there is very little that he could do with such strong opposition and control from the GOP in the house, and until recently, the senate.
Obama had filibuster-proof majorities for his first two years (when they passed the ACA with only one republican house vote and none in the senate) then a split congress for four. When measured by party control, Clinton, GHW Bush, and Reagan all faced more opposition in congress than Obama has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just call it what it really is: Ignorance of the masses. I can guarantee most of those burnouts have neither paid attention to history nor basic economics.
You're right, it's pretty ignorant to think socialism is worthwhile economic or political policy.
There is a coming political doomsday in the US, and it will have nothing to do with left vs right, but rather the haves vs the have nots...and it just so happens that boomers are the haves and millenials are the have nots. It won't end pretty.
I think for many millennials, the conclusion of this article doesn't come as a surprise. As a member between the Gen X and the millennial crowd, I've certainly seen how much harder people just a few years younger than me have it as well as how much easier for those slightly older. Older generations don't realize that their wealth is primarily built up in what is really an elaborate ponzi scheme of sorts, money which…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence that increased government spending harms economic growth? It seems like an a priori certainty in right wing thought, but what evidence I've seen suggests that the effect is minimal or even beneficial (within the spending ranges that we see in modern developed nations).
You're entirely right, government spending does not harm economic growth.
Of course right now capital is ridiculously cheap and the economy still isn't doing very well...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I'm still not clear on how taxing the shit out of everyday working citizens somehow redistributes the wealth which is already hoarded by the 0.1%.
Well we could start with some common sense tax reform, like not letting anything above $112k not be taxable for social security, a system through which old people are living off the backs of the young and straddling them with debts for services they will never see themselves - a ponzi scheme
Might want to consider the increasing drain on the economy that the government takes. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2020... One way or another, it comes out of our pocketses.
Do you have any evidence that increased government spending harms economic growth? It seems like an a priori certainty in right wing thought, but what evidence I've seen suggests that the effect is minimal or even beneficial (within the spending ranges that we see in modern developed nations).