How will we pay for it all?

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

There are two principles at work here as we learned in Economics 101:

1) In a capitalistic society, wealth is not generated by government, but is rather generated by the private sector.

2) There are differences in short term and long term benefits to the people when services are provided by government versus the private sector.

Care to back this up with quotes from any econ 101 textbook in reasonably wide use?

3 Replies

@Thomas,

My Paul Samualson Econ 101 textbook got jettisoned in one move or another. What problem to you have, Thomas, with Fox's comments?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

You don't have to refer to any econ 101 textbook; just look at what happens to countries without the freedom of speech and free markets. Government control has everything to do with wealth.

The reason the US had a head-start in our economic growth was the simple fact that after WWII, the veterans were able to attend college. It has to do with democracy in a free marketplace where incentive is the key to success.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

incentive is the key to success.

According to Barack and Michelle Obama, "the key to success" is having a tight and loving relationship with Chicago's "machine"...

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There are two principles at work here as we learned in Economics 101:

1) In a capitalistic society, wealth is not generated by government, but is rather generated by the private sector.

2) There are differences in short term and long term benefits to the people when services are provided by government versus the private sector.

Care to back this up with quotes from any econ 101 textbook in reasonably wide use?

No, sorry. I believe I traded in that textbook to help pay for the next one for the more advanced class.

But perhaps you could inform me in what way the statements are wrong. I'm pretty sure I'm on secure footing there, but I'm open to being tutored.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You took a "more advanced class?" ROFL

1 Reply

@Miller,

Prove it?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Prove it?

That's for you to disprove.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes. Difficult to believe, I know, but I was required to to take some classes for my major.

0 Replies

@Miller,

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

incentive is the key to success.

According to Barack and Michelle Obama, "the key to success" is having a tight and loving relationship with Chicago's "machine"...

really? huh... don't think i ever heard him say that.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

People like Miller has great imagination; they hear things not spoken by Barack or Michelle; no different than Bush (and now Palin) hearing the voice of god.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

But perhaps you could inform me in what way the statements are wrong. I'm pretty sure I'm on secure footing there, but I'm open to being tutored.

huh ?
from what i learned , i'd be required to prove my statements when challenged .
if the rules have changed , i certainly have not been informed yet .
this will certainly be much simpler now .
i can state anything i want and demand that the challenger prove me wrong .
is this how science works too ? (i sure hope not !) .
hbg

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

My question is for folks who always oppose raising taxes. I'll admit I don't like paying a lot of taxes either. But who is going to pay for our wars, our aging infrastructure, our social security promises? Do you think it is ok to pass this burden on to our children, grandchildren and, at this rate, great-grandchildren? Help me understand.

Borrow LOTS more from China.....Obv Smile

1 Reply

@WECpoker,

I think China is getting a little bit gun-shy, because they invested in Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and now their stock prices lost almost 90% of its value.

0 Replies

@hamburger,

hamburger wrote:

foxfire wrote :

Quote:
But perhaps you could inform me in what way the statements are wrong. I'm pretty sure I'm on secure footing there, but I'm open to being tutored.

huh ?
from what i learned , i'd be required to prove my statements when challenged .
if the rules have changed , i certainly have not been informed yet .
this will certainly be much simpler now .
i can state anything i want and demand that the challenger prove me wrong .
is this how science works too ? (i sure hope not !) .
hbg

The only thing I am obligated to prove is that I actually learned what I stated that I learned. I proved that I learned it when I stated it. Okay?

I'm sorry that I can't prove that I learned it in Economics 101, so I will amend that to reflect that it is my opinion that I learned it in Economics 101.

Happy?

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

My question is for folks who always oppose raising taxes. I'll admit I don't like paying a lot of taxes either. But who is going to pay for our wars, our aging infrastructure, our social security promises? Do you think it is ok to pass this burden on to our children, grandchildren and, at this rate, great-grandchildren? Help me understand.

Is raising taxes the ONLY way to pay for anything? How much is enough to raise taxes? If we raise taxes to 100% of all earnings, shoot the government can pay for a whole lot of stuff. But, perhaps we can all agree there is a definite downside to that. I think we can all agree that there are legitimate functions of government that we should pay for, but at what level of taxation does it become a downside more than an upside? How can we agree on what government should do and what the people should do outside of government?

Instead of raising taxes, how about not spending tax dollars on stuff that the government doesn't absolutely have to do? How about closing a whole bunch of government programs and departments that we don't absolutely have to have? How about implementing programs and policies that encourage people to grow the economy and increase prosperity so that more and more revenues are paid into the national treasury despite lower taxes?
I bet we could save a whole bunch of money simply by looking at what we are getting for the government money that is spent and demanding value received for monies paid.

One example: Every new congressman and senator is allocated a humongous allowance to decorate his offices. And most throw out all the expensive carpet, furniture, wallpaper, paintings, etc. their predecessors used and it is all carted off to a mega warehouse where it is unlikely to ever see the light of day again. And all new stuff is bought for those offices. We not only spend more money on each decorating project than it would take to save a small bank, but we have the expense of maintaining those huge warehouses that gobble up more land every year.

Let's deal with stuff like THAT before we start talking about the necessity of raising taxes.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox wrote:

Quote:

Is raising taxes the ONLY way to pay for anything?

No, but there's a thing called "living within your means." Bush has created the biggest national debt in history, but doesn't want to tax the very people who can most afford to pay it, and transfer that debt to our children and grandchildren. You still don't "get it."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Then I would expect the Congress to reduce spending. When might that happen?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Instead of raising taxes, how about not spending tax dollars on stuff that the government doesn't absolutely have to do?

I agree. Unfortunately, we have already gone to war and occupied Iraq and now we have to pay for it. We have already borrowed a **** load of money from social security, and now we have to pay for it. We have already borrowed a **** load of money from the American people and from other countries, and now we have to pay for it. The cut spending ship has sailed. We are in a pickle now, and I would rather we pay for it than my children and grandchildren.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Instead of raising taxes, how about not spending tax dollars on stuff that the government doesn't absolutely have to do?

I agree. Unfortunately, we have already gone to war and occupied Iraq and now we have to pay for it. We have already borrowed a **** load of money from social security, and now we have to pay for it. We have already borrowed a **** load of money from the American people and from other countries, and now we have to pay for it. The cut spending ship has sailed. We are in a pickle now, and I would rather we pay for it than my children and grandchildren.

Yes it has to be paid for, but it certainly isn't the first time that the US has had a war debt nor is it likely to be the past. Government has raided the social security account since Day 1 and there has always been a zero balance and a fistfull of IOU's there, so that isn't anything new. There is no reason to think the richest country in the world won't pay for it again. And I think my suggestions are a far more sensible and practical and productive way to pay for it all than tax increases are likely to be.

You raise taxes with the way Congress thinks and operates today, and they only see more money to spend and more license to increase the debt which will leave an even larger debt for our children and grandchildren to deal with. You can't find a Congress in our life time that has paid down the debt. The only practical way to pay that debt is to demand fiscal responsibility on the spending end and grow our way out of it.

We won't do that by raising taxes.

1 Reply

How will we pay for it all?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know