npr.org— With the federal deficit soaring, annual interest payments on debt will reach $916 billion by the end of the decade. Although everyone can see the train wreck coming, lawmakers seem powerless to stop it.
Apr 30, 2010View in Crawl 4
I would sit here and try to explain what happened in Congress under Clinton. But you obviously don't understand that it is Congress, not the President, who passes the budget.Here's a fun game for you kiddies who didn't actually do any research at all beyond your carefully framed google searches in which you ignored all contrary evidence and proceeded to cherry pick. The Democrats didn't actually control Congress when "Clinton" was balancing the budget.Here's some light reading, though it does concentrate on the end of Clintons terms mostly, nonetheless come back when you have a basic understanding of at least a portion of that 8 year period out of the 30 year period you attempted to misrepresent. When you have accomplished this task, we will move on to the next 4 year period under Bush Sr. Or perhaps we should go forward to G.W. and discuss the Iraq War Vote and the fact that both parties actually had all the intelligence before the war."The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation [Hardcover]"<a class="user" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195322789?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=usncom-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0195322789" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195322789?ie=UTF ...</a>
You don't see his point because you have no knowledge about the long term effects of economic decisions. It took many years for the negative effects of "Reaganomics" to surface. So yea, they have these things- i think they call them "books". You should check one out sometime.
only a tiny fraction? Look at the numbers, 40% go to social security and the medi-programs. People used to live and work in this country for decades before any damned social program came along. So yeah it would work and people wouldn't starve to death.We should meet someday and when it you do bring money because I'm going to reach in and take as much as I can to give away to people that refuse to work. Then you can learn what it feels like, to have charity forced from you at gunpoint. That's not charity, that's called theft.
Just because we had explosive growth following a depression and a war when taxes happened to be at an all time does not mean that the high taxes were the reason for the growth. We also had the greatest drop in GDP growth during the same period in 1932, 33. Oh gee, the rise in tax rates was the singular cause for the great depression.There's a reason that "correlation does not imply causation" is a scientific axiom.
*standing ovation*"tax the rich" is naive. It's running a country on what a 4 year old would say, with no deeper understanding of unintended consequences, motivations, cause/effect, reality. Glad to see some common sense."It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized... discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard
"rich were getting richer, and the poor poorer"Not this absurd myth again. <a class="user" href="http://mises.org/media/3977" rel="nofollow">http://mises.org/media/3977</a>Have a listen to the first ten minutes of that, and stop hanging out with high school history teachers who pass along myths like that one.
naieveMay 1, 2010
I would sit here and try to explain what happened in Congress under Clinton. But you obviously don't understand that it is Congress, not the President, who passes the budget.Here's a fun game for you kiddies who didn't actually do any research at all beyond your carefully framed google searches in which you ignored all contrary evidence and proceeded to cherry pick. The Democrats didn't actually control Congress when "Clinton" was balancing the budget.Here's some light reading, though it does concentrate on the end of Clintons terms mostly, nonetheless come back when you have a basic understanding of at least a portion of that 8 year period out of the 30 year period you attempted to misrepresent. When you have accomplished this task, we will move on to the next 4 year period under Bush Sr. Or perhaps we should go forward to G.W. and discuss the Iraq War Vote and the fact that both parties actually had all the intelligence before the war."The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation [Hardcover]"<a class="user" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195322789?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=usncom-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0195322789" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195322789?ie=UTF ...</a>
mrmudgeonMay 2, 2010
Don't know him. Will check it out.
darkshroudMay 2, 2010
It has never worked before and it won't work now.
Closed AccountMay 2, 2010
You don't see his point because you have no knowledge about the long term effects of economic decisions. It took many years for the negative effects of "Reaganomics" to surface. So yea, they have these things- i think they call them "books". You should check one out sometime.
diggimatorMay 2, 2010
Leave it to the politicians to try to strip away independence of the federal reserve.
mier1May 2, 2010
only a tiny fraction? Look at the numbers, 40% go to social security and the medi-programs. People used to live and work in this country for decades before any damned social program came along. So yeah it would work and people wouldn't starve to death.We should meet someday and when it you do bring money because I'm going to reach in and take as much as I can to give away to people that refuse to work. Then you can learn what it feels like, to have charity forced from you at gunpoint. That's not charity, that's called theft.
arkons24May 3, 2010
Just because we had explosive growth following a depression and a war when taxes happened to be at an all time does not mean that the high taxes were the reason for the growth. We also had the greatest drop in GDP growth during the same period in 1932, 33. Oh gee, the rise in tax rates was the singular cause for the great depression.There's a reason that "correlation does not imply causation" is a scientific axiom.
fieryseraphMay 7, 2010
*standing ovation*"tax the rich" is naive. It's running a country on what a 4 year old would say, with no deeper understanding of unintended consequences, motivations, cause/effect, reality. Glad to see some common sense."It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized... discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard
fieryseraphMay 7, 2010
along with a large host of other things.
fieryseraphMay 7, 2010
"rich were getting richer, and the poor poorer"Not this absurd myth again. <a class="user" href="http://mises.org/media/3977" rel="nofollow">http://mises.org/media/3977</a>Have a listen to the first ten minutes of that, and stop hanging out with high school history teachers who pass along myths like that one.