You sound like tha type that makes girls [edited] just by lookin at there legs.
Last edited by a moderator:
New Policy Bill Puts 700 Billion into Military Spending
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
You sound like tha type that makes girls [edited] just by lookin at there legs.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Good to know.
Maintaining a civil discussion is important to me. These drive by personal attack posts where someone enters with zero intention to discuss anything of intellectual value to merely insult others is a huge drag here. I'd expect better conduct from an experienced mod.
I'd like to know the result of the voting. Keep me posted. Thanks
How does anyone use a massive jobs program that provides college funding for millions of Americans as a reason to hate on military spending by crying for free education for adults, no matter their circumstance?
This alt-left crying created Trump, and they're going to create something worse than Trump more like a zombie Frankenstein version of Trump. Trump is actually, surprisingly, breaking down all these party lines that you all have been complaining about for years. But you won't hear any praise about that from the Trump haters. Take a minute and look at what the guy is doing culturally. We are literally watching one man change the entire divisive DC engine. He talks the redneck con talk but walks the middle ground, deal making walk. He's selling out his own party to score political points with the Dems. If you can set aside your disdain for the guy you might actually see the beauty of it all.
For the record this sums up 99% of Thrillers posts to me.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Sorry for the late reply. I'm usually not that busy.
First of all inflation is not a one way street. In a free market inflation leads to increased production which has a deflationary effect and eventually stabilizes prices.
Unproductive state? How can you possibly argue that an economy experiencing inflation would produce less? That's bonkers. Deflation is the devil that leads to a loss of production.
Second in regards to the troops the important bit, economically, is their income not their job. Many of their jobs aren't really economically beneficial their income is.
The technological advancements are provided to us by r&d spending. There is nothing magical about the military other than our nations willingness to spend massively on military r&d. If technological advancement were the goal we could invest to that end rather than to find the most efficient means to kill. If we look at US corporations I would argue that their r&d spending has been orders of magnitude more productive dollar for dollar than the US military.
Equating welfare to a UBI is farcical. It ain't universal and isn't a basic income.
Lastly you claim that any gains made through government redistribution of wealth is wiped out by inflation(except when it comes to military incomes for some reason). It's just not true. It never has been. It isn't true for SSI nor food stamps nor hud. The only time it is kinda true is the portion paid for by deficit spending. Even then the first person to spend that new money has the benefit of getting to do so before inflation. Even in that situation they are a cause of inflation not a victim of it.
You're regurgitating statements I've already made as if they're in debate to what I've said? And you're not addressing anything straight on so I'll let you have the last word here. OTOH, it's good to see you understand the basics of monetarism. Thanks for the lesson, and good luck with your $6 trillion welfare state that isn't possible and wouldn't actually provide for millions anyway as opposed to targeted welfare reforms that would.
BTW, why do you think the socialist democrat bastion Sweden has one of the highest household debt:income and debt:GDP ratios in the world? Could it possibly be that over-redistribution causes inflation, and that inflation is the reason for the higher debt? Of course not
all that extra velocity is going into production instead of property [over]value[ation].
The President and Rs just revealed their tax reform blueprint. Some big changes in there. It would mean a lot less in taxes coming in for the feds.
Wonder how they swing that with the continuously increased spending regardless of the party in power.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/tax-reform-framework/index.html
Wonder how they swing that with the continuously increased spending regardless of the party in power.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/tax-reform-framework/index.html
Tax cuts my ***. This is nothing but a cold wealth transfer up the ladder. For starters, gutting the estate tax is about as far as going against the founding of a democratic republic as it gets. But let's give some examples:
1. A working family of 4 making only $25,000. Pays a negative income tax. No change outside the possibility of the child tax credit increase. That will be a massive wealth transfer to the business owning class as pretty much all income in the poor sector is spent on the goods of the rich.
2. A working family of 4 making $45,000. Tax rate is zero after factoring in the child tax credit.
3. A working family of 4 making $60,000. Annual tax is about $2,000 unless they can itemize and lower it. Seems reasonable to me. The new tax rate will take away between $4,200 and $4,500 in deductions, based on the inflationary increase in the deductions.
4. Singles and those married without children will benefit by a deduction increase of about $4000.
This proposal is a sniper rifle aimed directly at the upper middle class ($100,000-$350,000) with families and held by the upper class with their fingers on the trigger. On a side note, the upper middle class has grown from about 12.5% in 1974 to almost 30% in 2014 (so much for the dying middle class morons). It makes sense to raise taxes on the upper middle class and redistribute to the lower class and lower middle class. But doing it in a way that benefits the upper class tremendously is pretty messed up. I've said this before: Reaganomics makes sense in times of high inflation and supply constraint and high taxation of the top makes sense when we have the opposite situation. We have the opposite right now and raising taxes on those whose lives won't be affected is appropriate policy.