Democrats are insane... deficit deal must include stimulus! LOL!

Are you aware of the declining marginal utility of government debt?

mikebo1 1/2 .... Got his blanky and his thumb. Please pay more attention to history, knowledge and less on disinformation spreading !

mikebo1 1/2 .... Got his blanky and his thumb. Please pay more attention to history, knowledge and less on disinformation spreading !

Yes, even Friedman was on board for Japanese QE. It DID NOT WORK. Although it left then with a huge debt to GDP ratio which they will never pull out of.

Liberals are totally Blind...deaf...and dumb to the concepts of fractional reserve banking and FIAT currency....

Repubelickers are slowly 'catching on'...but the O'bots are totally gone.

I think the bond markets would be happier with a healthy economy.

Eh, that's where they get the name, "Liberal Fuck'tard"

Obama's first stimulus bill was insane and they want to do it again?

:Omoney: MAKE IT RAIN, BITCHES!

Our govt. can not continue to spend more money than it brings in. It's very simple, the only way to fix the problem is to both cut spending in all areas of govt. and to raise taxes. Just cutting spending will do so little it will just delay the inevitable. Just raising taxes will result in people holding onto their money even tighter which will mean they spend less into the economy. If nothing is done, then we are finished because you simply can't spend more than you earn for a sustained period without going bankrupt. Anyway you chalk this up, there will be pain. The sooner we get this shit done, the sooner we can pick up the pieces and start over. The longer we wait, the more painful the fall will be.

It's time for the Repulsicans to shut up and get the fuck out of the way.





Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected?

Forgot link
[link to www.washingtonmonthly.com]

The Marxist elite are aware of this, but there is an inverse correlation between the highest marginal tax rates and government revenue. That's right, contrary to leftist propaganda lowering taxes INCREASES government revenue. The leftists don't care about this since all they want is to bring the system down and replace it with a Marxist dictatorship.

Here is how it works from a very specific anecdote,
"Back when the Sarasota Bay Bridge between Sarasota and Bradenton FL. was built it was made a “Toll Bridge” to amortize the cost of building. The Toll was set at $0.50 each way and it was expected to be paid off in 8 years, if memory serves me. After a while it was noted that the payoff was falling behind schedule so the City Council bumped the Toll to $0.75 each way and the payoff slowed even further! The City Council bumped the Toll to $1.00 each way and the Bridge revenues almost STOPPED! Finally, the Mayor stepped in and set the Toll to TWENTY FIVE CENTS over vociferous objections of the City Council and others. BUT, lo and behold, the Bridge was paid off YEARS ahead of schedule!
Do you suppose that there’s a lesson, here, for those who scream “INCREASE TAXES!”?


Here are the charts that prove this point.
[link to blogs-images.forbes.com]

Do you liberals understand the basic economics of the bridge example, and why toll revenues went down when the bridge tax was too high? That happens with high marginal tax rates as well. It suppresses economic activity and creates capital flight.

Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations

[link to www.forbes.com]

It's time for the Democrats to run the show.
Repulsicans suck at government.


History actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

According to McGraw-Hill’s S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.

Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.

Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.

[link to www.foxbusiness.com]

Holy crap, are there people still as dumb as you on earth?

Either you are dumber than my mom's last bowel movement or you are a shill plant for the Federal Reserve.

The ONLY reason countries EVER run a deficit and have debt is because of central banks earning interest.

There IS no reason for banks to exists, other than to wreck the earth.

You sheepletards need to stop arguing over demotards and repubtards and realize that the system is a scam and the argument is a scam. Private, central banks are THE scam that has ruined the earth.

Hang the bankers and we are 90% fixed.

The democratic base are deluded and completely ignorant of monetary policy in general. Ask them what the fractional reserve system of credit is, and they'll tell you to leave them alone because they didn't go to college. Lol

You're feeding into them. Just tell them to do research, real research. Point them in the right direction.

Go read hayek.

You're deluded. Those figures are IF inflation is tied to the projected rates put out by the fed boards.

Meaning it's all fiction.

:)

This does not prove what you think it does because of your lockstep partisan thinking. The key issue is not the party but the policy. Moreover, Forbes, an elitist globalist rag, has mistated a few key facts.

By todays standards, JFK would be considered a right wing nutcase. He championed lower taxes, was a strong anti-communist, and favored civil rights (which has always been a republican initiative not a democratic one). He cut taxes more aggressively than Reagan and enjoyed an economic boom.

Clinton was forced into a compromise with conservatives in congress via the only real conservative congress we've ever had under Newt Gingrich. They reduced taxes cut spending and enjoyed a huge bull run in the economy.

Bush enjoyed some growth, but he was essentially an LBJ liberal. He cut taxes but was heavily into foreign intervention (like LBJ) and into heavy social spending. I'm sorry but Bush is a liberal.

To say that FDR was good for the economy is an insane position unless you feel that we need to launch world wars whenever we have bad economic problems.

End result is that of the top 4 in Forbes 'good' president list, 2 of them adopted conservative fiscal policies (the top 2) and the other 2 enjoyed wartime economic growth. Eisenhower was not so great really but you could hardly do wrong when you have virtually the only industrialized nation left in the world.

Web Of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown is the best book on the subject that I've read. Much better than The Creature From Jekyll Island IMO.

[link to www.webofdebt.com]

You're an idiot

Look, we're not going to be able to pay off the debt. The only way out is to inflate it away.

This is a mathematical fact. Look I like the idea of balancing a budget as much as the next guy. I am traditional. But the situation of the USA is that of someone inevitably headed for bankruptcy ... EXCEPT ... that we can print.

Choose one or the other: default or massive inflation. You must choose one.

Ah, yes. Good evening.
Glad to be influenced by you tonight.

Fact is, the budget needs to be cut and the GDP will go down 15% at least doing so.

Lots of people will go bankrupt.

But they have to.

The system needs to clear itself.

Perhaps we should just cut our government back to 2006 spending levels and we'll be debt free by 2022.

Do not buy into the 0% interest rate, no-risk-betting derivative dreams of the banking cartels.

Money is worthless these days.