In this Roman Catholic article, http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-fiscal-cliff-and-secularism—secularist are greed-driven corrupters of society. Not to mention that the leeches (those who luxuriate in the lap of government largesse, like Social Security) are living better than working people.
The article is, IMO, rather crackpot, but most of the comments are ignorant and foolish. Perhaps those of you who are versed in economics would like to set the yahoos straight.
Perhaps those of you who are versed in economics would like to set the yahoos straight.
I don’t see how. In economics…like Religion, most people seem to think they have the One Right Answer which will solve all the world’s ills. In view of the diversity of opinion, even among those who hold to a more or less similar worldview, it stands to reason that the vast majority of these people are gravely mistaken.
Unfortunately, nobody ever appears to see reason on this and even freethinkers are not immune to toeing the pet party line they believe in.
It’s just another intentional lie for god, trying to take us back the dark ages.
Spending more on the people of a nation than the nation can afford by borrowing money and printing it in spades may well take us back to the dark ages I’m afraid.
Let’s hope advances in technology pull us through this time and we learn to do better in the future.
It’s just another intentional lie for god, trying to take us back the dark ages.
Spending more on the people of a nation than the nation can afford by borrowing money and printing it in spades may well take us back to the dark ages I’m afraid.
Let’s hope advances in technology pull us through this time and we learn to do better in the future.
Stephen
“People of the Nation” or the military industrial complex? Your choice?
Had we not entered the stupid wars of the last fifteen years, not borrowed the huge amounts needed to finance them, and and left income tax rates higher on rhe upper incomes we would have had more than enough money to supply our citizens with many services such as superior education and health care without borrowing or printing money.
It’s just another intentional lie for god, trying to take us back the dark ages.
Spending more on the people of a nation than the nation can afford by borrowing money and printing it in spades may well take us back to the dark ages I’m afraid.
Let’s hope advances in technology pull us through this time and we learn to do better in the future.
Stephen
National Monetary Policy is not the same as budgeting a household. Your thinking appears to be based on the fallacy that it is.
Had we not entered the stupid wars of the last fifteen years, not borrowed the huge amounts needed to finance them, and and left income tax rates higher on rhe upper incomes we would have had more than enough money to supply our citizens with many services such as superior education and health care without borrowing or printing money.
Occam
Agree, agree, agree! I wish I could live to see how historians will look back and what will be put into the high school history books about his tenure as POTUS.
It’s just another intentional lie for god, trying to take us back the dark ages.
Spending more on the people of a nation than the nation can afford by borrowing money and printing it in spades may well take us back to the dark ages I’m afraid.
Let’s hope advances in technology pull us through this time and we learn to do better in the future.
Stephen
“People of the Nation” or the military industrial complex? Your choice?
I think we can point to all kinds of things that we disagree with spending money on. But personally I think this is all rather niave. It clearly costs more to educate, house, warm, feed, medicate and retire people etc, on average, than what they put in to get those things.
Basically we live beyond our means and borrow or print to do it.
It’s just another intentional lie for god, trying to take us back the dark ages.
Spending more on the people of a nation than the nation can afford by borrowing money and printing it in spades may well take us back to the dark ages I’m afraid.
Let’s hope advances in technology pull us through this time and we learn to do better in the future.
Stephen
“People of the Nation” or the military industrial complex? Your choice?
I think we can point to all kinds of things that we disagree with spending money on. But personally I think this is all rather niave. It clearly costs more to educate, house, warm, feed, medicate and retire people etc, on average, than what they put in to get those things.
Basically we live beyond our means and borrow or print to do it.
Stephen
National Monetary Policy does not work the same as a household budget. Please.
It’s just another intentional lie for god, trying to take us back the dark ages.
Spending more on the people of a nation than the nation can afford by borrowing money and printing it in spades may well take us back to the dark ages I’m afraid.
Let’s hope advances in technology pull us through this time and we learn to do better in the future.
Stephen
“People of the Nation” or the military industrial complex? Your choice?
I think we can point to all kinds of things that we disagree with spending money on. But personally I think this is all rather niave. It clearly costs more to educate, house, warm, feed, medicate and retire people etc, on average, than what they put in to get those things.
Basically we live beyond our means and borrow or print to do it.
Stephen
National Monetary Policy does not work the same as a household budget. Please.
I don’t know what you are trying to get at but it looks like a different point than mine. We borrow and print too much because it costs more to do all the things I talked about than the people actually put in. So the shortfall is made up by borrowing and printing.
What many think is no it’s not that, if we just spent less on the military or if the rich weren’t so greedy, or if the health service were more efficient etc. All these things would help but we would still be borrowing and printing to cover the shortfall between the wealth people produce and what is spent upon them.
Had we not entered the stupid wars of the last fifteen years, not borrowed the huge amounts needed to finance them, and and left income tax rates higher on rhe upper incomes we would have had more than enough money to supply our citizens with many services such as superior education and health care without borrowing or printing money.
Occam
Well, you are using your judgment as I am mine, so neither of us know. But I think if you look at how long people are at school and retired and how long they are at work and how much of that work actually produces any wealth and how long people are sick and how long they are unemployed etc etc. It seems pretty clear that we’re living well beyond our means and would have to borrow and print bucket loads to do so regardless of the peripheral stuff people bring up.
What many think is no it’s not that, if we just spent less on the military or if the rich weren’t so greedy, or if the health service were more efficient etc. All these things would help but we would still be borrowing and printing to cover the shortfall between the wealth people produce and what is spent upon them.
IMO you’re right about the military-industrial complex draining off money as even Pres. Eisenhower predicted that scenerio! and we need to tighten the health care system but borrowing and printing has nothing to do with it. It’s a myth brought about by most of us who don’t understand how money works in our system. Check out this article from Forbes. I had to read it twice but it explains in detail how money circulates and is dependent on buying and spending only.
If you remember, one of the big financial concerns during Clinton’s second term, was that not enough government bonds were being issued to allow the major pension funds to invest in these to secure their future payments.
It is time to get out of Regan’s “supply side” economics. This last year or so I have been reading in the Economist and other place about the major corporations sitting on their piles of money for lack of investment opportunity. IMO, the obvious solution to this is to go the other way to “demand side” economics. After all things like food stamps are as much a subsidy to agriculture as direct payment to farmers and farm corporations, only they ensure that many get to eat once in a while.
As far as the debt is concerned one of the steps to be taken is tax reform, certainly. Capital gains should be taxed the same as any other income. FICA should be paid on all earned income with no upper limit. The interest on home mortgages should be limited only to one home at a time. etc.
Put the money in the consumers pocket and let businesses work for it as they our ideology says they should.
National Monetary Policy does not work the same as a household budget. Please.
National monetary policy doesn’t work at all!
I don’t see what household budgeting has to do with government but the rules of the game don’t magically change just because it’s the government which is doing all the spending. Either you have the money to pay your debts and obligations or you don’t. If you don’t, you have to get the income to pay for it somehow, and if you borrow, there comes with it the obligation to pay it back to whomever you borrowed it from in the first place.
If you keep taking on obligations which you can’t meet, you find yourself in heap BIG trouble eventually. The ONLY difference between a household and the government is the scale of the disaster.
