4.9% GDP Growth

[Tommy Callahan]

7 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

Come on man the Democrats have balanced the budget every time they have been in the White House and the Reps spend to oblivion...

Welp.  Current team blue doesn't even care.  And if they did, it would be by raising taxes not spending cuts 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Welp.  Current team blue doesn't even care.  And if they did, it would be by raising taxes not spending cuts 

 

 

Administration economists are adherents to MMT, modern monetary theory or what others call the magic money tree.   

[BillStime]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Administration economists are adherents to MMT, modern monetary theory or what others call the magic money tree.   

And your keepers promote trickle-down economics - a concept that aims to enrich the wealthy and corporations, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

 

Ie. Trump’s tax cut for the rich and corp

[Tommy Callahan]

Trickle down is a talking point for people that don't grasp macro or microeconomics.

 

But since you brought it up. wouldn't that be what all the left stimulus was?

 

 

The tax cuts hit every bracket and the corporate rate helped more than anything.

 

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

37 minutes ago, BillStime said:

And your keepers promote trickle-down economics - a concept that aims to enrich the wealthy and corporations, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

 

Ie. Trump’s tax cut for the rich and corp

I'm no fan of the spending habits of either party or their roster of administrations that have contributed to the debt mess we're in today.  Its also hard sell to claim our federal income tax system that exempts the lower 50% of earners from paying any federal income tax hurts the poor.  The direct impact of most of these tax reduction acts is to substitute borrowing for tax receipts.

The biggest threat to our society isn't so much the debt and spending but rather events that are unfolding more quickly to challenge the the dollar standard system that allows extravagant borrowing and spending which enables the government and citizens to live a lifestyle well-beyond what is justified by our productivity. 

 

Can you imagine how much different the tone of the current debate in Congress would be if those pushing $100's of billions of aid for war efforts in Israel and Ukraine and financial assistance to migrants would be if they had to sell it to the taxpayers by telling the it will cost each of them several $1,000 out of their pockets in a special tax assessment to be executed immediately rather than borrowing the money in some out of sight treasury auction and added to our national tab?  

[BillStime]

27 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

$100's of billions of aid for war efforts i

So what’s the answer?

[Tommy Callahan]

59 minutes ago, BillStime said:

So what’s the answer?

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

 

 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

 

 

That’s cute but that’s not the reason why we call Conald a racist.

 

So you think letting Putin cakewalk thru Ukraine will stop him from moving further West; thus bringing US troops into a war? 

 

 

 

[Ted Striker]

On 12/29/2023 at 9:04 AM, Thurmal34 said:

Own a home in Essex county, Ma, work for a hospital based in Boston.

 

A hospital! What is it?

[BillStime]

On 12/29/2023 at 10:04 AM, Thurmal34 said:

Essex county, Ma

North Shore!

 

Rt 1 into the city?

 

 

[Capco]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:07 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

The US reaps far more in benefits from being the world hegemon than it costs to maintain it. 

As mentioned earlier, the position of the dollar as the world's reserve currency gives us an enormous advantage when it comes to borrowing money.  It's highly unlikely that this status would remain as such if we retreated from the world stage and our obligation as the primary pillar that supports the current post-WWII world order.  

That factor alone is probably enough to justify our role as world policeman.  

PS - I actually liked it when Trump called out our allies for not meeting their military spending requirements in accordance with our treaties.  Even if we are the primary beneficiaries, we aren't the only beneficiaries and we shouldn't be the only ones supporting the status quo.  

Edited December 30, 2023 by Capco

[BillStime]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:08 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Trickle down is a talking point for people that don't grasp macro or microeconomics.

You’re so cute. 
 

lmao

[Doc Brown]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:07 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

Defense spending decreased under Obama and then increased under Trump.  He talked a good game but did nothing about it.  I agree with Capco that the cost required to maintain being able to be the world's policeman post WWII is well worth it.  The isolationists like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are just plain wrong imo.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

Defense spending decreased under Obama and then increased under Trump.  He talked a good game but did nothing about it.  I agree with Capco that the cost required to maintain being able to be the world's policeman post WWII is well worth it.  The isolationists like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are just plain wrong imo.

Probably so, but the reality likely is there are very powerful people getting very, very wealthy along the way.  

[BillStime]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Probably so, but the reality likely is there are very powerful people getting very, very wealthy along the way.  

Besides to stay out of jail - why do you think Conald wants back in?

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:08 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Trickle down is a talking point for people that don't grasp macro or microeconomics.

 

But since you brought it up. wouldn't that be what all the left stimulus was?

 

 

The tax cuts hit every bracket and the corporate rate helped more than anything.

 

Trickle-down economics destroys the working class and shrinks the middle class. We have over four decades now of macroeconomics evidence that strongly suggests this to be true. All that tax money loosened from the government’s hands mostly gets diverted into other endeavors like stock buybacks and overseas investments, NOT domestic job creation.

 

5 hours ago, Capco said:

The US reaps far more in benefits from being the world hegemon than it costs to maintain it. 

As mentioned earlier, the position of the dollar as the world's reserve currency gives us an enormous advantage when it comes to borrowing money.  It's highly unlikely that this status would remain as such if we retreated from the world stage and our obligation as the primary pillar that supports the current post-WWII world order.  

That factor alone is probably enough to justify our role as world policeman.  

PS - I actually liked it when Trump called out our allies for not meeting their military spending requirements in accordance with our treaties.  Even if we are the primary beneficiaries, we aren't the only beneficiaries and we shouldn't be the only ones supporting the status quo.  

 

Respectfully, Capco, I don’t think this is true at all. You can still wield power (military, economic, political) on the international stage without also having to subsidize the military operations of other countries. You can still maintain a strong reserve currency without having to exploit labor and resources and governments abroad. You can do all this through diplomacy, by building a healthy domestic economy, and by maintaining a technologically superior military within one’s own borders.

 

There’s the ethical component of this conversation, of course, that should be self-evident. As just one example among SO MANY, I’ll raise the issue of current ethnic cleansing in Gaza that the United States essentially funds for the primacy of Middle East hegemony (via an Israeli client state).

 

But then there’s the matter of economic opportunity cost. International military subsidies would be better served in the broader hands of taxpayers than in those specifically of the military-industrial complex. Example: in the United States, medical debt is easily the number one cause of personal/family financial ruin. If we could actually use all that money to instead fund our own universal health care system (like the rest of the modern industrialized world does), we could free up so many Americans to become healthier participants in the economy…i.e. have much better GDP growth, which equates to greater economic power.

 

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Defense spending decreased under Obama and then increased under Trump.  He talked a good game but did nothing about it.  I agree with Capco that the cost required to maintain being able to be the world's policeman post WWII is well worth it.  The isolationists like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are just plain wrong imo.

 

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two distinct philosophies.

 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two distinct philosophies.

True for the most part although there is some overlap.  However, I never said they weren't.

[Capco]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

Respectfully, Capco, I don’t think this is true at all. You can still wield power (military, economic, political) on the international stage without also having to subsidize the military operations of other countries. You can still maintain a strong reserve currency without having to exploit labor and resources and governments abroad. You can do all this through diplomacy, by building a healthy domestic economy, and by maintaining a technologically superior military within one’s own borders.

There’s the ethical component of this conversation, of course, that should be self-evident. As just one example among SO MANY, I’ll raise the issue of current ethnic cleansing in Gaza that the United States essentially funds for the primacy of Middle East hegemony (via an Israeli client state).

 

But then there’s the matter of economic opportunity cost. International military subsidies would be better served in the broader hands of taxpayers than in those specifically of the military-industrial complex. Example: in the United States, medical debt is easily the number one cause of personal/family financial ruin. If we could actually use all that money to instead fund our own universal health care system (like the rest of the modern industrialized world does), we could free up so many Americans to become healthier participants in the economy…i.e. have much better GDP growth, which equates to greater economic power.

Tbh, I already had some of these exact things in mind when I wrote my other post.  But I was speaking in very broad terms on a global/macro scale.  

My belief that US hegemony is not only best for Americans but also best for the stability of the world does not mean I have no criticisms to levy against our foreign and domestic policy blunders. 

I'm all for reducing graft in the defense budget, and not starting unnecessary wars that hurt our standing and image abroad.  But I'm still all for maintaining the strongest military in the world by several orders of magnitude.  Both can be done and are not mutually exclusive.  I am a strong believer in what JFK once said, despite my belief that the Vietnam War was a mistake:  

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

Even with a corruption free military-industrial complex (lol), maintaining this kind of might is an expensive endeavor.  But in the long run it is far cheaper and more beneficial to be the biggest kid on the block for as long as we can do so while also lending a helping hand to our allies and not squandering our diplomatic capital on blunders like Iraq. 

It's also far cheaper in the long run to have universal healthcare than the sh!tshow we have now, which is why I support it.  There's more than enough money and human capital in this country to do all of this and more if we started correcting ourselves in the areas where we are off-course.  

The alternative to US hegemony is a power vacuum that is likely filled by our adversaries, or a situation where the balance of power becomes so unstable that regional wars become the norm again.  Our unquestioned primacy on the world stage requires the projection of power outside our borders, and is simply not something we should ever walk away from. 

I strongly, strongly believe it is cheaper and better for everyone in the long run.  Like you said, we have multiple forms of power we can project, both hard and soft, and I agree that we need to be more ethical and mindful of how we wield that power.

[Tommy Callahan]

13 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

Trickle-down economics destroys the working class and shrinks the middle class. We have over four decades now of macroeconomics evidence that strongly suggests this to be true. All that tax money loosened from the government’s hands mostly gets diverted into other endeavors like stock buybacks and overseas investments, NOT domestic job creation

No argument.  That's what state supply side does. Think trillion dollar stimulus directly to the top quintiles.  Nothing but artificial bubbles. But when people actually have disposable money to spend (true supply side) then at least the economy is natural.  

Edited December 31, 2023 by Tommy Callahan

[Capco]

8 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

No argument.  That's what state supply side does. Think trillion dollar stimulus directly to the top quintiles.  Nothing but artificial bubbles. But when people actually have disposable money to spend (true supply side) then at least the economy is natural.  

Exactly!