l have a lot of successful wealthy

But can we all at least admit, in a bipartisan manner, that today in the USA, actually coming up with some program to justify a tax increase is kinda, I dunno, stupid?

He can tax the rich the exact same way he plans, ostensibly to save the children or whatever, and NOT spend a penny saving the children, and that tax increase still won't pay for all the other programs we've spent money on in the past to save the children. We still increase our debt and wouldn't even break even with a budget for once. Why something new?

I mean, at some point coming up with a reason just seems either disingenuous, or stupid, or both....either way.

Nope, I'm going to hold the line on tax increases on anyone.....UNTIL they sell it as a way to pay down debt, heck even balance a budget for once is a good start. No children saved, no healthcare for all, no utopian BS or sunshine blowing, nope, promise us nothing other than to rectify past fiscal irresponsibility. I'd actually fully support that tax increase. But if you're selling it to be revenue neutral to fund some program, no point.

Tiggity®

Oculus Spirit [97677]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 64821

Joined: 7/13/02

Ok, I'll play your long ball game

Apr 28, 2021, 10:30 AM

It's an investment in our future. It will result in children somehow making more money as adults. I know PHd's who are homeless and millionaires who never graduated high school. But that's beside the point.

Let's assume the money is well spent, and reaps dividends as you suggest in the future. To what extent would those dividends, again in the future, eliminate our debt problem? I mean when we started this debt train and I was a kid my parents combined made far less than I make now. Yet as a child, we had a higher standard of living. Our GDP was around 2.5 trillion at that time when I was a kid. When we started on the debt train at that same time our national debt was $900 billion (32% debt to GDP ratio). Today those investments 40 years later have yielded a $19 trillion economy. HUGE increase. However, with all those investments, again ostensibly to secure our financial future, we now have a debt that's 1/3 higher than our entire economic output, and climbing. Our debt to GDP ratio has CLIMBED from 32% to 135%. So by your longball measure, the thousands of save the children programs in the past, funded with debt, has yielded what? MORE debt. No net benefit over decades of spending.

That's like saying, well, I'll not pay my credit card bill. In fact, I'll max it out. I'll just work harder at work, take on a second job, or go back to school and run up some more debt, so I can eventually pay down that past debt. Most people spend 10 years paying off student debt. Is the boost in your salary from the $200K education worth it in the long run? Then you still have that original maxed out credit card to address. And while you're doing that, how's that standard of living going? A college degree today is worth less than ever before.

Just doesn't work that way. I hear you selling it. I'm not buying it.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Family Aid Plan..... FAP..... a bill to help children....

I'm not a buyer. Not because I hate children

Typically when you invest in moving children

Ok, I'll play your long ball game

You're mixing micro with macro economics

LOL. I'm sure we'll get an ROI with all these handouts...

Re: Ok, I'll play your long ball game

Re: l have a lot of successful wealthy

All Dim plans are long term plans

TigerBoard POTD