Topic: To solve the deficit problem we should...
Aileron !LUFRSd346Y started this discussion 15 years ago #15,253
Either:
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raise taxes | 3 | 27% | |
| Cut spending | 8 | 73% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later[^] [v] #267,111
A combination of all two and borrowing more.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,112
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,114
@previous (C)
Having no debt is actually a bad thing. It seems counter-intuitive, but governmental debt and individual debt are very different things. Issuing more bonds will enable America to regain its credit rating and improve its economy.
Having no debt is actually a bad thing. It seems counter-intuitive, but governmental debt and individual debt are very different things. Issuing more bonds will enable America to regain its credit rating and improve its economy.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,115
Cut spending on social programs, and cut taxes for the rich. btw you've missed a lot of good political topics in the last months
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,116
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,117
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,119
@267,116 (C)
I see you're the kind of person who doesn't listen to arguments before being a rude fuck. I explained why it's a good thing-you have a childish view of the world and how it functions.
I see you're the kind of person who doesn't listen to arguments before being a rude fuck. I explained why it's a good thing-you have a childish view of the world and how it functions.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,122
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,127
@previous (C)
Before we talk more, give me your understanding of how government bonds work.be as basic as you like.
Before we talk more, give me your understanding of how government bonds work.be as basic as you like.
Ph !SQAJbBZk/o joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,130
Print more money. Duh.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,132
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,134
@267,130 (Ph !SQAJbBZk/o)
We should eliminate taxes by having the federal government take the money directly from the mint.
We should eliminate taxes by having the federal government take the money directly from the mint.
Ph !SQAJbBZk/o replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,136
Ph !SQAJbBZk/o double-posted this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,138
Or ya know, sacrifice our best goat to the Gods of good fortune.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #267,142
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #267,161
allow our currency to continue to inflate to the point of insolvency, declare bankruptcy, and hope we made enough billionaires to breed a master race in the Hamptons.
Aileron !LUFRSd346Y (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #267,173
@267,115 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I can only imagine. Been doing political work of my own though, have sadly not had as much minichan time as I would have hoped.
I can only imagine. Been doing political work of my own though, have sadly not had as much minichan time as I would have hoped.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,318
@267,114 (B)> having no debt is a bad thing
> debt will improve our credit rating
> an improved credit rating will allow us to contract debt more easily
Are you actually retarded?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,344
#occupywallstreet
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,346
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc double-posted this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,347
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,352
We should dig a moat.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,363
@267,318 (H)
You don't understand how economy works which is why you think this way, since you are extrapolating a personal approach to debt to a national approach.
it's wise for a person to stay out of debt, but not for countries
You don't understand how economy works which is why you think this way, since you are extrapolating a personal approach to debt to a national approach.
it's wise for a person to stay out of debt, but not for countries
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,393
We should cut military funds and charge banks under the terrorism act. Cuts to education and welfare are always unnecessary.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,477
We should temporarily tax all earning more than 1 million per year at the rate of 102% until the deficit is paid. Since this is the group which runs our politicians, you can bet spending and borrowing would be cut instantly. The deficit would be paid off in no time.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,481
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,491
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Easy, 102% on everything over 1 million per year. It's a progressive bracket. It's less than 100% on everything under 1 million per year, but 102% on everything over 1 million per year. Don't like it, make less.
Easy, 102% on everything over 1 million per year. It's a progressive bracket. It's less than 100% on everything under 1 million per year, but 102% on everything over 1 million per year. Don't like it, make less.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,494
@previous (M)
No, I mean... literally, how? At most, you can take every single cent they make. How would you take more than is available to take?
No, I mean... literally, how? At most, you can take every single cent they make. How would you take more than is available to take?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,653
@267,491 (M)
Suddenly, every single company and every single person who earns more than $1 million moves to Asia.
Suddenly, every single company and every single person who earns more than $1 million moves to Asia.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,663
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #267,681
@267,363 (B)Just repeat what you said! That will make it right! Don't attempt to explain your obvious logical fallacies! Don't attempt to refute counterarguments! Just repeat yourself!
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,769
@previous (H)
There is little point in talking about economics with somebody who clearly doesn't understand economics! Besides, judging by the attitude you've shown so far, all you'll do is try to troll me by making purposefully dumbass comments. Feel free to get raped in a ditch.
There is little point in talking about economics with somebody who clearly doesn't understand economics! Besides, judging by the attitude you've shown so far, all you'll do is try to troll me by making purposefully dumbass comments. Feel free to get raped in a ditch.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,774
@previous (B)
> refuses to engage on a particular topic
> brings up rape
> calls the other person a dumbass troll for questioning them
You're not even subtle about your trolling. Either defend yourself or go away.
> refuses to engage on a particular topic
> brings up rape
> calls the other person a dumbass troll for questioning them
You're not even subtle about your trolling. Either defend yourself or go away.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,781
@267,681 (H)
There's very little point in debating or arguing economics with somebody who neither understands nor wants to ever understand how economics work. All you'll do is refuse to accept that your ridiculous and ignorant conclusion to national debt is wrong and then eventually just start making retarded one-line meme posts like "u mad" or "boners" when I've proved too much of what you're saying wrong.
It happens all the time and it bores me immensely now. I am right and you are wrong. Go get educated if you want to know why. Otherwise, carry on being the inconsequential fuck you currently are.
There's very little point in debating or arguing economics with somebody who neither understands nor wants to ever understand how economics work. All you'll do is refuse to accept that your ridiculous and ignorant conclusion to national debt is wrong and then eventually just start making retarded one-line meme posts like "u mad" or "boners" when I've proved too much of what you're saying wrong.
It happens all the time and it bores me immensely now. I am right and you are wrong. Go get educated if you want to know why. Otherwise, carry on being the inconsequential fuck you currently are.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,789
@previous (B)
> ask you to explain your theory of how "economics work"
> There's very little point in debating or arguing economics with somebody who [doesn't want to] understand how "economics work".
> All you'll do is refuse to accept that your ridiculous and ignorant conclusion to national debt is wrong
Finally, some proof for your claim... oh wait no you've just repeated it again... saying it over and over makes it true, right?
> I am right and you are wrong. Go get educated if you want to know why. Otherwise, carry on being the inconsequential fuck you currently are.
Fuck off, troll.
> ask you to explain your theory of how "economics work"
> There's very little point in debating or arguing economics with somebody who [doesn't want to] understand how "economics work".
> All you'll do is refuse to accept that your ridiculous and ignorant conclusion to national debt is wrong
Finally, some proof for your claim... oh wait no you've just repeated it again... saying it over and over makes it true, right?
> I am right and you are wrong. Go get educated if you want to know why. Otherwise, carry on being the inconsequential fuck you currently are.
Fuck off, troll.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,798
@previous (H)
Yeah, whatever.
(Oh, and you didn't ask me to explain anything. You called me retarded.)
Yeah, whatever.
(Oh, and you didn't ask me to explain anything. You called me retarded.)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,802
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,814
@267,798 (B)
> posting on a chan
> gets sad when called names
Are you going to justify yourself or not?
> posting on a chan
> gets sad when called names
Are you going to justify yourself or not?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,864
@previous (H)
No, I cannot take you seriously enough. If you actually want to know more about why debt is good, then this article does a good job of explaining it for economy noobs:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343
No, I cannot take you seriously enough. If you actually want to know more about why debt is good, then this article does a good job of explaining it for economy noobs:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #267,903
@previous (B)
summary of that article
> spend more than you tax
> Keynesianism
You are retarded, thanks for proving it.
summary of that article
> spend more than you tax
> Keynesianism
You are retarded, thanks for proving it.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #268,024
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #268,031
@previous (B)
Have you even read that article you posted? It assumes that you spend more than you tax, and assumes that government intervention in the economy is a desirable thing. Eliminate the first, and reject the second as immoral and economically unsound, and there is no basis for your argument.
Have you even read that article you posted? It assumes that you spend more than you tax, and assumes that government intervention in the economy is a desirable thing. Eliminate the first, and reject the second as immoral and economically unsound, and there is no basis for your argument.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #268,038
> It assumes that you spend more than you tax, and assumes that government intervention in the economy is a desirable thing.
Welcome to reality.
Welcome to reality.