So! Cutting taxes DOESN'T increase tax revenue as the right claimed!

govt taxes so it has money to spend or transfer like for SS. Inflation haas to do with monetary policy . Econ 101. Do you understand now?

 

we have it because Repubicans want to tax and spend less so that people can be free of big liberal govt as our Founders intended

 

It seems the GOP doesn't just reject science - as in rejecting global warming and evolution and even the age of the earth in millions of years, but they also have their own version of myth-based economics.
I only took one college economics course, but I've read some economics texts, and they talk of government spending in terms of "guns vs butter" - domestic versus military spending. Domestic spending - "butter"- as for roads - pays multiple dividends - jobs in construction, boosting trade, reducing transportation costs, etc, and the benefit lasts for years - whereas "guns" - defense spending - has a one-time hit in jobs to build the weapons only.
The GOP, being chicken-hawks, favor the "guns" and expect the benefits of "butter", but it doesn't work that way.

 

do you have any idea what your subject is?? Why not think about it and start a thread on it

 

The new deal extended the great depression. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

 

Kansas clearly has a vast spending problem.

I wonder when Brownback got the law passed, did the media describe it as a rebuke for Democrats?

 

No, not true. You're misquoting/misunderstanding the article. It says:

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."​

It even says the economy "was poised for a beautiful recovery" but the policies of suspending antitrust laws damaged it.... not the programs to help the people who needed it.

Didn't you read it?

 

I read it. And that was all part of the new deal.

 

You're just trying to discredit FDR, –not find the truth. It says his New Deal had the economy "poised for a beautiful recovery". His programs of unemployment benefits, the CCC, the work programs for infrastructure, etc. was the right way to go. That is the sort of effort we need now. Roads, bridges, alternative energy installations, rapid transit utilizing the latest technology, etc.

 

I'm all for those programs and also a big far of Trumps push for apprenticeships instead of useless college courses.

None of this changes the fact that I lumped the entire new deal together and didn't pick apart the parts I like and don't like.

 

you can live in a country where taxes are no longer needed, I prefer America, I prefer to have our courts, our streets, our police ect....

 

nonsense, were all Americans together, saying a entire party is the enemy is crazy talk

 

yes, but if when you were done with your ticket, you could give it to someone else for a price, the movie theater would go broke quick

as the theater created more tickets, each ticket would be worth less and less

 

You even quoted me saying "What we need now is a similar effort. That will "boost the economy" and I showed that the article says that type of approach, minus the dropping of antitrust measures which was an obvious mistake and wouldn't be repeated today, was poised to do the job. That's all I said as well.

 

Let's just makes sure the infrastructure program with shovel ready jobs doesn't just benefit failed union pension funds.

 

Agreed. If it does it will fail miserably.

 

that and make sure the materials come from US companies and not overseas

 

Would cost more but I think that cost can be excused.

The big thing to me, offer an incentive for apprenticeships for those right out of high school. Teaching people a trade is far more beneficial way to spend tax money than just handing it out.

 

oh I agree, i would like to see more of those too

we need to make it easier for those that want to work find good jobs

 

Seems like this should be easy. Any company that's going to get one of these contracts could be allowed to write off 200% of the wages earned by the apprentice for the first 2 years of employment.

To go a step further, this same method could be used for the heavy equipment operators and even some civil engineer jobs.

 

why 200%, how about the gov just pay 50% of the employees wage, I am all for that

and it has to be real, flipping burgers would not count

if enough employees file complaints that they are not being trained, company is barred from program for 1 year

 

I don't think you understand why these cycles happen. It actually has very little to do with capitalism and very much to do with central planning.

I do realize that...and am perfectly fine with it. Voluntary interaction is always preferred to forced interaction regardless of the cost.

 

Why wouldn't those things be able to exist in an environment with very limited taxes?

 

Trading efficiency for freedom?

 

I am not sure I would call it trading efficiency....I would suggest that voluntary interaction is always more efficient. Also if you are going to suggest that governments or any large organization is efficient I am going to question your sanity.