Mitt Romney Proposes $350 Monthly Child Allowance

[beanman12345]

Biggest weakness among so many in libertarian ideals is there's nothing they have to prepare for when things turn to shit in a big way. Whether weather-related disasters, or the current shit, the only response is "charity" or something equally useless when a massive response is needed.

That libertarian utopia taken over by bears that someone on this forum brought up last year comes to mind.

[Ivanstone]

it could have been any number of reasons, his tariffs, his attacks on businesses, a slower sector, declining world markets...

Get the picture?

Yes. Trump did nothing worthwhile as a government.

Which I've been stating repeatedly.

But just because Trump is a dip shit that doesn't mean the government stops doing useful services that private industry can't, won't or shouldn't do.

[Machismo]

Yes. Trump did nothing worthwhile as a government.

Which I've been stating repeatedly.

But just because Trump is a dip shit that doesn't mean the government stops doing useful services that private industry can't, won't or shouldn't do.

You still won't address it. I will not respond again, until you do.

Have a nice night.

[Ivanstone]

You still won't address it. I will not respond again, until you do.

Have a nice night.

And Machismo runs away from another argument. Not shocked.

Your libertarian fantasy used to exist. It stopped because it was a clown car full of stupidity that did nothing useful except for a tiny minority of wealthy thieves.

[Machismo]

And Machismo runs away from another argument. Not shocked.

Your libertarian fantasy used to exist. It stopped because it was a clown car full of stupidity that did nothing useful except for a tiny minority of wealthy thieves.

Enjoy!!!

https://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/ta...ses-reduce-gdp

[Glorious Leader]

Imagine that. A huge deficit because of two disasters (Covid and Trump). And your anarchist wet dreams would be to do nothing?

The US has shown little interest in managing its debt because it has shown little interest in properly investing in its populace. This will continue to be a problem until you and your ilk learn.

The US has literally LITERALLY been in debt (not deficit) every single fucking year of its existence bar 1 where Andrew Johnson tried to pay it back and a massive depression followed. In fact its been in deficit for most of its existence as well and the times it did run surpluses preceeded recessions and or depressions.

[Ivanstone]

Enjoy!!!

https://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/ta...ses-reduce-gdp

Read it. Again. So if we reduce taxes by 50% do we get a 100-150% increase in GDP?!?!!!

[jonnysensible]

hello i would like to live in a complex modern society but i dont want to pay for it can someone tell me what ideology i am, @Machismo maybe you can help me

[Ivanstone]

The US has literally LITERALLY been in debt (not deficit) every single fucking year of its existence bar 1 where Andrew Johnson tried to pay it back and a massive depression followed. In fact its been in deficit for most of its existence as well and the times it did run surpluses preceeded recessions and or depressions.

How does this shit hole ever function?!!!?

Didn't Jackson's debt payoff fuck up the economy?

Ok maybe there was no correlation but back in the good old days of being mostly a libertarian dumpster fire there was massive corruption and the economy collapsed at least every decade/

[Elegiac]

How does this shit hole ever function?!!!?

Didn't Jackson's debt payoff fuck up the economy?

Ok maybe there was no correlation but back in the good old days of being mostly a libertarian dumpster fire there was massive corruption and the economy collapsed at least every decade/

I mean I'm not saying that frequent recessions were an endemic feature of the American economy prior to the implementation of its more socialist leaning policies in the 1930s, buuuuuuuuuut.....



Public assistance, regulation, and wealth redistribution work, folks.

[Machismo]

hello i would like to live in a complex modern society but i dont want to pay for it can someone tell me what ideology i am, @Machismo maybe you can help me

I'd say you're selfish.

Good thing that's not me.

[Endus]

Enjoy!!!

https://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/ta...ses-reduce-gdp

Counterpoints;

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...le_samwick.pdf
https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf

Moreover, you've made no effort to argue that economic growth is even desirable in the long term, you just assumed that based on nothing. It's a model predicated on infinite growth, for growth's sake, without any consideration for how that growth is distributed, who benefits from that growth, and how long such growth may remain sustainable. A growing population needs enough economic growth to maintain economic stability for that population, but that's sufficient for a stable and healthy society. Growth can be beneficial, if the benefits of that growth lead to reductions of inequity and a better quality of life for all, particularly those worst off in society. But that's not an infinite curve and you will reach diminishing returns at some point. Growth for growths sake ignores the most fundamental questions as to why growth should even be desired, and generally because that discussion is not one you want to have; a system like the USA's sees all the value of economic growth retained solely by the already-rich capitalist class. It provides no value or benefit to the majority of Americans. Why should they seek to increase that figure, when it isn't in their interests to do so?

[Machismo]

Counterpoints;

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...le_samwick.pdf
https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/bu...andeconomy.pdf

Moreover, you've made no effort to argue that economic growth is even desirable in the long term, you just assumed that based on nothing. It's a model predicated on infinite growth, for growth's sake, without any consideration for how that growth is distributed, who benefits from that growth, and how long such growth may remain sustainable. A growing population needs enough economic growth to maintain economic stability for that population, but that's sufficient for a stable and healthy society. Growth can be beneficial, if the benefits of that growth lead to reductions of inequity and a better quality of life for all, particularly those worst off in society. But that's not an infinite curve and you will reach diminishing returns at some point. Growth for growths sake ignores the most fundamental questions as to why growth should even be desired, and generally because that discussion is not one you want to have; a system like the USA's sees all the value of economic growth retained solely by the already-rich capitalist class. It provides no value or benefit to the majority of Americans. Why should they seek to increase that figure, when it isn't in their interests to do so?

Tank you for actually addressing it, finally.

The increase in GDP was actually his argument in defense of food stamps. I was imply pointing to a better way to increase GDP, if that was his selling point. So, take it up with him. that was the whole point of his argument.

My selling point has always been about individual liberty, limited government, and the free markets.

[Stormspellz]

I have no desire to push this, it will cost... roughly $300 billion a year.

And exactly how can we afford this? We're already bankrupting our children with our current deficit.

well for one it will actually help the economy unlike the tax give away, and speaking of trump tax give away, just use that to balance things out under reconciliation as that is the only way it would pass.

[Ivanstone]

Tank you for actually addressing it, finally.

The increase in GDP was actually his argument in defense of food stamps. I was imply pointing to a better way to increase GDP, if that was his selling point. So, take it up with him. that was the whole point of his argument.

My selling point has always been about individual liberty, limited government, and the free markets.

Actually your point was:

Lowering taxes is shown to increase GDP by 2-3:1...

Which doesn't actually appear in your link.

My point is that some government spending doesn't necessarily correlate with an increase in debt. Food Stamps is a good example of that. Limited government is simply a horse shit argument because we know what its like when its actually limited. Or are you just going to handwave that like PC2 does?

[Machismo]

well for one it will actually help the economy unlike the tax give away, and speaking of trump tax give away, just use that to balance things out under reconciliation as that is the only way it would pass.

"tax giveaways" do help the economy, the study has been provided.

Trump's issue was that he decided to increase spending, instead of actually being fiscally responsible.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually your point was:



Which doesn't actually appear in your link.

My point is that some government spending doesn't necessarily correlate with an increase in debt. Food Stamps is a good example of that. Limited government is simply a horse shit argument because we know what its like when its actually limited. Or are you just going to handwave that like PC2 does?

GDP is not tax revenue... you just invalidated your own argument.

Keep going.

[Ivanstone]

GDP is not tax revenue... you just invalidated your own argument.

Keep going.

It doesn't need to be tax revenue. It does mean that people are making money from it than the government invested. Since more money is being made that may actually lead to an increase in tax revenue.

[Machismo]

It doesn't need to be tax revenue. It does mean that people are making money from it than the government invested. Since more money is being made that may actually lead to an increase in tax revenue.

We were discussing government debt, which is tax revenue, not GDP... because it was about debt.

[Ivanstone]

We were discussing government debt, which is tax revenue, not GDP... because it was about debt.

So you're hand-waving a solid benefit to the economy that exists because of government spending because?

Oh right libertarian fantasy that didn't work in the past.

[Machismo]

So you're hand-waving a solid benefit to the economy that exists because of government spending because?

Oh right libertarian fantasy that didn't work in the past.

By that metric... tax cuts are a bigger boon to the economy. We're back in the circle. Your argument was about increasing GDP, and I blew it out of the water by sowing tax cuts increase it more.

So, now... let's use your thing as an example.

Say you increase food stamps by $100 billion, according to you that equals up to $184 billion increase to GDP. Now, of that increase in GDP, just short of 20$ would go to federal income tax revenue, or 36 billion...meaning you just increased the debt by an actual total of $64 billion.

Now, let's take those tx cuts of $100 billion, and you would get up to $300 billion in additional GDP, and about $60 billion more tax revenue from that additional share, which means a deficit (shortfall) of $40 billion.

So, by those numbers, a tax cut would increase the GDP more, and actually have a smaller impact on actual deficits than food stamps. Or, do you want to "hand-wave a solid benefit to the economy?"

That's why pointing towards GDP is a terrible argument. It's why the thing we should be concerned about is cost, and impact to the deficit on programs like Romney's.