Yes, yes I do. Because I know this was a problem created by the GOP and only the GOP. On the plus side, Flint's getting new investments! They have some new charter schools. I hope they're not owned by the DeVos family.
They sold people a product they like. You originally framed it as theatre's capitalizing on a people's mistakes (which is not remotely virtuous). Which is just more of you delivering terrible analogies instead of actually trying to convince us of your beliefs.
So companies would need to lay off workers. That's going to reduce tax revenue and would increase government spending on welfare programs, you know that? It would also decrease personal spending, which in turn would have an impact on other companies not contracted by the government.
Decades of revenue numbers show that tax revenue does not stay the same, like, there are impressive large differences.
Here's a list of tax revenue per year in the US:
Remember, that's under the current system where the government does not try to keep government debt out of their books whatever it takes. If you want to convince anyone of your great idea, you might want to show how it would've impacted the US over the past 20 years. That's a lot of math but I am sure you can do it. It's in hindsight, but at least you'd had something to show for.Code:FY 2018 $3.33 trillion FY 2017 $3.32 trillion FY 2016 $3.27 trillion FY 2015 $3.25 trillion FY 2014 $3.02 trillion FY 2013 $2.77 trillion FY 2012 $2.45 trillion FY 2011 $2.30 trillion FY 2010 $2.16 trillion FY 2009 $2.10 trillion FY 2008 $2.52 trillion FY 2007 $2.57 trillion FY 2006 $2.41 trillion FY 2005 $2.15 trillion FY 2004 $1.88 trillion FY 2003 $1.78 trillion FY 2002 $1.85 trillion FY 2001 $1.99 trillion FY 2000 $2.03 trillion FY 1999 $1.82 trillion FY 1998 $1.72 trillion FY 1997 $1.58 trillion FY 1996 $1.45 trillion FY 1995 $1.35 trillion FY 1994 $1.26 trillion FY 1993 $1.15 trillion FY 1992 $1.09 trillion FY 1991 $1.05 trillion FY 1990 $1.03 trillion
Wishful thinking is not the great economic policy you think it is.
As it shows, it traditionally goes up... does it not?
So, over time, if revenue goes up, and spending stays the same...
I'll let you make the connection.
- - - Updated - - -
SO, back to this... only the GOP fucked up Flint?
Let's put this out there, Snyder and his band of merry fuckwads screwed up huge. But, to say that no Democrats fucked up, is straight disinformation. The Democrats voted for the cheaper option, which you just condemned. The Democrats voted to keep the cheaper option, even after two water boilings, and GM stopped using the water. the Democratic mayor chose to go on television and swear the water was safe, months after the EPA had tested higher lead levels. The Dems were in charge when they didn't use the corrosion inhibitors in the new water.
I simply bought something someone wanted to sell.
Then, as both inflation and population growth continue to occur year after year, that spending actually covers less and less over time, leading to a direct reduction in how much benefit government programs can provide.
That's the connection you keep trying to skip past.
So you want to walk back your statement that tax revenue stays the same? And again, that is under the current system, not your system. Show how your system would work, you've got decades of numbers to work with.
Nothing about the part where people lose their job? Just ignoring how that would affect companies and revenue?
Why do you hate capitalism so much?
In the current system, not your system.
There's none as they are two different systems.
I never said tax revenue stays the same, did I?
I literally just explained how it works.
My recommendation does nothing to the current tax structure for 5 years, it merely puts a halt on government spending increases. So, that increase in revenue over the 5-years would lower the deficit.
- - - Updated - - -
It presumes that tax revenues go up over time, which they do
Correct. For the entire duration of the crisis the GOP was in charge of the city of Flint.
To quote Donald Trump:
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you’re responsible. If it doesn’t happen, you’re responsible."
Rick Snyder is a piece of shit who poisoned people. And he did it for the Free Market Principle of cost cutting. I think you said you like it when the government cut costs.
No, that's not what you said. You specifically stated that movie theatre's capitalize on the poor planning of their customer's dinner.
They literally voted to change the water in the first place (because it was cheaper). They chose to not use corrosion inhibitors. They chose to not switch after two water boilings, and GM stopping the usage. The mayor went on television months after increased lead levels were detected by the EPA, and swore the water was safe.
Snyder has plenty that he's responsible for, as to the emergency managers. But these are the actions that those city leaders and the mayor took.
- - - Updated - - -
It's weird that you think opposing abortion restrictions makes me a corporatist.
That last part is simply another lie.
They literally did what the Emergency Manager told them to do. The Mayor and Council were not in charge. WHY CAN YOU NOT GRASP THIS??!?!?!
Like seriously virtually everyone in this mess who is getting charged is a state manager. Snyder and Emergency Manager Darnell Earley are both getting charged. Mayor Dayne Walling and any Flint Councillor are not.
He said my stances and proposals are corporatist, when I was pointing to the list of recommendations I made, that he completely ignored.
Meanwhile, people have no problem with corporations like JD having more power....
- - - Updated - - -
They chose to vote for it. They chose to go on television to push the misinformation that it was safe..
I know you don't want to hear this, but people are responsible for the choices they make in life.
WHY CAN YOU NOT GRASP THIS??!?!?!