And their support for funding the government they propose? This is an even bigger issue.
Are you considering a vote for Hillary?
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
You must not be watching the debates or looking at their policy proposals - outside of Rand Paul, deficits are not a real consideration.
The Ds proposals produce lower budget deficits and debts than the R proposals because the Ds are willing to pay for their programs.
My position is debt is not inherently bad and is a part of normal government function. Not that it is good to have a lot of it. The level in the US does not count as "a lot" from an economic standpoint - we are not constrained in borrowing from the market nor are we unable to fund the government.
But, paying down the Federal debt is an insane waste of resources that makes no sense from an economic standpoint, especially in a country with anemic economic growth and less than full employment. Paying down the debt means changing the fiscal balance of Federal payments by 4-5% of GDP...that's absolute insanity due to the impact it would have on the economy.
The US government would be much better off gradually lowering the debt as a % of GDP over time through economic growth and a well managed budget with counter-cyclical management of spending and taxation.
I'm pretty sure they asked if it should be regulated. I have no doubt those things are a huge ripoff. They advertise how much money they give away every week. They do NOT talk about how much profit they make every week or how many people win compared to how many lose.
It's more expensive than a sports book for a customer but all of those companies are losing money because of the ad spending
I meant it was a question specific to regulation of gambling, not overall regulation, which is just not a significant discussion point, to me. We had little on Wall Street regulation but we had time for a gambling regulation question???
You need to pay attention to the amount of debt the Pubs have run up when in charge. Unpaid wars seem to do that
#1 change in the debt and deficit over the past 15 years: Bush tax cuts, not war. Bush tax cuts cost the govt an estimated $6 trillion from 2001-2019.
This is the #1 reason the Republican economic proposals are budget destroyers - the level of military spending they want is nothing compared to their desire to give rich people huge tax cuts without paying for them with spending cuts
It's a long term play. Most big public startups like that lose a ton of money at first when they are building out their technology and then their customer base. Uber is still losing money, for instance, as it is still scaling up.
That is code for RAISE TAXES.
What we need to do is just get it over with and allow them to take total control of every single thing is our life. That is where it is headed.
For the republicans to pay for what they want to do, guess what, they would have to raise taxes too. They are just incredibly dishonest about that point.
How exactly do they plan on paying down the debt that they worry so much about? By cutting taxes? I don't see how that will ever lower the debt.
How does a company that's been in business that long continue lose money and still have stock holders. I though everybody wanted instant gratification these days.
Because of the way they lose money. They reinvest heavily in their infrastructure. It's not that they lose money on their product.
When did I tout any "pubs"? I named the individuals, you cite a party.
I doubt you would associate Hillary with all "dems".
Ben has never held elected office. Easy to say something when you've never actually had to cast a vote.
All of them are for tax cuts that do not pay for themselves.
Rand was a little more difficult, but here you go.
http://congress.freedomworks.org/bills/senate-concurrent-resolution-scres-or-sconres-20
Wonder if you can admit you are wrong about them...
And as for Benny. Well I assume he voted for Mitt, and Mitt's budget plans would have increased the debt as well so I guess they all have.
Because their stock price keeps going up as their revenue grows. The market views them as a potential monopoly.
It's kind of crazy to me. But it's good for us as customers for now because it is helping keep prices down
They don't. Notice how most of them don't mention how their policies affect the debt or deficit. They talk about economic growth instead even though their tax proposals are not generally that efficient at generating growth
Similar threads
