October 19, 2011
– Comments (18)
Why on earth would we give more money to politicians who have proven themselves incapable of balancing the budget?
Why not Ron Paul ? The more the others speak, the better he looks.
I see only one issue of concern with Ron Paul, and that's his hand's off approach he advocates for Iran. Nukes scare me.
How about we finally go after something most people do not want to even touch with a 10 foot pole...That is GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS!!!!!GEN. ED. is absolute garbage.Those that defend it say, "Well I didn't pay any attention in High School so I need my General Education."But, why should my Tuition Dollars go to pay for someone that messed around during High School and now has to have not 1 but 2 straight YEARS or 4 straight Semesters of GEN ED?Look... If GEN ED goes away that means every Public Education University is either a 2 year university or it is a 3 year where you add some more classes to expand BACHELOR, MASTER, or DOCTORATE degrees...You end up having more $$$$ to provide Students real world experience and education.....here's how it is done when you get a job....In today's environment we have Public University's skyrocketing Tuition Rates while Refusing to Reduce / Eliminate General Education requirements.HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?Imagine the Savings for the YOUTH out there that say they can not afford to go to College???Imagine the benefits????If you need your GEN ED.....Go back to High School and Pay your Local High School for individual classes or Mentorship / Tutoring in the subjects you need to prepare yourself for College. Quit asking for ME and everyone else to pay for your lack of responsibility!!!yet how many conservatives do I hear all the time defending GEN ED???
So that government expenditures don't inflate the money supply with no offset.
Except that logic assumes the budget is balanced.The budget is NOT balanced was the premise of the question.If the Government is spending more than it takes in then there is no offset.
It's not a zero sum game.Government uses a budgetary practice that assumes everything must be funded at a 5- 10% automatic increase versus last year's budget.You can try to put more money into Politicians hands to "offset" the inbalance, but that is fleeting along as long as we have the type of budgeting that we have in place now.That is what a lot of people simply do not get.You ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT OFFSET a Federal Budgetary Inbalance.....by raising taxes..... It can not be done...
Hello Mr Williams, I'm a fan of your show and listen to WGN every day at work.Reason I'm writing this E-mail is today I called in for the first time, the quetion was about the republican candidates. Well my emphatic answer was Ron Paul. But I don't think I explained myself well in that shortened amount of time, plus I was a bit nervous having never been on the radio before. My point was that theres a growing movement of young people who endorse Ron Paul, and it is growing virally. Heres an example-http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ I applaud WGN for bringing him up in the discussion. It seems like the main stream media would rather mock him or just sweep him under the rug. As to your point that he just dos'nt seem preidential enough, for me thats the draw. We've been electing people who seem presidential for quite some time and the results show. I would rather elect an honest man and I know that I am not alone. Thank you for your time.
Just an E-mail I wrote today not sure how pertinent to this post.
But this was the latest Ron Paul post so I placed it here.
Should be interesting if I get a reply.
>I see only one issue of concern with Ron Paul, and that's his hand's off approach he advocates for Iran. Nukes scare me.<<br />Iran with one small nuke being a threat to the US is saying that me with my shotgun is a threat to a Navy SEAL team. The simple fact is: If we get out of the middle east they will leave us alone. We didn't have problems there before we starting trying to build puppet governments with the shah of Iran in the fifties. As for the Israel issue. We can support Israel like any good ally, when they need it. They have defended themselves since the nation was created, often against multiple aggressors at the same time.Giving the government more revenue will only increase the size of government. They do not want to decrease the debt or balance the budget. More money to them simply means they can spend more.
http://xkcd.com/285/ Wikipedian Protester
" target="_self">Semi-protect the constitution
Why on earth would we give more money to politicians who have proven themselves incapable of balancing the budget? - Pencils2
Because cutting taxes hasn't been any solution because we keep having to do it over and over as each additional tax cut does not trickle down to most Americans but rather goes to lining the pockets of a smaller and smaller group we borrow from in order toget the same lifestyles and services we used to be able to afford when we collected higher taxes.
Because a majority of citizens authorised the spending first, and then foolish supply side economic experts promised us we could cut taxes and pay the bills for the spending we had asked for. It did not work. It turned out that the taxes we stopped collecting became borrowing and interest payments to the same people we were no longer collecting taxes from. It is long past time to revisit that failed decision.
And I do not care if you call yourself a Communist, Socialist, Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Tea Party, or Libertarian if you are promoting that "cut taxes and solve problems" idea. I do not care if you are calling it trickle down, supply side, privatisation or "the path to freedom". It is a complete and utter failure, and it has never, anywhere in the world lived up to the promises of its advocates, only the self interest of the already rich.
Only progressive tax structures have had any measure of success at keeping those promises for a majority, and even then you have to pay attention to spending and remember that a much wider distribution of our countrys wealth than we have today is the best tool for preventing favoritism and government corruption.
If you wanted to start the free market equality race to the top after twenty five years of purely socialist wealth distribution so everyone is at the same starting line, thats one thing. But to start it now after what you call the last 15 years of corrupt government favoritism is like advocating for the corruption then, and advocating for the thieves to keep now what they stole then.
The free market political platform: "Deregulation let us steal, cutting taxes lets us keep it".
"Oh and by the way, we can also help invest your SSI contributions too, for a small fee of course, that will in no way will seem like skimming 12-15% off your investment dollars into our fee structure before they ever earn a penny for you, or charging you again to restructure them into an income producing annuity later".
Scew that, and good luck with your political campaign.
This video and issue is about cutting spending. I suggest you actually watch the video before you go into your usual talking points. You are also confusing corporatism with free markets.
The title of the post was about raising taxes. Your solution of cutting taxes in the video is about cutting taxes. Your video is about choosing whether or not we fund the spending programs we asked for through raising taxes or end them through cutting taxes.
We obviously disagree on whether the policys of reducing taxes since Reagan have done most Americans more good than harm and what they can reasonably be expected to do in the future.
If you just want to talk about reducing military spending, lets do.
If you want to talk about balancing the subsidys including military spending that the fossil fuel industry has gotten with subsidys for renewables to put them on an equal footing, lets do.
If you want to talk about cutting all subsidys to all energy companys and leave the fossil fuel industry with the advantages its subsidys have gained it, lets do.
If you want to talk about whether money spent defending oil company interests in the middle east so we can spend again at the pump, is better spent than upon solar panels on your roof so you can save a trip to the pump, lets do.
If you want to talk about the value of SSI and deferring earned income for retirement and compare it to the free market destitution Americans experienced before we had SSI, that led Americans to support and expand an SSI program, lets do.
If you want to talk about the 30% of Chileans that wound up with nothing after thirty years of privatised SSI lets do.
If you want to talk about how Government financed healthcare save citizens of other countries thousands every year over our privatised version that funds some pretty awesome executive comensation while not even delivering healthcare to everyone, lets do.
If you want to cut the federal Government and take down military spending and SSI and medicaid and put it into the hands of private interests that cost far more, lets not.
Lets not thow out the good with the bad by expanding failed policys of cutting taxes, and deregulation that lead only to debt enslavement, corruption and poverty despite the hard work and contribution to the real wealth of our nation by employees.
I am not a Chicago School economist. I am not a banker or lawyer. I am a mechanic and a farmer. I need the protection of law and Government to protect me from thieves and gangs so I can work and be productive. I trust the government employee who gets $60k/year no matter what to tell the truth before I trust the banker, who only gets more if he can take it from me. And I trust that government employee more if he is a career employee, not quitting next year to get a consulting job from some private company exec who gets more if they take more of mine.
And I have not seen the social benefits of the economic theorys of the Chicago School economists work, anywhere or anytime.
I don't want to loosen the rules, I want to tighten them. Right now SSI is part of my paycheck. It is something I get from my employer, not something that costs me. It is no surprise that every time a Libertarian says freedom from Government I either get paid less benefits, or spend more with a private company.
I watched it. I always do. I read the links, I check the facts when there are any. I don't trust Libertarians who say don't tax my riches because Government corruption makes people rich. I do not trust the Government policys supported by Chicago School economists, in the real world they have failed the majority and been a handout to the financial industrys everywhere they have been tried.
Hey whaddya know got a reply to #6-
Well put, bud. I think you are right, too. Ron Paul isn’t being given credit – he is easier to mock – and that really serves no one. I’ll check out the site you included. And thanks for calling in. I thought you did quite well! John
Is there anybody on this thread or on this entire website, for that matter, that follows the Chicago School of Economics? I think Thomas Sowell is pretty solid. But other than that, I don't really know any of the current crop.
David in Qatar
Hey, farmer/mechanic Steven- Did you mean "subsidies?
Hey, DavidinCali, can you name the top three Libertarian hypocrites?
Hey David Pencils, Do you really believe RP would be "allowed" to win? Did you ck out the link I left on your last post?
Hey John, you know you're going down this week, right?
David -I'd like to learn more about Milton Friedman's work.
I'm very much enjoying this t.v series so far:
Although, his monetary work is very disappointing. How can a free marketeer not desire a free market for interest rates and money supply?
I live here and I've never heard of-
Mark- you were saying what now...:)
#16 should say David in Cali.
Unless you've been living in a hole for the past decade, you would know that cutting taxes hasn't done a damn thing for the economy either. In fact, over the past half century lowering tax rates has had little to no correlation with economic growth, and tax rates are at historically low levels right now. Get over it.