What is the most import aspect of money?

We saw that socialist businesses cant regulate themselves. This is why 120 million slowly starved to death in USSR and Red China. When Republicans say business can self-regulate they are obviously talking about capitalist businesses. Do you understand now?

 

what has happened is that Republicans have prepared many Balanced Budget Amendments to make deficits and debt illegal and Democrats have killed every one of them. Newts passed House and fell one vote short in Senate. Do you know which Party was primarily responsible for killing it? Do you know what debt would be today if the mystery party had not killed the BBA?

 

only if you like the $20 trillion debt, want to see it rise further, look forward to paying interest on the debt when you and your children pay their taxes, and are a very very irresponsible libcommie.

 

if protecting them was number one priority the top 1% would be paying 1%
of taxes not 42% and the poor and middle class would not be liberally leeching off the rich.

 

obviously absurd but perfectly liberal given that it was Republicans, especially in that era who wanted to make deficits illegal and Democrats who 100% opposed. Moreover, there was no Clinton surplus. Clinton was a typical libcommie made to lie by Newt when he said "the era of big govt is over". Any fiscal responsibility then was 100% thanks to Newt, not the libcommie president and libcommie wife.

 

by making budget deficits illegal!!!! Do you understand now????

 

did it have anything to do with massive soviet intervention in the housing market wherein, for starters, the Fed kept printing money to inflate the housing bubble until it burst without which the bubble would have been 100% impossible or that when the bubble burst Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages thus removing all risk from the growing bubble??????

 

if so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???

 

Of course, it doesn't.

But what most people do not understand is that truly lonnnngggg-term debt means we pay interest (and eventually buy it back entirely) with increasingly cheaper money (due to inflation).

Which, in fact, if you look at the national-debt distribution pie-chart I posted, indicates why banks/credit-unions hold so little of it ...

 

On the national-level yes, but on a state-level it may be a damn fine idea. The pool of money that the Fed has is virtually unlimited, since it can create money and change interest-rates. Which state-level borrowers cannot do. They are threatened with bankruptcy when the whammy-combination of high-unemployment means lesser revenues and they must pay higher interest-payment costs.

(So, what gets the hatchet? Stoopidly, teaching jobs!)

 

Oupps, sorry ...

 

Well if liberal teachers would stop indoctrinating students, teach them how to think instead of what to think we would have smarter voters and wouldn't have this problem

No?

 

No - I'd rather shoot them, wouldn't you?

Like that - dead - they teach no one nuthin'!

Get a life ...

 

if Republicans were allowed to make deficits illegal nothing would be added to debt. Debt would them be paid off as it matured until there was no debt. Do you understand?

 

total liberal insanity. If they create money they concomitantly create inflation or higher prices which makes everyone poorer exactly as if they had taxed us the exactly amount of the price increase.
Cant even imagine what economic ignorance would lead a liberal to think Fed's ability to change interest money helps create free money that makes us richer?

 

yes!!! My nephew just started college. Instead of getting a survey course in American History he is getting Women in American History. Never mind the male founders who created the greatest country in human history since their dominance of the scene is really nothing but a manifestation of male oppression and sexism!!

 

By this comment I assume you mean that there is actually a quite large segment of the investor class who would tend to want to keep the majority of people in a situation where they feel pressure to run the the proverbial Gerbil on the treadmill?

 

The "Investor Class" could not give a damn about the Gerbils as long as the economic treadmill is providing profits - which are Income, when taxed, become Wealth.

All America's current ills derive from the loosening of Upper-income Taxation Rate during Reckless Ronnie's 1980s administration. If you don't want to believe that historical reference, then understand this bit of economic research:


What happens to the dark red-line (top 0.1% of families) from 1980 on? Today that bracket obtains a bit more than 20% of all Wealth, whilst most of those families remaining (90%) obtain about the same amount of total national Wealth.

Want to change Wealth outcomes?

Fix upper-income tax-rates by putting them back at 90% for all Income above, say, $5M yearly and spend that tax-revenue on educating our youth with meaningful skills/competencies that the economy needs badly, and watch the share-out in Wealth change drastically.

Do nothing, and we (and our children) face exactly the same future as that infographic above depicts. Do nothing and nothing changes.

The rich get richer and the poor can go to hell - where 13.5% (of America's men, women and children) are today living below the Poverty Threshold of $24K a year annual earnings for a family of four.

That total population is equivalent to the states of California and Louisiana combined ...

 

Just where IS the money going? That is, from the view of America's "discretionary" Budget spending?

Have a look here at this pie-chart breakdown:


Yep, more than half of it is "toys-for-our-boys 'n girls in uniforms" - and let's all watch that 54% grow under Donald Dork's Administration ...

 

Too Bad we don't or didn't spend enough on the military to protect ourselves and the world from North Korea's nuclear missiles oh well if we all get blown up it will just be the Liberals fault once again but it's always the Liberals fault like when 120 million slowly starved to death in the USSR and Red China

 

You have learned many times that those numbers are simple liberal lies because they don't include all the trillions in welfare entitlements that poor people get so that they won't really be poor. Two kids in school Free housing and free healthcare is worth $50,000 a year alone.

 

Thank you for an exceptionally well thought out reply but..........

it is a historical fact that when The Beatles received one of their first
royalty checks it was such a small portion of the gross amount,
they soon decided to leave England and live in America?!

The government of England had apparently kept 95% of their earnings and given them only five percent.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mark-j...money-50th-anniversary-beatles-classic-taxman

'A Heavy Penalty...for Making Money' - 50th Anniversary of the Beatles Classic 'Taxman'

 

I really don't know what the above has to do with the price of beer in China. Or what I wrote regarding Income Inequality in America.

America is not communist, and never will be. It's not even socialist, which calls for the means of production to be owned by the government.

America is capitalist - but that ONLY means that capital is better for exchange in a market-economy than what came before, which was barter.

What America is is this: It grossly UNFAIR as regards the distribution of Income. And that comes from only one fact. The taxation of income.

Were income taxation to hit a maximum 90% at 10 megabucks a year, we'd see still a range of lowest to highest incomes. What will have changed is that maximizing Income would no longer be a part of the game.

And that would hurt who? Some people like Bill Gates or Kalanik (ex head of UBER). Do they really matter? Bill Gates would never have bought a small company with a personal-computer operating system and made Microsoft out of it? Nope, he would have anyway.

Would Kalanik (who has proven otherwise inept at management) have not copycated what were once galled "gypsy cabs" because they were not yellow and did not have a cab-license. Nope, he would have anyway.

The urge for Wealth is certainly a healthy human incentive. What we have not learned is that Great Wealth is not a human necessity and it warps human activity from what is good for whole to what is best uniquely for the individual.

Neither have we learned that we cannot tolerate No Wealth; that is, more than 40 million Americans living precariously below the Poverty Threshold in what is surely one of the Wealthiest countries on earth.

Nope, such impoverishment is simply not acceptable by any humane sense of decency and fair-play ...

 

What is meant, I suggest, is that "they simply don't give a damn". And, yes, they will give BigMoney to assure that the game-rules do not change because in their tiny-world, it's the BestGame in town.

Damn it! I didn't know life was a "game" with winners and losers, and it was blessed by a loving God.

Nope, I got that all wrong ...

 

Distribution should be determined by capitalism not taxation!!! According to libcommies the rich get their income by earning it by offering great products and jobs to raise our standard of living while the poor should get their their money by using govt to steal it.
This reverses evolution and ultimately will lead to our doom.