Romney says reducing Gov't spending will cause a recession

If this were health care and there were a group selling charms and snake oil they would be called quacks.

That's exactly what we have in the group running our economy and calling themselves economists, quacks. It's either far beyond their comprehension or they are thieves who know exactly what is happening.

Unfortunatly, I'd have to go with the latter.

samhill wrote:That's what I have been saying all along, if you only have X amount of money coming in & that is chewed up by one source & you still want to cut taxes even more just how in the world is anyone expecting to pay down the debt? Even if you were to cut out every so called entitlement completely you would still never be able to even touch the interest on the debt.

Because any time anyone suggests cutting the military, they are immediately labeled as "anti American", "isolationist", "part of the 'blame America first' crowd" or other such nonsense designed to shut down all discussion.

It's far too late for cuts at this point. Time for the big reset!

UN SDR's here we come!

SMITTY wrote:

lsayre wrote:Lysander Spooner, a self educated Attorney and Civil War era Abolitionist from the State of Massachusetts wrote this dissertation on the authority of the Constitution (verbalized on YouTube in multiple parts, with part 1 linked here):

[youtube]xxx[/youtube]

Figures the guy was from MA. Must be where this state gets it's anti-Constitutional mindset.

Being a Lawyer, Lysander Spooner looked at the Constitution strictly as a binding legal contract. He then noted that all legal contracts are only legally binding to their signatories. He never signed it, and neither did any of us. None but the Founders ever signed it, and none but the representatives of the then living inhabitants of the original 13 Colonies ever ratified it. As a legal contract it cannot therefore be legally binding upon any living person. Such would require (at the very least) re-ratification within each generation. And it could even then only be strictly legally construed to be binding upon those who specifically sign on the dotted line indicating their desire to be bound to and by it.

He then noted that if it is not binding upon us as a willfully agreed to legal contract, then it must be binding us as serfs or slaves. Being an Abolitionist, he didn't take too kindly to that idea.

Because any time anyone suggests cutting the military, they are immediately labeled as "anti American", "isolationist", "part of the 'blame America first' crowd" or other such nonsense designed to shut down all discussion.

It's far too late for cuts at this point. Time for the big reset!

UN SDR's here we come!

I don't believe that Samhill is suggesting cuts (military or otherwise). He seems to be suggesting that additional taxes are the solution. But with roughly 50% of all working class Americans currently getting back every penny of their Federal taxes at the end of each fiscal year, how can he ever achieve that goal? The Russian government has settled upon a 10% flat tax. Would that be the answer, rather than giving back all of the taxes to 50% of the population? Or would cuts be the answer. Or both? Or would massive reduction in the size of the Federal Government (akin to the ideas of Ron Paul) perhaps be the answer?

Could the USA perhaps defend its borders against invasion with primarily its 18 Trident Class nuclear submarines, and eliminate about 85% of its other military spending? How much military is enough? Not to mention the radically militarized local police forces we have in our bankrupt cities these days. Where is the money coming from for that?

If we eliminated 85% of our military spending, we would be more on par with the military spending of the rest of the power broker class nations of the world.

Money has to be borrowed or fabricated anyway, if you use it here to repair our deteriorating infrastructure rather than some other occupied countries then you are not only rebuilding our country but creating jobs which produce taxes & revenue both of which we desperately need. The heralded & seemingly untouchable wall st. are sitting on trillions of our dollars & it appears they are more willing to fund foreign ventures instead of our own. Many complain about those living on or near poverty not paying tax but how many of those added together does it take to equal one billionaire not paying? The often repeated job creator theory is nothing but BS, the tax cuts have been in effect for over a decade now with more having been added so where are the jobs being created, they were here before the cuts.

samhill wrote:The often repeated job creator theory is nothing but BS, the tax cuts have been in effect for over a decade now with more having been added so where are the jobs being created, they were here before the cuts.

If this statement is true then the corollary to it must also be true that raising taxes creates jobs.

That would depend on what is being done with the additional tax money, if used to fund even more military spending or rebuilding other war damage in occupied countries (that most of which was never necessary to begin with) then it does not create jobs, even the no bid contractors aren't really Americans as far as tax payers go. If you use the revenue here the people you blame for not paying tax can get a job that increases their income to that of someone that does pay & from experience I can say as a struggling middle class working tax payer I didn't have much if any to invest overseas or hide in a tax shelter but instead spent every buck I made right here in America that helped create even more jobs.

KLook wrote:who is laughing all the way to the bank of his choice,(out of this country)with our money.

kevin

Exactly.

Federal Taxes are in place to pay the INTEREST on a borrowed currency, which in this current construct, a debt scheme, it can never be paid back.

By design, this puts a Nation into perpetual servitude, the people lose all benefit of using said currency, when instead, we as a people should have a currency that is tax free, i.e. our own.

A USD paper note is roughly .04 cents to produce and yet it is lent to us at full face value.....plus interest of course, quite a ridiculous paradigm don't you think?

Samhill, I would go along with your notion about raising taxes on the ones that pay and the rich ones that don't, IF you agree to cut all entitlements to those who WONT work or dont belong here. Then eliminate any union that represents a Gov. worker as it is a conflict of interest.(the politicians have nothing to gain by not giving them all they want and much to gain if they do.) I will even agree to reign in the military to a more defensive force.
After doing all that, we might start to get a handle on it, but I doubt it, as soon as things look good or there is a surplus, the entitlement people or the military will try to spend it. Hey lets start a war to get some new *censored*, hey lets find some single moms or migrants to start a cause for more programs.
I submit that it is the glaring fault of our system of gov. There is overriding justification to tax, tax, tax and spend it on the segments of society that are lazy and dumb because they vote for the most free stuff. Now that we have more people working for the gov and not working at all, it will be an interesting study of human nature and systems of governance. I am betting with the Socialist.

Kevin

Kevin, I have made my beliefs about the welfare slugs known several times, you tell me what difference there is between a hand out to the low end of the scale & one to the top end. IMO there should be a definite time & amount limit on the low end & nothing on the top, I could care less if an able person has to live in a car or under a bridge but any civilized society should be willing to help the ones that are trying to better themselves. To me income is income, if the average man cashes in on an investment if lucky enough to have one they are taxed accordingly, why not on the other end, if they have a loss you can bet they deduct it if they even pay anything. Try writing off the loss in your retirement fund when the market crashed.
As for the Gov. employees & their unions, were they not there before the last three years, didn't both parties have the chance many times to do something about it? It has never been all one side or the other as voters we have allowed our houses to be bought but I bet they weren't bought by a common working man.