So you are arguing for a massive reduction in military spending (shrink the U.S. military to about a quarter of it's present size and strength at best), a conversion to private fee-charging parks and transport systems (including virtually all highways), virtually no health inspectors or financial auditors and basically no Social Security, Medicare, food stamps or subsidies of any sort? You also trust the private sector will replace all the public sector jobs that will disappear, even though its track record over the past 25 years in the private sector has been increasing unemployment rates (and of course unemployment assistance will be either gone entirely or massively reduced). An interesting vision of the future. I believe the technical term for such a nation is "banana republic".
Granny says, "Somebody needs to clue this guy in that to get us out of our financial straits, taxes are going to have to be raised and spending is going to have to be cut no matter who wins the election... CEO Threatens to Fire Employees If Obama Is Reelected and Raises Taxes October 09, 2012 | David Siegel, the founder and CEO of real estate company Westgate Resorts on Monday threatened to fire some employees if Barack Obama is reelected and carries out his plan to raise taxes on the so-called rich.
reagan proved the oposite is true. Taxes and debt ceiling must be lowered and spending massively lowered. Only then can the market recover the the government distortions that caused 2008 and 1998 and the great depression. communism and socialism and fascism have never worked and are the same thing all 3.
Agreed. Although, I don't see why the state governments should get to tax either. A state government is still a government. The difference is one of degrees, not categories. Setting aside whether or not government force is legitimate at all, the United States was intended to have a defense program, not a military program. The US hasn't been in a defensive war since at least World War II. The Vietnam War, Korean, Gulf War, Persian Gulf War, etc were all offensive in at least large part if not entirely. But on the more important point, reducing government services doesn't make the state a banana republic, rather it frees up people's incomes so they can use more efficient free market mechanisms. Remember, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Money not spent in government programs can be spent somewhere else, and since the government is inherently monopolistic, free market solutions are more economical. The real purpose of government spending programs is to redistribute money. This has good intentions, but violates the rights of taxpayers. If I earn a dollar I want to spend my dollar or give it to a charity of my choice, not have the government give it to a less efficient monopolistic charity in the form of welfare. Reagan lowered direct taxation but increased the public debt by such an insane amount that I can't believe conservatives still associate with him. Printing money is taxation because it's passed on through inflation. Delaying payment just shifts the tax burden to our children. Talk about taxation without representation! As I recall this was half the reason your country went to revolution. How is taxing your children any different to taxing colonies without representation in the British commons? While I agree that none of the above have ever worked, it's silly to suggest that they're all the same.
Geez, where do you get these bizarre beliefs? Reagan massively increased spending. Star wars and all that.
in a word, yes There are people and government. The people do fine without control. Only silly government can mess things up. How can you have 24,000,000 people in need of things yet no one simply hires them to produce more? Money stolen by government. Thats why.
No Reagan massively reduced spending and democrat congress overspent. Reagan time led to internet that is why 90s were good economically: new unregulated free market through invention. Alf coulda been better president than clinton who caued 2008 by mandating mortgages for irresonsible people along wth fe and and fanny help, oh and dodd frank fixed none of hese causes for bubble of 2008
Here's the evidence of how Reagan "massively reduced spending" Yera - Outlays 1980 590.9 1981 678.2 1982 745.7 1983 808.4 1984 851.9 1985 946.4 1986 990.4 1987 1,004.1 1988 1,064.5 Source: CBO.gov. And it wasn't the Democrats passing those huge increases in military spendings. It was the Republicans, joined by a handful of "boll weevil" conservative Dems that passed the tax cuts and spending increased that tripled the deficits and increased the debt by 180%. I can start to understand why you hold the polticial positions you do when I see things like this demonstrating your deep misinformation on facts and history.
