No civilization ever taxed (or spent) itself into prosperity.
- Rush Limbaugh
We’ve spent all of the money. And we do it again, and again, and again. The only question left, is WHEN is THE NEXT TIME THAT WE SPEND ALL OF THE MONEY YET AGAIN, will cause a collapse.
WHAT MONEY?
We have already spent all the money and borrowed 18.1 Trillion more and the interest keeps climbing. Did they not teach math in liberal classes.
1+1=2-2=0 borrow 2 and you have -2. Add interest .01 and that equals...-2.01 and so on until the amount your borrowed plus interest is -18.1 Trillion in the hole and climbing.
At this rate there will be Chinese people in your spare bedroom.
Liberals are stupid...government has to TAKE money from the private sector to spend it on the private sector. Net zero return. It’s just reallocation.
A question no liberal will answer:
At what point between 0% and 100% taxation does a person become a slave?
If there was any truth in this article everyone in America would be a billionaire by now!
Only in a Liberal Mind can an expense equal prosperity
I think it's a lot like the laffer curve. If government spends 100%, nobody works, and wealth = 0. If government spends 0%, you get chaos like Somalia and wealth remains close to 0. Somewhere in between those two points is an optimal amount of government spending that helps promote the private sector's creation of wealth.
1) Why were states not measurably more prosperous after increasing government spending by more than 80 percent in real terms between 2003 and 2007?
A lot has to do with where the government spending goes. If government spending is invested in needed infrasturture (roads, airports, communications, power grids, internet, etc.), then government spending can be an investment that generates a real return in terms of the economic growth.
In the 2000's, government spending was probably increasingly due to off-shoring of jobs. That offshoring is a direct effect of lowering the import tariffs, and it has been an increasing drain on our economy since the 60's.
2) Between the time of Bill Clinton's last submitted budget of $1.8 trillion, and Barack Obama's first submitted budget of $3.6 trillion, did the average American become more or less prosperous?
Less. But again it's trade policy. Obama's spending is largely related to the high unemployment generated by our stupid trade policies.
3) The United States after World War II, Canada in the 1990s, and Australia in the 1980s all became significantly more prosperous—despite ample warnings to the contrary—after cutting, not increasing, government spending. Wha' happen?
The US and Canada unlike Europe didn't have their industries devasted by war. So we had a huge headstart. But that's not to say that the war wasn't a drain on wealth, and ending it, and the associated spending allowed wealth to accumulate.
"4) Is there a ceiling on what percentage of GDP the government should account for, and if so why should there be one, and where should it be?"
No, because you can't predict the circumstances. In a war, you might need government spending to be 100% or even higher, because your survival depends on it. But we are spending now to support 100 million americans on food stamps, while we import goods from other countries equal to 16% of our total GNP. I'm for supporting Americans out of work when there are no jobs. But I'm 100% the stupid globalist policies that killed our jobs.
I think it's a lot like the laffer curve. If government spends 100%, nobody works, and wealth = 0. If government spends 0%, you get chaos like Somalia and wealth remains close to 0. Somewhere in between those two points is an optimal amount of government spending that helps promote the private sector's creation of wealth.
1) Why were states not measurably more prosperous after increasing government spending by more than 80 percent in real terms between 2003 and 2007?
A lot has to do with where the government spending goes. If government spending is invested in needed infrasturture (roads, airports, communications, power grids, internet, etc.), then government spending can be an investment that generates a real return in terms of the economic growth.
In the 2000's, government spending was probably increasingly due to off-shoring of jobs. That offshoring is a direct effect of lowering the import tariffs, and it has been an increasing drain on our economy since the 60's.
2) Between the time of Bill Clinton's last submitted budget of $1.8 trillion, and Barack Obama's first submitted budget of $3.6 trillion, did the average American become more or less prosperous?
Less. But again it's trade policy. Obama's spending is largely related to the high unemployment generated by our stupid trade policies.
3) The United States after World War II, Canada in the 1990s, and Australia in the 1980s all became significantly more prosperous—despite ample warnings to the contrary—after cutting, not increasing, government spending. Wha' happen?
The US and Canada unlike Europe didn't have their industries devasted by war. So we had a huge headstart. But that's not to say that the war wasn't a drain on wealth, and ending it, and the associated spending allowed wealth to accumulate.
"4) Is there a ceiling on what percentage of GDP the government should account for, and if so why should there be one, and where should it be?"
No, because you can't predict the circumstances. In a war, you might need government spending to be 100% or even higher, because your survival depends on it. But we are spending now to support 100 million americans on food stamps, while we import goods from other countries equal to 16% of our total GNP. I'm for supporting Americans out of work when there are no jobs. But I'm 100% the stupid globalist policies that killed our jobs.
Plus we should raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour for everyone and make ourselves rich!
This is one of the consistent non-truths liberals cling to.
To them, money comes from a checkbook, milk and meat come from a store, and the poop they flush down the toilet is gone forever.
They are pure evil, the truth is not in them.
The government, esp the federal government, is one big broken window. (See “Broken Window Fallacy.”)
That concept is WAY beyond the intellectual capacity of almost all leftscum. The ones who do “get it” don’t care because those broken windows give them money and power.
These idiots never realize that the money is imaginary.
I can’t say it’s impossible for the gubmint to spend productively, for though I’m terrible at golf I once sunk a put from about twenty feet away despite myself. It’s just that I’m about as likely to join the PGA as is gubmint spending to be regularly stimulating.
Exactly the kind of idiocy that the libs promote.
Just think, we can ALL be the 1 percent!!!