Gee.....I sure thought David Miller would be much happier in the wake of a Republican Admistration. He's as constipated as ever.
A helpful word to investors looking for a recession resisitant stock.....Pfizer. People like David Miller buy their stuff in good economic times and bad.
PJStroh writes: "A healthy society engages deficit spending to get out of a recession...and stores money away during times of prosperity."
The USA has run a deficit every year since FY 2002, . . . not a healthy society. Poor old DonDiego concurs with PJStroh's concern over excessive Government spending; he supposes disagreement is likely on what to cut first/most.
And poor old DonDiego agrees investments in "hard assets" may be appropriate to counter potential loss of dollar-purchasing-power.
::: EDITED TO ADD :::
Recommended Reading: Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President ?
PJ---Even your attempts at being funny are insults. You need professional help.
Originally posted by: Don
PJStroh writes: "A healthy society engages deficit spending to get out of a recession...and stores money away during times of prosperity."
The USA has run a deficit every year since FY 2002, . . . not a healthy society. Poor old DonDiego concurs with PJStroh's concern over excessive Government spending; he supposes disagreement is likely on what to cut first/most.
And poor old DonDiego agrees investments in "hard assets" may be appropriate to counter potential loss of dollar-purchasing-power.
::: EDITED TO ADD :::
Recommended Reading: Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President ?
I would argue my disagreement is not over spending. My arguement is over deficit inducing legislation.
Spending only causes deficits when its not paid for. And tax cuts cause deficits unless their is something to reconcile that deficit.
You can find examples from both parties signing deficit inducing legislation over the years. but the data is pretty clear one party is alot worse than the other. (Hint - its the one that incorporates dynamic scoring).
Liberals will never understand economics. Tax cuts actually increase money collected by the treasury. The less you tax an activity (businesses making money), the more it will occur, and more taxes are collected. Reagan's cuts proved that, and so have Trump's. The government takes in more money, not less.
Eliminating the annual baseline spending increases for so-called "entitlements" would go a long way toward balancing the federal budget. Those aren't "paid for" spending increases, but they happen every year without new legislation. On the occasions that baseline spending increases are actually reduced for a single year, liberals scream they are spending cuts, when in reality, they are reductions in spending increases. Spending still increases.
DonDiego apologizes for thinking he was in agreement with PJStroh.
Indeed, poor old DonDiego would prefer not only that the Government limit deficit spending, . . . but also limit overall spending.
Anyone agreeing with PJ should apologize - and reassess their thinking...
The only fair way would be an across the board 2% cuts until we reach a balanced budget.
The cuts combined with revenue growth will produce a balanced budget within a few years.
Interesting that pj is whining about deficits when the proposed spending by the candidates will more than double spending without a corresponding increase in revenue.
"Interesting that pj is whining about deficits when the proposed spending by the candidates will more than double spending without a corresponding increase in revenue." ----- This is just another example of the liberal "logic" that PJ champions.
As said before...spending only increases deficits when its not paid for. I will gladly decry any plan put forward by a Democrat that is not. And that will seperate me from fiscal hawk Tom who (like golf) only has religion on deficits when his party is out of power.
As for my comments on history....well you'll have to excuse me for being graph literate.
