Does high taxes cause high National debt . Look at the charts and decide…
Looks like the answer is obvious… At least we can say a that raising taxes does not lower debt in the long run.
5 Likes
Raising taxes just gives government more to spend.
As far as I am concerned, national debt is a spending problem that nobody in government wants to address. (And anyone who tries to address it is labeled a renegade and a bomb thrower.)
3 Likes
When you EARN a dollar, you appreciate the hard work it took and you have a greater tendency to spend it wisely. When you receive a dollar without “earning” it, there’s a greater tendency to not spend it as wisely. Easy come, easy go is a more appropriate description.
2 Likes
Or not caring.
“Reptile” is an old slander by those to think spending equals caring.
hello Weimar, is that you?
No it’s not.
It never has been. Debt accumulation isn’t being resolved by money printing but acquiring more debt owed to itself.
Weimar Republic rhetoric was Spinach’s obsession. It never came to fruition. For a reason.
3 Likes
Actually according to Dr Laffer the opposite is true.
Oprah proved this. She gave 10 poor Chicago families a million dollars each. Went back a year later and they were all broke again
The program failed but that’s not what happened. Not even close. Why make up things when they are easily verifiable?
Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s gives them the ability to borrow more. And they will almost always borrow as much as possible. Which is what the graphs shows.
What program?
it was 30 years ago. Families for a better life.
Ok. Then please explain exactly what you perceive happened?
Well what you said for sure didn’t happen. It’s a trope that was made up. For no reason whatsoever….
The program failed because it had stringent requirements. In fact five families graduated the program but most others failed because of the requirements.
Then please explain exactly what did happen, according to you.
I just did. The rest of the post described what happened.
No. What you told me was I was incorrect. However you didn’t provide the correct information.
All you said is it worked for 5 families.
So how much was given to how many.
Describe to me where I wad wrong.
If I am proven wrong I, of course will admit to it but first show me where I am wrong
1.3 mil was to the program. Not to each family. I provided the name of the program. Now all you have to do is challenge your preconceived tropes.
Ok. So according to you, I was wrong on the amount but not the substance.
Got it.
So point is still valid. Giving money to people who don’t have it doesn’t help them but in the short run.
Doesn’t change anything.
The issue you have is that the program had stringent requirements. It wasn’t money for nothing. There were hoops they had to go through. The failure rate was high because it was stringent
So your entire point about what Oprah did or the result of the program was mistaken
