What do you mean and which years?

We certainly have "inflationary policy" at the very least now with Treasury pumping money into the economy by buying instruments (T Bills, etc.) and the Fed keeping bank rates so incredibly and historically so low.

Remember the 70's when inflation was out of control, and we had a freeze in retail food prices. That was deflationary policy.

Got a link for me to read some about this?

rfenst wrote:

Well, maybe I'm missing something in translation but we can't inflation our way out of debt if that is what you are saying. The only years our economy out grew our spending was a few years during the Clinton Administration and that was indeed a fluke created by a tax increase (Bush, Sr.) and spending cuts (Clinton/Gingrich). They don't get much more flukish than that! Not to mention the dot com bubble to overheat the economy to boot!

#-o

SMGBobbyScott wrote:

Life is neither fair or balanced with respect to income. Besides that, the rich already shelter their income and weasel out with a lower effective percentage than the middle class folk.

People need to support their nation in proportion to their ability to. The grade school math of a flat tax may be appealing to some, but in practice it does not accomplish the goal.

I guess that in your assessment the current tax code is 'liberal garbage'?
Have you really given this some thought?

Brewha wrote:

There is nothing requiring income to be "fair". You make what you earn. If you earn more, good for you. If you earn less, sucks to be you. Try harder.

The current code is garbage. Not liberal garbage, just garbage. Flat tax. No loopholes. If money comes in, tax is paid out.

The fact that flat tax does not "accomplish the goal" shows that the goal itself is the problem. Get rid of welfare. Get rid of the IRS. Get rid of beaurocracy. Get rid of all the dead weight of government. Bam! Less need for income and the citizens are able to pay for the government again.

I resent the implied insult of your "grade school math" statement. Just because 1+1=2 is simple, does not make it any less true.

My 1 plus someone else's 1 and so on for 10 people adds up to 10. That means that the government has 10 to spend. Not 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000.



J

calavera wrote:

Punt the debt. I dont want any part of paying it off.

"People in our society try to be fairer" is just newspeak for saying "tax others more than me".

Robin Hood and looters are everywhere.

HockeyDad wrote:

Please, not the 'bootstrap' lecture.

J, that 'law of the jungle' crap really doesn't work with society. There is a reason for the laws, religions, taxes, and even care for the needy - it is called civilization. And the goal of us all supporting it in proportion to our abilities is the right thing to do - for all the right reasons.

I called it grade school math because it is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. Sure, it's fun to say "screw 'em all, they should have picked better parents." but it really isn't very cool - or very smart. In the end we all have to live here.

Brewha wrote:

Please, not the 'bootstrap' lecture.

J, that 'law of the jungle' crap really doesn't work with society. There is a reason for the laws, religions, taxes, and even care for the needy - it is called civilization. And the goal of us all supporting it in proportion to our abilities is the right thing to do - for all the right reasons.

Brewha wrote:

Yes. We need a Flat Fair Tax.

"I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand it."

Buckwheat wrote:

You and I are not going to agree on this topic. But I am cool with that.

Hope you had a good memorial day complete with some good smokes. I was on the road all day, and did not get that chance to have any cigars, but I will remedy that tomorrow.

Happy Memorial Day to all.




J

calavera wrote:

Why does a bootstrap lecture make you so nervous? People have a right to be tired of having to pull you up by your bootstraps.

HockeyDad wrote:

There is no such thing as a Flat & Fair Tax...have you not been following the discussion?

SMGBobbyScott wrote:

Victor, the bile rose up only when reading post 40 "People need to support their nation in proportion to their ability to."

Strays a long way from your attempts to argue that people who use more goverment resources should pay more.

dstieger wrote:

Brew, I misjudged you. I thought you were merely liberal. I hadn't realized you were Marxist. I cannot stomach the redistribution arguments based on needs and abilities.

dstieger wrote: