On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:44:44 -0400, BAR wrote:I would like to see the government spend way, way less than they are
> In article <pan.2012.04.29.13.16...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:58:52 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2012.04.29.10.34...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:17:23 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 28, 9:07 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:24:22 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
>>>>>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Democrats are orders of magnitude worse.
>>>>>>>> No, Frank. They're the same.
>>>>>>> Hmmmm, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 220 years
>>>>>>> Or another way, 10 trillion dollars of debt through the first 43
>>>>>> Most every administration has people showing such numbers, as
>>>>>> At least we have some data to see how well austerity works in
>>>>> Reagan cut the top marginal tax rates from over 70% to under 30%.
>>>> Clinton brought in way more money than Reagan, and at a higher rate
>>> The problem is spending.
>> The problem is bullshit economic theories that have no basis in
> What non-bullshit economic theories do you propose we should follow?
now. I would like to see taxes go up until we get to the point that the
national debt is no longer a threat to destroy the economy. I would like
voters to accept that these steps are necessary to prevent the US
economy from sliding into collapse, that this new austerity would need
to last for a decade at least, etc. Basically, it's time to pay down the
This will never happen, obviously. Instead we'll have both sides
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.