Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,
You are not only what you describe as a poor writer, you are a poor reader. Some of my threads have not been about government. None of them have been anti-government this or that. Neither have any of my posts been anti-government. I am opposed to bad government. I am opposed to unconstitutional government. I am for good government. I am for constitutional government. I am for that government which governs best when it governs least. I am for self government. I am for equality before the law government. I am opposed to government of special interests and for special groups.
If your definition of "anti-government" is narrowed to any form or any instance of "government," then you are anti-government. You have issued a chit load of criticisms of the Trump Administration and especially against Trump, the President, himself. By your own definition, it would be hard to have a rational discussion with you.
Come to think of it . . .
.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now
Infrastructure was not taken care of when taxes were where they were. It was not taken care of even when a so-called stimulus package of billions of dollars were set aside to take care of infrastructure. So what would have been the magic wand to all of a sudden now the infrastructure would be repaired by keeping taxes where they were?
its basic math ... you pull that much revenue from any system things suffer... you dont need a degree in economics to figure that out ..
|
I's called restructuring the system to fit available revenue. Downsizing is one form of successful restructuring. Over extending any system beyond actual resources is a sure way to make that system, as you put it, "suffer"--even collapse. And constantly borrowing, without repaying on the principal, getting further and further in debt, will also cause a system to "suffer"--even to collapse. And creating a Ponzi scheme system wherein it pays returns to its investors (the "people" in a government system) from new capital (fiat money in a Ponzi government system) paid to the operators (government bureaucracy and its special interests and lobbyists who support it) by new investors (new generations, the children of the "people" in a government system), rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources (reasonable, affordable, taxes to support a rigorously defined, limited, and consistently responsible, well structured system of government), will eventually, as all Ponzi schemes do, collapse.
As you say, it doesn't require a degree in economics to understand that.