Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

"You expect the US govt to default in the
next 15 years?"

Actually I advocate sooner. They are already borrowing the interest.

Thing is, IF we do it at the right time, let's say Trump's trade "action" actually does more than we thought it might and gets us a little closer to self sufficiency, it won't be so bad. Out money would be like army scrip, hardly worth shit anywhere else.

Internal trad would not change all that much. Imports prices would go through the roof. Our level of importing is what makes us so precariously vulnerable. And it doesn't even take us, happenings in other parts of the world can affect it as well, as long as we have this level of buying.

If we say, default in 2025 after a bunch of more business is here and we import less, the impact will not be as bad.

Natural reaction of traders ? Well with the petrobuck dead we will have to sell our exports in gold and pay for imports in gold. After Germany we know they have nowhere near as much as they should, remember Germany ? Remember how the story about their gold was "debunked" ? Well it wasn't. Germany STILL had to wait for their gold, but Venezuela get theirs right away. Even if they HAVE the gold, they blew their credibility - with the shipping schedule TO Germany with her gold. That is enough to turn people off.

Remember about stocks, it is not so much what they'll do, it is more what people THINK they're going to do. Add it all up, and they fact that those people KNOW our wars are fought for booty and bounty for the select few and most of that big money never sees the US economy... They know because they study this shit and they got way better sources than even some governments.

 

[Winfield Hill]

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote...

But if I had a portfolio, with no heirs, what to do ?

You could divide it up among s.e.d. members.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 11:54:05 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"You expect the US govt to default in the
next 15 years?"

Actually I advocate sooner. They are already borrowing the interest.

Thing is, IF we do it at the right time, let's say Trump's trade "action" actually does more than we thought it might and gets us a little closer to self sufficiency, it won't be so bad. Out money would be like army scrip, hardly worth shit anywhere else.

Just like Trump, you conflate trade deficits with the federal deficit
and national debt.

Internal trad would not change all that much. Imports prices would go through the roof. Our level of importing is what makes us so precariously vulnerable. And it doesn't even take us, happenings in other parts of the world can affect it as well, as long as we have this level of buying.

If we say, default in 2025 after a bunch of more business is here and we import less, the impact will not be as bad.

Please, you really can't be serious. First, only you and Trump think
that somehow dramatically more business is going to be here by 2025.
Trump has had two years and all he's produced so far is a record
trade deficit last month with China.
Second, a default by the US would be a disaster for the world,
regardless of what business conditions are. Did you go to the Trump
school of economics?

 

[Simon S Aysdie]

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 6:26:06 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
<Snip>
> The argument having been further lost, the name calling intensifies.

That happens when people repeatedly make up straw men and go off on wild tangents. It is an accurate description.

<Snip>

I put "default" in scare quotes for a reason: because it was not to be taken in the strict sense of the word.

> "Sure, most of SS is being paid from payroll taxes, but that is irrelevant."

You don't understand what you agreed to. I'm not interested in your hysterical straw men.

 

[Simon S Aysdie]

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 8:38:39 AM UTC-7, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:05:00 PM UTC-5, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

You simply can't explain how the treasury securities in the SS trust
fund are worthless, a fraud, but identical securities that trade
in the free markets around the world trade at full face value or higher,

I wouldn't argue that.

I wouldn't either, and didn't. I saw no need to defend points I did not make.

> They are equally worthless.

Just to make a point, I never used the word "worthless" to describe federal commitment to redistributing money to 'older people." The word /worthless/ was a result of "tra...'s" imagination.

What I said was the Feds could pay the commitment by other taxes, and that I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or left pocket. If $100 comes out of either of my pockets, for example, my net is -$100, regardless of the pocket.

"tra..." even admitted taxpayers are currently paying the "trust fund" down by exactly these "other taxes." This is admitting that the "trust fund" is an IOU the government wrote itself, and the burden is thus on the taxpayers, regardless of the box in our W-2s.

> Their value is confidence in the issuing body.

I made the point, lost on "tra...", that there is a strong motivation for a government to not default on securities put on open market.

> They sell securities on trust funds ?

No. It is part of "tra...'s" straw man.

 

" I wouldn't argue that.

I wouldn't either, and didn't. I saw no need to defend points I >did not make. "

and

>"I never used the word "worthless" to describe federal commitment to redistributing money to 'older people."

I never saw that either.

My point though is that paper is inherently worthless. It is the thoughts and beliefs of the People which give it value.

If I write you an IOU for a couple grand, and I have done this before and paid it all back you would do it again. But a Johnny Come Lately right off the bus won't get that. It is earned, and it has been spent by the last half dozen regimes in the US.

And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust. Well we don't got that. We got less and less workers and more and more non-workers. Trump did not do this.

>"What I said was the Feds could pay the commitment by other taxes, and that I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or left pocket."

Absolutely agreed.

>"I made the point, lost on "tra...", that there is a strong motivation for a government to not default on securities put on open market."

Mainly for the politicians who don't want to be in power when it happens. There are pundits and politicians who want to have a collapse or something just to blame it on Trump and they do work actively to make that happen. That makes it their fault, not his.

So they don't sell like bonds n shit on trust funds, well I didn't think they did so I guess I was right.

I can take Keynes the fuck apart, interested ?

 

"Just like Trump, you conflate trade deficits with the federal deficit
and national debt. "

Not at all. Deficit is spending beyond revenue which RAISES the national debt. Importing more means using more credit unless you are producing enough to pay for what you want. National debt is the accumulated deficits the government has run up and borrowed the money IN OUR NAME to make happen. I don't like any of it. Do you ?

Really, get me a time machine and Keynes will have an abortion. That motherfucker pretty much convinced the world that real is not real.

 

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 4:13:48 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"Just like Trump, you conflate trade deficits with the federal deficit
and national debt. "

Not at all. Deficit is spending beyond revenue which RAISES the national debt. Importing more means using more credit

That's totally false. Simplest case. Two countries, A and B.
A guy working at a job in country A like a beer made in country B.
He buys a six pack for $10. The importer sends $3 to the supplier
in country B to buy it. Now there is a trade deficit of $3 between
A and B. Where is this use of credit?



unless you are producing enough to pay for what you want. National debt is the accumulated deficits the government has run up and borrowed the money IN OUR NAME to make happen. I don't like any of it. Do you ?

The US govt deficits and national debt are far more troubling than
the trade deficits. That is actual debt, that has to be paid.
There has never been balanced trade between countries. To expect
that Mexico, a poorer country will buy as much from us as we buy
from them is unrealistic. Would it be better if we had smaller
trade deficits? Sure. But Trump isn't going to get it, certainly
not with his foolish, simpleton approach that has, so far failed.
There was an approach that could have worked, which was to get
our ALLIES together to put pressure on China. Instead, what did
Trump do? He went to war with pretty much the whole world on
trade, putting our allies in the same bucket as China! And he
did it with lies, he even bragged to his supporters that he accused
Trudeau of Canada having a trade deficit with the US. He told how
Trudeau kept saying, no, that's not right. Trump admitted that
he didn't even know! Trudeau was right, Trump was wrong and then
the moron brags about it?

Two years of Trump and his "tariffs are good and trade wars are
easy to win", and what do we have? A record trade deficit with China,
US crops piling up in the Midwest, and Trump handing out $8 bil in
welfare to farmers to try to cover some of the losses from his
trade war.

Really, get me a time machine and Keynes will have an abortion. That motherfucker pretty much convinced the world that real is not real.

What is your problem with Keynes? What he is remembered most for
is that govts should run deficits during recessions to stimulate
the economy. That is correct, it's stimulative. During growing
economies, they should run surpluses to reverse it. The problem
is politicians forget about the last part. And more troubling,
Republicans today have totally perverted what another great
economist put forth, the Laffer curve. Laffer showed that if tax
rates are too high, govt revenue is less than it could be because
economic output is less. If tax rates are too low, govt revenue
is less because of the low tax rate itself. There is an optimal
point. When Reagan followed that advice, the top tax rate was 70%.
Today Republicans have perverted that into cutting any tax, any
time is a great idea, eg the Trump tax cuts. In fact, what Trump
did was classic Keynesian economics. He significantly increased
spending and cut taxes! The result? He's taken the deficit from
$580 bil in 2016, to $1 tril this year! We did get a little boost
in GDP growth which is good, but it came at a heavy cost. In fact,
the elephant in the room which nobody talks about is that with
a $1 tril deficit, record spending, interest rates still at 3%,
the fed having only barely started to reverse it's quantitative
easing, why isn't the economy really roaring, with inflation a
problem?

 

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 10:20:56 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 5:21:52 PM UTC-7, Winfield Hill wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote...

"Massachusetts received 83 cents in federal spending
for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington,
and Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar.
It's very clear who is subsidizing who."

Not so fast there. I have SERIOUSLY looked into this and found
a few things. As far as I can tell that federal money going to
red states includes EARNED SS pensions, highway subsidies and
any upkeep of all federal buildings including military bases.

What's more, on that requirement money, more people retire
to low tax states for obvious reasons. Nobody in their right
fucking mind would retire TO Massachusetts.

Plenty do, for good reasons (better support system, better
health care, kids around, etc.), but OK, point made.

And a bunch of those retirees also have private pensions or
IRAs or whatever and they just love the lower taxes on that.
And like Florida, last i heard there was a $100,000 exemption
on property tax. It was actually cheaper to buy there than
to rent. That was a while back but why would they change and
risk all the consumption tax they collect ?

OK, this is all good to hear, thanks, I feel better already.


--
Thanks,
- Win

An election was held to settle the question of higher or lower taxes: Trump won. If you want to pay more in taxes, by all means, do - send a check into the Treasury:
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html

Trump didn't mention that he was going to boost the Federal deficit at the same time, which wouldn't have gone down as well with the people who were silly enough to vote for him.

The Dims have A LOT of idiots vying for the nomination that want more and higher taxes, Crazy Bernie being near the top of the list. If you want more taxes, send him a BIG donation.

It might be idiotic to want to pay more taxes, but wanting a better-performing government involves giving it the resources to underwrite that performance.

Trying to write off Bernie Sanders because his program involves raising taxes is genuinely idiotic, but our tunnel-vision right-wing nitwits can only see the higher taxes and are blind to the improved services.

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for all the
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers and even the
libs know it. The last great promise, Obamacare, turned out to be pretty
much a dudd. Unless you think paying $500 a month for a healthcare plan
where you have a $7K deductible is a great idea. It was as fraudulent and
dishonest as Trump's tax cut.

Some of that would involve making education more accessible, and no right-wing nitwit wants that - it enlarges the population likely to point out that right-wing drivel is irrational and foolish.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Maybe we should start with fixing the existing public school system, that
is totally "accessible", first? Results show that despite having plenty
of money, they are churning out kids that can't read and do math.
Gee, I wonder why? You think it could have anything to do with the
teacher's unions being in bed with the libs? Where you can't fire
incompetent teachers because of tenure? Did you even have tenure in a job?

 

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 4:27:48 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

" I wouldn't argue that.

I wouldn't either, and didn't. I saw no need to defend points I >did not make. "

and

"I never used the word "worthless" to describe federal commitment to redistributing money to 'older people."

I never saw that either.

Thank you.

My point though is that paper is inherently worthless. It is the thoughts and beliefs of the People which give it value.

This is just silly. That's true of just about anything. Following that,
all bonds are worthless because they are paper. So too are all stocks.

If I write you an IOU for a couple grand, and I have done this before and paid it all back you would do it again. But a Johnny Come Lately right off the bus won't get that. It is earned, and it has been spent by the last half dozen regimes in the US.

If you mean that because of the last half dozen presidents US securities
have no value, that's obviously not true. US securities are traded every
day around the world as among the safest in the world. The markets are
where people actually put their money behind their opinions.

And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close.. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust. Well we don't got that. We got less and less workers and more and more non-workers. Trump did not do this.

Where did anyone say that Trump did something? SS isn't a Ponzi scheme.
Sure, you are correct, there are less workers today for each retiree.
But we've faced this problem before and it's been fixed by a combination
of increasing taxes, raising retirement age, taxing benefits, etc.
It will be fixed again. Which does get us back to Trump. He's supposed
to be the great leader, the guy with all the answers. Where is he on this?
Hello? He'd rather be tweeting about Notre Dame being on fire or insulting
someone again.

"What I said was the Feds could pay the commitment by other taxes, and that I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or left pocket."

Absolutely agreed.

"I made the point, lost on "tra...", that there is a strong motivation for a government to not default on securities put on open market."

Mainly for the politicians who don't want to be in power when it happens. There are pundits and politicians who want to have a collapse or something just to blame it on Trump and they do work actively to make that happen. That makes it their fault, not his.

Obsessed with Trump? How did Trump get in here? But since you persist
and say Trump has no responsibility for the govt potentially going broke,
what about what Trump did? Trump significantly increased govt spending
and cut taxes! The deficit was $580 bil in 2016, it's $1 tril this year!
That's the first $1 tril deficit since the years right after 2008.
When is the last time Trump said the words deficit or national debt?

Oh, and the genius, when he was running, suggested that the US could negotiate
with our creditors to pay less than full value on our debts. Then he said,
if not, we can just borrow more and default. He even said that if interest
rates RISE, we can then refinance the national debt! That last part helps
explain why his casinos went bankrupt. Even a homeowner with a mortgage
knows that you don't refinance when rates go up. Thankfully Trump hasn't
seen fit to expand on similar thoughts with his crazy tweets, but there
is still plenty of time for that.

 

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 3:05:26 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 8:38:39 AM UTC-7, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:05:00 PM UTC-5, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

You simply can't explain how the treasury securities in the SS trust
fund are worthless, a fraud, but identical securities that trade
in the free markets around the world trade at full face value or higher,

I wouldn't argue that.

I wouldn't either, and didn't. I saw no need to defend points I did not make.

They are equally worthless.

Just to make a point, I never used the word "worthless" to describe federal commitment to redistributing money to 'older people." The word /worthless/ was a result of "tra...'s" imagination.

Your buddy that's trying to help you claims that all US treasuries
are worthless. You, on the other hand, try to weasel out of that,
lying that somehow the word worthless came in about the federal commitment
to pay SS benefits. What I said was that if you consider the securities
held by the SS trust to be worthless, then so too are ALL US govt
securities, because both are backed by the full faith and credit of
the US govt. And a default on the SS trust fund bonds would be seen
as a default by the US govt, with disastrous consequences, worldwide.

What I said was the Feds could pay the commitment by other taxes, and that I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or left pocket. If $100 comes out of either of my pockets, for example, my net is -$100, regardless of the pocket.

How are they going to pay the commitment by "other taxes" when the premise
is that the govt is going to default by not being able to pay to begin with?

"tra..." even admitted taxpayers are currently paying the "trust fund" down by exactly these "other taxes." This is admitting that the "trust fund" is an IOU the government wrote itself, and the burden is thus on the taxpayers, regardless of the box in our W-2s.

Boy are you totally confused. We are not paying the trust fund down by
"other taxes". We are paying it down by the SS trust fund redeeming bonds.
All the treasury has to do is sell new bonds, which they do all the time
to replace maturing ones and the overall federal debt
remains the same. If your Aunt redeems a US bond, did that money come from
some mysterious "new tax"?

Their value is confidence in the issuing body.

I made the point, lost on "tra...", that there is a strong motivation for a government to not default on securities put on open market.

The correct point is that there is strong motivation for a govt not to
default on ANY debt, especially one those that carry the full faith and
credit guarantee of the govt, which the SS trust fund does. Additionally,
there is "strong motivation" for a govt not to default on what pays it's
elderly their retirement money. And any such default would have disastrous
consequences around the world. In fact, just the prospect of it, would
send interest rates on US obligation spiking up, further accelerating
any problem the govt was having in meeting it's obligations, selling new
bonds, etc.

They sell securities on trust funds ?

No. It is part of "tra...'s" straw man.

That's a lie. I never said any such thing. Your buddy is just as confused
as you are. And there is no straw man period.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:68f8ed5c-f9cc-46b2-823e-5d31f29f68b4@googlegroups.com:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for
all the free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill
taxpayers and even the libs know it.

'kill taxpayers'?

I am ashamed of some folks. You made the list. I am a republican.
You are a piece of shit. You do not represent my party. The proof is
in your inane, inept devisivness.

 

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 10:09:19 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

On 2019-04-18 14:30, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:23:20 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-17 10:40, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost
wanton spending (California)."

Almost ? They got more debt than most countries and I don't mean
little ones the size of a state, I mean like Russia.

And then you claim yo give back more to the feds that you take which
is a totally manipulated statistic achieved only by selective
inclusion of variables. (and you fucking know it)


Yo, wait a minute. I did _not_ move here by choice but because of a job.
I'd never move to a leftist state by choice.


And worse, your congress critters want to spend MY money all the way
from Ohio and take MY guns n shit.


Only the ones of a certain political affiliation.


You are too good to live there, you got skills. Believe me I would
bet right now that I could get 100,000 people to come and work on
that San Andreas fault with dynamite, jack hammers and whatever else
they can get.

The government there is the real problem but you can't deny electing
them unless you claim the illegal immigrants did it.


I have never voted for any profligate spender and never will.

--


I assume then that you didn't vote for and don't support Trump?
Trump has significantly increased spending and cut taxes. The deficit
had been declining and was down to $580 bil in 2016. This year it's $1 tril.
The first $1 tril deficit since the horrific recession. We had a good
reason for $1 tril deficits for a few years back then. Trump has no such
excuse now.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-budget-2020/?utm_term=.17fc9e255b2a

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

ROFL

That's beyond laughable. First, it's Trump's "proposed" budget for next
year. Second, the cuts proposed are insane. Third, I don't measure on
political theater, talk, I measure on what he actually winds up signing
and so far he's signed bills with significantly HIGHER spending.
Fourth, such nonsense just makes it harder for anyone to take Trump
seriously, it's obviously pure nonsense. But it sure fools the trumpets.
You'd rather have a divisive moron that tilts at windmills, instead of
a leader that can actually lead and get things done. Look at healthcare,
immigration, and his wall. It's just smoke and mirrors for his base,
no solutions.

 

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:68f8ed5c-f9cc-46b2-823e-5d31f29f68b4@googlegroups.com:

Maybe we should start with fixing the existing public school
system, that is totally "accessible", first? Results show that
despite having plenty of money, they are churning out kids that
can't read and do math. Gee, I wonder why? You think it could
have anything to do with the teacher's unions being in bed with
the libs? Where you can't fire incompetent teachers because of
tenure? Did you even have tenure in a job?

First somewhat intelligent thing you've have yet said.

With all the lotteries in place since around 1970, the schools in
most of those states should all be top notch, with top notch
hardware. Hell they should all be gold plated by now.

The problem with the kids though is not the schools, per se. if
you want to get the kids back on track, separate tham from their
older siblings and keep them home at night doing their homework.
THEN, we can give kids back their morals and we could even start
stating the pledge of allegiance again. Then we can start talking
about actual educational cirriculum and teacher elements.

We need to criminalize gangs. They are NOT "peaceful assembly".
We also need to begin holding parents accountable in many cases for
the actions of their minor children.

Teacher's unions? You're an idiot. Kids are defiant early on and
it is the parents whom are at fault, because it is the parents
teaching them that language and jailhouse mentality behavior.

Amazing how at the first thing you disagree with, you go from a
rational discussion to name calling. BTW, have you ever had tenure
in any job you've had? I don't disagree that parents have a role
here, but so to does the unions being in bed with the lib politicians.
They won't allow teachers to be fired, won't allow a school voucher
system, where parents could choose where to send their kids,
public or private.

 

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:37:36 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:68f8ed5c-f9cc-46b2-823e-5d31f29f68b4@googlegroups.com:

I don't want more from govt, I want LESS. The taxes to pay for
all the free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill
taxpayers and even the libs know it.

'kill taxpayers'?

I am ashamed of some folks. You made the list. I am a republican.
You are a piece of shit. You do not represent my party. The proof is
in your inane, inept devisivness.

That's a new one, even for you. It's an expression. And if you think
that Republicans don't think that the high taxes from all the new
free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers, then
I'd say you're the one who doesn't even know what Republicans stand for.

 

[Joerg]

On 2019-04-18 14:30, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:23:20 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-17 10:40, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost
wanton spending (California)."

Almost ? They got more debt than most countries and I don't mean
little ones the size of a state, I mean like Russia.

And then you claim yo give back more to the feds that you take which
is a totally manipulated statistic achieved only by selective
inclusion of variables. (and you fucking know it)


Yo, wait a minute. I did _not_ move here by choice but because of a job.
I'd never move to a leftist state by choice.


And worse, your congress critters want to spend MY money all the way
from Ohio and take MY guns n shit.


Only the ones of a certain political affiliation.


You are too good to live there, you got skills. Believe me I would
bet right now that I could get 100,000 people to come and work on
that San Andreas fault with dynamite, jack hammers and whatever else
they can get.

The government there is the real problem but you can't deny electing
them unless you claim the illegal immigrants did it.


I have never voted for any profligate spender and never will.

--


I assume then that you didn't vote for and don't support Trump?
Trump has significantly increased spending and cut taxes. The deficit
had been declining and was down to $580 bil in 2016. This year it's $1 tril.
The first $1 tril deficit since the horrific recession. We had a good
reason for $1 tril deficits for a few years back then. Trump has no such
excuse now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-budget-2020/?utm_term=.17fc9e255b2a

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

On 2019-04-18 23:54, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:39:53 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

Sorry to say but why should taxpayers in well-run states subsidize other
states that practice profligate spending? I never understood that sort
of "logic" in pre-2017 tax laws.

Well, one reason is that an interstate highway ought not
to dead-end at a state border. I've seen that... it wasn't a welcome
sight.

That is different and has nothing to do with a state charging their
residents a big fat income tax _plus_ a big fat sales tax and then
expecting Uncle Sam to foot part of that bill.

Another is the minor matter of definitions.

'Profligate spending' means 'spending'.

No, profligate spending means spending excessively.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:68f8ed5c-f9cc-46b2-823e-5d31f29f68b4@googlegroups.com:

Maybe we should start with fixing the existing public school
system, that is totally "accessible", first? Results show that
despite having plenty of money, they are churning out kids that
can't read and do math. Gee, I wonder why? You think it could
have anything to do with the teacher's unions being in bed with
the libs? Where you can't fire incompetent teachers because of
tenure? Did you even have tenure in a job?

First somewhat intelligent thing you've have yet said.

With all the lotteries in place since around 1970, the schools in
most of those states should all be top notch, with top notch
hardware. Hell they should all be gold plated by now.

The problem with the kids though is not the schools, per se. if
you want to get the kids back on track, separate tham from their
older siblings and keep them home at night doing their homework.
THEN, we can give kids back their morals and we could even start
stating the pledge of allegiance again. Then we can start talking
about actual educational cirriculum and teacher elements.

We need to criminalize gangs. They are NOT "peaceful assembly".
We also need to begin holding parents accountable in many cases for
the actions of their minor children.

Teacher's unions? You're an idiot. Kids are defiant early on and
it is the parents whom are at fault, because it is the parents
teaching them that language and jailhouse mentality behavior.

 

[Joerg]

On 2019-04-21 07:29, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 10:09:19 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-18 14:30, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:23:20 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-17 10:40, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost
wanton spending (California)."

Almost ? They got more debt than most countries and I don't mean
little ones the size of a state, I mean like Russia.

And then you claim yo give back more to the feds that you take which
is a totally manipulated statistic achieved only by selective
inclusion of variables. (and you fucking know it)


Yo, wait a minute. I did _not_ move here by choice but because of a job.
I'd never move to a leftist state by choice.


And worse, your congress critters want to spend MY money all the way
from Ohio and take MY guns n shit.


Only the ones of a certain political affiliation.


You are too good to live there, you got skills. Believe me I would
bet right now that I could get 100,000 people to come and work on
that San Andreas fault with dynamite, jack hammers and whatever else
they can get.

The government there is the real problem but you can't deny electing
them unless you claim the illegal immigrants did it.


I have never voted for any profligate spender and never will.

--


I assume then that you didn't vote for and don't support Trump?
Trump has significantly increased spending and cut taxes. The deficit
had been declining and was down to $580 bil in 2016. This year it's $1 tril.
The first $1 tril deficit since the horrific recession. We had a good
reason for $1 tril deficits for a few years back then. Trump has no such
excuse now.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-budget-2020/?utm_term=.17fc9e255b2a

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

ROFL

That's beyond laughable. First, it's Trump's "proposed" budget for next
year. Second, the cuts proposed are insane. Third, I don't measure on
political theater, talk, I measure on what he actually winds up signing
and so far he's signed bills with significantly HIGHER spending.
Fourth, such nonsense just makes it harder for anyone to take Trump
seriously, it's obviously pure nonsense. But it sure fools the trumpets.
You'd rather have a divisive moron that tilts at windmills, instead of
a leader that can actually lead and get things done. Look at healthcare,
immigration, and his wall. It's just smoke and mirrors for his base,
no solutions.

Well, believe what you want. Vote how you want and I vote how I want.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:be8dfff7-c4da-4067-9adc-
21975fc6cf6b@googlegroups.com:

Amazing how at the first thing you disagree with, you go from a
rational discussion to name calling.

Fuck you Mr. "must have been watching horror movies" retard. You are
more insulting than you are apparently aware. That is par for the
course for a false stat spewing jackass like you.