Economy is roaring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure what stats the Trump defender is citing, but debt/GDP the highest it’s been since World War II,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what stats the Trump defender is citing, but debt/GDP the highest it’s been since World War II,

It's growth in the ratio. It was 105.19 in December 2016 and 105.49 in September 2019. (Don't think end of year number is in yet.)

So barely increased in the last three years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.

That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.

That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.

30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.

That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.

30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.

Question: how much is being spent on healthcare now and who is paying for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.
I said the same thing. These far leftists are not normal Democrats and their massive giveaway programs would indeed crash the economy. What I find odd is the leftists on this forum are assuring us that their crazy programs won’t pass as long as the Senate doesn’t flip. So IOW, they are willing to vote for the candidate with policies that would destroy the country because they know a Republican Senate would prevent them from enacting their socialist nonsense.

[Anonymous]

$3.65 trillion is spent on health care. $1.1 trillion is government spending through medicare, medicaid, and on veterans, and another $280 billion if you include decreases in government revenue from tax exclusions for employer contribution for insurance, HSAs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.

That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.

30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.

What is the $30 trillion reference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.

That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.

30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.

What is the $30 trillion reference?

The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$3.65 trillion is spent on health care. $1.1 trillion is government spending through medicare, medicaid, and on veterans, and another $280 billion if you include decreases in government revenue from tax exclusions for employer contribution for insurance, HSAs, etc.

Is that per year? So over 10 years 36.5 trillion? And we have high infant and maternal mortality, decreasing life expectancy, countless people losing everything to medical bankruptcy, insane medical bills, most Americans have crappy coverage...

Hmm. Interesting. I wonder why that number is so familiar?

[Anonymous]

Medicare for all costs are estimated at $30 trillion over ten years, so around $3 trillion a year, a bit less than current overall health spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.

But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.

A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.

That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.

30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.

What is the $30 trillion reference?

The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.

How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Medicare for all costs are estimated at $30 trillion over ten years, so around $3 trillion a year, a bit less than current overall health spending.

So a net savings...