Nah, you don’t understand the concepts of nationalism, globalism, and cultural relativism. You can want to preserve your culture without wanting to impose it on anyone else and without believing it’s superior to anyone’s.
You saying “U.S. citizens and the country as a whole (infrastructure) should have priority long before a foreign nation” implies that you believe that’s not the case, and if you believe that you’re just mistaken about where the budget goes. Stop spending tax dollars in bombing other countries for a start then, that could be a nice way to save money for your fellow, beloved Americans.
As someone who wants the state to spend money in Americans, I’m sure you believe in state expenditure in public housing, in free healthcare for everyone, in education and in pensions?
It’s… not the case. The U.S. as a whole does NOT have priority. Foreign nations have priority. Illegal immigrants swarming into our country have priority. Ukraine and Israel has proven to America that our government doesn’t give a fk about us, in general doesn’t give a fk about human lives in its totality. The Mexico/U.S. border, the illegal immigrants crossing over and the U.S. government supporting the influx of these illegal immigrants - literally having them board onto planes and flown to different states around the U.S. at the tax payer’s expense, is literal proof our government doesn’t give a fk about its own citizens.
The U.S. government has become a rogue entity. Like I said, at this point I feel we have bad actors in government and they’re intentionally tanking the country.
Also, I just gave you the explanation of Nationalism. You’re saying that what I have provided you… is wrong? Wat.
All of what you mentioned could become a reality once we’re out of debt and into budget surplus. Once we achieve this, I would totally be onboard with it. Until then… no we can’t. We need to cut spending first and re-evaluate the budget. This is basic things that citizens do. Every day people who calculate money coming in vs money going out. And our government apparently is incapable of doing this. Or intentionally doing this to tank this nation. It’s one or the other.
Additionally, you don’t understand budget surplus. There are two sectors of the economy: public and private. If the public budget has surplus, it means it’s taking more money from the private sector than it is giving back. By definition, it’s making the private sector poorer removing money from it. Is that what you want?
When we get to a point that the government collects more money than it spends… that’s a good thing. They will need to re-adjust the budget (which means cutting taxes). Yes that is exactly what I want.
Again, you’re not understanding the economics of this. The state getting more money than it spends, NECESSITATES that the private sector will LOSE MONEY.
When Colorado first opened the market to marijuana sells, Colorado got an excess in taxes. Colorado acknowledged this and gave back the surplus to its citizens.
As the residents of Colorado are about to find out, legal pot pays. The decriminalization of marijuana in the Centennial State has been so successful that every Colorado adult is in line to receive a $7.63 refund, Associated Press reports (via High Times). Jan 30, 2015
The Federal Government shouldn’t have a problem doing the same, then balancing their budget, which in turn would cut taxes so the following year they’d be closer to breaking even.
You’re accusing me of not knowing what I’m talking about, but it appears you’re projecting. I don’t understand how this is complicated.
How does this disprove what I’m saying? It’s exactly what I’m saying: you DON’T want a profit in the public budget, to the point of the state returning money to people to prevent this and cancel any profit.
The Federal Government shouldn’t have a problem doing the same
No, it doesn’t have a problem. It’s as easy as cutting expenditure and raising taxes. The problem is those aren’t always good things to do, depending on where you cut the budget, and where you rise the taxes. But the whole point that you’re understanding is that this is UNNECESSARY. The state can create as much currency as it wants, and in doing so, the effect is increasing the wealth of the private sector. The state can spend as much as it wants regardless of public debt, it doesn’t need to balance anything. It creates its own currency, what part don’t you understand? The state could hire tomorrow 1 million unemployed people and put them to work in public housing, healthcare and education, and do so without increasing the debt or the taxes.
I’m sorry but you don’t understand macroeconomics. The state creates its own money, in the case of the US, though the Federal Reserve. They can literally create as much money as they want. The US federal bank could tomorrow do 10 keystrokes on a keyboard and pay all bonds that other entities hold, therefore resetting its debt to 0. You can’t compare a private home with the state in terms of spending, because you don’t get indebted in a currency you create yourself, whereas the state does. The US debt is nominated in USD, so it can always repay it, and it could do so prematurely at the stroke of a keyboard. The reasons why they don’t do that are varied, but none of them is “not having enough dollars”.
There are plenty of countries with debts above 100% of GDP while offering universal healthcare and free or almost free education up until university (included), see most of western Europe. Debt isn’t an issue preventing the state from paying for services. Debt is a non-issue made up to be a problem to prevent people from thinking that the state can spend more money in improving the quality of life of its citizens.
Nah, you don’t understand the concepts of nationalism, globalism, and cultural relativism. You can want to preserve your culture without wanting to impose it on anyone else and without believing it’s superior to anyone’s.
You saying “U.S. citizens and the country as a whole (infrastructure) should have priority long before a foreign nation” implies that you believe that’s not the case, and if you believe that you’re just mistaken about where the budget goes. Stop spending tax dollars in bombing other countries for a start then, that could be a nice way to save money for your fellow, beloved Americans.
As someone who wants the state to spend money in Americans, I’m sure you believe in state expenditure in public housing, in free healthcare for everyone, in education and in pensions?
It’s… not the case. The U.S. as a whole does NOT have priority. Foreign nations have priority. Illegal immigrants swarming into our country have priority. Ukraine and Israel has proven to America that our government doesn’t give a fk about us, in general doesn’t give a fk about human lives in its totality. The Mexico/U.S. border, the illegal immigrants crossing over and the U.S. government supporting the influx of these illegal immigrants - literally having them board onto planes and flown to different states around the U.S. at the tax payer’s expense, is literal proof our government doesn’t give a fk about its own citizens.
The U.S. government has become a rogue entity. Like I said, at this point I feel we have bad actors in government and they’re intentionally tanking the country.
Also, I just gave you the explanation of Nationalism. You’re saying that what I have provided you… is wrong? Wat.
Again, have a look at the budget of the US and see where the expenses are.
As I said, you care so much about Americans, wanna increase public expenditure in all the fields I mentioned?
All of what you mentioned could become a reality once we’re out of debt and into budget surplus. Once we achieve this, I would totally be onboard with it. Until then… no we can’t. We need to cut spending first and re-evaluate the budget. This is basic things that citizens do. Every day people who calculate money coming in vs money going out. And our government apparently is incapable of doing this. Or intentionally doing this to tank this nation. It’s one or the other.
Additionally, you don’t understand budget surplus. There are two sectors of the economy: public and private. If the public budget has surplus, it means it’s taking more money from the private sector than it is giving back. By definition, it’s making the private sector poorer removing money from it. Is that what you want?
When we get to a point that the government collects more money than it spends… that’s a good thing. They will need to re-adjust the budget (which means cutting taxes). Yes that is exactly what I want.
Again, you’re not understanding the economics of this. The state getting more money than it spends, NECESSITATES that the private sector will LOSE MONEY.
When Colorado first opened the market to marijuana sells, Colorado got an excess in taxes. Colorado acknowledged this and gave back the surplus to its citizens.
The Federal Government shouldn’t have a problem doing the same, then balancing their budget, which in turn would cut taxes so the following year they’d be closer to breaking even.
You’re accusing me of not knowing what I’m talking about, but it appears you’re projecting. I don’t understand how this is complicated.
How does this disprove what I’m saying? It’s exactly what I’m saying: you DON’T want a profit in the public budget, to the point of the state returning money to people to prevent this and cancel any profit.
No, it doesn’t have a problem. It’s as easy as cutting expenditure and raising taxes. The problem is those aren’t always good things to do, depending on where you cut the budget, and where you rise the taxes. But the whole point that you’re understanding is that this is UNNECESSARY. The state can create as much currency as it wants, and in doing so, the effect is increasing the wealth of the private sector. The state can spend as much as it wants regardless of public debt, it doesn’t need to balance anything. It creates its own currency, what part don’t you understand? The state could hire tomorrow 1 million unemployed people and put them to work in public housing, healthcare and education, and do so without increasing the debt or the taxes.
Tell me you’ve never passed an econ class, without telling me you’ve never passed an econ class.
✅
I’m sorry but you don’t understand macroeconomics. The state creates its own money, in the case of the US, though the Federal Reserve. They can literally create as much money as they want. The US federal bank could tomorrow do 10 keystrokes on a keyboard and pay all bonds that other entities hold, therefore resetting its debt to 0. You can’t compare a private home with the state in terms of spending, because you don’t get indebted in a currency you create yourself, whereas the state does. The US debt is nominated in USD, so it can always repay it, and it could do so prematurely at the stroke of a keyboard. The reasons why they don’t do that are varied, but none of them is “not having enough dollars”.
There are plenty of countries with debts above 100% of GDP while offering universal healthcare and free or almost free education up until university (included), see most of western Europe. Debt isn’t an issue preventing the state from paying for services. Debt is a non-issue made up to be a problem to prevent people from thinking that the state can spend more money in improving the quality of life of its citizens.