The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
3rd Quarter GDP Estimate: Rises To Whopping 4.6%
|
(08-30-2018, 12:05 PM)JaguarKick Wrote:(08-28-2018, 04:18 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: But you don't dispute the fact Obama never sniffed 3% GDP. Got it. Can you explain how the current growth seen today is a direct result of one or more of President Obama's policies? Please don't use the "he brought us out of a recession" argument. The bank bailouts and the bailouts of the auto industry were already pretty much put into place before he even took the Oath of Office. His "cash for clunkers" policy was a total failure and a waste of money. Obamacare (aka The Affordable Care Act) was also a failure, especially when it comes to the economy. So please explain how the current growth of the economy is a "direct result" of President Obama's policy(s). (08-30-2018, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote:(08-29-2018, 10:31 PM)jj82284 Wrote: A.) Go deeper. The basic principal is that the state fundamentally controls everything as a function of state social policy. The profit motive is driven not by personal innovation but by centrally planned state aims. A pollution license. Just think about that concept for a minute. Meanwhile, you stated under B) that it "doesn't involve anybody giving more money to the government". Then towards the end of your statement you state that the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time, yet your very next sentence states "The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis"... It's all in the underlined part of your quote. So here are direct questions for you. 1) Does another tax involve someone giving more money to the government? 2) Will the government collect any revenue on an ongoing basis or would it be a one time tax? 3) Are you saying that releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should be taxed? Is that what a "pollution license" is supposed to be for? There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.