A.greater dependence on regressive taxes than on progressive taxes
B.deficit financing
C.low interest rates
D.longer fiscal years
2007-07-19 04:28:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
B
2007-07-19 04:31:01 · answer #1 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of your answers is correct. It is popular to say that it makes no difference other than to stimulate the economy, but a problem that is not discussed much is who is it that holds that debt, and what would happen if they cashed in their bonds all at the same time?
In the '20s we had runs on banks. What would happen if we had a run on the national Treasury of a country?
Your A answer betrays your agenda, and is not a valid consideration. The only times "regressive" taxes have been applied is when Democrates come into office, and your interpretation of "regressive" is that the rich are soaked. You are so transparent...
Why not add some VALID options like inflation, an unstable Dollar...
Your characterization of "regressive" and "progressive" is interesting - a person asking an honest question would not use such terms. "Progressive" is a term that the Liberals use to describe themselves. No one else does, just the liberals. You "think" you are progressive, but everyone else disagrees with you. Most see the "repression" of complete Gov't control as an undesireable thing.
So, your question betrays your agenda, and is not honest. Shame...
Ron.
2007-07-19 04:47:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would unfortunately result in underage Indonesian crack babies to start working in underdeveloped sweatshops manufacturing plastic McDonald's happy meal toys with small choking hazards that would kill thousands of American children
2007-07-19 04:33:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What's the problem? This is FDR's major contribution to our gvmt. Borrow money today to pay for massive social programs, pay the money back in 30 years with money that is cheaper thanks to inflation.
Regan got us deeper in debt then Carter
Clinton got us deeper in debt than Regan/Bush
Bush got us deeper in debt than Clinton.
And if Hillary is elected, she will put us deeper in debt than Bush. That's how our gvmt works.
2007-07-19 04:34:15 · answer #4 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they are still all fingerpointing at each other, blaming each other for the deficit this nation is in! it would take an act of god!! to balance the budget!! with the current military spending?
2007-07-19 04:31:49 · answer #5 · answered by dan the man 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
B
George Washington left a debt of $75,000.00.
US has never been out of debt.
2007-07-19 04:32:17 · answer #6 · answered by ed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You left one out.
E. Congressmen getting reelected.
2007-07-19 04:57:33 · answer #7 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Start a war !
2007-07-19 04:30:47 · answer #8 · answered by Paul S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
resulting in a direct reflection of us morons who put those idiots in office to burry us in a hole we cant climb out of!
umm....I would have to go with...B
2007-07-19 04:32:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Funny thing -- we had a surplus under Clinton. Now it is record deficits under BusHitler.
2007-07-19 04:31:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
b
2007-07-19 04:31:55 · answer #11 · answered by md3 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋