Who suports the one cent plan?

That's because it wasn't a general "tech bubble" it was a tech bubble focused on .coms growing at exponential rates and people investing in them like hell because there was money to be made. Investors who knew better and wanted to keep portfolios balanced would lose clients since they weren't making money. Once that bubble popped everyone lost because a shitload of people weren't balancing portfolios like they should have been.
 
Two huge problems

1) A $7.5 trillion cut is massive, such a dramatic change to how much money is spent in our economy would affect our GDP in such a way as to give us a recession

2) Democrats and Republicans would never agree on what plans would be skipped and what plans should be double or triple taxed
 
Any economist will tell you a plan such as a 44% cut in government spending would, by definition, be a recession

I don't think you understand that such a cut would not be accompanied by tax cuts
 
Again, the ".com" sites still had a lot of value, there was some small deal of speculation that ALWAYS exists, even today

but you wouldn't say the US economy is a bubble right now, why not? Who is to say what the "true value" is?
 
I'm all for running the Clinton surpluses that the Republican Congress and Bush ruined

If you want to look at the causes for the debt:

"I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a deficit hawk. I'll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to say no."

-- Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"Deficits don't matter."

-- Dick Cheney
 
Some small deal of speculation? The dot cons still had value?

ThousanRAB of dot coms went bankrupt and the market lost 5 trillion dollars of value, and you're minimizing it.

Wow.
 
The government cuts one cent out of every dollar of its total spending each year for six years.

For a simple example, let’s say the federal budget only had three programs funded, each with an annual budget of just $1.00.Program A is simply cut by one cent every year for six years. That means the annual budget for Program A is $0.99 in 2012, and then $0.98, $0.97, $0.96, $0.95 and finally $0.94.However, no cuts may be recommended for Program B. It is already lean.But then, Program C would have to be cut by two cents each year for six years so that the total federal budget is cut by one cent for every total dollar, for a balanced budget by 2019.
 
I realize that some .coms have value today, but it was a bubble in the 90's that burst because there was much more perceived value in the market than there is today and everyone was shifting portfolios from being balanced investments across the board to being high risk settled primarily on investment in .coms one way or another.

That's why when the bubble burst, the economy was hit hard. And investment company CEO's who wanted clients had no choice but to shift portfolios that way, otherwise people were going to find one who did.

When that bubble burst, thousanRAB went bankrupt over night.
 
But people investing in them didn't only have money invested in ebay, amazon, etc.

There was no way to to tell which ones would have been the long lasting sites. AOL was huge in the 90's. Look where they are today.

Just because you have some that are long lasting doesn't mean that it still burst and the market took a huge impact. Nullset is right on. You're trying to minimalize the shit out of this.
 
Back
Top