Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is without a doubt the funniest way I've ever seen a liberal try to explain or justify their illogical and completely unsustainable plans of wealth distribution and spending more than we could ever possibly collect in taxes in order to buy the votes of those who benefit the most from that spending while working the least.
Liberalism is and has always been a mental disorder.
As Bill Nye said, first we have to agree on the facts.
If you bothered to read the article (or any publication relating to the U.S. / sovereign central banking system), you would know that "spending" is actually currency issuing. The central bank and treasury do this through credit. Taxation destroys created money. We don't "give" the government any money to spend. It creates it, then destroys it. Our government has run a deficit 57 of the last 62 years. How would that be possible if it had to collect money first?
If you ever found yourself thinking liberals are bleeding heart spendaholics, you have no comprehension of how a sovereign government operates. Here is the cliff notes version for you:
Debt and deficits are not caused by "out of control spending." They are caused by issuing tax cuts on "spending" (money creation) that has already happened.
This is nothing but semantics. It's preschool level childish silliness.
So they aren't tax & spend liberals. They're spend & tax liberals. Oh my gosh, that makes all the difference in the world!
Not.
You're right that I have no comprehension. But it isn't that I have no comprehension of how a sovereign government operates. It's that I have no comprehension of how stunningly idiotic a person would have to be to fall for this crap.
Do you seriously think people are so stupid as to actually believe that the government has no idea that revenues are going to fall short of spending levels when they are running deficits of half a trillion dollars a year? Come on. That's what you'd have to believe in order to make such a completely and utterly moronic statement like deficits are not caused by spending and actually expect people to accept that as true.
I guess by this oh-so-brilliant logic if I go out an buy a mansion and a luxury car and then can't afford to make the payments, I haven't spent too much. Because that is precisely what you're saying.
As Bill Nye said, first we have to agree on the facts.
If you bothered to read the article (or any publication relating to the U.S. / sovereign central banking system), you would know that "spending" is actually currency issuing. The central bank and treasury do this through credit. Taxation destroys created money. We don't "give" the government any money to spend. It creates it, then destroys it. Our government has run a deficit 57 of the last 62 years. How would that be possible if it had to collect money first?
You're playing a stupid game with semantics meant for people will small brains who desperately want to believe the kind of BS you're pushing.
We SPEND more than we TAKE IN, it doesn't matter if the TAKE IN part physically takes place a couple months or years after the SPEND part took place.
You would think all these conservative states would be running a budget surplus. Oh they are not.
Many conservatives (or "self-proclaimed conservatives") fail to acknowledge that the deficit has actually DECREASED under Obama. That's right, 2009 deficit was 1.16T* and 2013 was 901B. Clinton ran a surplus, Reagan and Bush Sr. were both up in the trillions.
Selective criticism is a funny thing.
*Number already corrected for the Obama Stimulus Act, otherwise it would be even higher.
This is nothing but semantics. It's preschool level childish silliness.
So they aren't tax & spend liberals. They're spend & tax liberals. Oh my gosh, that makes all the difference in the world!
Not.
You're right that I have no comprehension. But it isn't that I have no comprehension of how a sovereign government operates. It's that I have no comprehension of how stunningly idiotic a person would have to be to fall for this crap.
Do you seriously think people are so stupid as to actually believe that the government has no idea that revenues are going to fall short of spending levels when they are running deficits of half a trillion dollars a year? Come on. That's what you'd have to believe in order to make such a completely and utterly moronic statement like deficits are not caused by spending and actually expect people to accept that as true.
You succeeded in throwing four insults in there with no economic analysis in your rebuttal.
They all operate like this. The government can project how much in revenues it will receive in the upcoming year, but the actual receipts are dependent on the economic business cycles. That is how the Cllinton administration ran a surplus. The government never tries to run a surplus because doing so drains capital out of the private sector. Surpluses happen when economic productivity eclipses their projected tax receipts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
I guess by this oh-so-brilliant logic if I go out an buy a mansion and a luxury car and then can't afford to make the payments, I haven't spent too much. Because that is precisely what you're saying.
You are not a government. You do not create money. Stop comparing your personal finances to that of a central bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
You're playing a stupid game with semantics meant for people will small brains who desperately want to believe the kind of BS you're pushing.
We SPEND more than we TAKE IN, it doesn't matter if the TAKE IN part physically takes place a couple months or years after the SPEND part took place.
This is why people laugh at liberals.
It absolutely matters. You aren't comprehending the functionality. The government spends money first, because it has no means to live beyond. Don't you get it? The money is made up. The cash in your pocket was created by the government through deficit financing.
You're playing a stupid game with semantics meant for people will small brains who desperately want to believe the kind of BS you're pushing.
We SPEND more than we TAKE IN, it doesn't matter if the TAKE IN part physically takes place a couple months or years after the SPEND part took place.
This is why people laugh at liberals.
The United States is not some small business or ordinary household. It is the single most powerful sovereign nation on Earth. It's economy annually produces over $17 trillion. It's military and foreign affairs powers underwrite the global trade system. If you had that kind of authority, then balancing your personal budget would, literally, be the least of your concerns. If the nation instituted a 1% "production tax" to pay down the debt, it would take only 70 years to pay down the entire outstanding public debt of the nation (actually less than that because of economic growth). But doing so would be a horrific use of the nation's credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
You succeeded in throwing four insults in there with no economic analysis in your rebuttal.
They all operate like this. The government can project how much in revenues it will receive in the upcoming year, but the actual receipts are dependent on the economic business cycles. That is how the Cllinton administration ran a surplus. The government never tries to run a surplus because doing so drains capital out of the private sector. Surpluses happen when economic productivity eclipses their projected tax receipts.
You are not a government. You do not create money. Stop comparing your personal finances to that of a central bank.
It absolutely matters. You aren't comprehending the functionality. The government spends money first, because it has no means to live beyond. Don't you get it? The money is made up. The cash in your pocket was created by the government through deficit financing.
Yes. There are limits on government finances, but in the case of the United States today, those limits are politically incomprehensible. When a weak country creates too much money, hyperinflation crushes its economy. The United States has reached a point of such strength that even immense deficit spending over the last 13 years has barely moved the inflationary needle (in fact inflation has been at incredibly low levels during the Obama presidency, a sign that the United States perhaps should be spending more).
Yes. There are limits on government finances, but in the case of the United States today, those limits are politically incomprehensible. When a weak country creates too much money, hyperinflation crushes its economy. The United States has reached a point of such strength that even immense deficit spending over the last 13 years has barely moved the inflationary needle (in fact inflation has been at incredibly low levels during the Obama presidency, a sign that the United States perhaps should be spending more).
The limit to government finances is inflation, correct. From a functional standpoint, I was referring to the United States cannot run out of money. It can always pay any bill of any size at any time.
Inflation is more complicated than money printing, despite the continued public outrage (ignorance) about "printing money." Inflation in developed countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and the UK is so low it is teetering on deflationary levels. It will be this way for at least another 20 years. The alarmists are worrying about the wrong problem, as always.
Yes, the United States should be spending more. Inflation and interest rates are still at historical lows.
This is without a doubt the funniest way I've ever seen a liberal try to explain or justify their illogical and completely unsustainable plans of wealth distribution and spending more than we could ever possibly collect in taxes in order to buy the votes of those who benefit the most from that spending while working the least.
Liberalism is and has always been a mental disorder.
In terms of liberalism, at some point the earth being round and the earth revolving around the sun were very liberal ideas. That doesn't make them false. Any idea you put forward as conservative is liberal from some point of view.
If you ever found yourself thinking liberals are bleeding heart spendaholics, you have no comprehension of how a sovereign government operates. Here is the cliff notes version for you:
Debt and deficits are not caused by "out of control spending." They are caused by issuing tax cuts on "spending" (money creation) that has already happened.
Circular argument. The fungibility of money is a natural chicken/egg scenario. Spending is taxation is debt is spending. No need to complicate it past that understanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
