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.
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:
Key points:
- Myth #1 - Taxes are collected then spent.
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.
Myth #1: The term "tax and spend" liberals does not in any way mean they tax first and spend later. Everyone knows that liberals spend first and tax later. "Tax and spend" is not a chronology. It's a list. Liberals do two things; They tax and they spend.
Fact #1: Everyone knows liberals like to spend other peoples money and expand the power of government.
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.
You know you're talking to a hardcore liberal fanatic when you hear him pretending a $910 billion deficit is a GOOD thing.
Quote:
Clinton ran a surplus,
The Fed govt hasn't run a surplus since 1957.
When you have a surplus, you wind up paying off part of the National Debt (however small), and the National Debt for that year goes DOWN.
It hasn't gone down since before most of us were born.
Myth #1: The term "tax and spend" liberals does not in any way mean they tax first and spend later. Everyone knows that liberals spend first and tax later. "Tax and spend" is not a chronology. It's a list. Liberals do two things; They tax and they spend.
Fact #1: Everyone knows liberals like to spend other peoples money and expand the power of government.
It isn't other people's money. Did Fox News tell you that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
You know you're talking to a hardcore liberal fanatic when you hear him pretending a $910 billion deficit is a GOOD thing.
The Fed govt hasn't run a surplus since 1957.
When you have a surplus, you wind up paying off part of the National Debt (however small), and the National Debt for that year goes DOWN.
It hasn't gone down since before most of us were born.
Nice try.
Deficits are a good thing if they are spent on the right things. Deficit spending on education and infrastructure is good. Deficits because of useless tax cuts, tax sheltering, and useless wars are bad.
The idea is... the investment made today in a deficit should grow the economy. Rich men sheltering money doesn't grow the economy like expanding education and infrastructure does.
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.
Spending =/= taxation.
That's the point of functionality you are missing. Spending occurs regardless of taxation. The US can collect $0 in taxes next year and it will no affect on its ability to spend money. The chronology is important. Money is spent first, by creating new money. Taxes deflate the supply by destroying money. Taxes are not needed for the government to spend money.
You know you're talking to a hardcore liberal fanatic when you hear him pretending a $910 billion deficit is a GOOD thing.
The Fed govt hasn't run a surplus since 1957.
When you have a surplus, you wind up paying off part of the National Debt (however small), and the National Debt for that year goes DOWN.
It hasn't gone down since before most of us were born.
Nice try.
I didn't say it's a good thing. I was trying to make the point that the criticism you put on the "Liberals" is bad, but it must be put into perspective, that the party you support ran a higher deficit.
Me: I'm a liberal if by that you mean that I believe in personal liberties, the constitution, and the fact that our country is changing all the time, and we can't be stuck in the past. If you equate "liberal" with "OK with running a deficit", then 1) you need to put down the Kool-Aid long enough to learn something and think for yourself, and 2) understand that I am not OK with it.
I don't participate on this particular sub-forum much, mostly due to the narrow view from BOTH sides, and the inability to think, but I am very conservative when it comes to money. Both personally (I am debt free except for my house and my car, and I owe very little on my car), and in my politics. There has not been a national level politician in my adult lifetime (I'm 46) that has ACTUALLY been fiscally conservative. (With their actions, not their words).
I'm not a fan of Obama, but I wasn't a fan of Bush either. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever have a real President again. There is too much money involved at those levels of politics. They are ALL owned.
You can choose to disbelieve our monetary system works that way just as you can choose to disbelieve water is wet.
The government cannot run out of what it can create (money). "Debt" is the money creation term used because it is asset-liability double entry bookkeeping. The $17 trillion "debt" is $17 trillion in US money distributed throughout history that is currently held in the private and foreign sector. But... don't take my word for it
[emphasis added]
Let us see. Do we believe you or do we believe the CBO...
Quote:
But if current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end. Between 2015 and 2024, annual budget shortfalls are projected to rise substantially—from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024—mainly because of the aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. CBO expects that cumulative deficits during that decade will equal $7.6 trillion if current laws remain unchanged.
Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences. Federal spending on interest payments would increase considerably when interest rates rose to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing would eventually raise the cost of investment by businesses and other entities, the capital stock would be smaller, and productivity and wages lower, than if federal borrowing was more limited. In addition, high debt means that lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, high debt increases the risk of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.
To create money it needs to have an entity willing to take on that debt obligation. In QE for example the Federal Reserve did that to the tune of $4+ trillion. The rest were issued to other countries, corporations, etc. The FR can't just sit there forever with that money in its balance sheet.
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.
Quote:
...the deficit averaged 3.1 percent of GDP over the past 40 years and 2.3 percent in the 40 years before fiscal year 2008, when the most recent recession began. From 2015 through 2024, both revenues and outlays are projected to be greater than their 40-year averages as a percentage of GDP.
That has consequences. The government is wholly inept at running an economy (at least our government) because profit is not the motive, getting votes is the motive.
To create money it needs to have an entity willing to take on that debt obligation. In QE for example the Federal Reserve did that to the tune of $4+ trillion.
What makes you think the Federal Reserve has a limit to this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
The rest were issued to other countries, corporations, etc. The FR can't just sit there forever with that money in its balance sheet.
That has consequences. The government is wholly inept at running an economy (at least our government) because profit is not the motive, getting votes is the motive.
Oh please. Let's talk about profit. You should be complaining about the for-profit banking system for collapsing the global economy; not the government
You're darn right the government doesn't run an economy with profit in mind. If the government makes $1 trillion in "profit," where do you think it gets that money from?
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.
Opin, you are such a naive kid who thinks he is smarter than he is, just like any kid. When you grow up and have a little life experience, get back with us. Until then, read a few more sources for your research.
What makes you think the Federal Reserve has a limit to this?
It has a natural limit and the larger it gets the harder it is to pull that money out of circulation when the economy actually starts improving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Sure it can. It has the authority to do so.
Let's let the FR explain this to you...
Quote:
The Federal Reserve's expanded balance sheet has left the banking system holding a very large quantity of reserves. As a consequence, the Federal Reserve has been developing a number of tools to strengthen its control of short-term interest rates, importantly including new tools to reduce the large quantity of reserves held by the banking system.
Why do you think the FR would do that? Could it possibly be because having large reserves sitting in banks means that if they eventually loaned that money out the U.S. would have an influx of real money floating around the economy. What does supply and demand dictate when there's a huge supply of something without the demand needed to keep it in check?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Oh please. Let's talk about profit. You should be complaining about the for-profit banking system for collapsing the global economy; not the government
And just how did all that come about? GSE for $1,000 Alex!
The government created an entity to compete with the market and as the unintended consequences go you had the government taking responsibility for what banks formerly took responsibility for. Debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
You're darn right the government doesn't run an economy with profit in mind. If the government makes $1 trillion in "profit," where do you think it gets that money from?
Point made. I should have said run efficiently since that would have been a better choice of words. The government doesn't run efficiently because it has no motive to. The motive it has is to buy votes using other people's money which is inherently flawed because eventually you run out of other people's money.
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.
