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.
Modern Money Theory 101. If the government runs a surplus, where do you think the funds are being drained from?
If the government runs a surplus, that means that there needs to be tax cuts because government doesn't need all that money, or increased spending to justify tax revenues.
Convince me why 1998, 1999 and 2000 were bad years since they had budget surpluses?
Quote:
There is no evidence to support that. There is only speculation and theory. Deficits are money creation. Deficits are good if invested in the right things - education and infrastructure. Deficits caused by tax cuts... don't have any future value for the economy. Deficits are a future investment.. not "saddling the backs of our grandchildren."
Deficit spending can lead to interest rates being raised. There is a limited amount of funds available for investment, and when government competes with the private sector for a share of these funds to finance its deficit spending, it drives the cost of these funds and interest rates higher. The increase in the interest rates causes investment to fall, and lower investment translates into lower output and lower economic growth. Also more government spending and less private investment, can result in a less efficient use of resources. Another worry about large deficits is that they may lead to inflation.
I see you are not familiar with what question marks mean. I never said you claimed anything, I was asking you questions that you then deflected and was very rude about it.
When people DON'T read what is written then ask stupid questions, I treat them as the deserve. And of all people, YOU have a lot of nerve calling someone else "rude".
"Also, if you don't think defense is a wasteful program, which we waste plenty of money on, what programs do you think should be cut to reduce the debt?
Lets' break it down.
"How do you propose we catch waste fraud and abuse if you don't want to spend money on programs that are made to track those things?"
IMO, a sill question.
Why do you think it would cost extra?
The fed ALREADY has plenty of people who are being paid to "track those things". It would NOT cost any extra. How about we make them due the job they are being paid for?
"if you don't think defense is a wasteful program," The Dept of Defense is NOT a program, so your question makes no sense.
"what programs do you think should be cut to reduce the debt?"
For about the 3 rd time, Let me repeat myself, AGAIN.
Let's try again. I said, "How about we EVALUATE EVERY SINGLY FED PROGRAM and decide if the program is worth borrowing money to keep it going?"
The last time I checked the military was part of the fed.
Last I check the GOP was in charge in one of the houses of Congress, whose job is to pass a budget and handle all spending...
You guys back your politicians like it's a football team.
You need to do some more checking.
the House HAS passed budgets.
What was it that harry reid said, " We don't need a budget"
EACH House is required to pass a budget. THEN both Houses get together to come up with a final budget to give to the President to be signed.
Since the dems took control of the House Under Bush and the dems controlling the Senate before that, how many times has the budget process been carried out accoring to the law.
If the government runs a surplus, that means that there needs to be tax cuts because government doesn't need all that money, or increased spending to justify tax revenues.
Convince me why 1998, 1999 and 2000 were bad years since they had budget surpluses?
Because social security was raided. Public debt went down while intragovernmental debt went up and by a larger amount
The public debt is treasury bills, savings bonds, and other things the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings is when government borrows money from itself. Usually social security.
If the government runs a surplus, that means that there needs to be tax cuts because government doesn't need all that money, or increased spending to justify tax revenues.
Convince me why 1998, 1999 and 2000 were bad years since they had budget surpluses?
.
uhm there never was a surplus
there was a PROJECTED BUDGET surplus
but there never was an actual surplus, where the debt went down
yes you can have a BUDGET (PROJECTED) surplus/deficit...but with a surplus, the debt will be paid DOWN, and will NOT increase...unless they .....SPENT the surplus, which makes it not a surplus
example
you make 60k..you currently have a debt of 15k......you budget 57k.. ...you have a projected surplus, of 3k..which should go to the debt and lower the debt to 12k........................
.......but.....
emergencies come up.......washer/dryer........1k........transmission on the mommie mobile......2k............unexpected medical bill not covered by insurance....3k.............hmmm 6k total
now what do you have........60k income...budget of 57k...debt of 15k....new spending of 6k.......your 3k surplus, with a 3k pay down of your 15k down to 12k....just turned into a 3k defiict,,and 3k of additional debt...making your total debt now UP to 18k
sorry, but the PROJECTED surpluses of clinton/newt never happened...the debt never got paid, and the debt infact INCREASED
the simple fact is if there had been a surplus, then the debt would have gone down...it didn't
was the BUDGET balanced.....yes
was there a PROJECTED SURPLUS.....yes
was there an actual surplus , once all in's and out's were counted.....NO
When people DON'T read what is written then ask stupid questions, I treat them as the deserve. And of all people, YOU have a lot of nerve calling someone else "rude".
"Also, if you don't think defense is a wasteful program, which we waste plenty of money on, what programs do you think should be cut to reduce the debt?
Lets' break it down.
"How do you propose we catch waste fraud and abuse if you don't want to spend money on programs that are made to track those things?"
IMO, a sill question.
Why do you think it would cost extra?
The fed ALREADY has plenty of people who are being paid to "track those things". It would NOT cost any extra. How about we make them due the job they are being paid for?
"if you don't think defense is a wasteful program," The Dept of Defense is NOT a program, so your question makes no sense.
"what programs do you think should be cut to reduce the debt?"
For about the 3 rd time, Let me repeat myself, AGAIN.
Let's try again. I said, "How about we EVALUATE EVERY SINGLY FED PROGRAM and decide if the program is worth borrowing money to keep it going?"
The last time I checked the military was part of the fed.
What part of EVERY don't you understand?
Obviously you DON'T understand what EVERY means.
That's cute, you think being rude somehow protects you from answering questions.
How do you know it wouldn't cost more money to come through every program and decide what does and doesn't need to be cut? And when you say every program, then you just gave a cop out answer. I want to know specifically what should be cut? It is much harder to actually name things to be cut, it is much safer to say all programs than to be honest.
Yet another lie. The right grew deficits plenty in the 2000's. Are you paid by some right wingers to post this non-sense? I never see you reply to any argument but you start a ton of threads here.
When people DON'T read what is written then ask stupid questions, I treat them as the deserve. And of all people, YOU have a lot of nerve calling someone else "rude".
"Also, if you don't think defense is a wasteful program, which we waste plenty of money on, what programs do you think should be cut to reduce the debt?
Lets' break it down.
"How do you propose we catch waste fraud and abuse if you don't want to spend money on programs that are made to track those things?"
IMO, a sill question.
Why do you think it would cost extra?
The fed ALREADY has plenty of people who are being paid to "track those things". It would NOT cost any extra. How about we make them due the job they are being paid for?
"if you don't think defense is a wasteful program," The Dept of Defense is NOT a program, so your question makes no sense.
"what programs do you think should be cut to reduce the debt?"
For about the 3 rd time, Let me repeat myself, AGAIN.
Let's try again. I said, "How about we EVALUATE EVERY SINGLY FED PROGRAM and decide if the program is worth borrowing money to keep it going?"
The last time I checked the military was part of the fed.
What part of EVERY don't you understand?
Obviously you DON'T understand what EVERY means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That's cute, you think being rude somehow protects you from answering questions.
How do you know it wouldn't cost more money to come through every program and decide what does and doesn't need to be cut? And when you say every program, then you just gave a cop out answer. I want to know specifically what should be cut? It is much harder to actually name things to be cut, it is much safer to say all programs than to be honest.
"That's cute, you think being rude somehow protects you from answering questions." I already ANSWERED your questions.
It is OBVIOUS that it takes 2 times to tell you something and you STILL don't understand.
Yet another lie. The right grew deficits plenty in the 2000's. Are you paid by some right wingers to post this non-sense? I never see you reply to any argument but you start a ton of threads here.
Your right Rinos that follow left's policies are just as guilty...
BTW...For your info..I'm not paid by anyone to post here---I wish I was..
Your right Rinos that follow left's policies are just as guilty...
BTW...For your info..I'm not paid by anyone to post here---I wish I was..
B-b-b-but our way of raising the debt is better. Even when it's the almost the same.
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.
