Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[Rshermr]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

How does my car breaking down prevent me from getting to work?
Can I ride a bike, walk or take the bus? Or did my bike break down at the same time, and my legs stopped working and the city cut off the busing?

Another strawman from rdean.

Now, I know this is going to be difficult for you. But you were looking at an example. And I know you think that people who loose their car will walk to work. About 8 hours each way, maybe. Still gives them sleeping time.

So, do you have an example when we have decreased gov spending during times of high unemployment and it has HELPED, dipshit??? Or are you just here to post dogma. Now, you could, of course, simply increase taxes and lower the deficit. But you would not want that, eh. So, that would leave lowering gov spending. There must be a time, since income taxes have existed, when decreasing taxes and decreasing spending have made our economy better when the unemployment rate was high. Or not.

 

[hortysir]

See what I'm saying? USMB Republicans have no ideas. That's why they don't debate. They don't know enough about anything.

Maybe because the premise of your OP is epic in its failness

 

[alan1]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

How does my car breaking down prevent me from getting to work?
Can I ride a bike, walk or take the bus? Or did my bike break down at the same time, and my legs stopped working and the city cut off the busing?

Another strawman from rdean.

Now, I know this is going to be difficult for you. But you were looking at an example. And I know you think that people who loose their car will walk to work. About 8 hours each way, maybe. Still gives them sleeping time.

So, do you have an example when we have decreased gov spending during times of high unemployment and it has HELPED, dipshit??? Or are you just here to post dogma. Now, you could, of course, simply increase taxes and lower the deficit. But you would not want that, eh. So, that would leave lowering gov spending. There must be a time, since income taxes have existed, when decreasing taxes and decreasing spending have made our economy better when the unemployment rate was high. Or not.

Well, you certainly are quite good at proclaiming things I didn't say and trying to present them as fact.
Meanwhile, you addressed nothing that I asked of rdean's strawman false scenario. Strawman arguments are hilarious, except when people like you believe them.

 

[Rshermr]

How does my car breaking down prevent me from getting to work?
Can I ride a bike, walk or take the bus? Or did my bike break down at the same time, and my legs stopped working and the city cut off the busing?

Another strawman from rdean.

Now, I know this is going to be difficult for you. But you were looking at an example. And I know you think that people who loose their car will walk to work. About 8 hours each way, maybe. Still gives them sleeping time.

So, do you have an example when we have decreased gov spending during times of high unemployment and it has HELPED, dipshit??? Or are you just here to post dogma. Now, you could, of course, simply increase taxes and lower the deficit. But you would not want that, eh. So, that would leave lowering gov spending. There must be a time, since income taxes have existed, when decreasing taxes and decreasing spending have made our economy better when the unemployment rate was high. Or not.

Well, you certainly are quite good at proclaiming things I didn't say and trying to present them as fact.
Meanwhile, you addressed nothing that I asked of rdean's strawman false scenario. Strawman arguments are hilarious, except when people like you believe them.

Look, it is not my fault that you are stupid. Blaming others for your lack of ability to understand anything is just plain tacky. But then, I suppose I should be more charitable to you. Because you are ignorant. And ignorant people generally believe they are clever.

 

[itfitzme]

Obviously, more people requires more government to generate the same services, unless they get really efficient along the way.

Oddly, only Bush I and Clinton managed to level off discretionary spending. We went right into a bit of a recession after Clinton was done.

To get the private sector back up and running, Bush II jacked that spending right back up again. And, curiously, by the time Bush and Obama were done, it was right back to the same linear trend it was on at the end of Reagan's term.

Is there a reason why the thing appears to require a constantly expanding govt? I believe there is.

There is an error in thinking in the belief that taxes have any real aggregate negative effect on consumption. It is very simple. What matters is that people are employed. That produces output. We know, obviously, that prices are simply a function of the money supply and the quantity of available goods. More specifically, the prices are a function of after tax, spendable money supply. (After savings too, if there were an aggregate drive towards savings.) Why? Because no one can spend what they don't have to spend.

So, very simply, if everyone pays 10% in taxes, prices adjust to that 90% remaining spendable income. If taxes are 50%, prices adjust to the 50% spendable income. Obviously, there is a wierd limit when it gets closer to 100%.... There has to be some tokens to pass around.

And, obviously, there is an impulse effect when they are raised or lowered. In the economy, rate of change of any factor is far more important than the levels themselves.

Lower taxes by 2% is the same as increasing the money supply by 2%. Everyone suddenly has 2% more to spend and, until the system goes around a couple of cycles, production can increase if there are underutilized production factors. But, after a couple of cycles and after the production factors have become fully utilized, prices simply increase to use up the available spendable money. Prices always increase to consume all available money.

The only time that taxes make a difference is if your taxes are lower than the other guys, lower than the average. Or, when a tax is higher on one good than on another good. The only thing that matters is the relative difference between taxes, not the absolute tax level. (as long as there is enough money floating about to be called a "money supply").

What does matter is what the employment is producing. Obviously, we wouldn't want to shut down food production to have everyone maintaining very clean streets. That is rather dumb. So there can be a crowding out if the gov't draws too much from the labor force.

The only reason that deficit and debt exists is in a failure to collect taxes.

And, according to the actual evidence, the constant and nearly linear historical increase in government expenditures, it looks like it is required.

I really don't know why that is. But ignoring reality seems a bit ignorant.

I'll bet my bottom dollar that, when all is said and done, government expenditures are right on that trend line. The Pubs will have some "reason" that they "had to". And, as always, their constituency will deny it's existence. But the reality is that every congress and presidency, except Bush I and Clinton, have cranked up spending. Eventually, they will figure out that they have to raise taxes to balance the books.

Until then, I wouldn't worry about it. Money, after all, is made of cotton and linen, so it literally grows on bushes. And the electronic kind are created out of thin air.

Here is a longer view of real dollars per cap

[/URL][/img]

Like it or not, since the time of JFK, the government has always had to increase outlays per capita. This is the reality of it.

 

[itfitzme]

Rdean has a handle on the problems, but he ignores it. In order to solve our problems we have to have a growing economy.

that does not mean a growing government sector. Having a growing government sector means we have to have a growing economy to support it

In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, approximately 2-3 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.

So, we really don't need all that many people employed to physically support government.

What it does mean is doing the accounting correctly on the money supply which is to say, bringing in the same in taxes to account for the outlays.

 

[itfitzme]

The conservatives have it wrong for the wrong reason. The liberals have it right for the wrong reason.

The reality is that what matters is employment level, efficiency, and type of output.

People make it, people consume it. The more people employed, the more stuff to consume.

The rest is just pieces of paper, electronic digits, and bookkeeping. Money literally grows on trees (technically on little bushes.)

 

[Rshermr]

The conservatives have it wrong for the wrong reason. The liberals have it right for the wrong reason.

The reality is that what matters is employment level, efficiency, and type of output.

People make it, people consume it. The more people employed, the more stuff to consume.

The rest is just pieces of paper, electronic digits, and bookkeeping. Money literally grows on trees (technically on little bushes.)

If people are employed, they buy stuff. Increases aggregate demand. Always has, always will.
Decreasing the deficit requires either increased taxes or decreased spending, or both. Since nearly every republican has signed a pledge to never increase taxes, all that is left is to decrease spending. And they ALWAYS support DECREASING taxes. The net is that republican policies, when the economy has high unemployment, is ALWAYS counter productive. And simply makes things worse, always. Because it quite obviously decreases aggregate demand.

 

[jasonnfree]

The conservatives have it wrong for the wrong reason. The liberals have it right for the wrong reason.

The reality is that what matters is employment level, efficiency, and type of output.

People make it, people consume it. The more people employed, the more stuff to consume.

The rest is just pieces of paper, electronic digits, and bookkeeping. Money literally grows on trees (technically on little bushes.)

If people are employed, they buy stuff. Increases aggregate demand. Always has, always will.
Decreasing the deficit requires either increased taxes or decreased spending, or both. Since nearly every republican has signed a pledge to never increase taxes, all that is left is to decrease spending. And they ALWAYS support DECREASING taxes. The net is that republican policies, when the economy has high unemployment, is ALWAYS counter productive. And simply makes things worse, always. Because it quite obviously decreases aggregate demand.

Maybe the republicans have it wrong because they want the money to go to the very wealthy who don't consume like the peasants do. They invest, spend money on Picassos, buy politicians etc. Things which don't put people to work except some lobbyists maybe.

 

[Rshermr]

The conservatives have it wrong for the wrong reason. The liberals have it right for the wrong reason.

The reality is that what matters is employment level, efficiency, and type of output.

People make it, people consume it. The more people employed, the more stuff to consume.

The rest is just pieces of paper, electronic digits, and bookkeeping. Money literally grows on trees (technically on little bushes.)

If people are employed, they buy stuff. Increases aggregate demand. Always has, always will.
Decreasing the deficit requires either increased taxes or decreased spending, or both. Since nearly every republican has signed a pledge to never increase taxes, all that is left is to decrease spending. And they ALWAYS support DECREASING taxes. The net is that republican policies, when the economy has high unemployment, is ALWAYS counter productive. And simply makes things worse, always. Because it quite obviously decreases aggregate demand.

Maybe the republicans have it wrong because they want the money to go to the very wealthy who don't consume like the peasants do. They invest, spend money on Picassos, buy politicians etc. Things which don't put people to work except some lobbyists maybe.

Yup. It has been proven. Which is why, by the way, that when the cbo looked at the stimulus, the worst parts were tax decreases to the wealthy. In essence, the cbo found that those tax decreases had essentially NO effect on the economy.
But politicians do what they are paid to do. And at this point, more republican politicians by far are paid by the rich. So, republican politicians support tax decreases for the wealthy. What a surprise.

 

[Avorysuds]

Harding did it, got us out of a depression, I guess that does not count though... FDR failed as predicted, so has Obama.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

This was a scene that was cut from some Monty Python movie, right?

 

[Rshermr]

Harding did it, got us out of a depression, I guess that does not count though... FDR failed as predicted, so has Obama.

Wow. How ignorant can you get. Harding did nothing. And hoover did nothing. Except watch the economy get worse and worse and worse. the republican ideal. Unemployment went from 3% to almost 25% under democratic presidents. And they fought fdr tooth and nail, as the economy got better and better under his administration.

Then there is the great republican recession of 2008. Caused again by republican policies. And now, republicans fight EVERY EFFORT to decrease unemployment. But, despite the best efforts of repubs to destroy the economy, it is improving.
And the recession is long over. Ivory just spends too much of his time in bat shit crazy con web sites to notice. and unemployment keeps getting better and better. Though slowed by repubs, it is getting better. Poor ivory. Back to the bat shit crazy web sites, ivory, and dredge up some more drivel.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Harding did it, got us out of a depression, I guess that does not count though... FDR failed as predicted, so has Obama.

Wow. How ignorant can you get. Harding did nothing. And hoover did nothing. Except watch the economy get worse and worse and worse. the republican ideal. Unemployment went from 3% to almost 25% under democratic presidents. And they fought fdr tooth and nail, as the economy got better and better under his administration.

Then there is the great republican recession of 2008. Caused again by republican policies. And now, republicans fight EVERY EFFORT to decrease unemployment. But, despite the best efforts of repubs to destroy the economy, it is improving.
And the recession is long over. Ivory just spends too much of his time in bat shit crazy con web sites to notice. and unemployment keeps getting better and better. Though slowed by repubs, it is getting better. Poor ivory. Back to the bat shit crazy web sites, ivory, and dredge up some more drivel.

Wow. So you don't know ANYTHING about Harding, but you feel you have to give us your insights.

Amazing

 

[itfitzme]

The conservatives have it wrong for the wrong reason. The liberals have it right for the wrong reason.

The reality is that what matters is employment level, efficiency, and type of output.

People make it, people consume it. The more people employed, the more stuff to consume.

The rest is just pieces of paper, electronic digits, and bookkeeping. Money literally grows on trees (technically on little bushes.)

If people are employed, they buy stuff. Increases aggregate demand. Always has, always will.
Decreasing the deficit requires either increased taxes or decreased spending, or both. Since nearly every republican has signed a pledge to never increase taxes, all that is left is to decrease spending. And they ALWAYS support DECREASING taxes. The net is that republican policies, when the economy has high unemployment, is ALWAYS counter productive. And simply makes things worse, always. Because it quite obviously decreases aggregate demand.

Maybe the republicans have it wrong because they want the money to go to the very wealthy who don't consume like the peasants do. They invest, spend money on Picassos, buy politicians etc. Things which don't put people to work except some lobbyists maybe.

There is another interesting effect, price inflation of goods specific to income level. The obvious thing were housing prices. More money came available, predominantly driving prices. Lowering taxes for capital gains simply inflates prices in the capital markets. There is no guarantee that those funds will drive real investment.

 

[oldfart]

Harding did it, got us out of a depression, I guess that does not count though... FDR failed as predicted, so has Obama.

Wow. How ignorant can you get. Harding did nothing. And hoover did nothing. Except watch the economy get worse and worse and worse. the republican ideal. Unemployment went from 3% to almost 25% under democratic presidents. And they fought fdr tooth and nail, as the economy got better and better under his administration.

Then there is the great republican recession of 2008. Caused again by republican policies. And now, republicans fight EVERY EFFORT to decrease unemployment. But, despite the best efforts of repubs to destroy the economy, it is improving.
And the recession is long over. Ivory just spends too much of his time in bat shit crazy con web sites to notice. and unemployment keeps getting better and better. Though slowed by repubs, it is getting better. Poor ivory. Back to the bat shit crazy web sites, ivory, and dredge up some more drivel.

Wow. So you don't know ANYTHING about Harding, but you feel you have to give us your insights.

Amazing

Well Frank, you know even less about the Depression of 1920-1 and Harding. It began before Harding was elected and ended before he took any action (NBER dates the end in July 1921, Harding formed a commission prompted by Hoover that didn't meet until September 1921). Schwarz and Friedman gave the cause as the Federal Reserve raising rates and claimed that lowering them was what stimulated the economy.

Where do you get this misinformation anyway?

 

[itfitzme]

Wow. How ignorant can you get. Harding did nothing. And hoover did nothing. Except watch the economy get worse and worse and worse. the republican ideal. Unemployment went from 3% to almost 25% under democratic presidents. And they fought fdr tooth and nail, as the economy got better and better under his administration.

Then there is the great republican recession of 2008. Caused again by republican policies. And now, republicans fight EVERY EFFORT to decrease unemployment. But, despite the best efforts of repubs to destroy the economy, it is improving.
And the recession is long over. Ivory just spends too much of his time in bat shit crazy con web sites to notice. and unemployment keeps getting better and better. Though slowed by repubs, it is getting better. Poor ivory. Back to the bat shit crazy web sites, ivory, and dredge up some more drivel.

Wow. So you don't know ANYTHING about Harding, but you feel you have to give us your insights.

Amazing

Well Frank, you know even less about the Depression of 1920-1 and Harding. It began before Harding was elected and ended before he took any action (NBER dates the end in July 1921, Harding formed a commission prompted by Hoover that didn't meet until September 1921). Schwarz and Friedman gave the cause as the Federal Reserve raising rates and claimed that lowering them was what stimulated the economy.

Where do you get this misinformation anyway?

Well, it would seem that you presented verifiable specific details.

 

[Rshermr]

Harding did it, got us out of a depression, I guess that does not count though... FDR failed as predicted, so has Obama.

Wow. How ignorant can you get. Harding did nothing. And hoover did nothing. Except watch the economy get worse and worse and worse. the republican ideal. Unemployment went from 3% to almost 25% under republican presidents. And republicaqns fought fdr tooth and nail, as the economy got better and better under his administration.

Then there is the great republican recession of 2008. Caused again by republican policies. And now, republicans fight EVERY EFFORT to decrease unemployment. But, despite the best efforts of repubs to destroy the economy, it is improving.
And the recession is long over. Ivory just spends too much of his time in bat shit crazy con web sites to notice. and unemployment keeps getting better and better. Though slowed by repubs, it is getting better. Poor ivory. Back to the bat shit crazy web sites, ivory, and dredge up some more drivel.

Wow. So you don't know ANYTHING about Harding, but you feel you have to give us your insights.

Amazing

Harding did nothing. came in after the recession started, and did nothing until the economy recovered. Sorry you have been misinformed. But blaming the people helping you with the truth seems a bit thankless.

 

[itfitzme]

Wow. How ignorant can you get. Harding did nothing. And hoover did nothing. Except watch the economy get worse and worse and worse. the republican ideal. Unemployment went from 3% to almost 25% under republican presidents. And republicaqns fought fdr tooth and nail, as the economy got better and better under his administration.

Then there is the great republican recession of 2008. Caused again by republican policies. And now, republicans fight EVERY EFFORT to decrease unemployment. But, despite the best efforts of repubs to destroy the economy, it is improving.
And the recession is long over. Ivory just spends too much of his time in bat shit crazy con web sites to notice. and unemployment keeps getting better and better. Though slowed by repubs, it is getting better. Poor ivory. Back to the bat shit crazy web sites, ivory, and dredge up some more drivel.

Wow. So you don't know ANYTHING about Harding, but you feel you have to give us your insights.

Amazing

Harding did nothing. came in after the recession started, and did nothing until the economy recovered. Sorry you have been misinformed. But blaming the people helping you with the truth seems a bit thankless.

What happened to the other guy? For a minute there, I thought he might have something intelligent to say.

 

[Rshermr]

That would be new. The other guy just posts dogma. Because he is clueless.