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

[daveman]

What do companies do that government does not do?

Build in profit.

It seems you forgot that reality of economics and accounting.

I repeat: Government adds nothing of value, and always operates at a loss.

This is undeniable.

No, dude. Private companies have a revenue stream called prices. They have expences im terms of wages and material costs. They also are leveraged and carry a debt load. The govenent has a revenue stream called taxes, fees, liscencing, etc. It has expences in wages and material costs. It also is leveraged and carries a debt load.

Most companies do not have a profit. Most businesses are small businesses and the revenues just equal expences.

The defict and debt is partly leverage, always for taking in less revenue than outlays

You never had any knowledge of economics, business amd accounting.

Have you ever owned and operated a business, or is all your knowledge academic?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it is because the government decided it wanted to control everything ...

Wrong. Your comment isn't serious. It's very, very silly. It's right up there with Marxists who say such similar vacuous bromides such as "Capitalism is always about exploitation."

That's what I mean about ideology. Ideology offers simple solutions that can be boiled down to sloganeering that belongs on bumper stickers rather than in serious debate. It requires one not to think nor to challenge one's own beliefs.

Government has made rules about everything from braiding hair to how much corn we need in gasoline. If this is not indicative of government wanting to control everything there has to be a logical reason for it. If you have one, lay it out. If you don't, stop calling me an ideologue because I see the world the way it is, instead of the way you want to to be.

I disagree. Empiricism is just an excuse used by some ideologues to justify the fact that they never listen to alternatives.

Empiricism comes from the premise that we want to know what is true. Ideology comes from what you want to be true not if it actually is true. Ideologues dismiss empiricism when it contradicts their belief system. Empiricists change their beliefs light of contradictory information. Ideologues retain their beliefs despite contradictory information.

Empiricism doesn't give a crap about truth, it is all about what we can sense, which is why it is synonymous with quackery in medicine. Maybe you want to use a different word.

If you argue that "empiricism is an excuse for tyranny," that is pure ideology. However, if you believe in that your ideology should be retained despite your ideology generating empirically substandard results, that's one thing and is at least intellectually consistent. It's another to say that your ideology is everywhere and always right in everything, no matter what. That belongs in Kindergarten.

Good thing I didn't argue that, isn't it? If you go back and read my statement you will see I said it is used by some ideologues to justify the fact that they never listen to alternatives. If you want to address that, feel free, If you want to rant about things I didn't say, stop using my posts as an excuse to bloviate.

Umm, what?

Wasn't there a series of major bank failures in the 20th century that led to a total collapse of the economy and the what is sometimes called the Great Depression? If the National Banking Act, which passed in 1863, prevented that, why did it still happen? And why was it worse than any previous bank failures?

Depressions happened routinely in the 19th century. Banking collapses happened routinely in the 19th century. Economic volatility was much higher in the 19th century. That doesn't mean there are no recessions or no banking crises. We just have far fewer of them than we had in the past.

Could that be because we had fewer banks, and that banks were protected and supported by the government, and that the form of currency is irrelevant to the point you are using to support it?

 

[itfitzme]

Did I say that reducing the debt reduces the money supply?

No.

Did Daveman?

No.

I guess that means here is that we have a lying sack of shit that cannot do simple math, so he is reduced to making stuff up in order to fool himself into thinking he is smart.

Yeah, that is exactly what daveman said, In response to my comment on increasing taxes, daveman said that it reduces the money supply. You have said the other.

Damn, you are one of the idiots that thinks he is smart because he once read a book he didn't understand, aren't you?

Let me explain reality to you, Under the current economic conditions in the US, ie when the US government runs a massive deficit and the Federal Reserve uses quantitative easing to buy bonds, taxes have an inverse impact on the money supply. In other words, right now raising taxes is deflationary because it reduces the money supply.

If you didn't understand that, Daveman is right, taxes do reduce the money supply. This is such an accepted tenet of economics that only idiots don't get it, which explains your confusion. Even Obama gets it, probably because every economic adviser he has tells him the same thing. That means that he is smarter than you, which makes you pretty dumb.

Feel free to use Google to try and find someone to prove me wrong, it could be educational. I doubt you will pay attention, but there is always a chance.

Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that.

The fact is that taxes do not reduce the money supply and there is no educated and reliable source that suggests so.

The reason is simple, the government doesn't hang onto the money, they turn around and spend it. This puts the money right into circulation.

There are a number of different measures of monies, including Mb, M0, M1, M2 and M3. The measure of money that we are most concerned and familiar with is M1. M1 is the closest to the monies that are spent on goods and services in the economy.

GDP and prices are related to the money supply as

GDP = M*V = Σ(P*Q), where V is the velocity of money, M is the money supply, P is the average price of goods, and Q is the quantity of goods produced and sold. As all that is produced is consumed, the price of goods is directly related to the amount of money in circulation.

This is that prices are set to a percentage of the total money supply.

The government is a part of the economy and is measured as part of GDP. This means that the revenues collected and outlays spend are part of the money supply.

For individuals, M, the money in circulation, is the money they have after taxes. This means that the total money in circulation is the sum of the net income for individuals plus the revenues collected and spent by the government.

There is simply no other interpretation. Taxes do not reduce the money supply. Taxes are part of the money supply.

You are simply misinformed or have convinced yourself of something that you wish were true.

 

[itfitzme]

LOL itfitzme . . .

Good luck discussing economics with these clowns. They REALLY DO compare federal "debt" with household debt, and that's why they have a flawed view of the mechanics.

The feds need to find other terminology to refer to government accounting measures. The words "debt" and "deficit" fucks up these guys every time.

Yeah, they really have convoluted a lot of things based on what they would like to be true. It is like falling down a rabbit hole.

The problem with the household analogy is that for an analogy to function, it must be point by point, connection by connection, process by process, identical. What these clowns manage to do is pick and choose pieces of each, mismatch components, and present it as proof of something that it is not.

The way that they connect things is based on their subjective feelings of "good" and "bad", "I like it" and "I don't like it".

Learning from other peoples mistakes can be useful. They come up with insane ideas that I could never come up with on my own. It is just to far out there. So it is a good exercise in logic and reason, to see the reality against the background of the insanity that they constantly present. It is good exercise.

I remain forever amazed.

 

[itfitzme]

LOL itfitzme . . .

Good luck discussing economics with these clowns. They REALLY DO compare federal "debt" with household debt, and that's why they have a flawed view of the mechanics.

The feds need to find other terminology to refer to government accounting measures. The words "debt" and "deficit" fucks up these guys every time.

Economists & Accountants that are anal retentive about how laymen use common financial terms are usually just blowhards without even an ounce of common sense.

Yeah, you just keep on stroking yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, that is exactly what daveman said, In response to my comment on increasing taxes, daveman said that it reduces the money supply. You have said the other.

Damn, you are one of the idiots that thinks he is smart because he once read a book he didn't understand, aren't you?

Let me explain reality to you, Under the current economic conditions in the US, ie when the US government runs a massive deficit and the Federal Reserve uses quantitative easing to buy bonds, taxes have an inverse impact on the money supply. In other words, right now raising taxes is deflationary because it reduces the money supply.

If you didn't understand that, Daveman is right, taxes do reduce the money supply. This is such an accepted tenet of economics that only idiots don't get it, which explains your confusion. Even Obama gets it, probably because every economic adviser he has tells him the same thing. That means that he is smarter than you, which makes you pretty dumb.

Feel free to use Google to try and find someone to prove me wrong, it could be educational. I doubt you will pay attention, but there is always a chance.

Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that.

The fact is that taxes do not reduce the money supply and there is no educated and reliable source that suggests so.

How do you define "Educated and reliable?"

Did you notice that I defined a specific set of circumstances, which, coincidentally, happens to be the one we currently have, where taxes have a inverse impact on the money supply? Since we are not talking about normal conditions, we have to see what happens when the federal reserve is using its fiat power to create money.

My guess is that you will use normal circumstances to prove something else, which should be as informative as watching paint dry.

The reason is simple, the government doesn't hang onto the money, they turn around and spend it. This puts the money right into circulation.

The magical results of money multipliers by pretending that $1 being spent in 100 different places equals a supply of $100. Who'da thunk it?

There are a number of different measures of monies, including Mb, M0, M1, M2 and M3. The measure of money that we are most concerned and familiar with is M1. M1 is the closest to the monies that are spent on goods and services in the economy.

Which measure includes money created by quantitative easing, and then taxed by the government? That is the specific instance we are talking about, it should be easy to find specific texts that proves me wrong, especially since you read a book.

GDP and prices are related to the money supply as

GDP = M*V = Σ(P*Q), where V is the velocity of money, M is the money supply, P is the average price of goods, and Q is the quantity of goods produced and sold. As all that is produced is consumed, the price of goods is directly related to the amount of money in circulation.

Which, if you actually understood economics, is precisely why we have a problem, but that is another discussion.

Right now all I want to know is the exact impact taxation has when the government is running a large deficit and the fed is creating money through quantitative easing.

This is that prices are set to a percentage of the total money supply.

Actually, they aren't, but thanks for playing.

The government is a part of the economy and is measured as part of GDP. This means that the revenues collected and outlays spend are part of the money supply.

Umm, not really.

Government revenue is not part of the calculation of GDP, even if government spending is. I do like your educated attempt to lie to me though, it actually proves how stupid it is to insist that education trumps common sense.

For individuals, M, the money in circulation, is the money they have after taxes. This means that the total money in circulation is the sum of the net income for individuals plus the revenues collected and spent by the government.

What about revenues not spent by the government? Or do you operate under the delusion that government spends every penny it steals and/or borrows.

There is simply no other interpretation. Taxes do not reduce the money supply. Taxes are part of the money supply.

Unless we factor in the exact economic conditions that exist in the United States.

You are simply misinformed or have convinced yourself of something that you wish were true.

Sure I am, because you can quote equations from a book.

Let me point out the logical flaw in your argument. If a government both increases taxation and decreases spending, in other words they institute the dreaded condition of austerity, the government is taking more money out of the economy while simultaneously reducing the amount it puts back in. Tell me how that doesn't affect the money supply.

Another way taxes can affect the money supply is if the government reduces taxes while increasing spending. This results in the Keynesian dream of a larger money supply, and instant economic resurgence. Funny thing, it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world. Perhaps because, despite your education, money supply and taxes is a lot more complex than you think even if taxes and spending are balanced.

But, please, feel free to throw more erroneous data at me in an attempt to overwhelm my uneducated responses to your book.

 

[itfitzme]

LOL itfitzme . . .

Good luck discussing economics with these clowns. They REALLY DO compare federal "debt" with household debt, and that's why they have a flawed view of the mechanics.

The feds need to find other terminology to refer to government accounting measures. The words "debt" and "deficit" fucks up these guys every time.

Economists & Accountants that are anal retentive about how laymen use common financial terms are usually just blowhards without even an ounce of common sense.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that economics and accountants are "blowhards". Then you can convince yourself that your opinion is "right".

The reality is that economists are the ones that define the language of economics. Accountants define the language of accounting. Mathematicians define the language used in mathematics. Scientists define the language used in science.

Your personal definitions are meaningless. If you can't use the terms correctly, you should stay out of the conversation.

 

[itfitzme]

Damn, you are one of the idiots that thinks he is smart because he once read a book he didn't understand, aren't you?

Let me explain reality to you, Under the current economic conditions in the US, ie when the US government runs a massive deficit and the Federal Reserve uses quantitative easing to buy bonds, taxes have an inverse impact on the money supply. In other words, right now raising taxes is deflationary because it reduces the money supply.

If you didn't understand that, Daveman is right, taxes do reduce the money supply. This is such an accepted tenet of economics that only idiots don't get it, which explains your confusion. Even Obama gets it, probably because every economic adviser he has tells him the same thing. That means that he is smarter than you, which makes you pretty dumb.

Feel free to use Google to try and find someone to prove me wrong, it could be educational. I doubt you will pay attention, but there is always a chance.

Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that.

The fact is that taxes do not reduce the money supply and there is no educated and reliable source that suggests so.

How do you define "Educated and reliable?"

Did you notice that I defined a specific set of circumstances, which, coincidentally, happens to be the one we currently have, where taxes have a inverse impact on the money supply? Since we are not talking about normal conditions, we have to see what happens when the federal reserve is using its fiat power to create money.

My guess is that you will use normal circumstances to prove something else, which should be as informative as watching paint dry.



The magical results of money multipliers by pretending that $1 being spent in 100 different places equals a supply of $100. Who'da thunk it?



Which measure includes money created by quantitative easing, and then taxed by the government? That is the specific instance we are talking about, it should be easy to find specific texts that proves me wrong, especially since you read a book.



Which, if you actually understood economics, is precisely why we have a problem, but that is another discussion.

Right now all I want to know is the exact impact taxation has when the government is running a large deficit and the fed is creating money through quantitative easing.



Actually, they aren't, but thanks for playing.



Umm, not really.

Government revenue is not part of the calculation of GDP, even if government spending is. I do like your educated attempt to lie to me though, it actually proves how stupid it is to insist that education trumps common sense.



What about revenues not spent by the government? Or do you operate under the delusion that government spends every penny it steals and/or borrows.

There is simply no other interpretation. Taxes do not reduce the money supply. Taxes are part of the money supply.

Unless we factor in the exact economic conditions that exist in the United States.

You are simply misinformed or have convinced yourself of something that you wish were true.

Sure I am, because you can quote equations from a book.

Let me point out the logical flaw in your argument. If a government both increases taxation and decreases spending, in other words they institute the dreaded condition of austerity, the government is taking more money out of the economy while simultaneously reducing the amount it puts back in. Tell me how that doesn't affect the money supply.

Another way taxes can affect the money supply is if the government reduces taxes while increasing spending. This results in the Keynesian dream of a larger money supply, and instant economic resurgence. Funny thing, it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world. Perhaps because, despite your education, money supply and taxes is a lot more complex than you think even if taxes and spending are balanced.

But, please, feel free to throw more erroneous data at me in an attempt to overwhelm my uneducated responses to your book.

You can quote all the equations you want and I can guarantee that you have misinterpreted them if you are indeed insisting the taxes reduce the money supply. The statement was made by Daveman. He didn't qualify it. Now you are attempting to concoct some specific circumstances upon which it will, circumstances that are unrelated to the statement made by Daveman.

Your entire conversation is irrelevant because you have created a strawman by changing the conditions of the conversation. You make an overly generalized and meaningless statement that is, in fact, incorrect in general terms. Then you want to claim "Oh, I didn't mean that, I was talking about something else."

It would be delightful moment if you actually would back up your BS with some facts and quotes. So far, your only response is "prove that the CBO say's they didn't say it." Dumbest of all possible responses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that.

The fact is that taxes do not reduce the money supply and there is no educated and reliable source that suggests so.

How do you define "Educated and reliable?"

Did you notice that I defined a specific set of circumstances, which, coincidentally, happens to be the one we currently have, where taxes have a inverse impact on the money supply? Since we are not talking about normal conditions, we have to see what happens when the federal reserve is using its fiat power to create money.

My guess is that you will use normal circumstances to prove something else, which should be as informative as watching paint dry.



The magical results of money multipliers by pretending that $1 being spent in 100 different places equals a supply of $100. Who'da thunk it?



Which measure includes money created by quantitative easing, and then taxed by the government? That is the specific instance we are talking about, it should be easy to find specific texts that proves me wrong, especially since you read a book.



Which, if you actually understood economics, is precisely why we have a problem, but that is another discussion.

Right now all I want to know is the exact impact taxation has when the government is running a large deficit and the fed is creating money through quantitative easing.



Actually, they aren't, but thanks for playing.



Umm, not really.

Government revenue is not part of the calculation of GDP, even if government spending is. I do like your educated attempt to lie to me though, it actually proves how stupid it is to insist that education trumps common sense.



What about revenues not spent by the government? Or do you operate under the delusion that government spends every penny it steals and/or borrows.



Unless we factor in the exact economic conditions that exist in the United States.

You are simply misinformed or have convinced yourself of something that you wish were true.

Sure I am, because you can quote equations from a book.

Let me point out the logical flaw in your argument. If a government both increases taxation and decreases spending, in other words they institute the dreaded condition of austerity, the government is taking more money out of the economy while simultaneously reducing the amount it puts back in. Tell me how that doesn't affect the money supply.

Another way taxes can affect the money supply is if the government reduces taxes while increasing spending. This results in the Keynesian dream of a larger money supply, and instant economic resurgence. Funny thing, it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world. Perhaps because, despite your education, money supply and taxes is a lot more complex than you think even if taxes and spending are balanced.

But, please, feel free to throw more erroneous data at me in an attempt to overwhelm my uneducated responses to your book.

You can quote all the equations you want and I can guarantee that you have misinterpreted them if you are indeed insisting the taxes reduce the money supply. The statement was made by Daveman. He didn't qualify it. Now you are attempting to concoct some specific circumstances upon which it will, circumstances that are unrelated to the statement made by Daveman.

Your entire conversation is irrelevant because you have created a strawman by changing the conditions of the conversation. You make an overly generalized and meaningless statement that is, in fact, incorrect in general terms. Then you want to claim "Oh, I didn't mean that, I was talking about something else."

It would be delightful moment if you actually would back up your BS with some facts and quotes. So far, your only response is "prove that the CBO say's they didn't say it." Dumbest of all possible responses.

There you go again.

I didn't quote any equations, I pointed out that in the exact set of circumstances that exist in this country right now increasing taxes does decrease the money supply. Yet, for some reason, you keep jumping back to the fact that, in a economy where spending and taxes are balanced, the taxes have no effect on the money supply.

Are you going to address the issue I am raising, or are you going to keep insisting that your educated twaddle trumps the reality that has been demonstrated in many different countries over the years?

By the way, feel free to go back and look at where this conversation started between us. Once you do you will see that I have always been talking about the specific economic conditions we have right now. My insistence that we stick to that is not putting words in your mouth, which is what I would be doing if I were creating a straw man argument.

 

[daveman]

What do companies do that government does not do?

Build in profit.

It seems you forgot that reality of economics and accounting.

I repeat: Government adds nothing of value, and always operates at a loss.

This is undeniable.

No, dude. Private companies have a revenue stream called prices. They have expences im terms of wages and material costs. They also are leveraged and carry a debt load. The govenent has a revenue stream called taxes, fees, liscencing, etc. It has expences in wages and material costs. It also is leveraged and carries a debt load.

Most companies do not have a profit. Most businesses are small businesses and the revenues just equal expences.

The defict and debt is partly leverage, always for taking in less revenue than outlays

You never had any knowledge of economics, business amd accounting.

Have you ever owned and operated a business, or is all your knowledge academic?

Well?

 

[Rshermr]

How do you define "Educated and reliable?"

Did you notice that I defined a specific set of circumstances, which, coincidentally, happens to be the one we currently have, where taxes have a inverse impact on the money supply? Since we are not talking about normal conditions, we have to see what happens when the federal reserve is using its fiat power to create money.

My guess is that you will use normal circumstances to prove something else, which should be as informative as watching paint dry.



The magical results of money multipliers by pretending that $1 being spent in 100 different places equals a supply of $100. Who'da thunk it?



Which measure includes money created by quantitative easing, and then taxed by the government? That is the specific instance we are talking about, it should be easy to find specific texts that proves me wrong, especially since you read a book.



Which, if you actually understood economics, is precisely why we have a problem, but that is another discussion.

Right now all I want to know is the exact impact taxation has when the government is running a large deficit and the fed is creating money through quantitative easing.



Actually, they aren't, but thanks for playing.



Umm, not really.

Government revenue is not part of the calculation of GDP, even if government spending is. I do like your educated attempt to lie to me though, it actually proves how stupid it is to insist that education trumps common sense.



What about revenues not spent by the government? Or do you operate under the delusion that government spends every penny it steals and/or borrows.



Unless we factor in the exact economic conditions that exist in the United States.



Sure I am, because you can quote equations from a book.

Let me point out the logical flaw in your argument. If a government both increases taxation and decreases spending, in other words they institute the dreaded condition of austerity, the government is taking more money out of the economy while simultaneously reducing the amount it puts back in. Tell me how that doesn't affect the money supply.

Another way taxes can affect the money supply is if the government reduces taxes while increasing spending. This results in the Keynesian dream of a larger money supply, and instant economic resurgence. Funny thing, it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world. Perhaps because, despite your education, money supply and taxes is a lot more complex than you think even if taxes and spending are balanced.

But, please, feel free to throw more erroneous data at me in an attempt to overwhelm my uneducated responses to your book.

You can quote all the equations you want and I can guarantee that you have misinterpreted them if you are indeed insisting the taxes reduce the money supply. The statement was made by Daveman. He didn't qualify it. Now you are attempting to concoct some specific circumstances upon which it will, circumstances that are unrelated to the statement made by Daveman.

Your entire conversation is irrelevant because you have created a strawman by changing the conditions of the conversation. You make an overly generalized and meaningless statement that is, in fact, incorrect in general terms. Then you want to claim "Oh, I didn't mean that, I was talking about something else."

It would be delightful moment if you actually would back up your BS with some facts and quotes. So far, your only response is "prove that the CBO say's they didn't say it." Dumbest of all possible responses.

There you go again.

I didn't quote any equations, I pointed out that in the exact set of circumstances that exist in this country right now increasing taxes does decrease the money supply. Yet, for some reason, you keep jumping back to the fact that, in a economy where spending and taxes are balanced, the taxes have no effect on the money supply.

Are you going to address the issue I am raising, or are you going to keep insisting that your educated twaddle trumps the reality that has been demonstrated in many different countries over the years?

By the way, feel free to go back and look at where this conversation started between us. Once you do you will see that I have always been talking about the specific economic conditions we have right now. My insistence that we stick to that is not putting words in your mouth, which is what I would be doing if I were creating a straw man argument.

So, you are then, quite happy that the deficit is decreasing faster now than in decades. And we all know that you must be happy to see the cbo projections showing more of the same in coming years.
If you were aware of economic history, you would not find a time in our history that decreasing taxes and gov spending has ever helped a bad economy. Nor would you ever see a time when the deficit, and the national debt, ever got a lot better when unemployment was bad. And you would know you have never seen a time when unemployment was high and the deficit, or the national debt, for that matter, ever improved. (No, me boy, the national debt does not often decrease in absolute terms, but rather in relation to gnp).
And, you must be happy about current tax rates, which have gone down under this president to lower than at any time since the early 1950's. I am sure the current admin would welcome your thanks.

So, you must really be happy. Or, perhaps you just do not pay attention to the facts. Do you simply prefer your agenda??

 

[rdean]

LOL itfitzme . . .

Good luck discussing economics with these clowns. They REALLY DO compare federal "debt" with household debt, and that's why they have a flawed view of the mechanics.

The feds need to find other terminology to refer to government accounting measures. The words "debt" and "deficit" fucks up these guys every time.

I have never seen anyone compare the federal debt with household debt. I have, however, seen them compare the federal budget, and the deficit, with a household budget. That makes your comment about confusing debt and deficit so poignant it hurts.

Republican Congressman Compares U.S. Default To His Household Budget

Barton thinks the economy would be just fine. He argues for a flawed and widely doubted debt “prioritization” scheme — a Republican argument that they would be able to prioritize which bills get paid when failure to pass a debt ceiling bill means we can’t expand our borrowing power — by comparing the situation to his own household budget:

BARTON: Well, we have in my household budget some bills that have to be paid and some bills that only paid partially. I think paying interest on the debt has to be paid. I think paying social security payments have to be paid. I don’t think paying the secretary of energy’s travel expanses have to be paid 100 cents on the dollar. We’ve got more than enough cash flow, more than enough cash flow to pay interest on the public debt when it comes due and the House Republicans have passed a prioritization bill. This talk about default by the U.S. Treasury is nonsense. The president can be smart or the president can be stupid. And I would assume as smart as President Obama is when push comes to shove, he’ll be smart. So we are not going to default on the public debt. But that doesn’t mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in.

 

[KissMy]

 

[rdean]

Republicans call that "fair" and a "good plan" and "what the country needs".

 

[itfitzme]

You can quote all the equations you want and I can guarantee that you have misinterpreted them if you are indeed insisting the taxes reduce the money supply. The statement was made by Daveman. He didn't qualify it. Now you are attempting to concoct some specific circumstances upon which it will, circumstances that are unrelated to the statement made by Daveman.

Your entire conversation is irrelevant because you have created a strawman by changing the conditions of the conversation. You make an overly generalized and meaningless statement that is, in fact, incorrect in general terms. Then you want to claim "Oh, I didn't mean that, I was talking about something else."

It would be delightful moment if you actually would back up your BS with some facts and quotes. So far, your only response is "prove that the CBO say's they didn't say it." Dumbest of all possible responses.

There you go again.

I didn't quote any equations, I pointed out that in the exact set of circumstances that exist in this country right now increasing taxes does decrease the money supply. Yet, for some reason, you keep jumping back to the fact that, in a economy where spending and taxes are balanced, the taxes have no effect on the money supply.

Are you going to address the issue I am raising, or are you going to keep insisting that your educated twaddle trumps the reality that has been demonstrated in many different countries over the years?

By the way, feel free to go back and look at where this conversation started between us. Once you do you will see that I have always been talking about the specific economic conditions we have right now. My insistence that we stick to that is not putting words in your mouth, which is what I would be doing if I were creating a straw man argument.

Nope. The only way that taxes decrease the money supply is if the money were saved, burned, or buried in a coal mine.

You can do all the ego stroking you want by making personal attacks but it won't change the fact that the money is recirculated as wages or payments to vendors. The only thing close to "decreasing the money supply" is the interest payments that circulate money from M1 to possibly M2. Even then, the very fact that the debt ceiling needs to be raised to sell more t-bills makes it pretty clear that, on the balance, money is being moved from M2 (investors) to M1 (government spending.)

The conversation regarding the topic of decreasing money supply was never between you and I, it was a comment that Daveman made and I responded to. You just felt the need to stick your ill informed, arrogant, ignorant opinion in as in your egocentric and psychotic mind, you are unable to tell the difference between yourself and Daveman. That, and you mistakenly believe that the world revolves around you and your ignorant posts so obviously every comment must be about you.

Clearly you have no source of facts to back you up or you would have presented them by now.

The reality remains, taxes do not decrease the money supply. Not now, not ever. The only thing that decreases the money supply is the repayment of debt or sales of bonds by the Fed Res. Beyond that, nothing decreases the money supply, not M1, not M2.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can quote all the equations you want and I can guarantee that you have misinterpreted them if you are indeed insisting the taxes reduce the money supply. The statement was made by Daveman. He didn't qualify it. Now you are attempting to concoct some specific circumstances upon which it will, circumstances that are unrelated to the statement made by Daveman.

Your entire conversation is irrelevant because you have created a strawman by changing the conditions of the conversation. You make an overly generalized and meaningless statement that is, in fact, incorrect in general terms. Then you want to claim "Oh, I didn't mean that, I was talking about something else."

It would be delightful moment if you actually would back up your BS with some facts and quotes. So far, your only response is "prove that the CBO say's they didn't say it." Dumbest of all possible responses.

There you go again.

I didn't quote any equations, I pointed out that in the exact set of circumstances that exist in this country right now increasing taxes does decrease the money supply. Yet, for some reason, you keep jumping back to the fact that, in a economy where spending and taxes are balanced, the taxes have no effect on the money supply.

Are you going to address the issue I am raising, or are you going to keep insisting that your educated twaddle trumps the reality that has been demonstrated in many different countries over the years?

By the way, feel free to go back and look at where this conversation started between us. Once you do you will see that I have always been talking about the specific economic conditions we have right now. My insistence that we stick to that is not putting words in your mouth, which is what I would be doing if I were creating a straw man argument.

So, you are then, quite happy that the deficit is decreasing faster now than in decades. And we all know that you must be happy to see the cbo projections showing more of the same in coming years.
If you were aware of economic history, you would not find a time in our history that decreasing taxes and gov spending has ever helped a bad economy. Nor would you ever see a time when the deficit, and the national debt, ever got a lot better when unemployment was bad. And you would know you have never seen a time when unemployment was high and the deficit, or the national debt, for that matter, ever improved. (No, me boy, the national debt does not often decrease in absolute terms, but rather in relation to gnp).
And, you must be happy about current tax rates, which have gone down under this president to lower than at any time since the early 1950's. I am sure the current admin would welcome your thanks.

So, you must really be happy. Or, perhaps you just do not pay attention to the facts. Do you simply prefer your agenda??

Excuse me? Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? Do I really need to explain, again, why your argument is absurd? You really need to stop reading that same stupid blog post again and again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL itfitzme . . .

Good luck discussing economics with these clowns. They REALLY DO compare federal "debt" with household debt, and that's why they have a flawed view of the mechanics.

The feds need to find other terminology to refer to government accounting measures. The words "debt" and "deficit" fucks up these guys every time.

I have never seen anyone compare the federal debt with household debt. I have, however, seen them compare the federal budget, and the deficit, with a household budget. That makes your comment about confusing debt and deficit so poignant it hurts.

Republican Congressman Compares U.S. Default To His Household Budget

Barton thinks the economy would be just fine. He argues for a flawed and widely doubted debt “prioritization” scheme — a Republican argument that they would be able to prioritize which bills get paid when failure to pass a debt ceiling bill means we can’t expand our borrowing power — by comparing the situation to his own household budget:

BARTON: Well, we have in my household budget some bills that have to be paid and some bills that only paid partially. I think paying interest on the debt has to be paid. I think paying social security payments have to be paid. I don’t think paying the secretary of energy’s travel expanses have to be paid 100 cents on the dollar. We’ve got more than enough cash flow, more than enough cash flow to pay interest on the public debt when it comes due and the House Republicans have passed a prioritization bill. This talk about default by the U.S. Treasury is nonsense. The president can be smart or the president can be stupid. And I would assume as smart as President Obama is when push comes to shove, he’ll be smart. So we are not going to default on the public debt. But that doesn’t mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in.

Thanks, rdean, now I can say that I still haven't seen anyone compare the US debt to their household debt. Thanks for the help.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is the tax burden the tax rate or the amount of taxes paid? Just sayin, I don't get how the tax rate is the actual share of burden. But then I'm just a math major what would I know about these monkey charts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is the tax burden the tax rate or the amount of taxes paid? Just sayin, I don't get how the tax rate is the actual share of burden. But then I'm just a math major what would I know about these monkey charts.

It taint either, it is a term somebody made up to make it look like the rich aren't paying their "fair share."

 

[Rshermr]

There you go again.

I didn't quote any equations, I pointed out that in the exact set of circumstances that exist in this country right now increasing taxes does decrease the money supply. Yet, for some reason, you keep jumping back to the fact that, in a economy where spending and taxes are balanced, the taxes have no effect on the money supply.

Are you going to address the issue I am raising, or are you going to keep insisting that your educated twaddle trumps the reality that has been demonstrated in many different countries over the years?

By the way, feel free to go back and look at where this conversation started between us. Once you do you will see that I have always been talking about the specific economic conditions we have right now. My insistence that we stick to that is not putting words in your mouth, which is what I would be doing if I were creating a straw man argument.

So, you are then, quite happy that the deficit is decreasing faster now than in decades. And we all know that you must be happy to see the cbo projections showing more of the same in coming years.
If you were aware of economic history, you would not find a time in our history that decreasing taxes and gov spending has ever helped a bad economy. Nor would you ever see a time when the deficit, and the national debt, ever got a lot better when unemployment was bad. And you would know you have never seen a time when unemployment was high and the deficit, or the national debt, for that matter, ever improved. (No, me boy, the national debt does not often decrease in absolute terms, but rather in relation to gnp).
And, you must be happy about current tax rates, which have gone down under this president to lower than at any time since the early 1950's. I am sure the current admin would welcome your thanks.

So, you must really be happy. Or, perhaps you just do not pay attention to the facts. Do you simply prefer your agenda??

Excuse me? Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? Do I really need to explain, again, why your argument is absurd? You really need to stop reading that same stupid blog post again and again.

No argument, me poor ignorant tool. Just truths. Perhaps you can provide proof of taxes being higher today than in the past 50 years, me boy.
Or perhaps you have some proof that the economy. when employment was high, ever, ever, ever benefited from tax decreases or spending decreases.
Or perhaps you can show that the deficit is not declining at near record levels.

Your stupid statement is of no value. Your opinion is of no value. You are a dipshit. And a tool. So, do you have some proof, or are you simply posting blather?? Of course you have no proof. Why would I even bother to ask.

Cmon, me boy. Prove me wrong. Dipshit.