Is the Bern not typical of most wealth haters?

[jasonnfree]

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

Well, Walmart depends on food stamps two ways. When food stamps are cut, Walmart's sales go down. Then of course, a lot of Walmart employees get food stamps and other "free stuff", since Walmart's wages are so low. The Limbaugh students on this board aren't complaining about Walmart being freeloaders though, because that part's not in the Limbaugh course on Economics.

I would love to see your evidence when food stamps are cut, Walmart sales go down. Are you talking about WalMart's grocery items or in general?

Link below. You guys shouldn't let rush get you all worked up and po'd at your fellow man though. When enough foreigners come here and are willing to drive trucks for much less than you make, you might be out in the cold too, maybe looking for a hand from the government.
A lot of old guys that lost their jobs to Nafta ended up never getting back on their feet, you know.

Wal-Mart Stores Hurt by Food Stamp Rollbacks

What this article is about is assumption, not fact.

Walmart recently closed a lot of stores in the US, but also closed many abroad. They site their experiment of mini-stores as the culprit.

In this article, they include "bad weather" along with food stamps, so they really don't know what brought down sales. However, it's well documented that most brick and mortar stores lost sales through the years due to internet sales that replaced store sales.

There's a correlation between food stamps and sales. And by the way, food stamps help big Agra. you know, the guys like Archers Daniels Midland. Before Clinton sold us out to Nafta, it was predicted that Mexican farmers would be hurt if it passed. They would be overwhelmed by the government subsidized big agricultural products from this country, Subsidized meaning "free stuff' basically. The now unemployed Mexican farmers headed to the big cities to wash windshields at traffic stops or do crime, or they came here in vast numbers, illegally. You gotta stop believing only the little guy gets free stuff from the government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

"Wealth haters"? What are those when they're at home?

What are those when they're at home? Wealth haters, just like Bernie who took almost 40 years before he started to collect a steady income.

 

[Dovahkiin]

The US dollar has value because the us govt taxes to "collect" the dollar. This creates demand for the us dollar over other currencies.

Never

People cut back and buy less food, this cuts down on food purchases. This is basic stuff.
Unemployment is horrible for the economy, it's worse then inflation, which is why I advocate for a job guarantee and suspending payroll taxes to guarantee a job to anybody willing to work. a 25.00 minimum wage is unrealistic, don't go for the extreme.

People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.

But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.

Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?

The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.
Read what FDR said:

“I guess you're right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."

Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!

And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?

Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.

The national debt is like any other debt be it in government or your household.

When you spend more money than you take in, that creates debt.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
I'm sorry, this is one of the most widespread lies that dominates the discussion. It's false.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

When the economy is in a prolonged slump, however, there are literally trillions of dollars’ worth of idle people, factories, buildings and purveyors of services.

The worst slumps typically occur after a financial collapse – true for both 1929 and 2008 – because so much asset value is wiped out. The whole economy goes into a self-reinforcing tailspin.

Employers are then too risk-averse to hire enough workers, consumers are too traumatized to buy everything the economy is capable of producing, banks are awash in money but won’t lend to any but the most blue-chip borrowers. The whole economy remains stuck in second gear.

That’s where government borrowing comes in. Unlike private credit-card debt, public borrowing can improve a depressed economy’s performance.

Let me find a post I made in regards to china, it will help clear some things up about that as well.
Here it is:
Let's take china, for example.
China does not issue US dollars.
China must find a way to earn our dollars if it wishes to net save in our dollars.
How does it do this? Go to walmart and see for yourself.
Same thing with Japan.
China sells stuff to us in exchange for US dollars.
I really hope you aren't one of those people who think china is "loaning" us anything. Oh god..
The next step in all of this is china putting money in a bank account at the reserve. This account doesn't pay interest. So, china decides: "Hey, I should get some treasury bonds and earn some interest on my HARD EARNED UNITED STATES DOLLARS."
We accommodate them and other countries for one obvious reason, and you should be able to figure it out.
(Oh, we can never default on the debt by the way, it's impossible for a nation that can create dollars from thin air )
So here's the reality: For all of the benefits we get from china/japan/etc, they get a PAPER BANK STATEMENT. Yes, my friend, this is what the politicians are claiming is going to kill us all. IT'S NOT EVEN DENOMINATED IN A CURRENCY that most of these nations can even spend in their own country. They have to either spend the dollars here in the US, which helps us out, or where someone will accept our dollars. They can leave them in savings, or they can convert at their own expense. You bring up a valid point: "How the hell do we pay the interest? Our kids are going to die!"
When the dreaded doomsday scenario finally happens, the federal reserve will move china's hard earned dollars from their "savings" account back to their "checking account." It will go into the "checking account" with the number raised a bit. Boom, we're done. Problem solved. The federal reserve types a number and it's done. It's an accounting record. That's all the national debt is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

Well, Walmart depends on food stamps two ways. When food stamps are cut, Walmart's sales go down. Then of course, a lot of Walmart employees get food stamps and other "free stuff", since Walmart's wages are so low. The Limbaugh students on this board aren't complaining about Walmart being freeloaders though, because that part's not in the Limbaugh course on Economics.

I would love to see your evidence when food stamps are cut, Walmart sales go down. Are you talking about WalMart's grocery items or in general?

Link below. You guys shouldn't let rush get you all worked up and po'd at your fellow man though. When enough foreigners come here and are willing to drive trucks for much less than you make, you might be out in the cold too, maybe looking for a hand from the government.
A lot of old guys that lost their jobs to Nafta ended up never getting back on their feet, you know.

Wal-Mart Stores Hurt by Food Stamp Rollbacks

What this article is about is assumption, not fact.

Walmart recently closed a lot of stores in the US, but also closed many abroad. They site their experiment of mini-stores as the culprit.

In this article, they include "bad weather" along with food stamps, so they really don't know what brought down sales. However, it's well documented that most brick and mortar stores lost sales through the years due to internet sales that replaced store sales.

There's a correlation between food stamps and sales. And by the way, food stamps help big Agra. you know, the guys like Archers Daniels Midland. Before Clinton sold us out to Nafta, it was predicted that Mexican farmers would be hurt if it passed. They would be overwhelmed by the government subsidized big agricultural products from this country, Subsidized meaning "free stuff' basically. The now unemployed Mexican farmers headed to the big cities to wash windshields at traffic stops or do crime, or they came here in vast numbers, illegally. You gotta stop believing only the little guy gets free stuff from the government.

Your statement might be true if you can explain the dynamics.

The assumption here is that when people have less money, they buy less food or no food at all. How does this happen?

One in seven Americans are on food stamps; perhaps less now since the Republicans cut some funding, but do you mean to tell me that Americans are getting skinnier? Because that's the only result from people buying less food.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

But if US companies actually did have the guest workers laws enforced on them and they started hiring Americans, the Americans that got hired would spend more money, thus stimulating further economic growth and thus more jobs would be created.

IT is a recursive effect.

Indeed, but we can't forget this:
NAIRU - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That looks interesting, but This whole subject of how macro inflation can be a force for growth as well as inflation, is a very multi-faceted concept. To use a mathematical formula to try and convey meaning here, this seems to me to be a fairly representative equation.

Total money supply = M
Assets usable as credit collateral = A
consumer commodity demand (hypothetical purchase cap for necessities and luxuries based on urgency, need, comfort zone, etc) = D
consumer financial consumption available = B = M + A
commodity production/availability = C
commodity price = P

P = B*D / C

So as production increases, prices go down, and as employment and wages go up, prices tend to go up. But 'D' is sort of a fudge factor for what willingness people have to spend their money, which is based on their confidence in the economy and other nonquantifiable factors like saving ethic, religious restrictions, etc. Prior to 2008, people I knew tended to increase their financial burdens to about 80% of their after taxes take home pay. Now I am hearing people say that they will keep their expenses to mortgage, home cooked meals, necessary bills and a low entertainment budget, maybe 50% of their take home. So D would be a value running from minimal expenses say a factor of .3 to a completely comfortable spending willingness of around .8

The caveat here being that prices do not like to go down, and so producers will offer various means of lowering their effective price without lowering the sticker price. Coupons, buy one get one free offers, etc are ways of getting around an official reduction of price in order to not be vulnerable to a wage and price freeze.

I apologize if none of that makes any sense. It does when I am thinking of it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

Because pumping coffee and serving pizza doesn't pay as well as driving a truck.
It seems to me that everybody needs to move to South Dakota.

It seems to me that pizza servers and coffee pumpers need to look into different lines of work.

 

[Dovahkiin]

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

But if US companies actually did have the guest workers laws enforced on them and they started hiring Americans, the Americans that got hired would spend more money, thus stimulating further economic growth and thus more jobs would be created.

IT is a recursive effect.

Indeed, but we can't forget this:
NAIRU - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That looks interesting, but This whole subject of how macro inflation can be a force for growth as well as inflation, is a very multi-faceted concept. To use a mathematical formula to try and convey meaning here, this seems to me to be a fairly representative equation.

Total money supply = M
Assets usable as credit collateral = A
consumer commodity demand (hypothetical purchase cap for necessities and luxuries based on urgency, need, comfort zone, etc) = D
consumer financial consumption available = B = M + A
commodity production/availability = C
commodity price = P

P = B*D / C

So as production increases, prices go down, and as employment and wages go up, prices tend to go up. But 'D' is sort of a fudge factor for what willingness people have to spend their money, which is based on their confidence in the economy and other nonquantifiable factors like saving ethic, religious restrictions, etc. Prior to 2008, people I knew tended to increase their financial burdens to about 80% of their after taxes take home pay. Now I am hearing people say that they will keep their expenses to mortgage, home cooked meals, necessary bills and a low entertainment budget, maybe 50% of their take home. So D would be a value running from minimal expenses say a factor of .3 to a completely comfortable spending willingness of around .8

The caveat here being that prices do not like to go down, and so producers will offer various means of lowering their effective price without lowering the sticker price. Coupons, buy one get one free offers, etc are ways of getting around an official reduction of price in order to not be vulnerable to a wage and price freeze.

I apologize if none of that makes any sense. It does when I am thinking of it.

Aww man, you wrote such a nice response when I, and all MMT advocates, see NAIRU as complete bullshit. Your post does make sense.
NAIRU assumes:
1.) The fed reserve controls the money supply
2.) Velocity of money is constant
3.) Constantly at max output
Our government has been basing policy off of this..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?

I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.

Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?

 

[Indeependent]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

Because pumping coffee and serving pizza doesn't pay as well as driving a truck.
It seems to me that everybody needs to move to South Dakota.

It seems to me that pizza servers and coffee pumpers need to look into different lines of work.

I presume your region is not as inundated with Illegals and laid off H1-Bs as others.
I went shopping yesterday in a particular area about 1/2 hour from home.
I think I saw 1 black employee amongst a sea of laid off H1-Bs.

 

[Dovahkiin]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?

I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.

Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?

On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Never
People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.

But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.

Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?

The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.
Read what FDR said:

“I guess you're right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."

Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!

And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?

Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.

The national debt is like any other debt be it in government or your household.

When you spend more money than you take in, that creates debt.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
I'm sorry, this is one of the most widespread lies that dominates the discussion. It's false.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

When the economy is in a prolonged slump, however, there are literally trillions of dollars’ worth of idle people, factories, buildings and purveyors of services.

The worst slumps typically occur after a financial collapse – true for both 1929 and 2008 – because so much asset value is wiped out. The whole economy goes into a self-reinforcing tailspin.

Employers are then too risk-averse to hire enough workers, consumers are too traumatized to buy everything the economy is capable of producing, banks are awash in money but won’t lend to any but the most blue-chip borrowers. The whole economy remains stuck in second gear.

That’s where government borrowing comes in. Unlike private credit-card debt, public borrowing can improve a depressed economy’s performance.

Let me find a post I made in regards to china, it will help clear some things up about that as well.
Here it is:
Let's take china, for example.
China does not issue US dollars.
China must find a way to earn our dollars if it wishes to net save in our dollars.
How does it do this? Go to walmart and see for yourself.
Same thing with Japan.
China sells stuff to us in exchange for US dollars.
I really hope you aren't one of those people who think china is "loaning" us anything. Oh god..
The next step in all of this is china putting money in a bank account at the reserve. This account doesn't pay interest. So, china decides: "Hey, I should get some treasury bonds and earn some interest on my HARD EARNED UNITED STATES DOLLARS."
We accommodate them and other countries for one obvious reason, and you should be able to figure it out.
(Oh, we can never default on the debt by the way, it's impossible for a nation that can create dollars from thin air )
So here's the reality: For all of the benefits we get from china/japan/etc, they get a PAPER BANK STATEMENT. Yes, my friend, this is what the politicians are claiming is going to kill us all. IT'S NOT EVEN DENOMINATED IN A CURRENCY that most of these nations can even spend in their own country. They have to either spend the dollars here in the US, which helps us out, or where someone will accept our dollars. They can leave them in savings, or they can convert at their own expense. You bring up a valid point: "How the hell do we pay the interest? Our kids are going to die!"
When the dreaded doomsday scenario finally happens, the federal reserve will move china's hard earned dollars from their "savings" account back to their "checking account." It will go into the "checking account" with the number raised a bit. Boom, we're done. Problem solved. The federal reserve types a number and it's done. It's an accounting record. That's all the national debt is.

The US budget deficit being compared to a family and its use of a credit card is only an analogy. And no analogy about two different things is exactly the same. The US seems to have a certain amount of confidence in the US dollar that can be strained if we engage in excessive 'creation' of US dollars.

Everyone outside of economists knows that the credit worthiness of a family with big debts and the credit worthiness of nations with huge debt are similar. For the family, they can borrow and borrow to pay for bills untill the banks wont loan them any more money. The same goes for nations that run up big debts. If they push it too far, and the global economic ministries lose faith and confidence in that nations currency, then other will gradually stop buying that public debt. If the nation in question abandons any pretext of financing their public debt with bonds and bills then they will see demand for their currency drop as has happened repeatedly in history from the French monarchy prior to the French Revolution to Weimar Germany to 1980's Israel to 2000's Argentina and Zimbabwe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

This entire concept of "earning" isn't relevant to the reality of the economy. Put your bias aside and realize the reality: Your tax dollars aren't going to someone using SNAP, the government simply creates dollars out of thin air. Your tax dollars go nowhere.
Not true, your entire view of the economy is wrong. The government doesn't need federal tax revenue to fund. The government has been fabricating from thin air for decades, I have yet to see the "great collapse."

You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.

It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.

It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.

No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.

That is because inflation is hidden using various accounting tricks, like not calculating in fuel and food costs and 'balancing' price increase by increase in quality, like computers being able to do more calculations.

Anyone that has to put food on the table knows that we are seeing inflation.

Macro economic inflation will only happen if the oil producing nations end their demand for US dollars for their fuel.

Anybody that has to put food on their table understands that this is what happens when we decide to burn up our food supply for fuel.

It's not inflation, it's pandering to environmentalist kooks.

Ethanol is mostly produced with sugar and corn. When farmers understood that there is more money in sugar than the crops they were growing, they abandoned their crop to get in on the money. This created a shortage of all other grain products.

This increased the cost of all grain products nationwide. But what about meat? Well.....what do you think farmers feed their cattle and hogs with?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?

I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.

Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?

On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.

When job growth since 2000 matches the influx of guest workers and black market laborers, then yes, there are not enough jobs for all the new Americans entering the work force.

 

[Dovahkiin]

The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.
Read what FDR said:
The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."

Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!

And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?

Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.

The national debt is like any other debt be it in government or your household.

When you spend more money than you take in, that creates debt.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
I'm sorry, this is one of the most widespread lies that dominates the discussion. It's false.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

When the economy is in a prolonged slump, however, there are literally trillions of dollars’ worth of idle people, factories, buildings and purveyors of services.

The worst slumps typically occur after a financial collapse – true for both 1929 and 2008 – because so much asset value is wiped out. The whole economy goes into a self-reinforcing tailspin.

Employers are then too risk-averse to hire enough workers, consumers are too traumatized to buy everything the economy is capable of producing, banks are awash in money but won’t lend to any but the most blue-chip borrowers. The whole economy remains stuck in second gear.

That’s where government borrowing comes in. Unlike private credit-card debt, public borrowing can improve a depressed economy’s performance.

Let me find a post I made in regards to china, it will help clear some things up about that as well.
Here it is:
Let's take china, for example.
China does not issue US dollars.
China must find a way to earn our dollars if it wishes to net save in our dollars.
How does it do this? Go to walmart and see for yourself.
Same thing with Japan.
China sells stuff to us in exchange for US dollars.
I really hope you aren't one of those people who think china is "loaning" us anything. Oh god..
The next step in all of this is china putting money in a bank account at the reserve. This account doesn't pay interest. So, china decides: "Hey, I should get some treasury bonds and earn some interest on my HARD EARNED UNITED STATES DOLLARS."
We accommodate them and other countries for one obvious reason, and you should be able to figure it out.
(Oh, we can never default on the debt by the way, it's impossible for a nation that can create dollars from thin air )
So here's the reality: For all of the benefits we get from china/japan/etc, they get a PAPER BANK STATEMENT. Yes, my friend, this is what the politicians are claiming is going to kill us all. IT'S NOT EVEN DENOMINATED IN A CURRENCY that most of these nations can even spend in their own country. They have to either spend the dollars here in the US, which helps us out, or where someone will accept our dollars. They can leave them in savings, or they can convert at their own expense. You bring up a valid point: "How the hell do we pay the interest? Our kids are going to die!"
When the dreaded doomsday scenario finally happens, the federal reserve will move china's hard earned dollars from their "savings" account back to their "checking account." It will go into the "checking account" with the number raised a bit. Boom, we're done. Problem solved. The federal reserve types a number and it's done. It's an accounting record. That's all the national debt is.

The US budget deficit being compared to a family and its use of a credit card is only an analogy. And no analogy about two different things is exactly the same. The US seems to have a certain amount of confidence in the US dollar that can be strained if we engage in excessive 'creation' of US dollars.

Everyone outside of economists knows that the credit worthiness of a family with big debts and the credit worthiness of nations with huge debt are similar. For the family, they can borrow and borrow to pay for bills untill the banks wont loan them any more money. The same goes for nations that run up big debts. If they push it too far, and the global economic ministries lose faith and confidence in that nations currency, then other will gradually stop buying that public debt. If the nation in question abandons any pretext of financing their public debt with bonds and bills then they will see demand for their currency drop as has happened repeatedly in history from the French monarchy prior to the French Revolution to Weimar Germany to 1980's Israel to 2000's Argentina and Zimbabwe.

The analogy is a failure. Ever since the 70's, we've had a free floating currency, we're a fiat regime. The analogy made sense when we were on the "gold standard' but not anymore. Not very similar at all, refer to my post about china to get an example. If other nations stop buying public debt, there is an entity that will buy it...
The examples you give did not have/do not have fiat money. Zimbabwe had a recession because they completely destroyed agriculture and never even attempted to increase productivity. Please correct me if any of the countries you've listed have control of the currency without it being tied to something like gold. (When the particular instances you bring up happened.)

 

[Dovahkiin]

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?

I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.

Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?

On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.

When job growth since 2000 matches the influx of guest workers and black market laborers, then yes, there are not enough jobs for all the new Americans entering the work force.

Even if we take out all of the guest workers, the government is still running with the belief that unemployment can't drop below a certain amount.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?

I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.

Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?

On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.

I understand that we don't have a job for every American. But the point is we have more than enough jobs for Americans that are actually looking and want to work. It simply eliminates the theory that the reason Americans are not working is because there aren't enough jobs.

Yes, when all those jobs are filled and we still have Americans without, then your point would stand.

It's like those clowns that stand on the end of freeway ramps holding a sign that says WILL WORK FOR FOOD when there is a McDonald's 500 feet away with a huge sign that says HELP WANTED, ANY SHIFT, ANY HOURS!

 

[Dovahkiin]

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?

I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.

Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?

On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.

I understand that we don't have a job for every American. But the point is we have more than enough jobs for Americans that are actually looking and want to work. It simply eliminates the theory that the reason Americans are not working is because there aren't enough jobs.

Yes, when all those jobs are filled and we still have Americans without, then your point would stand.

It's like those clowns that stand on the end of freeway ramps holding a sign that says WILL WORK FOR FOOD when there is a McDonald's 500 feet away with a huge sign that says HELP WANTED, ANY SHIFT, ANY HOURS!

No, we don't. Do you know how many people apply for each job opening?
There are 3 unemployed people for every job opening, Obama adviser says

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

Well what about all the jobs that are out there that people don't want to work?

I mean, you may have a point if there were actually no jobs out there, but when you have hundreds of thousands of jobs that can't be filled, it's obvious that people just don't want to work.

Now why would people not want to make money? Because money is provided for by your federal government. Why should people go to a job, work 40 plus a week when they can do just as well by staying home and collecting government goodies?

On the micro, this can appear to be the case. Looking at the economy as a whole, there literally aren't enough available jobs. Do you know how many people want to work for each open job? You can't live off of SNAP alone if you have dependents. Besides, most SNAP recipients have dependents/kids and do work. They also benefit the economy.

I understand that we don't have a job for every American. But the point is we have more than enough jobs for Americans that are actually looking and want to work. It simply eliminates the theory that the reason Americans are not working is because there aren't enough jobs.

Yes, when all those jobs are filled and we still have Americans without, then your point would stand.

It's like those clowns that stand on the end of freeway ramps holding a sign that says WILL WORK FOR FOOD when there is a McDonald's 500 feet away with a huge sign that says HELP WANTED, ANY SHIFT, ANY HOURS!

No, we don't. Do you know how many people apply for each job opening?
There are 3 unemployed people for every job opening, Obama adviser says

Of course, an Obama advisor. How could we ever debate that?

Well let me tell you, my industry is begging people to work. So are others. They are offering free training, pay you while you learn, promise you a job for as long as you can do it. Give you an entirely new career.

So where are these people that are applying for jobs they can't get? Send them here, we need as many as we can find.

 

[Geaux4it]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

And why do the have nots have any influence over those who have?

-Geaux

 

[JimBowie1958]

Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!

And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?

Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.

The national debt is like any other debt be it in government or your household.

When you spend more money than you take in, that creates debt.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
I'm sorry, this is one of the most widespread lies that dominates the discussion. It's false.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

When the economy is in a prolonged slump, however, there are literally trillions of dollars’ worth of idle people, factories, buildings and purveyors of services.

The worst slumps typically occur after a financial collapse – true for both 1929 and 2008 – because so much asset value is wiped out. The whole economy goes into a self-reinforcing tailspin.

Employers are then too risk-averse to hire enough workers, consumers are too traumatized to buy everything the economy is capable of producing, banks are awash in money but won’t lend to any but the most blue-chip borrowers. The whole economy remains stuck in second gear.

That’s where government borrowing comes in. Unlike private credit-card debt, public borrowing can improve a depressed economy’s performance.

Let me find a post I made in regards to china, it will help clear some things up about that as well.
Here it is:
Let's take china, for example.
China does not issue US dollars.
China must find a way to earn our dollars if it wishes to net save in our dollars.
How does it do this? Go to walmart and see for yourself.
Same thing with Japan.
China sells stuff to us in exchange for US dollars.
I really hope you aren't one of those people who think china is "loaning" us anything. Oh god..
The next step in all of this is china putting money in a bank account at the reserve. This account doesn't pay interest. So, china decides: "Hey, I should get some treasury bonds and earn some interest on my HARD EARNED UNITED STATES DOLLARS."
We accommodate them and other countries for one obvious reason, and you should be able to figure it out.
(Oh, we can never default on the debt by the way, it's impossible for a nation that can create dollars from thin air )
So here's the reality: For all of the benefits we get from china/japan/etc, they get a PAPER BANK STATEMENT. Yes, my friend, this is what the politicians are claiming is going to kill us all. IT'S NOT EVEN DENOMINATED IN A CURRENCY that most of these nations can even spend in their own country. They have to either spend the dollars here in the US, which helps us out, or where someone will accept our dollars. They can leave them in savings, or they can convert at their own expense. You bring up a valid point: "How the hell do we pay the interest? Our kids are going to die!"
When the dreaded doomsday scenario finally happens, the federal reserve will move china's hard earned dollars from their "savings" account back to their "checking account." It will go into the "checking account" with the number raised a bit. Boom, we're done. Problem solved. The federal reserve types a number and it's done. It's an accounting record. That's all the national debt is.

The US budget deficit being compared to a family and its use of a credit card is only an analogy. And no analogy about two different things is exactly the same. The US seems to have a certain amount of confidence in the US dollar that can be strained if we engage in excessive 'creation' of US dollars.

Everyone outside of economists knows that the credit worthiness of a family with big debts and the credit worthiness of nations with huge debt are similar. For the family, they can borrow and borrow to pay for bills untill the banks wont loan them any more money. The same goes for nations that run up big debts. If they push it too far, and the global economic ministries lose faith and confidence in that nations currency, then other will gradually stop buying that public debt. If the nation in question abandons any pretext of financing their public debt with bonds and bills then they will see demand for their currency drop as has happened repeatedly in history from the French monarchy prior to the French Revolution to Weimar Germany to 1980's Israel to 2000's Argentina and Zimbabwe.

The analogy is a failure. Ever since the 70's, we've had a free floating currency, we're a fiat regime. The analogy made sense when we were on the "gold standard' but not anymore. Not very similar at all, refer to my post about china to get an example. If other nations stop buying public debt, there is an entity that will buy it...
The examples you give did not have/do not have fiat money. Zimbabwe had a recession because they completely destroyed agriculture and never even attempted to increase productivity. Please correct me if any of the countries you've listed have control of the currency without it being tied to something like gold. (When the particular instances you bring up happened.)

The old Israeli Shekel seems to be among others like the Argentina.

Old Israeli shekel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argentina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia