Prove it (or at least provide some evidence)!

[bripat9643]

You can't spend your way out of debt Wry. Throwing MORE money into the mix is a bad move.

There's no need for the U.S. government to get out of debt. In fact, it would be disastrous if it did that.

The government can, on the other hand, spend its way into a stronger economy, which would increase tax revenues, which would lower the deficit. And lowering the deficit, unlike getting out of debt, is something the government should do in the long run.

A "fact based" analysis of recent events shows your claims are 100% bullshit. If your theory was true, the economy should be booming. Instead, we have had unemployment above 9% for almost 3 years.

The government always puts off cutting spending for the long run. When you add up all the short runs, the result is bankruptcy in the long run.

 

[healthmyths]

You can't spend your way out of debt Wry. Throwing MORE money into the mix is a bad move.

There's no need for the U.S. government to get out of debt. In fact, it would be disastrous if it did that.

The government can, on the other hand, spend its way into a stronger economy, which would increase tax revenues, which would lower the deficit. And lowering the deficit, unlike getting out of debt, is something the government should do in the long run.

You know there is according to the original intent a need for government spending on national defense for example..
But most logical, common sense people have a real problem with generating MORE tax revenue by raising the TAX rates for several reasons but what really frustrates people like me is the spending of money like this:


* $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job
* The (NIH) spent nearly $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam and their social setting.
* A university study of how much alcohol college freshmen women require before agreeing to sex!
* $700,000 federal grant to examine "greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies, caused by cow burps.
* The National Science Foundation spent $250k to Stanford to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
* (ATF) spent over $20,000 in taxpayer money "to unravel the anonymity of a 2,500-year-old mummy."

See these and more egregious uses of OUR tax dollars!
Down load this report and get nauseous of examples how $11.5 billion in tax dollars absolutely WASTEFULLY spent like the above...
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ind...;File_id=774a6cca-18fa-4619-987b-a15eb44e7f18

 

[Bern80]

The essence of my argument is by raising the top rate of the 1% a few percentage points will not impact their need to invest their 'loose change' in American business. You assume all of the 1% invest in America; my guess is that most of the 1% invest where the risk is low and the return is high and that has been in the emerging markets in South America and Asia.

I didn't assume anything. I am merely stating that people with lots of money to invest are responsible for creating jobs when you say they are not. And I don't consider any of my money to be loose change and I'll wager that a lot of rich people don't either because they value their money is one of the reasons they are rich. By using terms like this you attempt to devalue other people's assets thereby making it easier to justify taking more away from them.

Many of the 99% keep money in banks, money market accounts and stocks - generally in mutual funds - mostly in American institutions. Can the same be said for the top 5%? The 99% of us don't hold our assets in gold coins, rare art, rare books or other goods likely to protect them from inflation. In fact the wealth of the 99% where it existed was in home equity and is now gone.

Do you really think that rich people have the majority of their assets in art and gold coins? Now that is quite an assumption.

Not the majority, the majority is in held by banks in foreign countries.

I think it now may be your turn to pony up some evidence.

 

[daveman]

Five members of the Supreme Court voted to make the influence of money on our elections a matter of free speech; CU v. FEC remains a wrong headed decision which has created Super PACs able to spend unlimited funds from unkown sources to influence voters.

I ask again: Do you oppose union political campaign donations? If so, why?

 

[Bern80]

You can't spend your way out of debt Wry. Throwing MORE money into the mix is a bad move.

There's no need for the U.S. government to get out of debt. In fact, it would be disastrous if it did that.

The government can, on the other hand, spend its way into a stronger economy, which would increase tax revenues, which would lower the deficit. And lowering the deficit, unlike getting out of debt, is something the government should do in the long run.

While some of what you wrote in the thread I would agree to, the above is simply incorrect. I'm not sure why people believe that the government can get away with managing it's finances in a way that would cripple an avg. american household.

Now there isn't anything wrong with debt per se. It's okay for the government to have debt, just like it's okay for a family to have a mortgage for example. It's okay as long as you can pay it. The amount of debt that would be considered healthy debt is realitve to the income you take in. The same applies to the government. The problem is the governments' debt is not stable, it's debt keeps growing and growing and growing, yet tax revenue stays about the same year in and year out. That's a problem, just like it would be if a household started spending the same way.

And no, a government can not spend its way into a stronger economy. For that to work it would have to do two things. First, spend on something that would help the economy. What exactly would that be? And two, actually have the money to spend. They don't. To spend their way into 'good' economy they either have to add more to the debt or take the money out of the private sector. Neither of which are going to do much for creating a healthy economy.

 

[Dragon]

I ask again: Do you oppose union political campaign donations?

Yes.

If so, why?

1) Because I oppose all warping of government by the corrupting influence of money;

2) Because union contributions are a drop in the bucket compared to what corporations do but if corporations are banned without simultaneously banning unions, that would cease to be true; and

3) Because solutions that ban the one but not the other are unworkable as a matter of both law and politics.

It's amazing to me how often right-wingers come back with that kind of question about unions, as if they assumed finance-reform advocates would be unwilling to give up union influence on elections. The answer every time is "yes, unions too." Why is it so hard to learn that?

 

[Dragon]

While some of what you wrote in the thread I would agree to, the above is simply incorrect. I'm not sure why people believe that the government can get away with managing it's finances in a way that would cripple an avg. american household.

Because the average American household is not immortal, and its income will not grow forever. The comparison, therefore, is specious.

 

[saveliberty]

Because the average American household is not immortal, and its income will not grow forever. The comparison, therefore, is specious.

No government ever formed on this planet has proven immortal. Unlimited income growth would be dependent on unlimited population growth (not going to happen). It could also be unlimited if productivity or income was unlimited. That is not the case either. Fail.

 

[Dragon]

No government ever formed on this planet has proven immortal.

The word "immortal" has two distinct meanings. We might call these "lesser" and "greater" immortality, if you like. Greater immortality belongs to something that cannot be killed by anything, ever. Lesser immortality belongs to something that can be killed, but does not have a finite natural life-span -- it will never die of old age.

No government has greater immortality, but most do have lesser immortality, and that's what's important for the comparison to a household.

Unlimited income growth would be dependent on unlimited population growth (not going to happen). It could also be unlimited if productivity or income was unlimited. That is not the case either. Fail.

I disagree about productivity and income. It will always be possible to improve efficiency and advance technology and thus to grow the economy, although it's true that the rate of growth must slow as population stabilizes. (Rate of per capita growth, however does not have to slow at all.)

In the long run, I also disagree about population growth. It will eventually become possible to terraform other planets for humans to live on, and that will permit renewed growth of population -- not unlimited growth, but with limits that are greatly expanded. Of course, that isn't an immediate prospect.

Even if a zero-growth economy were truly inevitable, the accumulated debt would still not be a problem as long as we stopped adding to it.

 

[saveliberty]

The word "immortal" has two distinct meanings. We might call these "lesser" and "greater" immortality, if you like. Greater immortality belongs to something that cannot be killed by anything, ever. Lesser immortality belongs to something that can be killed, but does not have a finite natural life-span -- it will never die of old age.

No government has greater immortality, but most do have lesser immortality, and that's what's important for the comparison to a household.

I disagree about productivity and income. It will always be possible to improve efficiency and advance technology and thus to grow the economy, although it's true that the rate of growth must slow as population stabilizes. (Rate of per capita growth, however does not have to slow at all.)

In the long run, I also disagree about population growth. It will eventually become possible to terraform other planets for humans to live on, and that will permit renewed growth of population -- not unlimited growth, but with limits that are greatly expanded. Of course, that isn't an immediate prospect.

Even if a zero-growth economy were truly inevitable, the accumulated debt would still not be a problem as long as we stopped adding to it.

Inflation could render the rate of interest prohibitive to pay. We are currently increasing the rate of accumulated debt.

 

[Dragon]

Inflation could render the rate of interest prohibitive to pay.

Inflation actually reduces effective debt, it doesn't increase it.

We are currently increasing the rate of accumulated debt.

Yes, we are. Obviously the current deficits are unsustainable. But I was referring only to paying back that accumulated debt.

We still have debt on the federal books that has been rolled over (the old bonds paid off and new ones taken to do that) since the U.S.-Mexican War. If it weren't for the fact that Andrew Jackson took it on himself to pay off the accumulated federal debt, we'd have debt going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. Right after he did that, the economy went belly-up in a huge depression.

Paying off the debt isn't a good idea. To do that, the government has to levy taxes and not spend the money. This would obviously be a drag on the economy and there's no reason to do it.

What we do need to do is stop the practice of deficit spending in times of peace and prosperity. The Reagan Administration had to run deficits in its first few years (due to the recession) but should have balanced the budget starting in 1983, and didn't. Same logic applies to both of the Bushes. Deficits are for fighting major wars and getting us through economic downturns, but the budget should always be balanced when we're at peace and the economy is doing well. If you're running a deficit in good times of peace, then either taxes need to be raised or spending needs to be cut or both.

 

[Bern80]

While some of what you wrote in the thread I would agree to, the above is simply incorrect. I'm not sure why people believe that the government can get away with managing it's finances in a way that would cripple an avg. american household.

Because the average American household is not immortal, and its income will not grow forever. The comparison, therefore, is specious.

That is simplty a cop out. What is specious is your explanation here. How long you live as nothing to do with what would be considered healthy debt vs. bad debt. The government historically has collected the same amount in tax revenue relative to GDP, year in year out for decades. There income is NOT growing year after year after year. The notion that the fed's potentional for generating tax revenue is infinite is simply false. They are bound by the same basic laws and rules of finance that an avg. business or household is. The very most government can collect in tax revenue is the GDP for the year. So nice try on the dodge, but you'll need to do better.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I didn't assume anything. I am merely stating that people with lots of money to invest are responsible for creating jobs when you say they are not. And I don't consider any of my money to be loose change and I'll wager that a lot of rich people don't either because they value their money is one of the reasons they are rich. By using terms like this you attempt to devalue other people's assets thereby making it easier to justify taking more away from them.



Do you really think that rich people have the majority of their assets in art and gold coins? Now that is quite an assumption.

Not the majority, the majority is in held by banks in foreign countries.

I think it now may be your turn to pony up some evidence.

I don't have hard evidence, I formed my opinion based on data in the links I posted above as well as having traveled. Walking to a beach on Grand Cayman I passed what appeared to be an abandoned four unit apt. complex. Listed on the building were the names of maybe twenty corporations/businesses I was familiar with from watching TV commercials here in the states. Of course that speaks to corporate America, but I infer that the Sr. Management of such corporations also use off shore accounts. I maybe wrong, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Five members of the Supreme Court voted to make the influence of money on our elections a matter of free speech; CU v. FEC remains a wrong headed decision which has created Super PACs able to spend unlimited funds from unkown sources to influence voters.

I ask again: Do you oppose union political campaign donations? If so, why?

Again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

Are you stupid or truly mendacious? The evidence suggests both.

 

[saveliberty]

Inflation could render the rate of interest prohibitive to pay.

Inflation actually reduces effective debt, it doesn't increase it.

We are currently increasing the rate of accumulated debt.

Yes, we are. Obviously the current deficits are unsustainable. But I was referring only to paying back that accumulated debt.

We still have debt on the federal books that has been rolled over (the old bonds paid off and new ones taken to do that) since the U.S.-Mexican War. If it weren't for the fact that Andrew Jackson took it on himself to pay off the accumulated federal debt, we'd have debt going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. Right after he did that, the economy went belly-up in a huge depression.

Paying off the debt isn't a good idea. To do that, the government has to levy taxes and not spend the money. This would obviously be a drag on the economy and there's no reason to do it.

What we do need to do is stop the practice of deficit spending in times of peace and prosperity. The Reagan Administration had to run deficits in its first few years (due to the recession) but should have balanced the budget starting in 1983, and didn't. Same logic applies to both of the Bushes. Deficits are for fighting major wars and getting us through economic downturns, but the budget should always be balanced when we're at peace and the economy is doing well. If you're running a deficit in good times of peace, then either taxes need to be raised or spending needs to be cut or both.

It is myths like this that cripple us. The government carrying debt is bad period. You make it sound like its the duty of govenrment to be in debt. Effective debt makes no difference if the interest is so high you can't make the payment. That is default. Your just dancing around the issue. Poor financial management by government needs to end.

 

[Bern80]

Paying off the debt isn't a good idea. To do that, the government has to levy taxes and not spend the money. This would obviously be a drag on the economy and there's no reason to do it.

Also wrong. The don't need to do both of those things. They can, maintain their current level of tax revenue, drastically cut spending and put what they were previously spending towards the debt instead. Again a common method used by households to relieve financial pressure. They cut back.

 

[Bern80]

Inflation could render the rate of interest prohibitive to pay.

Inflation actually reduces effective debt, it doesn't increase it.

We are currently increasing the rate of accumulated debt.

Yes, we are. Obviously the current deficits are unsustainable. But I was referring only to paying back that accumulated debt.

We still have debt on the federal books that has been rolled over (the old bonds paid off and new ones taken to do that) since the U.S.-Mexican War. If it weren't for the fact that Andrew Jackson took it on himself to pay off the accumulated federal debt, we'd have debt going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. Right after he did that, the economy went belly-up in a huge depression.

Paying off the debt isn't a good idea. To do that, the government has to levy taxes and not spend the money. This would obviously be a drag on the economy and there's no reason to do it.

What we do need to do is stop the practice of deficit spending in times of peace and prosperity. The Reagan Administration had to run deficits in its first few years (due to the recession) but should have balanced the budget starting in 1983, and didn't. Same logic applies to both of the Bushes. Deficits are for fighting major wars and getting us through economic downturns, but the budget should always be balanced when we're at peace and the economy is doing well. If you're running a deficit in good times of peace, then either taxes need to be raised or spending needs to be cut or both.

It is myths like this that cripple us. The government carrying debt is bad period. You make it sound like its the duty of govenrment to be in debt. Effective debt makes no difference if the interest is so high you can't make the payment. That is default. Your just dancing around the issue. Poor financial management by government needs to end.

Is it poor financial management to take on a mortgage or car payment?

 

[Bern80]

Not the majority, the majority is in held by banks in foreign countries.

I think it now may be your turn to pony up some evidence.

I don't have hard evidence, I formed my opinion based on data in the links I posted above as well as having traveled. Walking to a beach on Grand Cayman I passed what appeared to be an abandoned four unit apt. complex. Listed on the building were the names of maybe twenty corporations/businesses I was familiar with from watching TV commercials here in the states. Of course that speaks to corporate America, but I infer that the Sr. Management of such corporations also use off shore accounts. I maybe wrong, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling.

In short; Wry demands of others what he does not have the integrity to supply himself.

 

[saveliberty]

Inflation actually reduces effective debt, it doesn't increase it.



Yes, we are. Obviously the current deficits are unsustainable. But I was referring only to paying back that accumulated debt.

We still have debt on the federal books that has been rolled over (the old bonds paid off and new ones taken to do that) since the U.S.-Mexican War. If it weren't for the fact that Andrew Jackson took it on himself to pay off the accumulated federal debt, we'd have debt going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. Right after he did that, the economy went belly-up in a huge depression.

Paying off the debt isn't a good idea. To do that, the government has to levy taxes and not spend the money. This would obviously be a drag on the economy and there's no reason to do it.

What we do need to do is stop the practice of deficit spending in times of peace and prosperity. The Reagan Administration had to run deficits in its first few years (due to the recession) but should have balanced the budget starting in 1983, and didn't. Same logic applies to both of the Bushes. Deficits are for fighting major wars and getting us through economic downturns, but the budget should always be balanced when we're at peace and the economy is doing well. If you're running a deficit in good times of peace, then either taxes need to be raised or spending needs to be cut or both.

It is myths like this that cripple us. The government carrying debt is bad period. You make it sound like its the duty of govenrment to be in debt. Effective debt makes no difference if the interest is so high you can't make the payment. That is default. Your just dancing around the issue. Poor financial management by government needs to end.

Is it poor financial management to take on a mortgage or car payment?

Is it my duty to always have debt? It certainly can be poor financial management to have a house or car loan. Proven fact for many these days.

 

[Bern80]

It is myths like this that cripple us. The government carrying debt is bad period. You make it sound like its the duty of govenrment to be in debt. Effective debt makes no difference if the interest is so high you can't make the payment. That is default. Your just dancing around the issue. Poor financial management by government needs to end.

Is it poor financial management to take on a mortgage or car payment?

Is it my duty to always have debt? It certainly can be poor financial management to have a house or car loan. Proven fact for many these days.

No it isn't your duty, but you're clearly trying to argue extremes. There is nothing wrong with debt in the correct proportion to income and managed properly.