Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes. The debt is no real burden.How much of that spending ended up in the hands of americans?I favor lower taxes. When the economy is experiencing depressed demand, the government needs to spend to help the private sector deleverage/have more dollars to spend.Those are all illusory benefits. And you think they compensate for a great big gaping hole in my wallet?
Funniest thing I read all day!!
Were you in a coma next to Rip Van Winkle this past decade? Japan, China the EU and the USA ran up $4 in debt for every dollar in GDP. It was the biggest spending orgy in history.
Wait. You were asking without knowing the answer? Are you Paul Krugman?
The GDP in 09 was about $14T and today you let's call it $18T, thats a $4T increase.
We added $9T in US debt PLUS the Fed added $4T to there balance sheet so we took out 13T in debt to fund 4T in GDP.
Is that your version of a good deal
I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
To take this one step further....The ONLY reason government increases entitlements is to build a voting base for those who do the providing of said entitlements.the problem is that some think the government is there to supply you with all your needs.Some do, most don't. The problem is the retards think government should be a business instead of a service.
Spending for those things that the government is supposed to spend on is one thing. but taking money from one persons pocket and putting into another is a completely different thing.
So yes, people do not like to hear about new government social programs that are designed for no other purpose than a redistribution of wealth.
Yeah. Another college aged individual indoctrinated by liberal instructors living in the bubble of the public sector.Can you link me to these studies you refer to? From everything I've heard and seen it tends to be a nuanced subject (unless you are talking about extremes like communism or something).Just as an aside, I'm pretty sure that Dovahkiin knows far more about economics than most posters on this forum (myself included). You aren't going to get away with throwaway statements like "the world's largest Ponzi scheme" unless you actually discuss the specific details about the issues you have with things and why.Nobody "hates" spending, that's like saying we hate government.
We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out. Saying we hate government or hate spending is the liberal narrative that basically says it's all or nothing. If you're not all in on everything at any level, then you hate everything at any level.
It isn't the most intelligent response.Explain what's irresponsible. The only real issue is we're not spending enough.We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out.
You really need to have it explained to you why government spending is irresponsible? Just consider Social Security, the world's largest Ponzi scheme.
No, he understands precisely zero about economics. Parroting one (very stupid) theory is not economic understanding. It's worse than knowing nothing.
Of course, we know the only reason he does this is that he is a hard core leftists and wants something to justify his crazy views with.
Government spending is NEGATIVELY associated with growth, there are dozens of studies that prove this... Taking people's earnings and paying people not to work, does not actually work.
On Dovahkiin, maybe...maybe not. I actually suspect he's probably college-age and trying to discuss topics he is learning about on this forum. With that said, I have nothing other than a basic understanding of economics so even if you parrot some theory that goes beyond the basics...it means you at least know more than me about that theory and, most likely, know more than me in general about economics which isn't something I tend to study a lot in my off time.
I don't agree. I think regionally we make the mistake of putting all of our eggs in one basket.I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
Because we value diversity. We believe individuals, spending their own money in accordance with their own unique values, is preferable to making decisions globally.
You do not understand that government is a service, not a business. The far right wing and libertarian principles of government are garbage. Tuff to be you.No shit heads think government exists to solve all their little problems. That government exists to "help people"....That it is the job of government to enforce this alleged liberal social contract.Some do, most don't. The problem is the retards think government should be a business instead of a service.
That government exists to reapportion goods, services and earnings to satisfy the hand wringing left wing.
You people view taxation as a means to punish those who make you uncomfortable. You people think government exists to enforce your view of "fairness"....
Can you link me to these studies you refer to? From everything I've heard and seen it tends to be a nuanced subject (unless you are talking about extremes like communism or something).Just as an aside, I'm pretty sure that Dovahkiin knows far more about economics than most posters on this forum (myself included). You aren't going to get away with throwaway statements like "the world's largest Ponzi scheme" unless you actually discuss the specific details about the issues you have with things and why.Nobody "hates" spending, that's like saying we hate government.
We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out. Saying we hate government or hate spending is the liberal narrative that basically says it's all or nothing. If you're not all in on everything at any level, then you hate everything at any level.
It isn't the most intelligent response.Explain what's irresponsible. The only real issue is we're not spending enough.We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out.
You really need to have it explained to you why government spending is irresponsible? Just consider Social Security, the world's largest Ponzi scheme.
No, he understands precisely zero about economics. Parroting one (very stupid) theory is not economic understanding. It's worse than knowing nothing.
Of course, we know the only reason he does this is that he is a hard core leftists and wants something to justify his crazy views with.
Government spending is NEGATIVELY associated with growth, there are dozens of studies that prove this... Taking people's earnings and paying people not to work, does not actually work.
On Dovahkiin, maybe...maybe not. I actually suspect he's probably college-age and trying to discuss topics he is learning about on this forum. With that said, I have nothing other than a basic understanding of economics so even if you parrot some theory that goes beyond the basics...it means you at least know more than me about that theory and, most likely, know more than me in general about economics which isn't something I tend to study a lot in my off time.
Eh?I don't agree. I think regionally we make the mistake of putting all of our eggs in one basket.I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
Because we value diversity. We believe individuals, spending their own money in accordance with their own unique values, is preferable to making decisions globally.
For example. Detroit relied too heavily on the auto mfg industry. Once the business model changed and the the major auto mfgrs began to be effected by competition, had to find ways to cuyt costs. Michigan suddenly became a place to leave.....Cities such as Dearborn, Flint and Detroit say huge losses in employment, tax ratables and general decay.
Charlotte, NC....Almost saw a collapse in the late 2000's when this banking heavy city was hit hard by the housing bubble burst.
Houston. Was in a terrible recession in the late 80's due to it's reliance on oil production.
Today, the most prosperous metro areas are those that have no main industry or business type. But those are not many
I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
800 thousand dollars went to individuals in the private sector who in turn used the dollars. There are few examples of this type of waste in relation to all spending though.Maybe the OP can explain how spending almost 800K thousand dollars to see if we can train a lion to run on a treadmill is good for the people.
When he cant find a rational answer, that will be the answer to the OP question.
Nonsense. Government bonds are a net financial asset of the private/foreign sector and are held by many americans. You need to understand money creation to understand why taxpayers aren't really in trouble because of bonds.Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies...and then they use the regulatory bureaucracy to force us to accept a social agenda that violates our values.Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies.
Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.
B'loney. Government bonds are debt to which the Taxpaying Bondholder is a party. On an individual basis, one might feel that one is net ahead, but considering that the official government debt is $60K, and that the total Federal Liability per taxpayer is $853K, piling on more debt just makes citizen insolvency greater (accept for multi-millionaires and billionaires). Most U.S. citizens do not have a net worth over $853K to offset the obligations the government has forced them into.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Stupid bullshit. Government can credit any account.Most U.S. citizens do not have a net worth over $853K to offset the obligations the government has forced them into.
That's a stupid idea because bond holders don't want that to happen, and there's no reason to.The government is a currency issuer. Any debt denominated in its currency can be paid off with keystrokes. The government doesn't really need more assets then liabilities.Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.
Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.
And worthless if the net assets of the issuer are insufficient to redeem the bonds. You really need an econ course or something.
Then why doesn't the Fed just print $20T and pay off the debt?
If you don't understand my post, you should educate yourself.Huh?When there's plenty of real resources, and when businesses are just waiting for people to start producing sales, what is the harm?Wasteful spending is a huge part of government spending and no, it doesn't all benefit the private sector.I understand why a government spends money. For the public purpose. Ok.. all government spending ends up as income for someone in the private/foreign sector, even if it's considered "wasteful." Assume the government deficit spends 1 billion on building a test site in the middle of the desert. Some would call this wasteful. Ok, so people are employed to build this and paid the dollars, and the businesses that provide the real resources are also paid dollars, which they use to pay their employees. This all boosts demand. Now, should this happen? No, of course not, but in an economy with depressed demand, plenty of real resources, and unemployed people, what's the real harm? And the "wasteful spending" is only a small amount of overall government spending.You don't understand anything about how or why government spends money. Much of it is waste, fraud, abuse of power by deal making, spending against people's interests, funding social wet dreams over infrastructure, military and police (which are the primary reasons government exists) and on and on.I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
It's a bizarre question, how can one live long enough to learn how to type on a computer, register on a forum and ask a question so out of touch with reality?
Bonds mature every day. The accounts of bond holders are credited.If that's true, then why are we paying billions of dollars in interest, DAILY?The government is a currency issuer. Any debt denominated in its currency can be paid off with keystrokes. The government doesn't really need more assets then liabilities.Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.
Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.
And worthless if the net assets of the issuer are insufficient to redeem the bonds. You really need an econ course or something.
I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
I disagree. Balanced budget lunatics should be kept away from the purse.This is why liberals should NEVER have the power of the purse.
Only a portion of government spending is wasteful. Even that wasteful spending is useful.I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
My main issue is it is incredibly wasteful. The money gets hijacked by special interests and is diverted away from the projects where it is needed and funneled into the pockets of the friends and supporters of the politician promoting it. So basically graft and corruption are the main problems with it.
WHY? I'll give you an example:
OBAMA'S FAILED STIMULUS BILL
- Nearly $1 trillion price tag
- Over 7,000 pieces of Liberal-benefitting DNC-ONLY PORK
- Funded a study of why Argentian homosexual males have a better sex life than heterosexual male Americans
- Provided interest-free tax payer-funded 'loans' to millionaire Liberal politicians' husbands (Feinstein) so they could bailout their bankrupting business...Feinstein's husband never paid the Amwrican people back
- Millions went to non-existent 'shovel-ready' jobs, jobs Obama was forced to admit did not exist, which he declared he did not know
- Failed to keep unemployment below 8% as promised...it rose to 10.1%
- Failed to create the jobs promised
- Did not address the electrical grid, failed to address the failing infrastructure
- In the end Obama's / failed liberal nearly $1 trillion dollar spending spree cost tax payers OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama CLAIMED he had created / saved.
Here's another:
Obama stole millions fromtax payers to ensure big-time Obama donors did not lose any of their hundreds of millions they invested in Solyndra and 12 other failed 'Green Energy' companies. Obama had no problem sacrificing tax payer money for the benefit of his donors.
Tax payers have enough of a hard time making ends meet without being forced to supplement milionaire liberal donor investment gambling losses. When's the last time liberals used millionaire's money to bail out middle class stick market losses? Doesn't happen. Obama / liberals are Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich...
The liberal belief that Americans are stupid and that THEY know how to spend other people's / tax payers' money more effectively and efficiently than the tax payers can is both a proven fallacy and a sickness.
To small.- Nearly $1 trillion price tag
I agree, should have went to employing the unemployed.Over 7,000 pieces of Liberal-benefitting DNC-ONLY PORK
Dollars that went into the private sector.- Funded a study of why Argentian homosexual males have a better sex life than heterosexual male Americans
No reason to, since americans never "pay" for a deficit.Provided interest-free tax payer-funded 'loans' to millionaire Liberal politicians' husbands (Feinstein) so they could bailout their bankrupting business...Feinstein's husband never paid the Amwrican people back
Cherrypicking at its finest.Failed to keep unemployment below 8% as promised...it rose to 10.1%
It created jobs.- Failed to create the jobs promised
And? This isn't about a particular stimulus, it's about spending in general.Did not address the electrical grid, failed to address the failing infrastructure
So why don't you show me where taxpayers have had to pay for it? Obama lowered rates.In the end Obama's / failed liberal nearly $1 trillion dollar spending spree cost tax payers OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama CLAIMED he had created / saved.
Yeah, if you can show where taxpayer dollars were directly funneled, I'd be happy to believe you.Obama stole millions fromtax payers to ensure big-time Obama donors did not lose any of their hundreds of millions they invested in Solyndra and 12 other failed 'Green Energy' companies. Obama had no problem sacrificing tax payer money for the benefit of his donors.
I agree, cut taxes across the board and institute a JG.Tax payers have enough of a hard time making ends meet without being forced to supplement milionaire liberal donor investment gambling losses.
That in no way counters what I said.Devalues the dollar?It's not spending that we have issue with, it's the debt.I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?
we have over $19 Trillion in debt. That devalues the dollar and makes it harder for people to advance themselves.
add in who we borrow from and we can't really push certain countries to stop being bad actors.
and a lot of the spending is just bribes for votes or complete waste.
DollarIndexSpot Exchange rate
American Dollar, Dollar Collapse, Dollar Devaluation- Education
The U.S. started to gradually move away from the Gold Standard with the adoption of the Bretton Woods system after World War II. With Bretton Woods, the world’s currencies were pegged to the dollar, which in turn was pegged to Gold at a rate of $35 per ounce. This was done to provide confidence to the world that the dollar was secure. Countries were required to maintain exchange rates within plus or minus 1% of parity with Gold by buying or selling currency in foreign exchange markets. Thus began the long, strange trip that has seen the U.S. Dollar become the most sought after currency among businessman and commoners alike.
When compared to hard money backed by gold or silver, this debt-based approach has the advantage of making the currency elastic, giving the government a means of expanding or contracting the money supply in response to changing economic conditions. The disadvantage of this approach is inflation. The money supply must be continually expanded in order to finance interest payments on the debt by which it is issued. This devalues the currency, causing inflation.
Stop.American Dollar, Dollar Collapse, Dollar Devaluation- Education
Greatest thing we'd ever done.The U.S. started to gradually move away from the Gold Standard with the adoption of the Bretton Woods system after World War II.
Yeah, and it failed.With Bretton Woods, the world’s currencies were pegged to the dollar, which in turn was pegged to Gold at a rate of $35 per ounce.
The dollar is secure. Do you understand the dollar index?This was done to provide confidence to the world that the dollar was secure.
Measure inflation by how many hours someone has to work to purchase goods. Compared to the 1930's, workers now have phones, plenty of food, xbox's... working around 40 hours a week. (Usually.)The money supply must be continually expanded in order to finance interest payments on the debt by which it is issued. This devalues the currency, causing inflation.
