Jump to content

18, barely legal, and we're all getting f*cked


/dev/null
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's already an entire thread dedicated to everyone who posts here, across the entire political spectrum, kicking your ass over this exact type of post.

 

I was even kind enough to include your name in the thread title so you could remember it.

 

Why not simply use that thread?

 

I'll take "Because He's Literally Too Stupid To Use A Message Board" for $600, Alex...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There's already an entire thread dedicated to everyone who posts here, across the entire political spectrum, kicking your ass over this exact type of post.

 

I was even kind enough to include your name in the thread title so you could remember it.

 

Why not simply use that thread?

 

Or did you really feel the need to get your ass kicked in this thread too?

 

More of the same circle jerkers, no one is kicking anyone's ass, this is the internet. You people just do not live in real life at all, it is pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

National Debt Climbs to Over $18 Trillion Dollars

 

As politics and media have continued to obsess about Ferguson, a very serious thing has occurred.

 

Our national debt topped $18 trillion dollars. That’s more than our GDP.

 

John Hinderaker of Powerline reports:

 

 

 

Federal Debt Soars to Over $18 Trillion

 

A year or so ago, the Democrats started telling us that the national debt was no longer an issue. This was based on the fact that the deficit was only around half what it was during President Obama’s first few years in office. The fiscal year 2014 deficit came in at *only* $483 billion, a cause for rejoicing in Washington. This represents the smallest deficit as a percentage of GDP since the George W. Bush administration.

 

Still, $483 billion exceeds any deficit ever racked up during the administration of any president other than Barack Obama. (Don’t try to play the silly game of attributing the Democratic Congress’s FY 2009 deficit, which among other things included spending under the failed Obama/Reid/Pelosi “stimulus,” to President Bush.)

 

Word
that the national debt now exceeds $18 trillion, a little more than the GDP of the United States.

Remember all the times Obama said he was going to cut our deficit in half?

 

Dan Spencer of RedState does:

 

(more…)

Since the deficit was about $1.5 trillion in 2009, the way I do math says the current deficit is significantly lower than half of that.

 

Love these guys who focus on nominal numbers. Wow! The current deficit is still a larger number than any president in history! Lions, and tigers, and bears...oh my! What a meaningless comparison. The current deficit/GDP ratio of 2.8% is lower than all but 2 years of Reagan's 8 years. Does Obama deserve blame for the amount of debt generated from higher unemployment and therefore lower tax revenues during this so-called "great recession"? Yes, it's ALL Obama's fault. I guess it's ok to say everything that happened under Bush was his fault too? And so on...

 

Regarding the debt, can someone please explain why it's a problem? What calamity is it going to cause and when?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the deficit was about $1.5 trillion in 2009, the way I do math says the current deficit is significantly lower than half of that.

 

Love these guys who focus on nominal numbers. Wow! The current deficit is still a larger number than any president in history! Lions, and tigers, and bears...oh my! What a meaningless comparison. The current deficit/GDP ratio of 2.8% is lower than all but 2 years of Reagan's 8 years. Does Obama deserve blame for the amount of debt generated from higher unemployment and therefore lower tax revenues during this so-called "great recession"? Yes, it's ALL Obama's fault. I guess it's ok to say everything that happened under Bush was his fault too? And so on...

 

Regarding the debt, can someone please explain why it's a problem? What calamity is it going to cause and when?

 

"Inherited." Told you all so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the deficit was about $1.5 trillion in 2009, the way I do math says the current deficit is significantly lower than half of that.

 

Love these guys who focus on nominal numbers. Wow! The current deficit is still a larger number than any president in history! Lions, and tigers, and bears...oh my! What a meaningless comparison. The current deficit/GDP ratio of 2.8% is lower than all but 2 years of Reagan's 8 years. Does Obama deserve blame for the amount of debt generated from higher unemployment and therefore lower tax revenues during this so-called "great recession"? Yes, it's ALL Obama's fault. I guess it's ok to say everything that happened under Bush was his fault too? And so on...

 

Regarding the debt, can someone please explain why it's a problem? What calamity is it going to cause and when?

Obama and his cronies absolutely deserve blame for implementing a not-Keynesian, $1 Trillion Keynesian stimulus. All that did was funnel $ to, and delay the inevitable failure of, Democrat-controlled states and cities, and we still got the failure. Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan et al, STILL had to buckle down and reform their systems which needed to happen anyway. Christ! Mario Cuomo comes out and says "we're #1 in spending and # 23 in results in education"? Even New York and California had to change, and the stimulus solved none of this. The rest was blown on "green" venture capital, which is the exact opposite of how a Keynesian stimulus is supposed to work.

 

If you want to retain any credibility as a financial/economics expert here, you have to agree, because them's the facts.

 

Now, these people have the temerity to talk about the state of our roads and bridges? When all they did was pay local D politicians to keep their machines running, and called that "shovel-ready" jobs? O'(*^*&%^$^#had to come out and admit that the failure of the stimulus was directly due to D state/city machine malfeasance "shovel-ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we thought"....like he didn't know how things run in his own F'ing city. :rolleyes:

 

Even Paul Krugman knew this wasn't going to work, because he knew what would happen when you hand machine Ds free $ = nothing. That's why he wanted a $2 trillion stimulus, $1 trillion for what did happen, and another for an actual, by the book Keynesian stimulus. Which allows Krugman to once again claim that he was "right". :lol:

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people just do not live in real life at all, it is pathetic.

 

You are arguing with a "published scientist" on a Bills PPP board smack dab in the middle of the work day/week. What do you expect? Really? You expect the "real life."

 

LMAO... ;-P

 

So how we doing compared to the rest of the world? If we are in trouble I guess the UK, France, Japan and Germany, are good and !@#$ed,- Spain,Italy, Ireland,Greece, Portugal....Doomed, while China and Russia must be sitting in the catbird seat.

 

This^^

 

Catbird seat? You've been watching White Sox games? ;-P

 

Hawk Harrelson: "Yep, that's China up to bat in the catbird seat @ 3-1."

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are arguing with a "published scientist" on a Bills PPP board smack dab in the middle of the work day/week. What do you expect? Really? You expect the "real life."

 

LMAO... ;-P

 

 

 

This^^

 

Catbird seat? You've been watching White Sox games? ;-P

 

Hawk Harrelson: "Yep, that's China up to bat in the catbird seat @ 3-1."

 

:-)

 

Published scientist my ass.

 

If he is, then he is pathetic for following me around calling me a retard, how does that add to his credibility? Just shows he is a liar, or whatever he has published has not provided him anything he really wants out of life, public acceptance.

 

He only gets that here from losers like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Published scientist my ass.

 

If he is, then he is pathetic for following me around calling me a retard, how does that add to his credibility? Just shows he is a liar, or whatever he has published has not provided him anything he really wants out of life, public acceptance.

 

He only gets that here from losers like you.

 

Hey wait a minute sparky... I wasn't laughing with him, I was laughing AT him: He's a published scientist!

 

:-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are arguing with a "published scientist" on a Bills PPP board smack dab in the middle of the work day/week. What do you expect? Really? You expect the "real life."

 

LMAO... ;-P

 

 

 

 

You ever wonder how much better our economic recovery would have been if our leading polymaths, economic savants and captains of industry didn't waste so much time on PPP?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama and his cronies absolutely deserve blame for implementing a not-Keynesian, $1 Trillion Keynesian stimulus. All that did was funnel $ to, and delay the inevitable failure of, Democrat-controlled states and cities, and we still got the failure. Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan et al, STILL had to buckle down and reform their systems which needed to happen anyway. Christ! Mario Cuomo comes out and says "we're #1 in spending and # 23 in results in education"? Even New York and California had to change, and the stimulus solved none of this. The rest was blown on "green" venture capital, which is the exact opposite of how a Keynesian stimulus is supposed to work.

 

If you want to retain any credibility as a financial/economics expert here, you have to agree, because them's the facts.

 

Now, these people have the temerity to talk about the state of our roads and bridges? When all they did was pay local D politicians to keep their machines running, and called that "shovel-ready" jobs? O'(*^*&%^$^#had to come out and admit that the failure of the stimulus was directly due to D state/city machine malfeasance "shovel-ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we thought"....like he didn't know how things run in his own F'ing city. :rolleyes:

 

Even Paul Krugman knew this wasn't going to work, because he knew what would happen when you hand machine Ds free $ = nothing. That's why he wanted a $2 trillion stimulus, $1 trillion for what did happen, and another for an actual, by the book Keynesian stimulus. Which allows Krugman to once again claim that he was "right". :lol:

You can blame BO for some, but you can't blame him for the lower revenues that are a consequence of the recession. If the debt has increased by $6 trillion and his stimulus was $1 trillion, what caused the remainder? If anyone can read here, you'll note I didn't say anything about his policies or impact, I'm simply saying "you're an idiot" if you blame the entire accumulation of debt on BO, and I'm asking anyone to explain why we should worry about the number 18?

 

Now, if you want my opinion on some of those other issues, it was a good thing that the federal government delayed the actions that state and local governments would have had to take to balance their budgets in 2009, the recession year. If they had cut spending and raised taxes in that year, then a severe recession would've been made more so. In 2010 and 11, as the S&Ls started cutting, those actions were offset for the next 2 years by the federal government's spending, but the TOTAL government spending was actually stagnant in real terms. Real federal government spending and total government spending actually declined in 2012 and 2013.

 

Regarding the impact of stimulus and G spending in general, almost all of that spending eventually ends up in the coffers of some business whether it's public employees spending on consumption or direct purchases from (defense) contractors. We can argue about what type of spending is more effective, but it still ends up as revenues for businesses at some point. When G runs a deficit, then it's putting more money into economic circulation than it's taking out, so the net effect of a $1.5 trillion deficit is that it ends up adding revenues to businesses (or some ends up in the savings accounts of public workers who don't spend all of their income). Government deficits create surpluses in the private sector. The impact of ANY stimulus then depends on what those firms do with their funds, and, as most of us know, it's been sitting in their coffers, and over the past 2 years they have used it to buy back shares or funded takeovers. Why would they use it to expand when they can meet demand with current capacity?

 

So, from my perspective, the stimulus did exactly what one would expect in those first 2-3 years: it halted the contraction, and the economy began to expand again, albeit slowly. Since 2010 government spending has actually been declining in real terms and as a percent of GDP. So you call it a failure, and I look at the fact that we went from -2,8% GDP in 2009 to +2.5% in 2010, then policy has actually been contractionary ever since. I think you have to agree because those are the facts... :beer:

Edited by TPS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you would take a finance course one of these days. A government running a deficit does not translate to revenue increases for the private sector. It may increase revenues if they're direct payments, or it may result in lower costs if it comes from tax cuts. But, as we discussed for years, they are not one and the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you would take a finance course one of these days. A government running a deficit does not translate to revenue increases for the private sector. It may increase revenues if they're direct payments, or it may result in lower costs if it comes from tax cuts. But, as we discussed for years, they are not one and the same.

I wish you would take an accounting course. Read up on something called the sector balances approach. It's utilized by a lot of Wall Street economists to analyze the macroeconomy.

 

So consumption spending by government workers doesn't increase the revenue of firms? REally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you would take an accounting course. Read up on something called the sector balances approach. It's utilized by a lot of Wall Street economists to analyze the macroeconomy.

 

So consumption spending by government workers doesn't increase the revenue of firms? REally?

 

Nothing in your statement above is accounting. Sector balances, as used by Wall Street economists is not accounting. It's economics.

 

Consumption spending raises revenues. Tax cuts, however, do not. That's the point. A government deficit does not result in equal amount of private sector revenue (let alone a multiplier increase that some Key&*^%$ idiots believe in)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in your statement above is accounting. Sector balances, as used by Wall Street economists is not accounting. It's economics.

 

Consumption spending raises revenues. Tax cuts, however, do not. That's the point. A government deficit does not result in equal amount of private sector revenue (let alone a multiplier increase that some Key&*^%$ idiots believe in)

It's an accounting identity used by economists.

 

Did the payroll tax cut from 2011-12 NOT increase deficits and NOT increase consumption spending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an accounting identity used by economists.

 

Hence, not real accounting

 

Did the payroll tax cut from 2011-12 NOT increase deficits and NOT increase consumption spending?

 

Payroll tax cut did not lead to a dollar for dollar increase in consumption spending if the dollars were put into a savings account or paid down credit card balances. The tax cut that the businesses get also don't translate to increased revenues.

 

Accounting 101

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hence, not real accounting

 

 

 

Payroll tax cut did not lead to a dollar for dollar increase in consumption spending if the dollars were put into a savings account or paid down credit card balances. The tax cut that the businesses get also don't translate to increased revenues.

 

Accounting 101

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence, not real accounting

 

 

 

Payroll tax cut did not lead to a dollar for dollar increase in consumption spending if the dollars were put into a savings account or paid down credit card balances. The tax cut that the businesses get also don't translate to increased revenues.

 

Accounting 101

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said "some ends up in savings accounts of public workers".

 

I'll try to express it in terms of ACC101 so AD can follow along...and I'll exclude the international sector to make it even easier for him.

S-I = G-T

Private sector surplus is the combined surplus of Households and Firms, and G-T is the combined balances of all levels of government. These are annual flow variables.

What the identity states is if G-T (a deficit) =$1 trillion, then by accounting identity there is a $1 trillion surplus accumulated by HHs and Firms. This means that HH savings + business profits = $1 trillion for the year. For the year, the government spent in excess of its revenues by $1 trillion which generated greater profits for firms and savings for HHs of an equal amount. It's the net difference, after your tax issue. So that net government spending will increase revenues 1) directly by its purchases from firms; and 2) indirectly by the consumption spending by public employees, who will also save some of their income.

 

You, as usual, want to change what I've said. I never said tax cuts increase revenues. I said the deficit, the excess in SPENDING over taxes increases business revenues except for the savings of public sector workers. And that deficit is = the savings of HHs + profits of firms.

 

Now, to address your obvious tax issue. If the government cuts business taxes during the year, then 1) the deficit increases from the lost revenue and 2) after-tax profits increase--revenues don't. Of course. But, the increased "surplus" or profit in the business sector is = the government's tax revenue loss or change in its deficit. That's the accounting.

Edited by TPS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geesh, fairly obvious you have no wife, little to look forward to in life, you have barely any money, live paycheck to paycheck, and you will die a lonely person only remembered by other message board losers like you.

 

You think you are smart and use the internet to pat yourself on the back, and you masterbate to the signature of your posts.

 

You are worse than pathetic. Flat out loser.

 

When attempting to put someone down on a message board it is important to not misspell words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...