3rd Largest 1 Day Debt Increase Marked

NigelTufnel said:
I can't believe you really need an explanation for this. Just think a little harder. Unless the government were to cut spending and turn around and cut taxes in the same amount, it would remove money from the economy. And if you are proposing that the government cuts spending and reduce taxes in a corresponding amount, you aren't the deficit/debt hawk you claim to be. You just want tax cuts.
Click to expand...

I CAN believe that you don't get this. Your economic knowledge is feeble at best. You continue to attempt to equate what I stated 'cut the wasteful spending' with 'cut government spending'. They are not the same thing.

If I save $1T out of a $3T budget... that is $1T that I use for other purposes without having to RAISE THE NATIONS DEBT. I can use that $1T for tax cuts (which again... puts the money in the hands of the consumer and thus does NOT take it out of the system). It also instills CONFIDENCE in the long term prospects of our economy and thus loosens the purse strings (especially on the corporate side).

Side note: Yes, I am all for tax cuts... SO LONG AS they have the corresponding spending cuts to pay for them. It keeps more money in the hands of the consumer and less in the hands of the government. The way it SHOULD BE.


That may be the case, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the appropriate course of action.
Click to expand...

It is only appropriate in your OPINION. Tell us... what happens if we give the states another $1T to solve all their current debt problems? What happens in another year when they come back for yet another because once again the 'stimulus wasn't enough and we need more'???

Stimulus spending CAN be beneficial as a stop gap, but it MUST be done with the future cuts and fixes in place for the future. Otherwise you are simply providing one short term bail out after another until the country itself can no longer sustain its debt burden.

The only reason we are able to even contemplate continuing this deadly game is because we are the reserve currency. The Euro imploding is why US rates are going down again. The Euro was the only potentially viable option of a replacement for the US dollar as reserve currency. Once it went down and global markets started down, people flocked into the reserve currency and our Treasury market (which happens to be denominated in what currency???).
 
Superfreak said:
I CAN believe that you don't get this. Your economic knowledge is feeble at best. You continue to attempt to equate what I stated 'cut the wasteful spending' with 'cut government spending'. They are not the same thing.

If I save $1T out of a $3T budget... that is $1T that I use for other purposes without having to RAISE THE NATIONS DEBT. I can use that $1T for tax cuts (which again... puts the money in the hands of the consumer and thus does NOT take it out of the system). It also instills CONFIDENCE in the long term prospects of our economy and thus loosens the purse strings (especially on the corporate side).
Click to expand...


Let's back up a second. First, my claim what that cutting spending, even wasteful spending, removes money from the economy. That's true. So is your claim that cutting spending by $1T and implementing tax cuts of $1T does not remove money from the economy. Can we agree on that much?

Second, my point about you cuts spending and implement corresponding tax cuts in the same amount is that it does nothing to account for existing government debt, which, if I understand you correctly, you claim is a problem for the economy right now.

Superfreak said:
Side note: Yes, I am all for tax cuts... SO LONG AS they have the corresponding spending cuts to pay for them. It keeps more money in the hands of the consumer and less in the hands of the government. The way it SHOULD BE.
Click to expand...

Right. You don't really care about the debt or deficit. You like tax cuts. Just like what happened after Clinton put us on the course to stability and Bush decided that debt reduction and balancing the budget were less important than tax cuts. I get it.


Superfreak said:
It is only appropriate in your OPINION. Tell us... what happens if we give the states another $1T to solve all their current debt problems? What happens in another year when they come back for yet another because once again the 'stimulus wasn't enough and we need more'???

Stimulus spending CAN be beneficial as a stop gap, but it MUST be done with the future cuts and fixes in place for the future. Otherwise you are simply providing one short term bail out after another until the country itself can no longer sustain its debt burden.

The only reason we are able to even contemplate continuing this deadly game is because we are the reserve currency. The Euro imploding is why US rates are going down again. The Euro was the only potentially viable option of a replacement for the US dollar as reserve currency. Once it went down and global markets started down, people flocked into the reserve currency and our Treasury market (which happens to be denominated in what currency???).
Click to expand...


The bold is what I am proposing. I'm glad we agree,
 
NigelTufnel said:
Just stop right there for a second. That's a huge "if" and in the end it does little to address government debt or deficit spending. It's a wash. Government debt remains where it was before you cut the spending.
Click to expand...

yes... government debt remains where it was. Glad you were able to finally keep up with the math. The other thing it does is instill confidence in the markets that the government is not going to spend us into oblivion. THAT will help loosen the corporate purse strings.

YOUR option of spend spend spend and then raise taxes on the rich and corporations does the exact opposite.


The problem with the economy isn't a lack of confidence because of government debt. That's laughable. And I understand that rates are impacted by many things. I also understand that if investors have a huge fear of a debt problem and the risk associated therewith they aren't going to be enticed by 3% rates. But here we are.
Click to expand...

What is laughable is the fact that you simply don't get that it IS a major concern for the economy. While we are not in the same situation as Greece or many other EU countries right now... we ARE running down the path to get there just as fast as we can.

Almost everyone sees that and is thus retracting spending as a result. Because with all that spending, there will HAVE to eventually be tax hikes.

You can either cut spending and cut taxes or raise spending and raise taxes. Which do you think most consumers and corporations want?

This is not to say that ALL deficit spending is bad. There are times when it makes sense. But as Oncelor mentioned above... it is HOW you spend that matters. If there are NO long term benefits from the spending then you may as well have just pissed on us and been done with it.

If your long term benefits are 'well future politicians will cut spending'... then not only are you being foolish, but you are leading this country into the abyss.
 
Superfreak said:
yes... government debt remains where it was. Glad you were able to finally keep up with the math. The other thing it does is instill confidence in the markets that the government is not going to spend us into oblivion. THAT will help loosen the corporate purse strings.

YOUR option of spend spend spend and then raise taxes on the rich and corporations does the exact opposite.

What is laughable is the fact that you simply don't get that it IS a major concern for the economy. While we are not in the same situation as Greece or many other EU countries right now... we ARE running down the path to get there just as fast as we can.

Almost everyone sees that and is thus retracting spending as a result. Because with all that spending, there will HAVE to eventually be tax hikes.

You can either cut spending and cut taxes or raise spending and raise taxes. Which do you think most consumers and corporations want?

This is not to say that ALL deficit spending is bad. There are times when it makes sense. But as Oncelor mentioned above... it is HOW you spend that matters. If there are NO long term benefits from the spending then you may as well have just pissed on us and been done with it.

If your long term benefits are 'well future politicians will cut spending'... then not only are you being foolish, but you are leading this country into the abyss.
Click to expand...

The idea that corporations aren't investing because of a lack of confidence in government policies is horseshit. I know a lot of people believe it to be true, but let's get real. Here's a chart tracking corporate investment as compared to the output gap:

flexaccel.png



Corporate investment is low right now because there's a shitload of excess capacity. It's got nothing to do with the government.

And your false dichotomy of cut spending and cut taxes of raise spending and raise taxes is nonsense.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Let's back up a second. First, my claim what that cutting spending, even wasteful spending, removes money from the economy. That's true. So is your claim that cutting spending by $1T and implementing tax cuts of $1T does not remove money from the economy. Can we agree on that much?

Second, my point about you cuts spending and implement corresponding tax cuts in the same amount is that it does nothing to account for existing government debt, which, if I understand you correctly, you claim is a problem for the economy right now.



Right. You don't really care about the debt or deficit. You like tax cuts. Just like what happened after Clinton put us on the course to stability and Bush decided that debt reduction and balancing the budget were less important than tax cuts. I get it.





The bold is what I am proposing. I'm glad we agree,
Click to expand...
Let the consumer have their money, the easiest way to pay for those tax cuts that would do that is to cut extemporaneous spending and let them spend their money. Since you simplify it to "demand" being the only issue, the reality is the only way to increase it permanently is to get people spending money again.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Let's back up a second. First, my claim what that cutting spending, even wasteful spending, removes money from the economy. That's true. So is your claim that cutting spending by $1T and implementing tax cuts of $1T does not remove money from the economy. Can we agree on that much?
Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong. It doesn't. If the government takes $3T from me and spends $2T instead of three... where do you think that other $1T goes? You assume that it disappears. It does not. The government cannot keep the $1T. They can either give it back to me... via tax cuts, or they can use it to pay for the health care monstrosity they crammed down our throats and do so without raising our debt any further.

Second, my point about you cuts spending and implement corresponding tax cuts in the same amount is that it does nothing to account for existing government debt, which, if I understand you correctly, you claim is a problem for the economy right now.
Click to expand...

Half correct... the problem with the current debt is the insane way we continue INCREASING it. You would get a drastic boost in confidence if the government just went ONE FRIGGIN YEAR where it kept the debt level. The closest we came was in 2000.

the portion you were correct about is that the transition in and of itself is debt neutral.

In the ideal world they would take that $1T saved and pay down the debt. While that would be in the best interest of the country long term, this is not the time to do so.

Right. You don't really care about the debt or deficit. You like tax cuts. Just like what happened after Clinton put us on the course to stability and Bush decided that debt reduction and balancing the budget were less important than tax cuts. I get it.
Click to expand...

sigh.... again with more liberal talking points. AS I stated, you cannot have the tax cuts UNLESS you have the corresponding SPENDING CUTS to pay for them. Your tossing out the fact that Bush sucked doesn't change my position to that of Bush's.

Second, the BUDGET is passed through Congress... THEN signed by the President. They have to work together to get the budget passed. I know you liberals love pretending that Clinton did it all on his own, but he did not. He had to compromise with the Rep led Congress to get the budget. In this regard, I think Clinton did a pretty decent job.

I understand WHY you wish to ignore the fact that Congress controls the purse strings... if you were to admit that the Rep Congress were the ones that passed those budgets that came close to actual surpluses the pain might be too great for you. Especially given the fact that you would also have to recognize that it was a DEM led Congress that produced the budgets for 2008, 2009, 2010.... and we all know you don't want that pointed out.

Especially given Obama's desire to blame it all on Bush. (Bush deserves the blame... but so do your beloved Dem leaders in Congress)

The bold is what I am proposing. I'm glad we agree,
Click to expand...

The bold is what we already DID. It stopped the bleeding. Once the bleeding is stopped, you don't keep wrapping more and more bandages around the wound. You work to FIX the long term problems.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The idea that corporations aren't investing because of a lack of confidence in government policies is horseshit. I know a lot of people believe it to be true, but let's get real. Here's a chart tracking corporate investment as compared to the output gap:

Corporate investment is low right now because there's a shitload of excess capacity. It's got nothing to do with the government.

And your false dichotomy of cut spending and cut taxes of raise spending and raise taxes is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Good lord.... IF a company expects growth rates to CONTRACT... they are going to STOP producing as much, lay off workers, shut down plants etc...

If they expect growth rates to increase in the future... they are going to reopen plants, hire back workers and start producing more.

You need to quit listening to Krugman's bullshit... it is muddling your mind and reducing YOUR capacity utilization to near zero.

You have the relationship backwards. Capacity utilization is low BECAUSE corporate spending is low. Corporate spending is low because corporations see to much uncertainty in the future of our economic growth capabilities.

Also... there is no false dichotomy. On the whole, you cannot continue to borrow year after year without ever increasing your revenues. It is not economically viable as an option. You have to raise revenues and most government spending is not going to do that... you thus have to raise taxes.

Just wait... your messiah will tell you this soon...well, maybe not soon... but after the November elections....
 
Superfreak said:
Good lord.... IF a company expects growth rates to CONTRACT... they are going to STOP producing as much, lay off workers, shut down plants etc...

If they expect growth rates to increase in the future... they are going to reopen plants, hire back workers and start producing more.

You need to quit listening to Krugman's bullshit... it is muddling your mind and reducing YOUR capacity utilization to near zero.

You have the relationship backwards. Capacity utilization is low BECAUSE corporate spending is low. Corporate spending is low because corporations see to much uncertainty in the future of our economic growth capabilities.
Click to expand...


No, the egg came first, not the chicken.


Superfreak said:
Also... there is no false dichotomy. On the whole, you cannot continue to borrow year after year without ever increasing your revenues. It is not economically viable as an option. You have to raise revenues and most government spending is not going to do that... you thus have to raise taxes.

Just wait... your messiah will tell you this soon...well, maybe not soon... but after the November elections....
Click to expand...

See, then you resort to this silly shit. Whatever.
 
It is immoral to pass our excess on to our children in the form of debt we never intend to repay.
 
Onceler said:
How so? Based on that limited criteria, you don't really have an economic case. It depends entirely on HOW the money is spent. If it is spent in a way that increases revenues down the line, it's smart fiscal policy.

It's basic business; any business owner will invest more in the short-term if it means more return in the long-term, and that's how the majority of successful businesses get off the ground.

Now, you can argue that this isn't how the money is being spent, but to make a blanket statement that spending now doesn't make fiscal sense for later isn't logical.
Click to expand...
What does the money get spent on that increases revenues later on? You appear to be making a case for socialism.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, I didn't. I'm more than willing to discuss this stuff with you, but if you insist on just making shit up I'm not inclined to play along.
Click to expand...
I simply summarized what you said. I can't blame you for wanting to back away from that though, as it was retarded.
 
Southern Man said:
What does the money get spent on that increases revenues later on? You appear to be making a case for socialism.
Click to expand...

If money creates jobs, encourages small business growth or invests in something like green technology, so that it encourages the growth of that industry in a way that has a significant positive effect on employment, it most certainly increases revenues & domestic GDP.

Those are just examples, but it's certainly conceiveable that money spent can = increased revenues.
 
Southern Man said:
What does the money get spent on that increases revenues later on? You appear to be making a case for socialism.
Click to expand...

Just one example would be taking a kid out of school and putting him at a desk with a phone to cold call starting day one. If he has any success that's instant revenue for the business. Another approach might be putting that same kid into some type of training program for a few months. Doing that costs the business money for the cost of the training and loss revenue for the kid not being at his desk calling. Obviously the business owner will think with a couple of months of training under his belt the kid will be a much more effective cold caller and generate more sales/revenue than the kid without the training.

That's an example of how upfront costs could produce more revenue later.
 
repukes are latching on to debt more because GDP is growing and the economy is recovering so they are running about of bullets to attack the black guy with.
 
Onceler said:
If money creates jobs, encourages small business growth or invests in something like green technology, so that it encourages the growth of that industry in a way that has a significant positive effect on employment, it most certainly increases revenues & domestic GDP.

Those are just examples, but it's certainly conceiveable that money spent can = increased revenues.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be better to lower taxes on the private sector so they can create those products and jobs? Aren't they better able to adapt to markets? Again you seem to be advocating socialism.

Besides, most of the stimulus money has been used to prop up union government jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top