BREAKING NEWS: Average rate on 30-year fixed mortgages falls below 4 percent

[Bonestorm]

The past decade seems to indicate otherwise.

I didn't intend my statement to be an absolute, but a statement about the effect of increased government spending under prevailing economic conditions.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Double post.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You know what's even more brilliant? Trying to shrink our way to growth. That'll work out well.

The problem with many liberals is the mindset that stopping the GOVERNMENT from spending more than it brings in somehow will 'shrink growth'

The problem with many liberals is the mindset that ignores that promising to raise taxes to pay for it all doesn't help the economy one bit. It simply tells business and consumers alike that the government will just keep taking more from us when it outspends.

The problem with many liberals is the mindset is that a cut in Government spending means no one else will spend either. There are TRILLIONS sitting on corporate balance sheets right now... quit playing the short term games like Obama wants to do and set up LONG TERM solutions. THEN that money will be put to work.

Infrastructure buildout is the ONLY portion of the 'jobs bill' that will have any potential to create jobs. The rest of it is just more smoke and mirrors that push the problem into the future yet again and additionally provide more favors for public sector unions.

 

[Bonestorm]

The problem with many liberals is the mindset that stopping the GOVERNMENT from spending more than it brings in somehow will 'shrink growth'

Government cuts lower aggregate demand. It is a fact. Lower aggregate demand lowers growth.

The problem with many liberals is the mindset that ignores that promising to raise taxes to pay for it all doesn't help the economy one bit. It simply tells business and consumers alike that the government will just keep taking more from us when it outspends.

I don't think increased government spending should be paid for right now (mind you, the cost is quite low given prevailing real interest rates on Tresuries, negative short term and about 1% long term). In fact, I think it is counter productive to increase taxes to pay for it.

The problem with many liberals is the mindset is that a cut in Government spending means no one else will spend either. There are TRILLIONS sitting on corporate balance sheets right now... quit playing the short term games like Obama wants to do and set up LONG TERM solutions. THEN that money will be put to work.

No one else is spending. That's the problem.

Infrastructure buildout is the ONLY portion of the 'jobs bill' that will have any potential to create jobs. The rest of it is just more smoke and mirrors that push the problem into the future yet again and additionally provide more favors for public sector unions.

I disagree.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Government cuts lower aggregate demand. It is a fact. Lower aggregate demand lowers growth.

Wrong. Because if the government spending gets out of control, the spending itself can actually lower OVERALL demand. If the response to the government outspending revenue by $1.4 TRILLION causes consumers and businesses to reduce spending by $2 Trillion, then the government spending is HURTING the economy. What the government spends, it HAS to eventually pay for. No one here, not even you, is dumb enough to believe otherwise.

If we are trying to create jobs, the last thing companies and consumers want to see is higher taxes. yet the more we outspend, the more we are FORCED to raise taxes in the future. Higher future taxes means lower future growth as we pay for today's excess tomorrow. Lower future growth rates means lower projections for the need for goods/services.... which equates to a disincentive to add jobs.

Yet many liberals never get this. They just think that if they keep on spending, no matter what, the economy will recover. In the very short term, they may see a boost, but in the long run it does nothing but make the problem worse.

I don't think increased government spending should be paid for right now (mind you, the cost is quite low given prevailing real interest rates on Tresuries, negative short term and about 1% long term). In fact, I think it is counter productive to increase taxes to pay for it.

$5 Trillion in excess spending over the past 5 years is equal to an extra $150 billion in interest expense each year (assuming an average rate of 3%).

No one else is spending. That's the problem.

Again, get government spending under control. Show fiscal responsibility, not more irresponsible behavior and then you can see the corporate cash put to work. No one is spending in large part BECAUSE the government is spending at an insane pace.

I disagree.

Ok... I'll bite, what other part of the jobs bill is going to create jobs? Not the mythical 'jobs saved' bullshit... but what will do something other than maintain the status quo?

 

[Bonestorm]

Wrong. Because if the government spending gets out of control, the spending itself can actually lower OVERALL demand. If the response to the government outspending revenue by $1.4 TRILLION causes consumers and businesses to reduce spending by $2 Trillion, then the government spending is HURTING the economy. What the government spends, it HAS to eventually pay for. No one here, not even you, is dumb enough to believe otherwise.

If we are trying to create jobs, the last thing companies and consumers want to see is higher taxes. yet the more we outspend, the more we are FORCED to raise taxes in the future. Higher future taxes means lower future growth as we pay for today's excess tomorrow. Lower future growth rates means lower projections for the need for goods/services.... which equates to a disincentive to add jobs.

Yet many liberals never get this. They just think that if they keep on spending, no matter what, the economy will recover. In the very short term, they may see a boost, but in the long run it does nothing but make the problem worse.

I'm not addressing your hypothetical nonsense. This isn't even worth debating with you it is so goddamned stupid. Go look at the UK if you want a real world example.

$5 Trillion in excess spending over the past 5 years is equal to an extra $150 billion in interest expense each year (assuming an average rate of 3%).

Your back of the napkin calculations are hilarious. As I said, real interest rates are negative short term and below 1% long term.

Again, get government spending under control. Show fiscal responsibility, not more irresponsible behavior and then you can see the corporate cash put to work. No one is spending in large part BECAUSE the government is spending at an insane pace.

That's ridiculous. It's fun to argue that because it supports your agenda, but there is no real world evidence to support it. Again, look at the UK. No one is spending because aggregate demand is low and there is no market for additional goods and services. If you increase aggregate demand for goods and services, businesses will put money to work creating goods and services.

Ok... I'll bite, what other part of the jobs bill is going to create jobs? Not the mythical 'jobs saved' bullshit... but what will do something other than maintain the status quo?

I think Mark Zandi's numbers are reasonable:

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not addressing your hypothetical nonsense. This isn't even worth debating with you it is so goddamned stupid. Go look at the UK if you want a real world example.

LMAO.... do look nice and hard at Europe... THAT is what YOU are proposing we push towards. You say 'look, they tried austerity and it didn't work'.... what you fail to realize is that the reason they HAD to go to those measures is that they kept pushing the problem further and further and further into the future until the whole situation came to where it is today with the entire EU on the brink. That is what you and Obama are pushing us towards.

Your back of the napkin calculations are hilarious. As I said, real interest rates are negative short term and below 1% long term.

'back of the napkin'.... ROFLMAO.... ok genius... I know that simple math was too difficult for you. Are you going to pretend that because inflation is higher today than the interest rates that you know it will continue to be higher for the duration of the bonds? Are you going to tell us that we don't have to make the interest payments or budget for them simply because inflation is higher? The debt is REAL you dolt.

That's ridiculous. It's fun to argue that because it supports your agenda, but there is no real world evidence to support it. Again, look at the UK. No one is spending because aggregate demand is low and there is no market for additional goods and services. If you increase aggregate demand for goods and services, businesses will put money to work creating goods and services.

No real world evidence, except for of course all the companies out there telling us that is precisely why they are not investing right now. Want to bet I can find an article addressing this very issue from within the last week?

You are NOT increasing aggregate demand.

1) extending unemployment benefits.... maintains status quo
2) extending payroll tax cut.... maintains status quo... and if it is used to pay down debt then it does nothing
3) Tax credits for business to hire unemployed.... does little to NOTHING. Companies don't hire based on a short term tax break when they have long term employment costs that go with the same decision.

I think Mark Zandi's numbers are reasonable:

I laugh every time I see this chart.

Do explain... since no liberal ever has.... how is it that a 'payroll tax holiday' (cut in payroll taxes) gets 1.25 bang for the buck, yet an income tax cut gets 0.35?

Then explain.... why the hell do we care about the ONE year change in GDP? We care about LONG TERM SOLUTIONS.... not this constant pushing the problem into the future.

Finally....if you ARE focused on a short term band aid...... based on this wonderful chart.... why do anything other than provide more people with food stamps?

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO.... do look nice and hard at Europe... THAT is what YOU are proposing we push towards. You say 'look, they tried austerity and it didn't work'.... what you fail to realize is that the reason they HAD to go to those measures is that they kept pushing the problem further and further and further into the future until the whole situation came to where it is today with the entire EU on the brink. That is what you and Obama are pushing us towards.

I propose increased spending and lower taxes now followed by increased taxes and lower spending later. That doesn't lead to Greek debt to GDP ratios. We are not Greece nor will we be. What you propose is voluntarily do now Greece was forced to do so we don't end up like Greece and eventually have to take the austerity measures. It's fucking stupid. And really, go look at the UK. Cameron is doing it now and what are the results? Lower growth and more debt.

'back of the napkin'.... ROFLMAO.... ok genius... I know that simple math was too difficult for you. Are you going to pretend that because inflation is higher today than the interest rates that you know it will continue to be higher for the duration of the bonds? Are you going to tell us that we don't have to make the interest payments or budget for them simply because inflation is higher? The debt is REAL you dolt.

You obviously don't understand how real interest rates are calculated, nor do you have a strong grasp of FED inflation policies since early 1980. I am telling you that where interest owed on debt is lower than expected inflation, it is foolish not to borrow money and that when calculating the cost of debt you must include inflation in the equation. You left inflation out completely.

No real world evidence, except for of course all the companies out there telling us that is precisely why they are not investing right now. Want to bet I can find an article addressing this very issue from within the last week?

Oh, I bet you can find articles. Opinions aren't evidence. It's ridiculous to pretend that businesses aren't making money now that they could otherwise make because they may have increased costs in the future. Why wouldn't they make money now when they can make money now and cut costs in the future when they face higher costs? It asinine.

You are NOT increasing aggregate demand.

1) extending unemployment benefits.... maintains status quo
2) extending payroll tax cut.... maintains status quo... and if it is used to pay down debt then it does nothing
3) Tax credits for business to hire unemployed.... does little to NOTHING. Companies don't hire based on a short term tax break when they have long term employment costs that go with the same decision.

[/quote]

Extendign unemployment benefits increses aggregate demand by giving money to people that otherwise would not have any. Extending the payroll tax cut increases aggregate demand by allowing people to keep more of their income than they would otherwise have. Ont he employer side, it lowers the cost of adding employees and is more of an employment promotion policy than an increase in aggregate demand. However, increasing employment increases aggregate demand and puts idle money to productive use. Tax credits I'm not too big a fan of, but they are better than nothing.

I laugh every time I see this chart.

Do explain... since no liberal ever has.... how is it that a 'payroll tax holiday' (cut in payroll taxes) gets 1.25 bang for the buck, yet an income tax cut gets 0.35?

Because the payroll tax is regressive whereas the income tax is progressive. Lower income folks given more money are substantially more likely to spend it than save it whereas higher income folks are more likely to save or pay down pre-existing debt. Not too tough to figure out if you think about it

Then explain.... why the hell do we care about the ONE year change in GDP? We care about LONG TERM SOLUTIONS.... not this constant pushing the problem into the future.

Because we are in the midst of an unemployment crisis.

Finally....if you ARE focused on a short term band aid...... based on this wonderful chart.... why do anything other than provide more people with food stamps?

I'm just going to assume that's not a serious question.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I propose increased spending and lower taxes now followed by increased taxes and lower spending later. That doesn't lead to Greek debt to GDP ratios. We are not Greece nor will we be. What you propose is voluntarily do now Greece was forced to do so we don't end up like Greece and eventually have to take the austerity measures. It's fucking stupid. And really, go look at the UK. Cameron is doing it now and what are the results? Lower growth and more debt.

IF they actually followed through with the above, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem lies in the FACT that they have not reduced spending in over 50 years and on top of that have consistently overspent over that same time frame.

You obviously don't understand how real interest rates are calculated, nor do you have a strong grasp of FED inflation policies since early 1980. I am telling you that where interest owed on debt is lower than expected inflation, it is foolish not to borrow money and that when calculating the cost of debt you must include inflation in the equation. You left inflation out completely.

So my SPECIFICALLY questioning you on inflation = me completely leaving out inflation?

LMAO....

Again... my questions to you.... CURRENT interest rates are below CURRENT inflation rates. That is the negative real interest rate you obviously read about and misunderstood. The problem comes in the FACT that the debt they are accruing... IF they don't pay it down (which they haven't done in over 50 years) they have to eventually refinance it. The other problem is the fact that if you take the other tact and assume they borrow at 30 year rates, then the current rate is not likely to remain over inflation.

In addition, when we look TODAY at the interest payments from existing debt and its consumption in terms of a percentage of Fed spending do we sit back and say 'gee, inflation really reduced that for us'?

Oh, I bet you can find articles. Opinions aren't evidence. It's ridiculous to pretend that businesses aren't making money now that they could otherwise make because they may have increased costs in the future. Why wouldn't they make money now when they can make money now and cut costs in the future when they face higher costs? It asinine.

You do realize who pays for unemployment insurance do you not? You do realize that firms will not expand facilities that take years to build if they are uncertain of just how high taxes are going to have to go (which again impacts future growth potential?

Extendign unemployment benefits increses aggregate demand by giving money to people that otherwise would not have any.

No, it maintains the status quo. If I am giving you $1000 a month and your benefits end at the end of the year, my extending them doesn't increase demand, it prevents a decrease. Hence it is a band aid that does not do anything to promote job growth. We can also add in the fact that it is a continued disincentive to be more aggressive looking for work.

Extending the payroll tax cut increases aggregate demand by allowing people to keep more of their income than they would otherwise have.

Nope.... same as above... it simply maintains the status quo. Prevents job losses... perhaps... but it does nothing to promote jobs. In addition, if people use the money to pay down more debt the more concerned they get about the future, then it may not even maintain the status quo.

Ont he employer side, it lowers the cost of adding employees and is more of an employment promotion policy than an increase in aggregate demand. However, increasing employment increases aggregate demand and puts idle money to productive use. Tax credits I'm not too big a fan of, but they are better than nothing.

this will not increase the desire to hire. A short term break is not going to encourage companies to hire. The long term expense and risk isn't worth it.

Because the payroll tax is regressive whereas the income tax is progressive. Lower income folks given more money are substantially more likely to spend it than save it whereas higher income folks are more likely to save or pay down pre-existing debt. Not too tough to figure out if you think about it

True, it should be higher given the progressive nature, but 1.25 to 0.35? I would love to see how he calculated that.

Because we are in the midst of an unemployment crisis.

and again... companies don't want short term fixes that simply push the problem into the future. They want the long term clarity (as much as possible that is). They want long term solutions so that they can PLAN for the future.

I'm just going to assume that's not a serious question.

Why not? I was actually serious. If you get so much bang for the buck and if as you stated above, the poor will spend it... why not just use the stimulus solely in food stamps and temporarily adjust who qualifies?

 

[Phantasmal]

That's a brilliant idea! Let's borrow more money to get us out of the mess we got into buy borrowing fuck tons of money! God damned if we can't spend our way outta debt!

It worked in the 30's, didn't it...

 

[Bonestorm]

IF they actually followed through with the above, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem lies in the FACT that they have not reduced spending in over 50 years and on top of that have consistently overspent over that same time frame.

We were on the way to doing in at the end of the 90s and then Bush cut taxes and increased spending.

So my SPECIFICALLY questioning you on inflation = me completely leaving out inflation?

LMAO....

Again... my questions to you.... CURRENT interest rates are below CURRENT inflation rates. That is the negative real interest rate you obviously read about and misunderstood. The problem comes in the FACT that the debt they are accruing... IF they don't pay it down (which they haven't done in over 50 years) they have to eventually refinance it. The other problem is the fact that if you take the other tact and assume they borrow at 30 year rates, then the current rate is not likely to remain over inflation.

In addition, when we look TODAY at the interest payments from existing debt and its consumption in terms of a percentage of Fed spending do we sit back and say 'gee, inflation really reduced that for us'?

You used a flat 3% rate. That's actually higher than present long term interest rate (30 year at 2.8) so, yes, you left inflation out completely. The cost of borrowing right now is insanely low as compared to pretty much any other time in modern history. Comparing now to previous years doesn't make sense.

You do realize who pays for unemployment insurance do you not? You do realize that firms will not expand facilities that take years to build if they are uncertain of just how high taxes are going to have to go (which again impacts future growth potential?

This is nonsense. If firms thought they could make money right now, they would, regardless of how much those profits were taxed in the future. There is no need to invest in new facilities if you have slack capacity due to low demand.

No, it maintains the status quo. If I am giving you $1000 a month and your benefits end at the end of the year, my extending them doesn't increase demand, it prevents a decrease. Hence it is a band aid that does not do anything to promote job growth. We can also add in the fact that it is a continued disincentive to be more aggressive looking for work.

OK. Even looking at it from your perspective, preventing a decrease is a good thing. And it doesn't matter how agressively people look for work when job openings vastly exceed the number of unemployed persons.

Nope.... same as above... it simply maintains the status quo. Prevents job losses... perhaps... but it does nothing to promote jobs. In addition, if people use the money to pay down more debt the more concerned they get about the future, then it may not even maintain the status quo.

OK. Prevents a decrease. That's bad?

this will not increase the desire to hire. A short term break is not going to encourage companies to hire. The long term expense and risk isn't worth it.

I'm not in love with it.

True, it should be higher given the progressive nature, but 1.25 to 0.35? I would love to see how he calculated that.

OK.

and again... companies don't want short term fixes that simply push the problem into the future. They want the long term clarity (as much as possible that is). They want long term solutions so that they can PLAN for the future.

The long term outlook looks a whole hell of a lot better if people are employed and have money to spend. Tackling current unemployment is a damn good way to improve long term economic prospects.

Why not? I was actually serious. If you get so much bang for the buck and if as you stated above, the poor will spend it... why not just use the stimulus solely in food stamps and temporarily adjust who qualifies?

Personally, I'd prefer it if the FED just minted $10,000 platinum coins and gave one to everybody.

 

[Jarod]

ROFLMAO.... tell us genius... when you TAX more... where is that money coming from? Is it BUSINESS and INVESTORS?

On one hand you tell corps you will give them a short term tax break and on the other hand you tell them that to pay for it you are going to tax them more?

The corps are just sitting on the money currently. You tell them you are going to tax the income at a higher rate if they dont spend it on tax deductable capitol investments or bonises for employees. That will get the money circulating again.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We were on the way to doing in at the end of the 90s and then Bush cut taxes and increased spending.

Yet even in the 1990's, despite the best economic boom of the past 50 years, the idiots STILL outspent revenue. Bush cut taxes and pulled us out of the Clinton recession. His spending was fiscally irresponsible and that has been mentioned a couple bajillion times.

You used a flat 3% rate. That's actually higher than present long term interest rate (30 year at 2.8) so, yes, you left inflation out completely. The cost of borrowing right now is insanely low as compared to pretty much any other time in modern history. Comparing now to previous years doesn't make sense.

I used 3% as an example. The current 30 year treasury closed at 2.94%... Sorry I was so far off. so again, I talked about inflation, asked you to look not just at the CURRENT inflation vs. bond rates, but to look at the LONG term aspects of it, yet you continue to pretend those questions to you aren't there and that I didn't mention inflation? How dishonest can you be? Should I start calling you Yurt?

Yes, interest rates are again at historical lows. Great. Nice. Doesn't change the FACT that you are STILL increasing our interest payments.

This is nonsense. If firms thought they could make money right now, they would, regardless of how much those profits were taxed in the future. There is no need to invest in new facilities if you have slack capacity due to low demand.

Again you dolt, the low demand is a direct result of the uncertainty coming out of DC. People do not tend to spend during times of uncertainty. They pull back just as the corporations do. Why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp can only be explained by your head being so far up the Dems ass that you can't see anything but the bullshit you are fed.

OK. Even looking at it from your perspective, preventing a decrease is a good thing.

Ok... you can argue that it is a 'good thing'.... but WHAT THE HELL DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH CREATING JOBS?

And it doesn't matter how agressively people look for work when job openings vastly exceed the number of unemployed persons.

I will let you think the above through a little further. Even though I know what you meant and could address it, instead I will highlight the stupidity of the above and mock you for it. Consider yourself mocked.

OK. Prevents a decrease. That's bad?

Does it create jobs like Obama is saying it will?

The long term outlook looks a whole hell of a lot better if people are employed and have money to spend. Tackling current unemployment is a damn good way to improve long term economic prospects.

Again, you are correct about the concept, the problem is this bill does not do what your master is telling you it does. There is no incentive to a company to hire if you say, hey we are going to give you $2k this year for that employee you hire and we are going to increase your taxes to pay for it.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the FED just minted $10,000 platinum coins and gave one to everybody.

That is essentially what the food stamp program does. So again, if that truly gets the most bang for the buck..... then why not simply increase the amount going to the poorest while also increasing the eligibility to more people? Would that not provide the best use of the money?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The corps are just sitting on the money currently. You tell them you are going to tax the income at a higher rate if they dont spend it on tax deductable capitol investments or bonises for employees. That will get the money circulating again.

You truly should not attempt to discuss economics.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yet even in the 1990's, despite the best economic boom of the past 50 years, the idiots STILL outspent revenue. Bush cut taxes and pulled us out of the Clinton recession. His spending was fiscally irresponsible and that has been mentioned a couple bajillion times.

What kills me about this is that you supported the tax cuts. That wasn't fiscally responsible.

I used 3% as an example. The current 30 year treasury closed at 2.94%... Sorry I was so far off. so again, I talked about inflation, asked you to look not just at the CURRENT inflation vs. bond rates, but to look at the LONG term aspects of it, yet you continue to pretend those questions to you aren't there and that I didn't mention inflation? How dishonest can you be? Should I start calling you Yurt?

Yes, interest rates are again at historical lows. Great. Nice. Doesn't change the FACT that you are STILL increasing our interest payments.

You didn't factor inflation into your cost assessment. If you used a 1% rate (which is the highest real interest rate), I wouldn't have commented. But you didn't. You used 3%, which does not account at all for inflation.

Again you dolt, the low demand is a direct result of the uncertainty coming out of DC. People do not tend to spend during times of uncertainty. They pull back just as the corporations do. Why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp can only be explained by your head being so far up the Dems ass that you can't see anything but the bullshit you are fed.

Low demand is a direct result of people having no money because they are unemployed and have unsustainable debt burdens. D.C. has little to do with it.

Ok... you can argue that it is a 'good thing'.... but WHAT THE HELL DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH CREATING JOBS?

Relative to what happens under current law (i.e. unemployment cut off), it creates jobs.

I will let you think the above through a little further. Even though I know what you meant and could address it, instead I will highlight the stupidity of the above and mock you for it. Consider yourself mocked.

FARGLE BARGLE.

Does it create jobs like Obama is saying it will?

Yes, relative to current law.

Again, you are correct about the concept, the problem is this bill does not do what your master is telling you it does. There is no incentive to a company to hire if you say, hey we are going to give you $2k this year for that employee you hire and we are going to increase your taxes to pay for it.

I'm not a fan of it anyway.

That is essentially what the food stamp program does. So again, if that truly gets the most bang for the buck..... then why not simply increase the amount going to the poorest while also increasing the eligibility to more people? Would that not provide the best use of the money?

Food stamps buy food (or are supposed to buy food). A platinum coin can buy anything or pay down debt or both.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What kills me about this is that you supported the tax cuts. That wasn't fiscally responsible.

Tax cuts during a recession... absolutely support them. But as I have stated to you 1000 times, you MUST have spending cuts to go along with them.

You didn't factor inflation into your cost assessment. If you used a 1% rate (which is the highest real interest rate), I wouldn't have commented. But you didn't. You used 3%, which does not account at all for inflation.

sigh... ok, so you are going to ignore my comments regarding inflation and instead focus on the fact that I didn't put it in the actual number?

Low demand is a direct result of people having no money because they are unemployed and have unsustainable debt burdens. D.C. has little to do with it.

Supply and demand are obviously intertwined. That said, if people are uncertain about the future of the country, they are going to tend to pay down debt, tighten their belts and save as much as they can. Corporations do that as well. It most certainly is the uncertainty coming from DC that is prolonging this mess.

Tell us... after 2012, what will personal income tax rates look like? are they going to let them all go back to pre-Bush? Extend some? Permanently this time? Another temp move?
Tell us... WHEN will the idiots in DC raise taxes to cover all of their spending? How much will they go up? On who? Corps? Rich? Payroll? Everyone? Bueller?
Tell us... WHEN WILL the idiots in DC stop outspending revenue by a Trillion dollars per year?

You honestly think the above doesn't effect business and consumer spending?

Relative to what happens under current law (i.e. unemployment cut off), it creates jobs.

LMAO... ah, so its kind of like the mythical jobs saved? That is fucking retarded logic. Given that you got it from your Dem masters, it is not surprising.

I'm not a fan of it anyway.

Yet you support it. Even you can see it is a farce. Which is why they shouldn't just pass it because Obama stomped his feet a lot and threatened to pout if they didn't. They need to sit the F down and create a plan that friggin works and has long term benefits.

Food stamps buy food (or are supposed to buy food). A platinum coin can buy anything or pay down debt or both.

But we don't want people paying down debt. We want them buying stuff... remember... and people are stupid, the government needs to make the decision for them and tell them what they can and cannot buy.

 

[Jarod]

You truly should not attempt to discuss economics.

Are you kidding me, you are such an idiot on the subject, you make a huge fool of yourself everytime you open your mouth on the subject.

Not only do you pretend to know something about it, you jabber on about stuff you clearly do not understand.

 

[cawacko]

The corps are just sitting on the money currently. You tell them you are going to tax the income at a higher rate if they dont spend it on tax deductable capitol investments or bonises for employees. That will get the money circulating again.

Why not have the government tell people they must spend their savings or they are going to take a huge tax hit? That will get the money circulating again.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Are you kidding me, you are such an idiot on the subject, you make a huge fool of yourself everytime you open your mouth on the subject.

Not only do you pretend to know something about it, you jabber on about stuff you clearly do not understand.

LMAO... spell economics Jarod...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why not have the government tell people they must spend their savings or they are going to take a huge tax hit? That will get the money circulating again.

I think Dung is onto something. The government should just send us all checks for $10k. Its only $3 Trillion to do it.