Teabaggees

[Truth Detector]

Your overt racism is duly acknowledged.

How is using the term "negro" racist you ignorant dumbfuck? Do you even comprehend what the definition of racism is? Of course you don't; otherwise why would you erupt like a retard?

The vast bulk of our current debt was rung up under presidents of your party . That is a matter of public record my racist friend.

Wrong again dumbfuck; but then facts and reality are never the strong point of leftist dumbfucks who swill DSNC kool-aid like willful retards.

Obama and the Democrats have run up more debt during the first seven years of Obama's Presidency than any President in the history of this once great nation.

More will be coming long after this idiot leaves the White House thanks to Obama care and the efforts by the leftist media to ignore the massive subsidies being run up under this stupid program that does NOTHING to make anyone healthier.

Chart of the Week: U.S. Presidents Ranked by Budget Deficits
Over the past 50 years, 10 U.S. presidents have made annual budget requests to Congress, projecting deficits both big and small. But no other president compares to Barack Obama when it comes to the size and scale of the current budget deficit facing the United States.

http://dailysignal.com/2012/01/01/chart-of-the-week-u-s-presidents-ranked-by-budget-deficits/

 

[Asoka]

I'm still waiting for anyone, left or right, to give a coherent explanation of why budget deficits are bad.

 

[Truth Detector]

It is simply an objective fact that money "comes from" the government. All dollars ultimately come from the federal government. This becomes clear when you actually take a detailed look at the accounting for the whole economy. You can look up the literature on the hierarchy of money and on reserve accounting at the central bank yourself, much of it is freely available on the internet.

There is nothing magical about it at all, it is very basic macro accounting. The government's debt equals the net assets of the private sector (again leaving the foreign sector out for simplicity).

Go on, click on the links I provided. You will see that the three sectors' finances are in fact a mirror image.

Now, as to the Weimar Republic, I fail to see how this is a "historical fact" that I ignore. The Weimar hyperinflationary situation was caused by two basic factors: 1, that the First World War and the German revolution had devastated the German economy and had seriously compromised the government's ability to do things essential to maintenance of the macroeconomy like collect taxes. So you have a horrendous supply crisis.

Then added to this you have the burden imposed by the Versailles Treaty, which imposed large debts on Germany that were denominated in gold and other raw materials.
Under these circumstances how could hyperinflation fail to result? The idea that the circumstances of Weimar Germany in the early '20s are somehow applicable to the United States (or the Western world more generally) in 2015 is ludicrous beyond words, and in fact betrays fundamental ignorance of the very history you invoke.

To be clear, the United States faces no massive foreign obligations denominated in gold, raw materials, or even a currency it doesn't print (its debts are denominated in dollars which means they are serviced and paid off via keystroke). The United States is facing a crisis of depressed demand (or oversupply) rather than being wracked by shortages resulting from devoting much of the country's industrial output (to say nothing of how many millions of young men) to a total war. The US has not recently had a revolution and civil war complete with anarchy and gunfighting in the streets between right-wing militias and Communists.

Fiat money and growth driven by government deficit spending has a long track record of working, while austerity has never worked.

LMAO; this is why a moron like Obama can get elected.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm still waiting for anyone, left or right, to give a coherent explanation of why budget deficits are bad.

Wrong; you refuse to accept a coherent explanation and continue bloviating your ignorance like the clueless ignorant buffoon that you are.

Deficit spending comes out of OUR pockets; the interest to pay that debt comes out of OUR pockets. Money forcefully extracted to pay for Government redistribution schemes that only benefit professional politicians do not grow the economy, but rather stagnate it.

You're just too dimwitted to comprehend the facts or reality. You actually think that SS is a savings account. LMAO

 

[Asoka]

Wrong; you refuse to accept a coherent explanation and continue bloviating your ignorance like the clueless ignorant buffoon that you are.

Deficit spending comes out of OUR pockets; the interest to pay that debt comes out of OUR pockets. Money forcefully extracted to pay for Government redistribution schemes that only benefit professional politicians do not grow the economy, but rather stagnate it.

You're just too dimwitted to comprehend the facts or reality. You actually think that SS is a savings account. LMAO

No one has given a coherent explanation for me to reject; that includes you. All you have done thus far is insult me personally and say a few ignorant things.

So, first off: deficit spending does not come from our pockets. It comes from nowhere and goes into "our" ("our" being the whole private sector) pockets.

Here is a paper for you to read on the subject, though I may be assuming too much, like your familiarity with economic concepts discussed in the paper, or your ability to read.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=115128

After carefully considering the complexities of reserve accounting, it is argued that the proceeds from taxation and bond sales are technically incapable of financing government spending and that modern governments actually finance all of their spending through the direct creation of high-powered money. The analysis carries significant implications for fiscal as well as monetary policy.

This is what happens when we actually follow the accounting ("follow the money!") rather than simply relying on received wisdom to explain how things work.

Ever since FDR suspended the domestic convertibility of the dollar to gold, the Federal government has had for all practical purposes infinite money. This became even more the case when Nixon abandoned Bretton-Woods. All governments that print their own money work this way. Some other examples are the UK, China, and Japan. The Eurozone countries, on the other hand, have surrendered their ability to print money and thus their ability to control interest rates, unemployment, etc.

I do not think SS is a "savings account," I have no idea what you're talking about. The SS trust fund is an accounting fiction; SS benefits are paid from the same "source" as all other federal spending: "the direct creation of high-powered money."

Deficit spending is funded by keystroke; interest payments on the national debt are also funded by keystroke.

LMAO; this is why a moron like Obama can get elected.

Ironically, if the truth of how the monetary system were widely known to the American public, Obama could never get elected. He would be far too right-wing, and his austerity policies (reducing the deficit) would be shown up for the economically illiterate claptrap they are. The US is verging on deflation, demand is still hugely depressed despite the "recovery," and the trade deficit continues to grow.

Under these circumstances massive deficit spending is necessary and desirable. But fools like Obama who moralize the issue and believe the debt should always be smaller hold sway in Washington.

 

[Truth Detector]

No one has given a coherent explanation for me to reject; that includes you. All you have done thus far is insult me personally and say a few ignorant things.

I’m not insulting you personally; I am merely describing you for the complete and utter repugnant idiot that you are while pointing at you and laughing.

So, first off: deficit spending does not come from our pockets. It comes from nowhere and goes into "our" ("our" being the whole private sector) pockets.

Another incredibly stupid comment; where the fuck do you think the Government gets its money? You think they just print it and no one pays? How fucking dense and ignorant are you?

What do you think those IOUs in your SS account are?

Here is a paper for you to read on the subject, though I may be assuming too much, like your familiarity with economic concepts discussed in the paper, or your ability to read.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=115128

You keep citing a paper that has ZERO credibility whatsoever.

This is what happens when we actually follow the accounting ("follow the money!") rather than simply relying on received wisdom to explain how things work.

This comment makes ZERO sense; but common with most of your eruptions.

Ever since FDR suspended the domestic convertibility of the dollar to gold, the Federal government has had for all practical purposes infinite money.

There is no such concept as infinite money any more than there is a monetary policy of printing money having no economic consequences. Ask Zimbabwe, or any other nation that has engaged in such a moronic policy.

This became even more the case when Nixon abandoned Bretton-Woods. All governments that print their own money work this way. Some other examples are the UK, China, and Japan. The Eurozone countries, on the other hand, have surrendered their ability to print money and thus their ability to control interest rates, unemployment, etc.

That ability is severely limited by economic growth. NO nation can just print as much money as they wish without disastrous consequences devaluating the currency to worthless status. Anyone who argues otherwise is a moron.

I do not think SS is a "savings account," I have no idea what you're talking about. The SS trust fund is an accounting fiction; SS benefits are paid from the same "source" as all other federal spending: "the direct creation of high-powered money."

Wrong; the source of the benefits come from other payers in a scam where the Government pays one beneficiary from the funds of another while handing out Government IOUs whose interest becomes the responsibility of the people who are getting the IOUs; the American public.

If you or I tried to implement such a scam we would be arrested by the very Government who uses it.

Deficit spending is funded by keystroke; interest payments on the national debt are also funded by keystroke.

Wrong; deficit spending is funded on the backs of the America sheeple who are made to pay for this irresponsible spending through higher Government confiscations to their income and wealth.

The notion that there is no cost to irresponsible spending and printing of currency is the realm of idiots.

Ironically, if the truth of how the monetary system were widely known to the American public, Obama could never get elected. He would be far too right-wing, and his austerity policies (reducing the deficit) would be shown up for the economically illiterate claptrap they are. The US is verging on deflation, demand is still hugely depressed despite the "recovery," and the trade deficit continues to grow.

LMAO; stupid.

Under these circumstances massive deficit spending is necessary and desirable.

ONLY in time of war and for very short periods of time; but then, you’re an economically clueless retard who thinks Governments can print as much money as they wish without consequence; something that has been proven to be stupid by history on many occasions.

But fools like Obama who moralize the issue and believe the debt should always be smaller hold sway in Washington.

Obama is only a fool because, like you, he doesn’t have the slightest clue of how economies work and how to keep them growing.

 

[Asoka]

Another incredibly stupid comment; where the fuck do you think the Government gets its money? You think they just print it and no one pays? How fucking dense and ignorant are you?

Where the fuck do you think money comes from? Answer: the government.

That is precisely what happens. They print it and no one pays. Good job; that's exactly how it works.

You keep citing a paper that has ZERO credibility whatsoever.

I suppose you got your handle by being the arbiter of what is credible and what isn't? Where is your PhD in economics?

There is no such concept as infinite money any more than there is a monetary policy of printing money having no economic consequences. Ask Zimbabwe, or any other nation that has engaged in such a moronic policy.

Au contraire, there is indeed infinite money.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/lectures/the-aftermath-of-the-crisis.htm

Here's a video of that moron Ben Bernanke admitting as much (at about 19 minutes).

That ability is severely limited by economic growth. NO nation can just print as much money as they wish without disastrous consequences devaluating the currency to worthless status. Anyone who argues otherwise is a moron.

You're right; and I don't argue that any nation can just print as much money as they wish without disastrous consequences. However, it is very important that we understand that the government cannot run out of money. Naturally, no one (definitely not me) is arguing that recklessly printing infinite amounts of money is a good idea.

However, the government is certainly capable of doing so (actually most money is "created", not printed, since it only exists digitally, but we'll move past that for now).
No, we want the government only to print as much money as is actually necessary to ensure macroeconomic health or whatever other purpose is defined by the people as necessary. So, for instance, we could provide healthcare, education, and jobs for everyone. We could do this very easily.
The point of all this is that governments are not limited by how much money they "have" but by the amount of real resources available to them. That's including human resources (labor). And on that analysis, it is clear that we have the resources available to meet every American's basic needs, and to give every American a job.
Now, if you have full employment and an already-high inflation rate, deficit spending is probably not going to be such a good idea. Under current conditions there is literally no downside to it.

Zimbabwe, like Weimar Germany, is a case that is not even slightly applicable to the current situation in the US. The economy was being criminally mismanaged, corruption and cronyism created a supply crisis. There is not a single example of hyperinflation in history that was not caused by some sort of drastic real crisis, like a war, revolution, famine, plague, etc.
There is no crisis of supply in the US right now, quite the opposite. We have a crisis of demand.

Wrong; the source of the benefits come from other payers in a scam where the Government pays one beneficiary from the funds of another while handing out Government IOUs whose interest becomes the responsibility of the people who are getting the IOUs; the American public.

If you or I tried to implement such a scam we would be arrested by the very Government who uses it.

You really need to stop learning economics from Fox News or Breitbart or wherever you're getting your information.

Wrong; deficit spending is funded on the backs of the America sheeple who are made to pay for this irresponsible spending through higher Government confiscations to their income and wealth.

The notion that there is no cost to irresponsible spending and printing of currency is the realm of idiots.

Of course there is a cost to irresponsible spending. And I am not trying to argue that, because the government has command of infinite money, there is no such thing as irresponsible spending.

Deficit spending is funded like any other spending, by the government conjuring money out of thin air.

You are arguing a strawman.

ONLY in time of war and for very short periods of time; but then, you’re an economically clueless retard who thinks Governments can print as much money as they wish without consequence; something that has been proven to be stupid by history on many occasions.

Again, a strawman that you built and then burned. No skin off my back.

The government cannot print as much money as it wishes without consequence.

Obama is only a fool because, like you, he doesn’t have the slightest clue of how economies work and how to keep them growing.

I guess you're one of those guys who like deregulation and tax cuts. Tell me more about how if we continue the failed trickle-down policies of the past three decades everything will be just fine.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I addressed your whole post whether it was included in the quote or not.

I admitted no such thing; what I said was that if person 1 defaults on their debt person 2's asset becomes worthless, not that they have no asset. That debt creates an equal amount of credit is simply accounting logic. So for example when you leased your car, you signed out a debt of $40,000 (we'll just use this number as an example), while the bank recorded an asset of $40,000. Home mortgage, same thing, you get a debt of $500,000 and the bank gets an asset of $500,000.

Now obviously, the bank can end up in the shit if you prove unable to repay your loans, which is why creditors typically secure collateral and have insurance and stuff (in the old days failure to pay your debt would probably have resulted in your family members being carried off and enslaved).

Leonthecat: I would strongly suggest that instead of playing the blame game between Bush and Obama and claiming proudly that Obama has reduced the deficit, you learn some macro. Obama's economic policies have been terrible, not quite as bad as if we had a Republican in the White House, but still very bad. Deficit reduction when the economy is verging on deflation and demand is so depressed is foolish policy. Obama's spending cuts are nothing to be proud of, at best they represent Obama's hand being forced by the fiscal terrorists in the Republican House, at worst they represent Obama succumbing to the control of Wall St. and to economic ideologies that should have been discarded for good in the 1940s.

An asset that has no worth, is no asset.
It's worthless and the rest of your attempt to save face, has failed.

 

[Asoka]

Okay, so the whole financial world comes apart as USFREEDOM911's incisive hypothetical scenario involving sharecropping has destroyed the basic accounting identity.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Okay, so the whole financial world comes apart as USFREEDOM911's incisive hypothetical scenario involving sharecropping has destroyed the basic accounting identity.

So you're just another liberal, who can only see in black and white; because everything else is hidden from your ability to process.
I'm glad we have that out of the way.
Thanks

 

[chaos]

Okay, so the whole financial world comes apart as USFREEDOM911's incisive hypothetical scenario involving sharecropping has destroyed the basic accounting identity.

Most economists agree that our fiat currency will lose at least 50% of its value resulting in 7% inflation, so it's not only the alarmist touting this. I'm in the camp predicting deflation because I can't imagine the fed raising interest rates because of the panic it will cause on Wall Street. Plus I don't see manufacturing coming back to the states so that eventually has to lead to civil unrest.

 

[#13]

Lefties aren't the ones who had teabags hanging in their face

No, they prefer to hang tampons from their face.

 

[Leonthecat]

ROFL........you have got to be one of the dumbest liberals to post here......especially since Buckie left......



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

It is you who are less than smart my friend. You referred to the "stimulus package" and said it was Obama's. You did not refer to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
What was known as "The stimulus package" was a year earlier and was all Bush.
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110–185, 122 Stat. 613, enacted February 13, 2008) was an Act of Congress providing for several kinds of economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day.[1] It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. The law provides for tax rebates to low- and middle-income U.S. taxpayers, tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and an increase in the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government-sponsored enterprises (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

Now if you are a gentleman you will apologise for calling me dumb. If you choose not to, well we will know what you are.

 

[Legion Troll]

It is you who are less than smart my friend. You referred to the "stimulus package" and said it was Obama's. You did not refer to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
What was known as "The stimulus package" was a year earlier and was all Bush.
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

Now if you are a gentleman you will apologise for calling me dumb. If you choose not to, well we will know what you are.

Guess which tack Pastor PiMPle will take?

 

[Leonthecat]

Guess which tack Pastor PiMPle will take?

Let's wait and see.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I
Now if you are a gentleman you will apologise for calling me dumb. If you choose not to, well we will know what you are.

?????....why would I apologize for calling you dumb.....its an obvious conclusion.....if you are through can we get back to discussing the failed stimulus package?.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Now if you are a gentleman you will apologise for calling me dumb. If you choose not to, well we will know what you are.

why would I apologize, is obviously true......from MY link about the OBAMA fiasco....

commonly referred to as the Stimulus

now, since you apparently have nothing to say to actually defend Obama's failures why don't you slink back into your corner and look chagrined.......

 

[evince]

how long do we have to wait to see?

 

[Asoka]

Most economists agree that our fiat currency will lose at least 50% of its value resulting in 7% inflation, so it's not only the alarmist touting this. I'm in the camp predicting deflation because I can't imagine the fed raising interest rates because of the panic it will cause on Wall Street. Plus I don't see manufacturing coming back to the states so that eventually has to lead to civil unrest.

Please cite "most economists."

So you're just another liberal, who can only see in black and white; because everything else is hidden from your ability to process.

I have no idea what you're talking about. All debt creates an asset of equal size. This is true for the same reason that double-entry bookkeeping works. So, you know, somehow I doubt you've seen something that bankers, accountants, and businessmen for the last five centuries all missed. There is nothing "liberal" about understanding how accounting and finances work.

 

[Asoka]

Most economists agree that our fiat currency will lose at least 50% of its value resulting in 7% inflation, so it's not only the alarmist touting this. I'm in the camp predicting deflation because I can't imagine the fed raising interest rates because of the panic it will cause on Wall Street. Plus I don't see manufacturing coming back to the states so that eventually has to lead to civil unrest.

Please cite "most economists."

So you're just another liberal, who can only see in black and white; because everything else is hidden from your ability to process.

I have no idea what you're talking about. All debt creates an asset of equal size. This is true for the same reason that double-entry bookkeeping works. So, you know, somehow I doubt you've seen something that bankers, accountants, and businessmen for the last five centuries all missed. There is nothing "liberal" about understanding how accounting and finances work.