CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt [W:21]

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I already know your argument. 20 trillion dollars is nothing (especially in relation to the size of the economy) and it's not real debt anyway because we can pick money off the money trees anytime we want and that we have a whole lot more debt we can add on top of the 20 trillion before seeing inflation. I can't argue common sense with you because you are too stuck in your liberal justification to spend, spend, spend until we owe hundreds of trillions of dollars which, again, wouldn't be real debt either. That's not common sense. Somebody, somewhere has to eventually pay the piper.

Yet nobody knows your counter-argument. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER MADE ONE. Because you don't understand the subject, and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are only sticking around because your feelings were hurt.

 

[fmw]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

True, it is not balanced, but he appears to be constantly progressing in lowering the deficit, as he's done throughout his Presidency:

That is a silly thing to say. He has reduced deficits by increasing debt. He has made things worse.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Yet nobody knows your counter-argument. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER MADE ONE. Because you don't understand the subject, and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are only sticking around because your feelings were hurt.

Your argument has been debunked by economic experts the world over, is not embraced ANYWHERE in the world (including the US), and only has a very minority out of the mainstream following, mostly by uneducated novices, such as yourself, who cling on to it as justification for their liberal spend, spend, spend views. Your view will NEVER be accepted by ANYONE who has ANY authority to embrace it, including almost all Democratic liberals, who also refute it as garbage. The only thing you have left is to try proving your views on debate forums such as this because it is the only place on Earth you think you can win an argument, knowing you have already lost it everywhere else.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

That is a silly thing to say. He has reduced deficits by increasing debt. He has made things worse.

Please explain how you think this works.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Your argument has been debunked by economic experts the world over, is not embraced ANYWHERE in the world (including the US), and only has a very minority out of the mainstream following, mostly by uneducated novices, such as yourself, who cling on to it as justification for their liberal spend, spend, spend views. Your view will NEVER be accepted by ANYONE who has ANY authority to embrace it, including almost all Democratic liberals, who also refute it as garbage. The only thing you have left is to try proving your views on debate forums such as this because it is the only place on Earth you think you can win an argument, knowing you have already lost it everywhere else.

Still clueless, I see. MAKE AN ARGUMENT ALREADY, OR GO AWAY. Why don't you try out the political forums, where your "damn librulz!" arguments might pass for a position. Here, they just make you look ridiculous.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Your argument

For a guy that whines about others not correctly stating your argument, you sure can post a lot of hypocrisy. Look, the request is for YOU to make YOUR argument, and yet her you are talking about the other....over and over. Knock it off, either make your case or leave. Explain your position.

 

[fmw]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Please explain how you think this works.

I think it works by considering debt as revenue. Am I wrong?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I think it works by considering debt as revenue. Am I wrong?

 

[fmw]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I can't see videos so I'll just assume you simply consider me stupid. But I sure appreciate the straight answer, a--h----.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I think it works by considering debt as revenue. Am I wrong?

Yes. Debt is not revenue. Bonds really have nothing to do (directly) with a surplus/deficit calculation - it's just (taxes minus spending). When the government runs a deficit, they normally need to issue bonds to "finance" that deficit spending.

 

[fmw]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Yes. Debt is not revenue. Bonds really have nothing to do (directly) with a surplus/deficit calculation - it's just (taxes minus spending). When the government runs a deficit, they normally need to issue bonds to "finance" that deficit spending.

So it doesn't make sense to praise the government for reducing deficits while increasing debt - at least in my old fashioned, arcane view of how economics works.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Still clueless, I see. MAKE AN ARGUMENT ALREADY, OR GO AWAY. Why don't you try out the political forums, where your "damn librulz!" arguments might pass for a position. Here, they just make you look ridiculous.

Expert economists and the rest of the world have already decided. MMT is bunk and you just can't accept it or admit it. You can't prove any country anywhere accepts MMT as an economic philosophy. Nobody, nowhere, nohow. Do you deny this? Apparently you are the one who is clueless as to the reality that MMT has just a minority cult following, mostly by novices such as yourself who think we can just spend our way into eternity. The only thing you have left is to try intimidating me but I will continue to be a thorn in your side. I am not going away.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

For a guy that whines about others not correctly stating your argument, you sure can post a lot of hypocrisy. Look, the request is for YOU to make YOUR argument, and yet her you are talking about the other....over and over. Knock it off, either make your case or leave. Explain your position.

The argument has been made by many expert economists who say MMT is flawed. My arguments are not necessary. Not one country in the entire world subscribes to MMT philosophy, not one. But that isn't good enough for you. You continue to live with your head in the sand.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

So it doesn't make sense to praise the government for reducing deficits while increasing debt - at least in my old fashioned, arcane view of how economics works.

Any deficit will increase the debt. A smaller deficit will increase the debt less than a larger deficit will.

A surplus, on the other hand, removes more dollars from our pockets via taxation than it adds via spending. Is that what you are reserving your praise for?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Not one country in the entire world subscribes to MMT philosophy, not one.

The validity of a theory...is determined by popularity?

I thought yer beef, right here, right now, in this thread....is that money does NOT come from a "Treasury tree". If "money" is not issued by the UST, who exactly issues it?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Expert economists and the rest of the world have already decided. MMT is bunk and you just can't accept it or admit it. You can't prove any country anywhere accepts MMT as an economic philosophy. Nobody, nowhere, nohow. Do you deny this? Apparently you are the one who is clueless as to the reality that MMT has just a minority cult following, mostly by novices such as yourself who think we can just spend our way into eternity. The only thing you have left is to try intimidating me but I will continue to be a thorn in your side. I am not going away.

It's good that you have a purpose in life, I guess. Reach for the stars.

 

[mmi]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

it doesn't make sense to praise the government for reducing deficits while increasing debt

Let's use an example from recent history. The deficit in 2009 was $1.412 trillion, and last year it was $439 billion, down nearly seventy percent. Is it yer position that this isn't progress? Over the past fifty years, the deficit has averaged 2.8% of GDP, while last year it was down to 2.5%.

The projections for the fiscal year ending Sept 30 aren't quite as good. Outlays for Medicare and Social Security have increased more than expected so far this year, and that trend may continue. Revenues are down so far this year — they're up from individual taxes as the labor market (employment and wages) has improved, but corporate tax receipts have dropped as profits have declined. The deal the Congress reached with the administration late last year to get a budget passed included an agreement to make permanent some tax provisions, which included a research and experimentation tax credit and some business expensing, and those will cut into revenues every year.

"Budget deficit set to rise thanks to year-end tax deal," WaPo, Jan 19, 2016

>>my old fashioned, arcane view of how economics works.

You can always seek to adopt a more modern and comprehensible view.

 

[cpwill]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

What makes you think that?

He said it?

 

[mmi]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

He said it?

I think you may have misheard. Wasn't it "Eff them," rather than "Eff it"?

 

[cpwill]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I think you may have misheard. Wasn't it "Eff them," rather than "Eff it"?

He said his approach "rhymed with 'bucket'".

 

[American]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Maybe you should present some cogent arguments as to why deficits are so bad, and then we will all see the light.

Oh, wait - we tried that already, and there were no cogent arguments to be had.

Why don't you put forth a cogent argument as to why astronomical debt is good? Please.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Why don't you put forth a cogent argument as to why astronomical debt is good? Please.

I have put forth the argument many times. (Not for "astronomical" debt, but for a reasonable amount of government deficit spending.)

The American economy loses demand when we run a trade deficit, and when we net save dollars. If that loss is not made up for, the economy will contract. The two (reasonable) ways to make up for that demand leakage are businesses borrowing to invest (which they normally do in good times) and government deficit spending.

Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins.

Now it's your turn to explain why the government should strive to balance its budget or run a surplus, and/or pay down its debt.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

The validity of a theory...is determined by popularity?

I thought yer beef, right here, right now, in this thread....is that money does NOT come from a "Treasury tree". If "money" is not issued by the UST, who exactly issues it?

You fail to grasp the fact that MMT is not popular because the best economic experts around the world see it as flawed and that's why not one country anywhere subscribes to the theory.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

You fail to grasp the fact that MMT is not popular because the best economic experts around the world see it as flawed and that's why not one country anywhere subscribes to the theory.

All righty, yer gonna keep on the popularity=validity and side step yer whole Treasury "point". Cool. It's akin to Scotsmanism, a fallacy yer always spoutn'.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

All righty, yer gonna keep on the popularity=validity and side step yer whole Treasury "point". Cool. It's akin to Scotsmanism, a fallacy yer always spoutn'.

There's popularity and then there are the facts - zero countries in the world subscribe to MMT. Zero doesn't even equal a minority. Zero is zero.