Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[mmi]

Television viewing

I enjoyed that one. I notice you didn't provide a link to the excerpt you cited from MovieGuide.com, and I'm wondering why. Is it because that site is run by Ted Baehr, the anything-but-Christian RW nut who has condemned Charles Darwin as "a racist, a bigot and a 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder"? That slut barfs up most of his puke on WorldNetDaily.

Ted Baehr, self-styled movie critic and Worldnutdaily columnist, declares bluntly that all governments — and their subjects, of course — should be subject to "divine law" and therefore that those legislators who voted for same-sex marriage in New York should now be prosecuted. (source)​

You sure know how to come up with interesting … information.

The (unnamed) author should have realised that it's NORC (National Opinion Research Center), not NORAC. I particularly liked to reference to Shark Tank as being advantageous television viewing — "you can learn some great lessons about becoming an entrepreneur and investing."

I couldn't find the study online, but I'm thinking that households with lower incomes are more likely to have members that are either retired or children, and I figure they're likely to watch more television.

The responses are self-reported. Are households with high incomes perhaps motivated to under-report the hours they spend watching the boob tube? Do they have the resources needed to entertain themselves in other, more expensive ways?

Here's a more complete reporting of the findings.

They always imply things and then turn around and say that they didn't say that.

There was no such implication. "Reasonable amount" and "unlimited" are very different. You are bound and determined to misrepresent what liberals say in this community. It's all just a pathetic waste of time.

the 81-82 recession was much worse

GDP down 2.55%. And it was precipitated by Reagan's tight monetary policy.

The GOP SSE Great Recession, otoh, saw a 3.93% drop, and it was handed to the Negro by his predecessor.

>>The next President is going to have a worse mess to clean up than Obama

What mess is that? The longest economic expansion in American history, low unemployment, low inflation, deficit as a percentage of GDP less than it was 1981-94 and 2003-05? HA! This is why you Ignore my posts, loser.

>>who did nothing to clean up the mess Bush AND the Democrat congress created

The Democratic Congress that came in in Jan 2007, eleven months before the onset of the GOP SSE Great Recession?

 

[Conservative]

Micro=macro!
Newtonian=Einstein-ian!

You have proven in all your posts to be a partisan leftwing ideologue who needs big govt. to implement social programs you feel are necessary. That is out of touch with reality and the model this country was built on. You and the rest of the leftwingers here need to find that liberal utopia you are looking for somewhere else.. Let me know where that is because all I see are Greece and the economic disasters of Europe that you want this country to become.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I'm not sure if you're not expressing yourself clearly or if you're just out of your depth. But I have no idea what you're talking about. Increasing the money supply isn't the same as deficit spending.

The conversation was about deficit spending. Your side's argument is that deficit spending causes inflation.

 

[Moderate Right]

The pittance that the poor might manage to save is not nearly enough to get them past the car repairs, doctor bills, and unexpected layoffs that they face. That was my point.

Now you are finally getting it. The poor CAN save money and should instead of spending it and then getting hit with these expenses on top of that. We need to get them into that mentality. Once we fix the leaky holes in their buckets then we can finally talk about the rest. It's just plain stupid to keep on filling a bucket with a bunch of holes in it. The left's solution to a bucket with leaky holes is to just continually pour more and more water into it.

 

[Gaea]

The conversation was about deficit spending. Your side's argument is that deficit spending causes inflation.

What do you mean, "my side" ?

The only "side" I have is the facts. I have never stated that deficit spending causes inflation. I stated that increasing the money supply causes inflation.

 

[mmi]

We need to get them into that mentality.

Perhaps some sort of "wealth test" for the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes, and televisions.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You want to stick with the personal attacks, do so because quite frankly you simply aren't as smart as you think you are thus a typical liberal who is arrogant and out of touch with reality

Well, reason, logic, and data weren't getting through to you, so this is what I'm left with.

Here's a hint - you had a job, just like everybody else has/had a job. All jobs are in "the business world." That does not make you an economist, it makes you an average Joe Schmo. Studying the subject is what gives one insight into the subject.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

What do you mean, "my side" ?

The only "side" I have is the facts. I have never stated that deficit spending causes inflation. I stated that increasing the money supply causes inflation.

The money supply increases along with economic activity. Are you suggesting that normal economic activity causes inflation?

 

[Conservative]

Well, reason, logic, and data weren't getting through to you, so this is what I'm left with.

Here's a hint - you had a job, just like everybody else has/had a job. All jobs are in "the business world." That does not make you an economist, it makes you an average Joe Schmo. Studying the subject is what gives one insight into the subject.

No, you are absolutely right, I actually created jobs, how many did you create? You read numbers but have no idea how those numbers were created, the context, or what was the human behavior that created those numbers. I doubt seriously that you have any connection with the law because you are incapable of articulating your position very well at all, just book quotes and equations, nothing about human behavior at all. Are you prepared to admit that TARP was a loan and that TARP was repaid? What was the net affect to the deficit?

 

[Gaea]

The money supply increases along with economic activity.

The last recession we had went from Dec 2007-June 2009. The money supply increased by 8% in that time. You're wrong.

 

[Conservative]

The money supply increases along with economic activity. Are you suggesting that normal economic activity causes inflation?

Where does supply and demand fit into your equation? If demand outstrips supply how does that affect the value of the dollar? If more money is spent by the govt. to artificially stimulate the economy what does that do to supply and demand for goods and services as demand increases, prices go up and what affect does that have on the value of the dollar?

As has been stated there is a place for deficit spending but it should be limited and focused on the private sector. Are tax cuts federal deficit spending in your world?

 

[jaeger19]

Sure, they can save a few bucks here and there. Until the car breaks down, or they get sick.

Stupid poor people.

Right.. .that's exactly the point.

When there car breaks down or begins to have a problem. they can use that savings so they can get it repaired so they don't miss work. Which means that they are less likely to lose their job or get a lower raise or no raise because of missed work,

When they get sick, they can use that money to pay for the copay to the doctor, or pay the copay on the medication they need. Which means that they prevent a worse costlier illness. and prevent loss of work which impacts future earnings.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Where does supply and demand fit into your equation? If demand outstrips supply how does that affect the value of the dollar? If more money is spent by the govt. to artificially stimulate the economy what does that do to supply and demand for goods and services as demand increases, prices go up and what affect does that have on the value of the dollar?

As has been stated there is a place for deficit spending but it should be limited and focused on the private sector. Are tax cuts federal deficit spending in your world?

Supply is not static. And our economy is not close to capacity, so some government spending isn't going to cause inflation. Even if it's "artificial," whatever that means.

 

[Conservative]

Supply is not static. And our economy is not close to capacity, so some government spending isn't going to cause inflation. Even if it's "artificial," whatever that means.

There is always going to be govt. spending, it doesn't have to be deficit spending and that is the issue. There is enough duplication at the federal level to cover items that are state responsibility to cut that spending down to a more reasonable level. Take SS and Medicare off Budget, return all social programs to the state and local governments where they belong, and implement a flat tax where every income earning American pays something. That is the fare way to do things but not the bureaucrat way. Your focus is on deficit spending and not the items that the govt. shouldn't be spending on that creates that deficit spending.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

There is always going to be govt. spending, it doesn't have to be deficit spending and that is the issue. There is enough duplication at the federal level to cover items that are state responsibility to cut that spending down to a more reasonable level. Take SS and Medicare off Budget, return all social programs to the state and local governments where they belong, and implement a flat tax where every income earning American pays something. That is the fare way to do things but not the bureaucrat way. Your focus is on deficit spending and not the items that the govt. shouldn't be spending on that creates that deficit spending.

No, my focus is on aggregate demand, and making sure that deficit hawks like you don't send our economy into a tailspin just to satisfy some weird ideological yearning of keeping the government small.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Since the loan was at the beginning of fiscal year 2009, October 1, 2008, it was an expense to the govt. and when paid back, also in 2009 it reduced that deficit. You call that deficit spending, I call it a loan that was repaid.

If it reduced the deficit, because it was paid back, from previous govt spending, that did create a deficit.....then it was deficit spending....hurr durr.

Where did that repayment show up on the Treasury report?

That's a mystery to you still.....even though you say it was paid back....AND IT REDUCED THE DEFICIT...ACCORDING TO YOU.

Good gawd man, you answer your own riddles....yet you demand an answer for them still!

You don't seem to grasp reality, deficit spending is necessary when we go into recession HOWEVER it should be targeted and short term. Obama's stimulus was poorly directed and the results were a waste of taxpayer money as the actual results show, temporary increase in GDP growth but very few shovel ready jobs.

As has been shown to you over and over, long after you have forgotten them, and even now when refreshed.....it more than paid for itself.....and....was "short term". This self defeating arguments are such a waste of everyones time.

compare that to Reagan who had ZERO Spending in his stimulus but then spent govt. revenue in the private sector building up the defense industry and that created jobs.

LOL...yeah...he caused debt with a tax cut....that had to be fully reversed.....and then went into massive debt (doubling the debt!)...and you the defense spending was not stimulus....and did not cause debt (it was revenue spending!).

FFS, yer spinning is making me dizzy! Every day you post the most insane chit!

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You have proven in all your posts to be a partisan leftwing ideologue who needs big govt. to implement social programs you feel are necessary. That is out of touch with reality and the model this country was built on. You and the rest of the leftwingers here need to find that liberal utopia you are looking for somewhere else.. Let me know where that is because all I see are Greece and the economic disasters of Europe that you want this country to become.

Utopias!

Good grief, at least we know the difference between micro and macro econ, whereas you equate them.

 

[jaeger19]

I enjoyed that one. ere's a more complete reporting of the findings.
?

Yes.. I am glad you enjoyed that one. In fact, your link pretty much confirmed what I linked to.

So a nice diversion from you. But.. the facts are the poor spend money on television, on smoking and on alcohol.

Which is money that they could save. And that's just three easy examples of how they can save.

So at the end of the day.. Moderate Right.. as a point.

 

[jaeger19]

No, my focus is on aggregate demand, and making sure that deficit hawks like you don't send our economy into a tailspin just to satisfy some weird ideological yearning of keeping the government small.

But John.. we just established that decreasing deficit spending is not going to "send our economy into a tailspin".

Obama just decreased deficit spending by 66% and no tailspin. In fact we had economic growth.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The last recession we had went from Dec 2007-June 2009. The money supply increased by 8% in that time. You're wrong.

Funny, housing prices COLLAPSED then and afterward....even with an increase in money supply, so I guess yer correlation of "money supply causes house price inflation" collapses too.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

But John.. we just established that decreasing deficit spending is not going to "send our economy into a tailspin".

Obama just decreased deficit spending by 66% and no tailspin. In fact we had economic growth.

Yes JOHN....don't u see JOHN, it can make specious argument about declines in govt spending relative to massive increases to save the economy, and it gets to portray them as proof that declines in govt spending don't create recessions (we have GROWTH John! Anemic? Yes! But it gets to call it "GROWTH" because we are dealing in false absolutes, semantic games posing as macro argument!).

 

[Gimmesometruth]

the poor spend money on (watching) television

I just love its specious, absolute arguments posing as real-world argument. It is always nice to see the "teh poor are lazy" argument. 'Course, we can ALWAYS blame teh illegals for not only taking all the jobs, but also for influencing those once proud whites with their horrible work ethic.......oh...wait.

 

[Conservative]

No, my focus is on aggregate demand, and making sure that deficit hawks like you don't send our economy into a tailspin just to satisfy some weird ideological yearning of keeping the government small.

So you don't care where the money is spent just so money is spent? How liberal of you!! I'll bet you have never looked at a budget let alone the federal budget. Why don't you ask yourself why we need a 4.2 TRILLION dollar budget and 50 independent state budgets much of which is duplicated at the federal level? Seems that doesn't matter to you because all you care about is spending. The govt. doesn't need to deficit spend to affect demand. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn does that quite well as well. Reagan proved that.

 

[Gaea]

Funny, housing prices COLLAPSED then and afterward....even with an increase in money supply, so I guess yer correlation of "money supply causes house price inflation" collapses too.

I never stated that every increase in money supply results in instant inflation. In fact in an earlier post I stated

Printing money is often, but not always, inflationary (in the short run).

In the long run, expanding the money supply IS always inflationary.

 

[James972]

No, my focus is on aggregate demand, and making sure that deficit hawks like you don't send our economy into a tailspin just to satisfy some weird ideological yearning of keeping the government small.

what could possibly stimulate demand like the supply of great new invention say a cure for cancer or an autonomous auto? Now do you understand what real growth is??