Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Conservative]

Take a look at Europe to see what happens when you remove a country's ability to deficit spend freely for the benefit of its citizens. The troubles they are having are not because of excessive debt, they are because of austerity. The government is every country's biggest customer, and when they decide to cut back, bad things happen to the economy.

You think that $4.2 trillion is excessive and wasteful? I think $4.2 trillion is not nearly enough. We have unemployed people in this incredibly rich country, for no other reason except a bunch of idiots believe that governments should spend less money. Every cutback costs jobs, and the private sector isn't supplying nearly enough jobs as it is. What programs we cut or fund is a political question, but any cut results in the loss of more jobs.

I tried, tried hard, to explain why, in our country, with our circumstances, deficit spending is absolutely necessary. It's a matter of demand leakages and injections. Why don't you open up your mind and try to understand something you may not agree with at first glance?

Yes, let's look at Europe and its dependence on govt. spending for most of its GDP, This isn't Europe regardless of how badly you want it to be. Expense (% of GDP) | Data

I asked you to explain why we need a 4.2 trillion dollar budget and until you look at the line items, compare those to the state, that is just a number that you want to spend and more, why? Every dollar that goes to the Federal Govt. is a dollar taken out of the private sector in the states. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Send dollars to the Federal govt. to get a fraction back? does that make any sense. You buy the leftwing rhetoric because that is what you want to believe. sorry but the reality is we have a bloated Federal bureaucracy out of touch with reality as are you

At times deficit spending is necessary, in 81-82 and 07-09 but the difference in where that money was spent is stark. You want spending, I want responsible spending plus the fact that I know putting more money into the hands of the taxpayers increases demand and increases jobs.

 

[jaeger19]

No, it hasn't. The only thing you have proven is that basic math escapes you.



OK. Why don't you tell me how much further we could cut spending, then. And don't say "funding for education in Texas," because it looks like that figure is already way too low.

Well.. we could start by not being the worlds policeman.

We spend more money military than the top 14 countries combined. We account for 48% of the worlds military spending. Its easy to see why countries can have "free healthcare" and retirement plans when its the US taxpayer and the US servicemen and women paying the top for their security.

Stop subsidies to companies that don't need them

Then we could decrease tax credits/subsidies to companies that don't need them.
Then there is the advanced technology program whereby we
give grants to some of the largest and most profitable
companies. We have an $8 trillion economy. We also have an R&D
tax credit, a research and development tax credit, that I
happen to support. I know there will be a witness here today
that hates the research and development tax credit, but I think
it is a program that encourages the kind of research that we
need to develop the products that we need but to have on top of
it a grant program in this $8 trillion economy that passes out
grants. In fact GAO interviewed grant winners.
They concluded that half of the recipients would have
conducted the research even without government funding and that
government funding goes to some of the largest corporations in
the United States.

We could get rid of Homeland security
.
We could stop paying defense contractors who are fraudulent:

Hundreds of defense contractors that defrauded the U.S. military received more than $1.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts during the past decade, according to a Department of Defense report prepared for Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders (I-Vt.) called the report "shocking." He said aggressive steps must be taken to ensure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted.

"The ugly truth is that virtually all of the major defense contractors in this country for years have been engaged in systemic fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money," said Sanders. "With the country running a nearly $15 trillion national debt, my goal is to provide as much transparency as possible about what is happening with taxpayer money."

The report detailed how the Pentagon paid $573.7 billion during the past 10 years to more than 300 contractors involved in civil fraud cases that resulted in judgments of more than $1 million, $398 billion of which was awarded after settlement or judgment for fraud. When awards to "parent" companies are counted, the Pentagon paid more than $1.1 trillion during the past 10 years just to the 37 top companies engaged in fraud.

And remember John.. its not just about cutting spending:

Its about taxes as well. Which means reforming taxes with a flat tax that treats all income equal. With one standard deduction. That doesn't pick winners and losers based on who has the most lobbying power.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Yes, let's look at Europe and its dependence on govt. spending for most of its GDP, This isn't Europe regardless of how badly you want it to be.

I asked you to explain why we need a 4.2 trillion dollar budget and until you look at the line items, compare those to the state, that is just a number that you want to spend and more, why? Every dollar that goes to the Federal Govt. is a dollar taken out of the private sector in the states. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Send dollars to the Federal govt. to get a fraction back? does that make any sense. You buy the leftwing rhetoric because that is what you want to believe. sorry but the reality is we have a bloated Federal bureaucracy out of touch with reality as are you

At times deficit spending is necessary, in 81-82 and 07-09 but the difference in where that money was spent is stark. You want spending, I want responsible spending plus the fact that I know putting more money into the hands of the taxpayers increases demand and increases jobs.

No, it really doesn't. Not even close to what the government produces in the way of jobs. Taxpayers save some of their money, first of all. The government spends every cent that it takes in, which means MORE demand that your precious taxpayers generate.

And if you want to talk about waste, let me remind you that the government doesn't spend money on all of the "wasteful" crapola that citizens do. Tanning salons, palm readers, cable TV, expensive meals, cars with heated seats,... the list goes on forever. Is any of that stuff essential? Is it not wasteful to spend more money on a fancy meal when you can get the calories and vitamins you need at a fraction of the cost? Think about that for a while.

If we balanced the budget, our economy would contract. Instant recession. I explained this to Jaeger already. We run a large trade deficit, and we net save some of our income; right there, you need to make up for lost demand, and credit expansion can't fill the hole.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Well.. we could start by not being the worlds policeman.

We spend more money military than the top 14 countries combined. We account for 48% of the worlds military spending. Its easy to see why countries can have "free healthcare" and retirement plans when its the US taxpayer and the US servicemen and women paying the top for their security.

Stop subsidies to companies that don't need them




We could get rid of Homeland security
.
We could stop paying defense contractors who are fraudulent:


And remember John.. its not just about cutting spending:

Its about taxes as well. Which means reforming taxes with a flat tax that treats all income equal. With one standard deduction. That doesn't pick winners and losers based on who has the most lobbying power.

OK - so you have cut a ton of government spending on defense, homeland security, and some other programs you don't like. How many soldiers have you suddenly put out of work? How many TSA officers? What are all those people going to do for employment? Demand just took a nosedive, because you just cut off the paychecks for a ton of people. Not that the private sector had enough jobs for them anyway... Now what? How does this play out in your head?

 

[mmi]

I asked you why we need a 4.2 trillion dollar budget and you ignored it. Isn't it possible a more reasonable budget and spending wouldn't require deficit spending at all?

Federal outlays in FY2015 were $3.688 trillion.

It would be very inefficient to handle Social Security and Medicare at the state level. That's $1.37T.

Defence spending was $650B. Veterans payments were $92B and military retirement was $52. Those are not state responsibilities.

Interest on the national debt was $251 billion.

Those total to $2.415T, 65.5% of the budget.

Non-military intelligence cost about $50B and Homeland Security $44B.

Justice got $30B. NIH $30B. State $28B. NASA $17B. National Nuclear Security Administration (part of Energy) $12B. CDC $11B. Interior $11B. FCC $10B. EPA $8B. NSF $7B. Federal courts $7B. Corps of Engineers $5B. NOAA $5B. NRC a billion. OSHA $550M.

Various international assistance programs spent $11B. Congress cost $5B.

Those add up to another $293B to get to $2.708T, leaving a $960B.

The VA spent $66B on medical care.

Education expended $31 billion on Pell grants.

USDA spent about $15B on farm and commodity programs and $11B on conservation and forestry.

Energy spent $11B on the national laboratory system.

Commerce spent a billion on the Patent Office and NIST, and another billion on the Census Bureau.

Those are another $125B, leaving $835B.

I'll stop at this point and note that last year's deficit was $439B. That leaves $396B that could be ELIMINATED from the budget to bring it into balance.

Some of that money, about $246B, went to income support and social services programs — the dreaded welfare or "nanny" state. EITC, child care, and other tax credits ($82 billion), SNAP ($71 billion), housing assistance ($48 billion), TANF ($16 billion), scool nutrition programs ($17B), Head Start ($9B), (WIC ($6 billion), and LIHEAP ($3 billion). How much of that could be effectively "returned to the states"? Little or none, I'd say.

What's left? $150B that I haven't accounted for.

When our friend Conservative says that liberals "don't know what programs are funded by our taxes" and asks "why do we need a four trillion dollar federal budget," you can … Ignore … his ignorant BS with a relaxed and confident level of IMPUNITY.

we could start by not being the worlds policeman. … We could get rid of Homeland security.

If we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, we might not need a lot of it. Defending our national interests and working to advance liberty and justice around the world needn't be a failed venture. Policing can be productive and worthwhile if you don't behave like Keystone cops.

"wasteful" crapola … cable TV

I need all those Red Sox games on cable, wasteful or not.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Advances in Monetary and Financial Measurement (AMFM) - Divisia and Fisher-Ideal Monetary Aggregates - The Center for Financial Stability
(M4)I still don't get what you're talking about, regarding reserves entering the economy. I'd love it if you'd elaborate instead of providing these snippy, ambiguous remarks.

Funny, the guy that comes in using his unsourced plots and esoteric "Divisia M4 Index" without elaborating that it was what he is talking about....now wants a fairly commonly understood concept of reserve purchases by the Fed during QEing to be explained. You want to be opaque and pugnacious, it is what you will get in return.

 

[mmi]

you continue to claim that it is just a description of how things work, and not a theory at all.

That's what theories are, professor.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What has happened is the Federal Bureaucrats have expanded their role and taken over state responsibility issues which you don't seem to understand. It isn't the federal taxpayers's responsibility to handle issues important to you nor is it their expense when someone is uninsured, living in poverty, being unemployed. This role has expanded by politicians who knew they could buy votes by just spending taxpayer money, something people like you support. You cannot sell your position to the majority in AZ thus you want the Federal govt. to mandate it for you. You are part of the problem never part of the solution.

This is just more of the same inane, insane ramblings of a states-rights extremist that refuses to acknowledge that states, especially Southern conservative states, have a long history of denying equal opportunity and that have taken outright direct actions against their citizenry. We know your history too, while you yap about your charity, you have also clearly stated your absolute refusal to even hire the unemployed while acting as a manager. This is a perfect example of the inconsistency of private charity where personal beliefs get in the way of fair and equal help.

 

[Conservative]

This is just more of the same inane, insane ramblings of a states-rights extremist that refuses to acknowledge that states, especially Southern conservative states, have a long history of denying equal opportunity and that have taken outright direct actions against their citizenry. We know your history too, while you yap about your charity, you have also clearly stated your absolute refusal to even hire the unemployed while acting as a manager. This is a perfect example of the inconsistency of private charity where personal beliefs get in the way of fair and equal help.

You simply do not know the true role of the Federal govt. nor the reality that the issue of equal rights is guaranteed in the Constitution by an Amendment. Keep showing how easily it is to indoctrinate some people into the liberal ideology. you fit that bill well. Why would any employer hire someone who collected unemployment for 2 years instead of someone who was under employed? I prefer someone who worked in A job while looking for THE job. Someone that collected from the taxpayers will do the same thing from the employer when hired after two years of unemployment, collect a paycheck and do nothing to earn it.

Your state gets it, you never will

 

[jaeger19]

I did not even say that...nor was the response to be taken as an "absolute", of course in your absolute they "can" save, the point is made over and over that they cannot in any meaningful way since wage gains went "flat" or in real terms declined since 1980......but we have been over this all before, and like Con, you act like either you have forgotten it or never happened.
?

Yeah.. you are out of touch with reality. Smoking alone is an expensive habit .

The average smoker burns through 13 to 16 cigarettes a day, or four to six packs a week. That adds up. The average smoker forks over at least $1,500 a year, while here in New York City, it's closer to $3,300.

When you are poor saving 1500 a year can mean half a year of community college. Attending which can mean improving your wages.

1500 a year is a start on a welding classes or other technical/trade classes... which attending can mean improving your wages.


No doubt that real wages have been stagnant for decades..and you seem yet again to forget that I have brought that up multiple times and how such things as illegal immigration decrease those wages. However, currently we also have 5 million job openings for jobs that people don't have the education/training for.

You have zero integrity, that is shown daily and reinforced when you once again go absolute with an argument over paraphrasing. You absolutely implied it with "the could save if they just stopped paying for all the tv they watch."

No you have zero integrity. Pointing out that poor people often pay for non essential items.. and they could save this money and use it more productively is a fact..and has nothing to do with work ethic.

You made that up on your own and you don't have the integrity to apologize.

Your racist diatribes about "illegals" shoot you in the foot....again.

Not at all, The only one that made up a racist diatribe is you,

Sure....those "minorities" and "proud whites" who won't pick melons..or bus tables...or put a new roof on yer slum apartments.

Yeah... honestly you are the one making racist statements.

First illegal immigrants come from many different races.. white as well.

Secondly.. illegal immigrants compete for jobs with US citizens of many different races as well.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Whew! that was a close one....I thought they were spend(ing) money on (watching) television! Glad to here they are out there workin'! How much are they savin'?

Actually interestingly many of the illegal immigrants I know save quite a bit of money and send it to back to their home country.

 

[Ganesh]

I continue to notice that people on the left never focus on where the federal tax dollars go, the waste, fraud, and abuse always taking the left position that spending in the name of compassion is all that matters, not the results. As I pointed out this thread is about deficit spending but you cannot talk about deficit spending without talking about where the money collected goes and why the spending cannot be cut for issues that are state responsibility. There is enough social spending in the Federal Budget to cut because that spending is state responsibility and if you looked at both the state and local budgets you would understand that.

I asked you why we need a 4.2 trillion dollar budget and you ignored it. Isn't it possible a more reasonable budget and spending wouldn't require deficit spending at all?

I've always been curious as to why the far right wants to localize various aspects of government. I suspect it stems from a subconscious desire to simplify the world, to break it down into smaller units, and bring it closer to home, so that what seems abstract can be understood. Unfortunately for such hopefuls, the economic principles being discussed are universal, and cross over national boundaries, not just state ones. Shifting the issues in question to 50 states will simply create 50 mini-jurisdictions, with less resources in each, and massive duplication of administration. And the problems will not go away.

If you find 4 trillion a mind-boggling figure, then how about 14 trillion? If the former is too much, maybe there is also too much in private expenditure. Tell us exactly where the excess is- is it in too many 3-D fridge magnets being made in San Francisco? That $300 lunch for the exec at Goldman Sachs? If you don't like large numbers, maybe that one could be brought down.

If there was no deficit spending, then right now we would all be living in what would likely come to be called Great Depression 2. The so-called free market is good at some things, but left to its own devices tends to spiral down to disaster. Which is why a referee, in the form of government is needed to regulate, and to inject or remove funds at various times to keep society moving in a relatively pro-social direction. Deficit spending is an essential tool for this.

 

[jaeger19]

OK - so you have cut a ton of government spending on defense, homeland security, and some other programs you don't like. How many soldiers have you suddenly put out of work? How many TSA officers? What are all those people going to do for employment? Demand just took a nosedive, because you just cut off the paychecks for a ton of people. Not that the private sector had enough jobs for them anyway... Now what? How does this play out in your head?

How many soldiers have I put out of work? Very Dang few.. if any.

The real asset in our military is our military men and woman. THATS always been the strength in our military. A weapon is only as good as the warrior wielding it.

Yet.. when the military cuts..often its forced to cut personnel and salaries... when in reality.. that's the best value we have. But we do it so we can continue to build tanks that the military doesn't want.
Or goes toward supporting defense contractors in foreign countries providing duplicate services which our military are already doing.

As far as TSA officers... again not many... because their are our best defense. We spend billions on tech security.. when the reality is terrorists defeat the high tech security by being low tech. The 9/11 attackers used box cutters.

But instead of using well trained TSA officers.. who can interview.. and talk to passengers and determine who appears to be a risk... we spend billions on scanners so we can see what grandma looks like.

To pad the profits of a few companies that are good at lobbying.

You don't realize the reality is that tons of government spending goes almost directly into the coffers of a few connected rich people.

 

[Conservative]

Ganesh;1066233869]I've always been curious as to why the far right wants to localize various aspects of government. I suspect it stems from a subconscious desire to simplify the world, to break it down into smaller units, and bring it closer to home, so that what seems abstract can be understood. Unfortunately for such hopefuls, the economic principles being discussed are universal, and cross over national boundaries, not just state ones. Shifting the issues in question to 50 states will simply create 50 mini-jurisdictions, with less resources in each, and massive duplication of administration. And the problems will not go away.

Why? Because personal responsibility is a local issue as are the expenses related to most social problems. it appears you never took a history or civics class. In history you will see where our Founders created a govt. that had a small central govt. locating power at the state and local levels. They understood that power corrupts and that is what has happened as our bureaucrats have bought power from the electorate. the first Federal govt. had a part time legislature and today, TX has the same, a legislature that meets every two years. With today's technology that is certainly doable and forces lawmakers to live under the laws they create. You don't seem to understand who actually pays for the cost of social problems, maybe you ought to look it up?

If you find 4 trillion a mind-boggling figure, then how about 14 trillion? If the former is too much, maybe there is also too much in private expenditure. Tell us exactly where the excess is- is it in too many 3-D fridge magnets being made in San Francisco? That $300 lunch for the exec at Goldman Sachs? If you don't like large numbers, maybe that one could be brought down.

yes, I find 4 trillion mindboggling when you look at the line items and I find 19.4 trillion much worse as that is the debt those mindboggling budgets created in deficits. Please name for me any trillion dollar private entity. Seems you care more about what someone is paid in the private sector by private money vs. what the federal bureaucrats earn on the public dole? Why is that? Any idea how rich our bureaucrats are and how they got so rich? Do you understand you have the opportunity to turn over your state govt. with term limits but not so the federal bureaucrats?

If there was no deficit spending, then right now we would all be living in what would likely come to be called Great Depression 2. The so-called free market is good at some things, but left to its own devices tends to spiral down to disaster. Which is why a referee, in the form of government is needed to regulate, and to inject or remove funds at various times to keep society moving in a relatively pro-social direction. Deficit spending is an essential tool for this.

Again, I point out you have no understanding of why there needs to be deficit spending because you don't understand the line items in the budget. You also don't know that TARP was a loan and thus not deficit spending as it was paid back at a profit. You buy what the left tells you and never verifies the accuracy of that which gives you very little credibility. Also I suggest you look at Reagan's stimulus and understand how putting more money into your pocket increases demand just like the left wants to claim govt. spending does

 

[jaeger19]

If we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, we might not need a lot of it. Defending our national interests and working to advance liberty and justice around the world needn't be a failed venture. Policing can be productive and worthwhile if you don't behave like Keystone cops.
.

And it also doesn' t need to be as expensive AND be borne mostly by the US either.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You simply do not know the true role of the Federal govt.

It is what the citizenry say it is by the original document, amendment to it and what the SC upholds. It is not what Southern conservatives like yourself wish it was, an insane reactionary pining for the past where states could violate inherent rights.

nor the reality that the issue of equal rights is guaranteed in the Constitution by an Amendment. Keep showing how easily it is to indoctrinate some people into the liberal ideology.

The only rights you believe in are those of the state, not the individual.

you fit that bill well. Why would any employer hire someone who collected unemployment for 2 years instead of someone who was under employed? I prefer someone who worked in A job while looking for THE job. Someone that collected from the taxpayers will do the same thing from the employer when hired after two years of unemployment, collect a paycheck and do nothing to earn it.

Again, you create stereotypes, it shows a lack of empathy, a typical far right conservative trait.

Your state gets it, you never will

I'm very aware that there is a huge percentage of the population in AZ that shares your rw Southern conservative ideology, the sad thing is, it wasn't always this way. We used to produce some fairly level headed figures (Carl Hayden, the Udall's, Sandra Day O'Connor...) but now it is Evan Mecham, Sheriff Joke and JD Hayworth.

 

[Conservative]

Gimmesometruth;1066233926]It is what the citizenry say it is by the original document, amendment to it and what the SC upholds. It is not what Southern conservatives like yourself wish it was, an insane reactionary pining for the past where states could violate inherent rights.The only rights you believe in are those of the state, not the individual.Again, you create stereotypes, it shows a lack of empathy, a typical far right conservative trait.

So you are an expert on the conservative trait and seem to imply that I am a racist because I support states rights. you continue to live in the past and ignore the problems your liberal ideology has created. You also don't understand term limits or what it means to change your leadership if you don't like what is happening there. further if you don't like it move as apparently you cannot change the majority in your state and to promote your agenda you have no problem with a 4.2 trillion dollar federal govt, 19.4 trillion in debt, and career politicians sending money wherever they see fit.

I'm very aware that there is a huge percentage of the population in AZ that shares your rw Southern conservative ideology, the sad thing is, it wasn't always this way. We used to produce some fairly level headed figures (Carl Hayden, the Udall's, Sandra Day O'Connor...) but now it is Evan Mecham, Sheriff Joke and JD Hayworth.

I bet the people are fed up with the infiltration of illegals into the state and the cost to the taxpayers that holds as your govt. has failed to do its job of protecting the borders thus creating more liberals just like you. I suggest looking in the mirror to see the real problem facing this country, people like you who delegate personal responsibility issues to the Federal bureaucrats

 

[jaeger19]

I've always been curious as to why the far right wants to localize various aspects of government. I suspect it stems from a subconscious desire to simplify the world, to break it down into smaller units, and bring it closer to home, so that what seems abstract can be understood. Unfortunately for such hopefuls, the economic principles being discussed are universal, and cross over national boundaries, not just state ones. Shifting the issues in question to 50 states will simply create 50 mini-jurisdictions, with less resources in each, and massive duplication of administration. And the problems will not go away.

If you find 4 trillion a mind-boggling figure, then how about 14 trillion? If the former is too much, maybe there is also too much in private expenditure. Tell us exactly where the excess is- is it in too many 3-D fridge magnets being made in San Francisco? That $300 lunch for the exec at Goldman Sachs? If you don't like large numbers, maybe that one could be brought down.

If there was no deficit spending, then right now we would all be living in what would likely come to be called Great Depression 2. The so-called free market is good at some things, but left to its own devices tends to spiral down to disaster. Which is why a referee, in the form of government is needed to regulate, and to inject or remove funds at various times to keep society moving in a relatively pro-social direction. Deficit spending is an essential tool for this.

Just to point out a few things.

Various aspect of society do better and work more effectively and efficiently under local control. The issues of inner city New York.. are not the same issues in rural Idaho.

AS far as deficit spending.. we have also done better as a nation with a lot less of it. Its a tool.. and can be an effective tool when used properly.

However, unfortunately.... it has become it seems the ONLY tool in the US toolbox. (well taxes are the second tool). For John.. and other liberals... they ascribe almost mythical powers to deficit spending. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

And the problem when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer... is that everything starts to look like a nail. And when its pointed out to a liberal.. that deficit spending has not had the positive effects he claims it does..well they state its because we just didn't hit hard enough.

 

[Gaea]

I asked you to explain why we need a 4.2 trillion dollar budget and until you look at the line items, compare those to the state, that is just a number that you want to spend and more, why? Every dollar that goes to the Federal Govt. is a dollar taken out of the private sector in the states. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Send dollars to the Federal govt. to get a fraction back? does that make any sense. You buy the leftwing rhetoric because that is what you want to believe. sorry but the reality is we have a bloated Federal bureaucracy out of touch with reality as are you

Out of curiosity, what fraction are you thinking doesn't come back to us?

Golden Hammer: GAO reports federal government wasted $125 billion in 2014 alone - Washington Times

If we are to believe the Washington Times, there is around $125 billion in annual waste, fraud, and abuse.

That's about 3% of our budget. So your complaint is that only 97 cents on your dollar is spent well?

Let's look at health care providers.
Aetna's executives were paid compensation exceeding $44 million in the last year.
Blues executives were paid compensation exceeding $100 million in 2014.
And United Healthcare? The CEO made over $66 million in 2014.

Do you consider that well-spent money?

 

[Moderate Right]

That's what theories are, professor.

Well then professor, you should know that theories are just theories and not facts or truths until proven as such. Some actually get proven and some do not. You can't automatically assume that any given THEORY will ever be proven correct. You guys have already declared the MM(T)HEORY) to be correct. Until then it is as John says it is, ALTERNATIVE. You guys need to quit with the links, graphs and charts, trying to convince everyone that a theory is actually fact.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

AS far as deficit spending.. we have also done better as a nation with a lot less of it. Its a tool.. and can be an effective tool when used properly.

However, unfortunately.... it has become it seems the ONLY tool in the US toolbox. (well taxes are the second tool). For John.. and other liberals... they ascribe almost mythical powers to deficit spending. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

What??!? Despite all evidence to the contrary? WHAT evidence???

I have shown you that, without deficit spending, our aggregate demand would go from growth to contraction. I have shown you that, historically, periods of extended deficit/debt reduction have preceeded recessions and depressions. I have shown you that, over our history, we have run deficits a large majority of the time, accumulated what everybody thinks is a large amount of debt, yet we are the planet's largest economy. I have introduced you to the world of demand leakages and injections, even if you still seem lost there.

And your "evidence to the contrary"? Some ruminations on cutting fat from defense spending? You have provided exactly ZERO in the way of evidence that we don't need deficit spending. Zero.

And the problem when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer... is that everything starts to look like a nail. And when its pointed out to a liberal.. that deficit spending has not had the positive effects he claims it does..well they state its because we just didn't hit hard enough.

When I can point out, with numbers, how far that nail needs to go before it is fully into the board, and that we really aren't hitting it hard enough, and when you cannot come up with another realistic demand injection (or, to fit the analogy, a new tool) to fill the gap, then your analogy fails terribly.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Well then professor, you should know that theories are just theories and not facts or truths until proven as such. Some actually get proven and some do not. You can't automatically assume that any given THEORY will ever be proven correct. You guys have already declared the MM(T)HEORY) to be correct. Until then it is as John says it is, ALTERNATIVE. You guys need to quit with the links, graphs and charts, trying to convince everyone that a theory is actually fact.

Gravity is just a theory, yet you aren't floating up into space.




















(.....although I wish you would.)

 

[Gaea]

Gravity is just a theory, yet you aren't floating up into space.

Newton's law of universal gravitation

It's not a theory. You might want to think of a better example.

 

[mmi]

Some actually get proven and some do not.

Which macroeconomic theories have been "proven"? I'd say it's more or less impossible to do so.

>>You guys have already declared the MM(T)HEORY) to be correct.

When? It's been advanced as sensible, useful, an improvement.

>>You guys need to quit with the links, graphs and charts, trying to convince everyone that a theory is actually fact.

When has anyone attempted to "prove" that MMT is "actually fact"? All yer doing is making it clear that yer as good at social science as I am at translating Urdu.

 

[Ganesh]

Why? Because personal responsibility is a local issue as are the expenses related to most social problems. it appears you never took a history or civics class. In history you will see where our Founders created a govt. that had a small central govt. locating power at the state and local levels. They understood that power corrupts and that is what has happened as our bureaucrats have bought power from the electorate. the first Federal govt. had a part time legislature and today, TX has the same, a legislature that meets every two years. With today's technology that is certainly doable and forces lawmakers to live under the laws they create. You don't seem to understand who actually pays for the cost of social problems, maybe you ought to look it up?

Wow, I haven't heard so much confused gibberish since I sat in a smokey room with black light posters, tie dyed t-shirt and roach clip 50 years or so ago. Let's see if we can dissect some of your ramblings. Personal responsibility? I'd say that was an issue period, local or not. Most social problems we see today are global, as the economy is also global. Your "Flounders" may have also proscribed how many slaves a farmer may own, and how much blood should be let to cure the Dropsy. But if you think you can make an argument by projecting your own fears and misgivings into a two century old document, well then don't be surprised if the response from thinking people is just a few chuckles. By working part time legislators are forced to abide by the law? OK. This is getting interesting.......just give me a minute to put the popcorn on. As for social problems, most all pay for them eventually, except for a few grandees at the top of the food chain with sufficient wealth that the agonies of the peons are well beneath their notice.

yes, I find 4 trillion mindboggling when you look at the line items and I find 19.4 trillion much worse as that is the debt those mindboggling budgets created in deficits. Please name for me any trillion dollar private entity. Seems you care more about what someone is paid in the private sector by private money vs. what the federal bureaucrats earn on the public dole? Why is that? Any idea how rich our bureaucrats are and how they got so rich? Do you understand you have the opportunity to turn over your state govt. with term limits but not so the federal bureaucrats?

Dole is a slang term that refers to welfare. Paying a letter carrier to deliver mail, or a forest ranger to patrol parks, or a lab tech to test the purity of food products is not a dole, but salary. When you shift such activities to the private sector, you still have to pay, but then will often also have to pay for a profit margin, and these days also an astronomical CEO salary. I think your problem here is in getting mind boggled. You have succumbed twice in one paragraph, and I suspect there are many more incidents in your non-virtual life. Rather than being boggled, consider such numbers in context. Take a look at total world GDP, or stock market or bond market valuations, or more to the point the ability to pay such sums.

Again, I point out you have no understanding of why there needs to be deficit spending because you don't understand the line items in the budget. You also don't know that TARP was a loan and thus not deficit spending as it was paid back at a profit. You buy what the left tells you and never verifies the accuracy of that which gives you very little credibility. Also I suggest you look at Reagan's stimulus and understand how putting more money into your pocket increases demand just like the left wants to claim govt. spending does

Just give me a minute here, because.........I almost fell off my chair. It's because you said something that is almost accurate. Putting money into the hands of workers can increase demand, and hence economic activity, yes. Too bad about the rest of the paragraph. Economically, Reagan's stimulus went in exactly the wrong direction, as it directed funds into areas with the least multiplying effect. More money for arms, especially those with uncertain capability (star wars, WW2 battleships), do provide some jobs, but are of much less long term utility than say, supporting alternative energy production, improving education, or building better transportation networks. Funneling money to the rich is of even less utility, as those that have a lot already are less tempted to plug it back into the economy, and when they do it is often put into more frivolous and counterproductive assets, something we have seen several examples of in recent years. The fact that his economic guru was named "Laffer" is just another one of those ironic and humerus little gems the universe throws at use now and again. That's why I like reading non-fiction more than fiction. Who could make this stuff up?

 

[Conservative]

Out of curiosity, what fraction are you thinking doesn't come back to us?

Golden Hammer: GAO reports federal government wasted $125 billion in 2014 alone - Washington Times

If we are to believe the Washington Times, there is around $125 billion in annual waste, fraud, and abuse.

That's about 3% of our budget. So your complaint is that only 97 cents on your dollar is spent well?

Let's look at health care providers.
Aetna's executives were paid compensation exceeding $44 million in the last year.
Blues executives were paid compensation exceeding $100 million in 2014.
And United Healthcare? The CEO made over $66 million in 2014.

Do you consider that well-spent money?

Ok, now how about the items the govt. spends that are actually state requirements, i.e social programs? Why do you care what private companies pay their employees, how does that affect you? You do know the difference between private and public spending, don't you?

You have been indoctrinated well. SS and Medicare are mandatory contributions paid by employees and employers, that money was put on budget in 1967 by LBJ and has been spent on everything other than SS and Medicare. Doesn't that bother you? Over 60% of the US Budget is entitlement spending, of the discretionary spending much of that as well is social spending which isn't the Federal Government's responsibility. Why don't you look at the budget for the first time and ask yourself why we need 50 state budgets and then a 4.2 trillion dollar federal budget? Stop buying what you are told