Top Democrats Say Balancing the Budget a Bad Idea:

The last reported US intrest rate is 0.25%.
In the 1970's it was between 6.8% and 20%.
The intrest rate can not remain at this level indefinately. What do you suppose will happen when it starts going up with the trillions of dollars in circulation (digital or otherwise)? It will spawn the highest hyper-inflation in which the world has never seen. The economy will be obliviated, food would be on the shelves but no one could afford it, and civil unrest would be certain. The only real asset this country would be land. The only was to recover would be to sell all public lands and most certainly forclosed property to back whatever currency follows the dollar.
Of course they don't want to balance the budget. It would unvail the 800lb. goilla and quicken the callapse. Why do you people think the feds have been stockpiling ammo? They know what will happen. It is a mathmatical certainty. They are just trying to kick the "can" futher down the road. So, when the intrest rates go up...Bye Bye Miss American Pie. /cry

reply to post by thepresident


Since you obviously got a D in econ I will explain this to you.

.gov cannot drive private equity, .goc is public, what part of that isn't understandable?

So here we go, .govs have no money at all, the only money they have they "take" from the people, meaning the people have it and they take it, either through taxation, fines/fees/penallties, or printing it at the FED.

Next we come to spending of monies. A .gov, cannot be the driving force of an econmy period, end of paragraph, full stop.

As seen and evidenced by their failed attempts tp do so over history, it always fails, and only prolongs the agony of the situation, if the .gov would have just let the market adjust itself, 4 years ago, things would aready be back on track. Instead they try to fend off the colapse wolves, by feeding them money the economy doesn't havve, to prop up a dying business model, that has proven itself to be untenable.

Once we finally hit rock bottom, the problem will have been ongoing for a decade minimum, all the while watching the people suffer without good jobs, or enough pay to live on.

Instead, let the big defaulted banks collapse, a new younger stronger bank which isn't ran into the ground will fill the void, and the problem is fixed. Instead they are trying to defend the "old guard" which caused the problem in the first place, instead of letting nature take its course and letting it die, like it should.

This is the equivelent of bankrupting your entire family, just to keep granny around for a couple more months, of barely even likving in misery the entire time, all the while, denying the reality that she will pass on and it is best to just let it be quick and clean, grieve, and than continje on with your life.

The entire model is defunct from the basement to the shingles. It is based on infinite growth, which is a falicy at its inception, as their are finikte resources, so infinite growth cannot ever work out.

All these "too big to fail" corps. Are already at their limit of revenue production, which is why they are in such trouble, instead of letting the dinosaurs join their place in the ground, we keep using the shock paddles and reviving them at tremendous expense, to evveryone else. Even though it is obvious their business model has , just like the dinosaurs, run its course, and needs to die off.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Great explanation, people sometimes tend to have short memories they forgot that the only reason the economy "look like it balanced back after the market crash in 2008" was due to the generosity of the American tax payer to keep the wealthiest elite Aka too big to fail from going under water. In other words the too big didn't fix anything they just got bailed out until the next crash.

So what we did is to patch the problem no fix it.

I have a plan that will fix the economy almost over night.

All the stinking rich greedy bastards, start ponying up and coming off of some of their billions they will never even be able to spend( not like it is going with you when you die) by immediately paying a lot more in proportion to their labors their current low wage employees.

Who will in turn, spend that money on goods and services, who will in turn hire more people and pay them well as money will be flowing through the bottom up devises the economy actually functions off of.

Which will in turn lead to a rise in .gov revenues, as more people are working and making more money( pay roll taxes), then again when they spend it( sales taxes) which will inturn lead to a surplus of tax money, as the spending continues to rise.

The last time we were in this position, the .gov litterely told the rich they will either pony up or the .gov will tax it away from them, right after the depression. Which let to the biggest boom in salary hikes, thus spending and .gov revenue of all time.

All Amerikcans went in less than 15 years from living in shanties and riding mules, to driving cars and buying refrigerators.

It is a simple problem to see and solve, the super rich either give more or the people take it, as it is obvious the problems all stem from there.

Think about it. They break the market, so they stop spending, which means the people have less money, so they can't spend it, so jobs get lost, so there is less money to spend, causing another round of job loses, and less money to spend for the people, and further revenue loss.

The problem starts and ends with the super rich, not any other entity that I have ever come across.

Technicals flash amber as ECB and Fed struggle to validate rhetoric

America’s mutual funds haemorrhaged a further $12.7bn in July, the fifth consecutive monthly outflow.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


People are raiding their mutual funds in order to make ends meat!!

Balancing the budget or paying down the deficite etc etc. That's all now just political jargon. IT'S NOT REAL. All you do is say that stuff as part of you run for office. But it doesn't mean anything because the monitary system is 100% FAKE. Even the taxes that are collected from you don't go to anything. It's all fake, a way to excercise tyranny on the people.

And as far as balancing the budget etc etc. It doesn't work like the way a lot of people are fooled into thinking. It's more like this. The US dollar is basically still the world currently that oil is based on. As long as that's in play then the US can do whatever it wants with it's currency. Plus the US has the Fed Res so it can print as much money as it wants. So no country can call them out on there loans because it's petro dollars and they can print endless money and no one can do anything about it. So it's essencially for the most part turned into fake money. It's not based on anything other than how fast the printers can print it. It's completely fake.

Your taxes are completely fake too. Again it's just to keep people in bondage, and keep them struggling. Essencially a way of getting double the productivity out of each person. 50% of your money end up going to taxes in one way or another. You're told you're getting paid 100k lets say. But actually the truth is your only getting 50k. The reason is the fake taxes that are impossed on you. And people actually believe that money goes to do stuff like pay for public services etc etc. It doesn't it's all fake. TPTB can print endless money, it's all a scam.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by thepresident

 

Well not when the biggest employer in the US is the government itself, that is why the America economy is a revolving economy.

And where do you think government employees spend their money?
Who do you think the government buys their supplies from?

They spend their money in the REAL ECONOMY, like you and I.

They get paid, go to McDonalds, pay their bills, their mortgage, by cloths, coffee, cable,
computers and the rest...

I do not understand why you assume that the money government spends sits in
a bubble.... It does not, it flows throughout the economy and takes on many forms,
profit, wages, many times over.

Originally posted by thepresident
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Your article says "Balancing the Budget a Bad Idea" ,
the Dems are actually saying, shrinking the economic output during a slow economy
is a bad idea.

It is true, it will reduce currency in circulation, which will mean less money is captured by
business.

Anyone care to argue the point?

Take you up on that! I believe you are refering to "velocity of money"

The velocity of money, which measures how often a unit of money is spent over a given period of time

Velocity of US Money hits all time low

More from the article,

Bullman said: “In normal circumstances, money velocity should rise as the money supply increases, as people go out and spend the extra cash in the system. The fact that it’s continued to fall means that the credit mechanism is essentially broken.”

Its a 50 year low. Increasing the currency throught debt expansion is esentially using $2.08 of debt to generate each dollar of GDP thats equivalent to 108% interest if one cares.

The velocity figure according to the article indicates additional monies are going into bonds and treasuries not into the economy as you think or the Democrats claim.

Of course it should always be remembered that the government itself produces absolutely nothing in the first place. To me its akin to paying protection money and just like those charactors they keep asking for more and doing less.

Personally I dont see this lasting to much longer before it goes off the cliff. Cynically I wonder why Dems dont flub this election so they can do the usual finger pointing exercise at President Romney.when this thing goes over the cliff cause thats happening regardless.

I'm going to LMAO when Romney says "But I inherited it from Obama" Actually that kind of meme is wearing very thin.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by thepresident

 

Since you obviously got a D in econ I will explain this to you.

I already read your response, you have applied fact and magical thinking and
created a slurry of theory that looks past many key facts.

.gov cannot drive private equity, .goc is public, what part of that isn't understandable?

Did I ever say that govenrment can drive private equity?

Can you quote me on that?

I said that government is a part of the Meta economy and is currently responsible
for the circulatory model of our economy.

The Government is the largest employer last I checked, government is responsible
for providing pay checks for millions of people.

Like it or not, the majority of that capital finds its way into private industry during it's
circulation.

There is no magical bubble, segregating that money, as the economy is currently
structured, government paychecks contribute to economy in every single sector.

So here we go, .govs have no money at all, the only money they have they "take" from the people, meaning the people have it and they take it, either through taxation, fines/fees/penallties, or printing it at the FED.

They make take it, or fraudulently print it, but the fact is the government is currently disbursing
a huge amount of capital into the economy. If that money and the established jobs represented
by that capital evaporated over night, private business would feel it within two weeks. That
money, regardless of how you FEEL about it, is a part of America's economic structure.

Next we come to spending of monies. A .gov, cannot be the driving force of an econmy period, end of paragraph, full stop.

OK, you are repeating yourself and it is getting boring now...

Employees of the government spend their money, that is what I am getting at.
Their money is as green as anyone else's.

As seen and evidenced by their failed attempts tp do so over history, it always fails, and only prolongs the agony of the situation, if the .gov would have just let the market adjust itself, 4 years ago, things would aready be back on track. Instead they try to fend off the colapse wolves, by feeding them money the economy doesn't havve, to prop up a dying business model, that has proven itself to be untenable.

The market adjust itself?

You mean watch the entire world economy collapse???

Sounds like you aced Fantasy 101!

Once we finally hit rock bottom, the problem will have been ongoing for a decade minimum, all the while watching the people suffer without good jobs, or enough pay to live on.

Or just incited WWIII

Instead, let the big defaulted banks collapse, a new younger stronger bank which isn't ran into the ground will fill the void, and the problem is fixed.

Oh I see and what happens when 85% of Americans lost their investments and capital?

That money doesn't MAGICALLY transfer into a smaller bank sir, that capital depreciates and
disappears for all intents and purposes.

Instead they are trying to defend the "old guard" which caused the problem in the first place, instead of letting nature take its course and letting it die, like it should.

They should have broken up the banks, liquidated assets and hung the executives or burned them in
a fire. If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they should have dispersed that money to each
American evenly.

But, never the less, as it currently is, the government's employees economic contributions are vital to
the economy as it is structured today.

If four million people lost their source of income, private industry would not instantly replace that
capital in circulation. Moreover that loss would impact private industry negatively in short order.

Fact

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
I have a plan that will fix the economy almost over night.



The last time we were in this position, the .gov litterely told the rich they will either pony up or the .gov will tax it away from them, right after the depression. Which let to the biggest boom in salary hikes, thus spending and .gov revenue of all time.

All Amerikcans went in less than 15 years from living in shanties and riding mules, to driving cars and buying refrigerators.

.

Hate to break the news to you but it took a world war to end that depression, the tax hikes of 37' or 38' actually caused further decline in the economy until war broke out and Americas industrial output was needed.

Not that I like the filthy rich, just like fairness and really dont like revisionist history.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by thepresident
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Your article says "Balancing the Budget a Bad Idea" ,
the Dems are actually saying, shrinking the economic output during a slow economy
is a bad idea.

It is true, it will reduce currency in circulation, which will mean less money is captured by
business.

Anyone care to argue the point?

Take you up on that! I believe you are refering to "velocity of money"

The velocity of money, which measures how often a unit of money is spent over a given period of time

Velocity of US Money hits all time low

More from the article,

Bullman said: “In normal circumstances, money velocity should rise as the money supply increases, as people go out and spend the extra cash in the system. The fact that it’s continued to fall means that the credit mechanism is essentially broken.”

Its a 50 year low. Increasing the currency throught debt expansion is esentially using $2.08 of debt to generate each dollar of GDP thats equivalent to 108% interest if one cares.

The velocity figure according to the article indicates additional monies are going into bonds and treasuries not into the economy as you think or the Democrats claim.

I am specifically talking about employees of the government who spend their paychecks each
month. That money is apart of America's current economic structure.

Of course it should always be remembered that the government itself produces absolutely nothing in the first place.

Uh, people working produce many things and more importantly they circulate capital with their wages...

If we can go beyond the world of dog whistle conservative politics, I would love to have an actual intellectual debate with you one day.

If millions of people who contribute to economic structure of America disappear, the economy
will contract in an equal increment and then contract until equilibrium is achieved.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
I have a plan that will fix the economy almost over night.



The last time we were in this position, the .gov litterely told the rich they will either pony up or the .gov will tax it away from them, right after the depression. Which let to the biggest boom in salary hikes, thus spending and .gov revenue of all time.

All Amerikcans went in less than 15 years from living in shanties and riding mules, to driving cars and buying refrigerators.

.

Hate to break the news to you but it took a world war to end that depression, the tax hikes of 37' or 38' actually caused further decline in the economy until war broke out and Americas industrial output was needed.

Not that I like the filthy rich, just like fairness and really dont like revisionist history.

And the 90% T1 tax rate of Eisenhower's era provided massive economic expansion and America's
recent "Golden Age"

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by thepresident

 

I said that government is a part of the Meta economy and is currently responsible
for the circulatory model of our economy.

Like it or not, the majority of that capital finds its way into private industry during it's
circulation.

There is no magical bubble, segregating that money, as the economy is currently
structured, government paychecks contribute to economy in every single sector.

But, never the less, as it currently is, the government's employees economic contributions are vital to
the economy as it is structured today.

I respectfully disagree with these statements quoted above and present my link disproving your theory of .gov being the engine of the economy.


Velocity of US money at all time low

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by thepresident

 

I said that government is a part of the Meta economy and is currently responsible
for the circulatory model of our economy.

Like it or not, the majority of that capital finds its way into private industry during it's
circulation.

There is no magical bubble, segregating that money, as the economy is currently
structured, government paychecks contribute to economy in every single sector.

But, never the less, as it currently is, the government's employees economic contributions are vital to
the economy as it is structured today.

I respectfully disagree with these statements quoted above and present my link disproving your theory of .gov being the engine of the economy.


Velocity of US money at all time low

You are making blanket statements and implying that I am doing the same.

this economy is a mixed economy currently.

Please explain how laying off four or five million people will increase demand or economic
activity?

If you attempt to answer that question and you cannot find an answer, you will see that
my point is based in fact.

The government is not the engine, but the government is structurally included in the U.S
meta economy, it is the largest employer in America, which means that it serves as
a distributor of capital via wages.

It might not produce anything good or valuable, but that is separate from it's place in the
economy.

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
I have a plan that will fix the economy almost over night.



The last time we were in this position, the .gov litterely told the rich they will either pony up or the .gov will tax it away from them, right after the depression. Which let to the biggest boom in salary hikes, thus spending and .gov revenue of all time.

All Amerikcans went in less than 15 years from living in shanties and riding mules, to driving cars and buying refrigerators.

.

Hate to break the news to you but it took a world war to end that depression, the tax hikes of 37' or 38' actually caused further decline in the economy until war broke out and Americas industrial output was needed.

Not that I like the filthy rich, just like fairness and really dont like revisionist history.

And the 90% T1 tax rate of Eisenhower's era provided massive economic expansion and America's
recent "Golden Age"

Yup helped create the 1958 recession where unemployment in detroit was 20% plus - you have watched to many tv shows that ignored the reality of the times.

1958 Recession


One of the first thing JFK did was cut taxes and amazingly enough revenues to the government increased due to enhanced - get this - velocity of money.

Why do you guys keep saying that I said

"THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF AMERICA???"

Can someone quote me please?

I never said that and I do not believe that,

Originally posted by thepresident
Why do you guys keep saying that I said

"THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF AMERICA???"

Can someone quote me please?

I never said that and I do not believe that,

Give you that.......seemed implied though, glad you dont believe that.

Figures I've seen have said something along the lines that a 40% reduction in gov spending in 2008 while very painful to go through indeed may have stopped the deficit spending in its tracks. Now I belive the figure is nearing the 80%+ point making the deficit something our children and grandchildren will still be dealing with if and thats a big IF, we dont get in WW3 or completely come off the rails as a society first - both are more possible than I would have ever believed a few years ago.

I have said this before and I'll say again - the only choice seems "hit the brakes or floor it" either way its going over the cliff.

a balanced budget is a terrible idea.

15 trillion in debt is way better.

that way they can keep tax revenue coming in like rainwater.

if the budget is balanced, then they can't justify tax increases and can actually start to lower america's "debt".

and with a few cuts, they might have to actually cut you a check and lower everybody's taxes, not just 1% of the population.

So let me make a rather simplistic analogy.

Let's say a single mother of three loses her job.

She has credit card that are near maxed out say some are not.

One or two of her kids will starve if she stops using them completely.

How ever if she tries to say budget their usage and prioritize what she buys, she has a chance to keep the kids going, maybe not in the style they would like but no one will starve. In hope that better times can be had if she spends the available credit wisely.

Some additional information is this women has a neighbor who seems to really want her in debt and freely lends her money, clearly the neighbor wants something.

Lucky for this women during good times she stocked her house full of weapons a kick ass alarm system and a huge Pitt bull to protect her.

So which option do you take?

Starve the kids and balance her budget?

Reduce her spending while still borrowing and hope for better times?

Or kindly tell her neighbor go ahead and try to collect while she calmly polishes her guns?

I'm beginning to understand why the country can't have a serious discussion on economics. As just one example, I seem to remember a poster saying that if the government spends more money on its employees, they can go out and buy things thus improving the economy. By taxing people to get the money to pay the government employees, the people as a whole are less able to buy things, they have less money. Net result? No improvement in the overall economy, government employees get to buy more, everyone else gets to buy less.

And no, I don't feel like explaining the Laffer Curve, or explaining the "crowding out" effect that the government has.