Do government deficits help or hurt the economy?

[itfitzme]

Reagan deficit, good.

Bush deficit, good.

Obama deficit, bad.

And, of course, Clinton surplus, non-existent.

it was a Newt suplus. Republicans took over house for first time in 40 years and made Clinton say, "The era of big government is over". Newt got 32 states to sign his BBA. Today national debt would be $0
if not for libtards killing that BBA and several others since.

Here is a list of the top six expense functions for the federal government.

National Defence
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Net Interest

Do tell, which of these were the the functions where the cuts were made by the Newt that accounted for the surplus?

 

[itfitzme]

Do government deficits help or hurt the economy? Which is it?

Can it be both?

It is a stupid question.

Government spending and taxation affects the economy. The difference between government spending and taxation results in a decifit or surplus. A deficit or surplus doesn't affect anything. It is just an accounting number.

Really? A deficit has to be paid for one way or another. You either borrow more money or you print more money, right? Either way, there are consequences.

Since when has the deficit been paid for and how?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is a stupid question.

Government spending and taxation affects the economy. The difference between government spending and taxation results in a decifit or surplus. A deficit or surplus doesn't affect anything. It is just an accounting number.

Really? A deficit has to be paid for one way or another. You either borrow more money or you print more money, right? Either way, there are consequences.

Since when has the deficit been paid for and how?

He said it has to paid for,..... in the future. Your conjugation skills seem like your conceptual skills

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan deficit, good.

Bush deficit, good.

Obama deficit, bad.

And, of course, Clinton surplus, non-existent.

it was a Newt suplus. Republicans took over house for first time in 40 years and made Clinton say, "The era of big government is over". Newt got 32 states to sign his BBA. Today national debt would be $0
if not for libtards killing that BBA and several others since.

Here is a list of the top six expense functions for the federal government.

National Defence
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Net Interest

Do tell, which of these were the the functions where the cuts were made by the Newt that accounted for the surplus?

who said and exactly where there were cuts????? You created a strawman and didn't even know it/

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do government deficits help or hurt the economy? Which is it?

Can it be both?

It is a stupid question.

Government spending and taxation affects the economy. The difference between government spending and taxation results in a decifit or surplus. A deficit or surplus doesn't affect anything. It is just an accounting number.

wrong wrong wrong!!! a deficit means libtards are spending more than they are taxing in order to buy votes. Thats a perversion of democracy and its bad economics since it means we are paying interest on money that liberals wasted. Simple enough for you?

 

[itfitzme]

nothing is a one-size-fits-all cure-all. Government Deficits are a tool in the arsenal of the public (Government, speaking for public), appropriate for particular circumstances. When the economy stalls, and when nobody else from the private sector is borrowing, then money gradually decirculates (into savings), and the money supply deflates. Then Government can wade in, borrow up unborrowed credit, and spend the money on important public projects, to stimulate the economy.

Government over-spending is not, generally, beneficial

too stupid!!! savings = investment in Econ 101 class one day one.

Too stupid!!! deflation does not occur from savings it occurs when the money supply shrinks, it does not shrink in a bank any more than it inflates when the government spends it.

Too stupid!! if government spending could stimulate an economy we'd never have recessions or depressions!!

See why we are positve [SP] a liberal will be slow.

too stupid!!! savings = investment in Econ 101 class is an oversimplified model based on an oversimplified economy.

The derivation of savings equals investment model includes the precursor;

"Let's begin with the simplest case: an economy with a constant population, producing at full employment. This particular economy has no government or foreign sector. Output can be purchased only by consumers or by firms. In other words, output consists solely of consumption (C) and investment (I). At the same time, this output generates an amount of income that is equivalent to the amount of output. That is, output (Y) equals income. Any income that is not consumed we call saving."

This over simplified economy leads to S = I.

And, if you had actually taken Econ 101, you would know that everything in Econ 101 is idealized. Econ 101 does not present models that fully represent the real world. It presents models that can be used to compare the real world against.

Note that the preface states, "producing at full employment". What does this mean? Well, I suppose we will have to take Econ 201.

A more complete derivation is;

C + S + T = G + I + C + NX

S = I + NX

So savings equals investment plus net exports. That is an interesting issue.

Of course, this still ignores the affect of consumer credit and the expansion of the money supply. Why do these matter?

For one, consumer credit is also borrowing against savings. So, investment is decreased by the amount of consumer credit.

Second, investment moneys also come from borrowing against the fractional reserve bank reserves. As such, investment comes from two sources, not just savings.

Thirdly, it ignores the liquidity trap, in which there is no investment borrowing against savings.

And to think I've posted a link to a good Econ 101 text, from which I pulled the basic econ derivation of S = I and you still haven't bothered to download and read it.

See why we are positive that an idiot named EdwardBiaimonte that hasn't actually taken an Econ 101 course and is too slow to possibly understand it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

too stupid!!! savings = investment in Econ 101 class is an oversimplified model based on an oversimplified economy.

so if investment does not come from savings where does it come from??

 

[Staidhup]

Deficits remain the legacy of Keynesian economic theory, whereby one is borrowing and spending today in the hope of creating long term employment, economic activity, and that those coming down the road are financially capable and willing to purchase debt securities, furthermore, that government revenues cover interest requirements. As we now fully understand, such reckless and irresponsible behavior eventually evolves into the status of being unsustainable. Without controlling the expansion of government and ignoring unfunded liabilities the fiscal house of cards is doomed to collapse on itself. On the other hand to simply raise taxes to cure financial short comings can further sink economic expansion, cost jobs, and accelerate the collapse. Without containment and cuts devaluation of the currency coupled with increased interest rates is inevitable. Are deficits good, only when it is short term with a clear and realistic plan in place to retire the debt. As can be shown this has not been the course of action congress has demonstrated over the past 80 years.

 

[Staidhup]

Deflation is the simple result of raw material and costs for finished goods dropping rapidly in response to a decrease in demand as a result of constriction in the money supply.

 

[itfitzme]

Really? A deficit has to be paid for one way or another. You either borrow more money or you print more money, right? Either way, there are consequences.

Since when has the deficit been paid for and how?

He said it has to paid for,..... in the future. Your conjugation skills seem like your conceptual skills

Except that, since 1937, the US government has run a deficit for 67 of 74 years. So, in 74 years, where are these consequences?

And when is this "future" that you imagine?

So the fundamental question is, who says is has to be paid for? You, because you have to pay your credit card bill? You think the Federal Government is a household?

And the natural extension is "how?", how is it to be paid for?

That would be the "consequences" spoken of, in general, the how, without specifying or demonstrating what these consequences are.

So, specifically, what are these "consequences" do you imagine?

See why you are positively to stupid to get it? You think using abstract words means something. The real world isn't an abstraction, it's detailed, specific nouns and verbs. It is who, what, where, when, and how.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Since when has the deficit been paid for and how?

He said it has to paid for,..... in the future. Your conjugation skills seem like your conceptual skills

Except that, since 1937, the US government has run a deficit for 67 of 74 years. So, in 74 years, where are these consequences?

dear, debt is constantly being paid off although not at a faster rate than libturds accumulate it!!

the consequence of the liberal deficit mentality is the current depression and 23 million unemployed

 

[Staidhup]

One should be careful when speaking of indenturing future generations at the expense of the here and now. The irresponsibility as demonstrated by congress as it regards fiscal and yes monetary policy is and has been inexcusable, regardless of party affiliation.

 

[itfitzme]

it was a Newt suplus. Republicans took over house for first time in 40 years and made Clinton say, "The era of big government is over". Newt got 32 states to sign his BBA. Today national debt would be $0
if not for libtards killing that BBA and several others since.

Here is a list of the top six expense functions for the federal government.

National Defense
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Net Interest

Do tell, which of these were the functions where the cuts were made by the Newt that accounted for the surplus?

who said and exactly where there were cuts????? You created a strawman and didn't even know it/

Okay, so where were these increased taxes that Newt forced Clinton to make that accounted for the surplus?

You are an idiot, unable to make anything but meaningless over generalizations.

You have said repeatedly that Newt forced Clinton to balance the budget. So, back up your bullshit with some facts.

Where exactly were these cuts/taxes made that balanced the budget and account for the Newt surplus?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here is a list of the top six expense functions for the federal government.

National Defense
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Net Interest

Do tell, which of these were the functions where the cuts were made by the Newt that accounted for the surplus?

who said and exactly where there were cuts????? You created a strawman and didn't even know it/

Okay, so where were these increased taxes that Newt forced Clinton to make that accounted for the surplus?

You are an idiot, unable to make anything but meaningless over generalizations.

You have said repeatedly that Newt forced Clinton to balance the budget. So, back up your bullshit with some facts.

Where exactly were these cuts/taxes made that balanced the budget and account for the Newt surplus?

who said anything about tax cuts?? Strawman???

Republicans took over House for first time in 40 years, Newt got 32 states to sign up for is Balanced Budget Amendment conference. HE forced Clinton to lie and say, The Era of Big Government is over" that ought to give you some idea of the pressure libturds were under then to balance the budget!!

Gingrich rose to power in the House by working in opposition to Clinton's first two years in office and issuing his "Contract with America," a key provision of which was a balanced federal budget. After a stand off that resulted in two government shutdowns, Clinton signed the budget legislation in 1997.

 

[uscitizen]

Do government deficits help or hurt the economy?

yes.

 

[uscitizen]

who said and exactly where there were cuts????? You created a strawman and didn't even know it/

Okay, so where were these increased taxes that Newt forced Clinton to make that accounted for the surplus?

You are an idiot, unable to make anything but meaningless over generalizations.

You have said repeatedly that Newt forced Clinton to balance the budget. So, back up your bullshit with some facts.

Where exactly were these cuts/taxes made that balanced the budget and account for the Newt surplus?

who said anything about tax cuts?? Strawman???

Republicans took over House for first time in 40 years, Newt got 32 states to sign up for is Balanced Budget Amendment conference. HE forced Clinton to lie and say, The Era of Big Government is over" that ought to give you some idea of the pressure libturds were under then to balance the budget!!

Gingrich rose to power in the House by working in opposition to Clinton's first two years in office and issuing his "Contract with America," a key provision of which was a balanced federal budget. After a stand off that resulted in two government shutdowns, Clinton signed the budget legislation in 1997.

Hmm what happened to that legislation once Bush took office with a republican controlled congress?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do government deficits help or hurt the economy?

yes.

so then please explain how they help!!!!

 

[itfitzme]

One should be careful when speaking of indenturing future generations at the expense of the here and now. The irresponsibility as demonstrated by congress as it regards fiscal and yes monetary policy is and has been inexcusable, regardless of party affiliation.

Yeah, now there is the interesting thing.

Economics and the economy is about the stuff. Money is just a measure, a point keeping system.

Everything that will be consumed in the future will be produced in the future. We cannot consume future bread or live in a future house.

 

[itfitzme]

who said and exactly where there were cuts????? You created a strawman and didn't even know it/

Okay, so where were these increased taxes that Newt forced Clinton to make that accounted for the surplus?

You are an idiot, unable to make anything but meaningless over generalizations.

You have said repeatedly that Newt forced Clinton to balance the budget. So, back up your bullshit with some facts.

Where exactly were these cuts/taxes made that balanced the budget and account for the Newt surplus?

who said anything about tax cuts?? Strawman???

Republicans took over House for first time in 40 years, Newt got 32 states to sign up for is Balanced Budget Amendment conference. HE forced Clinton to lie and say, The Era of Big Government is over" that ought to give you some idea of the pressure libturds were under then to balance the budget!!

Gingrich rose to power in the House by working in opposition to Clinton's first two years in office and issuing his "Contract with America," a key provision of which was a balanced federal budget. After a stand off that resulted in two government shutdowns, Clinton signed the budget legislation in 1997.

Okay, let's go over the simple math again.

Surpus (-deficit) = Revenues - Outlays.

If Revenues - Outlays < 0 then to get to zero, either revenues must be increased or outlays must be decreased.

I did say, "increased taxes".

Increased revenues would be increased taxes. Decreased outlays would be cuts.

Do you really need every little detail spelled out? I thought you took Econ 101.

So, where were these revenue/tax increases and outlay/spending decreases that resulted in the Newt surpuls?

You can pick from the top six,

National Defense
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Net Interest

Or do you suppose it was cuts to spending on bicycle paths?

How about those communist/socialist/democrat/liberal welfare spending programs of OASDI and Medicare? Is that where the Newt surplus came from?

Do tell? Come on, Mr. Econ 101. Do the math.

Where did this Newt surpuls come from?

--------

Have you been diagnosed with a passive aggresive disorder?

"I dont' get it!"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One should be careful when speaking of indenturing future generations at the expense of the here and now. The irresponsibility as demonstrated by congress as it regards fiscal and yes monetary policy is and has been inexcusable, regardless of party affiliation.

Yeah, now there is the interesting thing.

Economics and the economy is about the stuff. Money is just a measure, a point keeping system.

Everything that will be consumed in the future will be produced in the future. We cannot consume future bread or live in a future house.

dear, conceptual thinking is not your strength- remember?

Are you saying that it will not matter to our children and grand children that they will be $30-75 trillion in debt thanks to libturds??