Pauls idiotic budget

[cbirch2]

Ron pauls budget cuts $1 trillion dollars from the federal budget in a single year.

Can i just ask...why?

Its not like yields on treasuries are going up, the market isnt signaling that it wants us to decrease spending at all.

Yet somehow it has become common knowledge that removing $1 trillion of spending will help the economy. When people get fired and the government pays out less money or even eliminate tax breaks, it reduces demand in the short term. If the private sector cant add jobs fast enough to reduce unemployment now, why would it be a good idea to add more people to the unemployed? Particularly when the bond market isnt even signaling that its worried about our debt.

Pauls plan is economic suicide, and actual economists have been all over it.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[cbirch2]

This bullshit is thread

 

[Mad Scientist]

Ron pauls budget cuts $1 trillion dollars from the federal budget in a single year.

Can i just ask...why?

Its not like yields on treasuries are going up, the market isnt signaling that it wants us to decrease spending at all.

Yet somehow it has become common knowledge that removing $1 trillion of spending will help the economy. When people get fired and the government pays out less money or even eliminate tax breaks, it reduces demand in the short term. If the private sector cant add jobs fast enough to reduce unemployment now, why would it be a good idea to add more people to the unemployed? Particularly when the bond market isnt even signaling that its worried about our debt.

Pauls plan is economic suicide, and actual economists have been all over it.

When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve.
When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, they can't get us into wars that we don't approve of.
When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare.
When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, we have more power and control over our lives.

 

[cbirch2]

Ron pauls budget cuts $1 trillion dollars from the federal budget in a single year.

Can i just ask...why?

Its not like yields on treasuries are going up, the market isnt signaling that it wants us to decrease spending at all.

Yet somehow it has become common knowledge that removing $1 trillion of spending will help the economy. When people get fired and the government pays out less money or even eliminate tax breaks, it reduces demand in the short term. If the private sector cant add jobs fast enough to reduce unemployment now, why would it be a good idea to add more people to the unemployed? Particularly when the bond market isnt even signaling that its worried about our debt.

Pauls plan is economic suicide, and actual economists have been all over it.

When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve.
When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, they can't get us into wars that we don't approve of.
When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare.
When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, we have more power and control over our lives.

If the government cuts $1 trillion in one year thats a drastic cut to demand. GDP explicitly includes government spending. a $1 trillion dollar deduction in spending is by definition a reduction of GDP.

You claim its more money for you to spend but the $1 trillion isnt going back into the private sector, its going to the debt. Its going to stop the government from putting money into the private sector through jobs and subsidies without letting the private sector keep more of its money.

In other words....

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

That is wrong, because a $1 trillion cut in spending isnt going to result in a $1 trillion cut in taxes. Your going to pay the same amount you did before.

And...

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare."

Actually the public is pretty split on obamacare, 46-43. So to claim the public doesnt want it is to ignore the same percentage of the population that supports it. Fascist.

 

[editec]

Now actually kids, this thread is spot on accurate.

Our problem is NOT inflation, our problem right now is mostly un-and-under-employment.

 

[cbirch2]

If the government cuts $1 trillion in one year thats a drastic cut to demand. GDP explicitly includes government spending. a $1 trillion dollar deduction in spending is by definition a reduction of GDP.

You claim its more money for you to spend but the $1 trillion isnt going back into the private sector, its going to the debt. Its going to stop the government from putting money into the private sector through jobs and subsidies without letting the private sector keep more of its money.

In other words....

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

That is wrong, because a $1 trillion cut in spending isnt going to result in a $1 trillion cut in taxes. Your going to pay the same amount you did before.

And...

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare."

Actually the public is pretty split on obamacare, 46-43. So to claim the public doesnt want it is to ignore the same percentage of the population that supports it. Fascist.

Yep, a 7% decrease is hell.

A 7% drop in GDP would be disastrous... at the depths of the recession it dropped by 6% at its worst point.

This is why conservatives shouldnt be in charge.

"7% decline in GDP!?! Fuck it cool with me"

idiots...

 

[cbirch2]

Now actually kids, this thread is spot on accurate.

Our problem is NOT inflation, our problem right now is mostly un-and-under-employment.

Thats all for another post. Neocons went crazy over QE1 and QE2 because they claimed it was going to cause inflation. Now that the US monetary base has tripled without any measurable inflation more and more economists are starting to realize that the Keynesian are right, and that we are in a liquidity trap.

 

[cbirch2]

Yep, a 7% decrease is hell.

A 7% drop in GDP would be disastrous... at the depths of the recession it dropped by 6% at its worst point.

This is why conservatives shouldnt be in charge.

"7% decline in GDP!?! Fuck it cool with me"

idiots...

Imbecile, a 7% reduction in government spending is not analogous to a 7% loss of gdp.

No a $1 trillion dollar reduction in government spending is a 7% reduction in GDP you fucking retard. Learn what the fuck your talking about before you talk you fool.

 

[cbirch2]

And where the fuck do you get 7%!?!?!?!

A $1 trillion dollar reduction is 30% of the federal budget.

Oh my god i dont think ive ever met someone so fucking stupid.

 

[JWBooth]

shit shit shit shit shit

Am deleting most of the posts.

$1T is 7% of the $14T debt.....gotta pay more attention.

Now, with that said:
Every $ not spent, every $ not borrowed or taxed, is money that is better used by people and business, than that used and spent by government.

 

[cbirch2]

shit shit shit shit shit

Am deleting most of the posts.

$1T is 7% of the $14T debt.....gotta pay more attention.

Now, with that said:
Every $ not spent, every $ not borrowed or taxed, is money that is better used by people and business, than that used and spent by government.

While i agree that taxes take money away from the private sector and by definition slow private sector growth, everything else you said is just wrong.

Its the "crowding out" argument, and its easy to disprove. The idea that your touting as fact is that government spending cant create growth because everything the government spends has to come from the private sector. Its a little misleading. Actually, just plain wrong.

The amount of money that the government spends in any year is independent of the money it collects. It borrows the rest. So the only way that private sector spending would decrease is if consumers and business collectively decided to cut their spending by the amount the government raised it in anticipation of new taxes. Such rational consumer models of economics have long been proved wrong, and in fact simply dont match with what we see in real life.

Government spending does not crowd out private sector spending, history shows this. When government increases spending, demand increases. Thats a verifiable fact and the exact opposite of what your saying.

The tax payers pay the debt in the long run of course, but if we spend 5 years not growing the consequences of low growth would be worse than the consequences of racking up debt to create an economy that grows.

Did you understand any of that??

 

[Mad Scientist]

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

That is wrong, because a $1 trillion cut in spending isnt going to result in a $1 trillion cut in taxes. Your going to pay the same amount you did before.

And...

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare."

Actually the public is pretty split on obamacare, 46-43. So to claim the public doesnt want it is to ignore the same percentage of the population that supports it. Fascist.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote:
"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

ObamaCare is hugely unpopular and the public supports it's repeal in every poll I've seen.

Plus, I don't support the Totalitarian Single Party State so go fling yer' monkey poo at someone else.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

That is wrong, because a $1 trillion cut in spending isnt going to result in a $1 trillion cut in taxes. Your going to pay the same amount you did before.

And...

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare."

Actually the public is pretty split on obamacare, 46-43. So to claim the public doesnt want it is to ignore the same percentage of the population that supports it. Fascist.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote:
"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

ObamaCare is hugely unpopular and the public supports it's repeal in every poll I've seen.

Plus, I don't support the Totalitarian Single Party State so go fling yer' monkey poo at someone else.

You obviously have a problem with simple comprehension.
You keep saying "when the government taxes less money in taxes". Taxes aren't going down, period, this is about cutting spending, NOT CUTTING TAXES. This is NOT the same thing. If they government cuts 1T in spending there is still a 500+ billion dollar deficit, no room whatsoever to cut taxes. All you would see is a country immediately go back into a recession. Millions of government jobs lost followed by millions more of private sector jobs lost.

 

[cbirch2]

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

That is wrong, because a $1 trillion cut in spending isnt going to result in a $1 trillion cut in taxes. Your going to pay the same amount you did before.

And...

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare."

Actually the public is pretty split on obamacare, 46-43. So to claim the public doesnt want it is to ignore the same percentage of the population that supports it. Fascist.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote:
"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

ObamaCare is hugely unpopular and the public supports it's repeal in every poll I've seen.

Plus, I don't support the Totalitarian Single Party State so go fling yer' monkey poo at someone else.

Again, i must explain how simple economics works. cuts in government spending will not go back to the private sector. they will go to finance the deficit. a cut in government spending is the same thing as a proportional decrease in aggregate demand because there will be no corresponding tax cut. Thats the exact opposite of what we need right now.

And your contention about "obamacare" is wrong.

I never understood what conservatives opposed about obamacare in the first place. It is exactly what they were arguing for just 5 years ago. Its crazy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is what they did after WWII.
Which provided America's most prosperous 25 years in it's history.
Never before had so many people's quality of life improve so dramatically than in the 1950's and 60's.

 

[Norman]

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

That is wrong, because a $1 trillion cut in spending isnt going to result in a $1 trillion cut in taxes. Your going to pay the same amount you did before.

And...

"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, it's more difficult for them to foist unwanted gov't programs on us such as ObamaCare."

Actually the public is pretty split on obamacare, 46-43. So to claim the public doesnt want it is to ignore the same percentage of the population that supports it. Fascist.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote:
"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

ObamaCare is hugely unpopular and the public supports it's repeal in every poll I've seen.

Plus, I don't support the Totalitarian Single Party State so go fling yer' monkey poo at someone else.

Again, i must explain how simple economics works. cuts in government spending will not go back to the private sector. they will go to finance the deficit. a cut in government spending is the same thing as a proportional decrease in aggregate demand because there will be no corresponding tax cut. Thats the exact opposite of what we need right now.

And your contention about "obamacare" is wrong.

I never understood what conservatives opposed about obamacare in the first place. It is exactly what they were arguing for just 5 years ago. Its crazy.

So, if government cuts are not going back to private sector, where does the loaned money come from?

The deficits are directly taken out of the same economy. There is no free cake. Loans don't come from the sky monster nor from the future, but from people in the same economy. Of course it's possible to print the money, which means the money is taken out of the private economy via inflation.

 

[cbirch2]

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote:
"When the gov't is taking less of our money in taxes, that means we have more to spend and the economy will improve."

ObamaCare is hugely unpopular and the public supports it's repeal in every poll I've seen.

Plus, I don't support the Totalitarian Single Party State so go fling yer' monkey poo at someone else.

Again, i must explain how simple economics works. cuts in government spending will not go back to the private sector. they will go to finance the deficit. a cut in government spending is the same thing as a proportional decrease in aggregate demand because there will be no corresponding tax cut. Thats the exact opposite of what we need right now.

And your contention about "obamacare" is wrong.

I never understood what conservatives opposed about obamacare in the first place. It is exactly what they were arguing for just 5 years ago. Its crazy.

So, if government cuts are not going back to private sector, where does the loaned money come from?

The deficits are directly taken out of the same economy. There is no free cake. Loans don't come from the sky monster nor from the future, but from people in the same economy. Of course it's possible to print the money, which means the money is taken out of the private economy via inflation.

Only an idiot would assume that a simple increase in the monetary base leads to inflation. Hey, try telling japan that all a central bank has to do to create inflation is print money. I think they would disagree.

As a matter of fact, just look at our economy. The US monetary base has tripled since 2007. Yet inflation missed its last target. Why? because conservatards dont know what inflation is. our economy is in a liquidity trap. if anything we need more aggressive fed policy to increase demand.

Financing of US deficits is, again, at least neutral to the private sector over the long run. The government pays all the money back with interest. When the government borrows 1 trillion in 3 month treasury notes, it returns 1.1 trillion 3 months later.

 

[Norman]

Again, i must explain how simple economics works. cuts in government spending will not go back to the private sector. they will go to finance the deficit. a cut in government spending is the same thing as a proportional decrease in aggregate demand because there will be no corresponding tax cut. Thats the exact opposite of what we need right now.

And your contention about "obamacare" is wrong.

I never understood what conservatives opposed about obamacare in the first place. It is exactly what they were arguing for just 5 years ago. Its crazy.

So, if government cuts are not going back to private sector, where does the loaned money come from?

The deficits are directly taken out of the same economy. There is no free cake. Loans don't come from the sky monster nor from the future, but from people in the same economy. Of course it's possible to print the money, which means the money is taken out of the private economy via inflation.

Only an idiot would assume that a simple increase in the monetary base leads to inflation. Hey, try telling japan that all a central bank has to do to create inflation is print money. I think they would disagree.

As a matter of fact, just look at our economy. The US monetary base has tripled since 2007. Yet inflation missed its last target. Why? because conservatards dont know what inflation is. our economy is in a liquidity trap. if anything we need more aggressive fed policy to increase demand.

First of all, inflation isn't "low". Wasn't it like 9% annually on last report?

Anyway government spending will always drag resources from private sector, they don't actually appear from the air, nor from the future. Resource spent is resource taken.

If you are not seeing inflation, that just means there would have been deflation otherwise.

There is no free cake.

Financing of US deficits is, again, at least neutral to the private sector over the long run. The government pays all the money back with interest. When the government borrows 1 trillion in 3 month treasury notes, it returns 1.1 trillion 3 months later.

I really don't see what you are trying to say here. Government can only take wealth from private sector, and then redistribute that same wealth.

 

[cbirch2]

So, if government cuts are not going back to private sector, where does the loaned money come from?

The deficits are directly taken out of the same economy. There is no free cake. Loans don't come from the sky monster nor from the future, but from people in the same economy. Of course it's possible to print the money, which means the money is taken out of the private economy via inflation.

Only an idiot would assume that a simple increase in the monetary base leads to inflation. Hey, try telling japan that all a central bank has to do to create inflation is print money. I think they would disagree.

As a matter of fact, just look at our economy. The US monetary base has tripled since 2007. Yet inflation missed its last target. Why? because conservatards dont know what inflation is. our economy is in a liquidity trap. if anything we need more aggressive fed policy to increase demand.

First of all, inflation isn't "low". Wasn't it like 9% annually on last report?

9%? Are you kidding me? Wow....lol no dude....it wasnt....

Anyway government spending will always drag resources from private sector, they don't actually appear from the air, nor from the future. Resource spent is resource taken.

You do realize your assertion is a abomination to all logical thought right? Your only looking at one side of the equation.

Your essentially calling into question the debtor-creditor model. Surely the creditor, the US private sector, isnt losing money by playing that role. No.

Instead you should look at the entire equation. Borrowing means the intent to pay back later. So just as the US government has a constant stream of money coming in through the issuing of bonds, its also constantly making payments to its bond holders. So on the long run, government borrowing actually increases the amount of money in the private sector because the government pays it back with interest.

Get it now???

If you are not seeing inflation, that just means there would have been deflation otherwise.

There is no free cake.

Understand the concept of a liquidity trap. Understand the IS/LM model. Understand Japans lost decade

...in fact itd be awesome if you understood anything.

A rise in the monetary base is not always the same thing as a rise in inflation, particularly when interest rates are low.

Financing of US deficits is, again, at least neutral to the private sector over the long run. The government pays all the money back with interest. When the government borrows 1 trillion in 3 month treasury notes, it returns 1.1 trillion 3 months later.

I really don't see what you are trying to say here. Government can only take wealth from private sector, and then redistribute that same wealth.

Government spending does not equal less private sector spending. Period.