"....debt ......it doesn't necessarily matter..."

[Kimura]

What I'm doing is highlighting a real problem, both for the individual, and for the national government.

So, you don't have a response to some of the things I pointed out.

Of course a dunce like you is perfectly willing to go along with the view that big daddy government will always take care of widdle biddy you.


Would I be correct in assuming that you are a product of government schooling?
Thought so.

LOL. Perfect.

Dude, I have been down this road with her before. It's basically a pointless and futile exercise.

We have a candidate for the Darwin Award.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The economy is in better shape now than when bush left office, that's for sure. Republicans can't see this, since they're so filled with hate over a democrat, especially a black one, in the white house. Poor PC's posting career would be over without google/cutpast. The only weapon in her arsenal.

Let's begin your beating today by pointing out that you have responded to nothing in the OP.

"Nothing."
Pretty much what you got on every exam you've ever taken, huh?





Trust me on this point, IQFree.....

...it wasn't necessary for you to go out of your way to prove that you are a total imbecile, and that you are the member of Jeff Dunham's act that only speaks what the DNC allows you to.





Your recitation of political truth reeks of the same skills that ended the career of Milli Vanilli.

If you still have the fez and the tin cup, maybe you can get your old job with the organ grinder....

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can't compare the finances of households (currency users) to national government like the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. (currency issuers).

For the umpteenth time, and for the love of God, the US government doesn't borrow its own fiat. The US government issues the currency, other countries and individuals simply desire to save in US financial assets. Are you implying there's some other source for US dollars besides the federal government?

Also, how does the FED artificially suppress interest rates? They set the interest rate all along the term structure as a matter of policy. This is one the main reasons we have a central bank.

Don't you want to claim ownership of the passage

"In a recent thread about debt, a self-proclaimed economics wonk revealed the that, actually, he was the bottomless pit of ignorance. He summarized his view of our national debt as ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion." ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/335353-debt-and-if-i-laugh.html)




I'm fine referring to you as a moron.....

....wear it well.

And EVERYONE can read my responses in that thread. I literally attempted to do you a favor by explaining some very basic concepts. So yeah, the only constraint is that of inflation. Essentially, the size of the deficit, given the current macroeconomic malaise, is largely not a problem, unless you think we'll magically be at full employment tomorrow.

The sad part is you're clueless and you don't even realize it.

You again?? Why must my day be filled with EDPs???



OK....you require another spanking.

Here goes.


The Liberal debt polices that you and the Obamunists endorse has actually resulted in
the following:

"Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession"
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard



I realize now that calling you a moron was far too kind.


You're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I'm doing is highlighting a real problem, both for the individual, and for the national government.

So, you don't have a response to some of the things I pointed out.

Of course a dunce like you is perfectly willing to go along with the view that big daddy government will always take care of widdle biddy you.


Would I be correct in assuming that you are a product of government schooling?
Thought so.

LOL. Perfect.

So, you don't have a response to some of the things I pointed out, that your indoctrination came in government schooling?

Imperfect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
—The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71



What makes the above so very perceptive is that there are huge numbers of self-proclaimed 'economists' who deny the injurious effects of high debt.





In a recent thread about debt, a self-proclaimed economics wonk revealed the that, actually, he was the bottomless pit of ignorance. He summarized his view of our national debt as ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion." ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/335353-debt-and-if-i-laugh.html)

As there are actually dolts like this practically falling out of the trees, who probably believe that they have an understanding of economics, the following is necessary remediation.






1. "A record 141 million Americans shopped in stores and online from Nov. 28 to Dec. 1, 2013. That’s nearly half the American population. Millions lined up for hours outside stores, in the middle of the night, in freezing cold weather to spend money. The average shopper spent just over $407.

2. The average credit card debt is $4,878 per person. Fifty million Americans are on food stamps. Half the people in the country get some kind of financial assistance or benefit from the government.
And 27 percent of Americans have no emergency savings.

3. In 2010, [Liberal Democrat] House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn made a telling statement: “We’re not going to save our way out of this recession. We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that.”






4. Most of America’s debt is now financed by the U.S. We print trillions of dollars to finance our addiction to spending. This is why inflation will get much worse and why the dollar is becoming worthless.

Global Research reported on November 20 that between Oct. 1 and Nov. 14, 2013, America rolled over $1 trillion in debt. “Rolled over” is a nice way of saying that America had to borrow more than $1 trillion of new money to pay off old loans that were coming due. Borrowing new money from investors to pay back money to old investors is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.





5. .... interest rates are lower than they have ever been. But eventually it will come to a crashing end—as all Ponzi schemes ultimately do. America spends about $220 billion per year on interest.

6. But interest rates are being artificially suppressed by Federal Reserve money printing. Eventually, rates will be forced to rise. Right now the benchmark interest rate in the U.S. is a quarter of 1 percent—nearly zero. What if it returns to 6 percent like it was about a decade ago? All of a sudden America will be paying $1 trillion per year in interest! That is more than a quarter of America’s total budget. And all of this would come at a time when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs are skyrocketing.





7 . ... these millions of American consumers accumulated hundreds and thousands of dollars of additional debt—spending money they don’t have on gizmos and goods they don’t need.

8. Americans owe $800 billion on their vehicles. Far too many people are driving brand new $40,000 trucks while making only $35,000 a year, and they borrow to make this happen....New vehicles lose 70% of their value after just four years..... the typical American is too distracted by sports, pop culture and other trivial things to care."
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/11230.24.161.0/economy/is-americas-economy-improving





"....debt ......it doesn't necessarily matter..."


“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell

The actual joke goes like this:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then said, "How about them Cowboys". KNBR Radio, The Sports Station; January, 1982 after Dwight Clark made "The Catch".

As is true of everything you touch in life, you not only didn't you improve the joke....

....you petrified it.



The thread required your input like Texas needs a warm breeze in August.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney.

And, I'm certain, you hang on every syllable spoken by the VP.

 

[Kimura]

Don't you want to claim ownership of the passage

"In a recent thread about debt, a self-proclaimed economics wonk revealed the that, actually, he was the bottomless pit of ignorance. He summarized his view of our national debt as ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion." ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/335353-debt-and-if-i-laugh.html)




I'm fine referring to you as a moron.....

....wear it well.

And EVERYONE can read my responses in that thread. I literally attempted to do you a favor by explaining some very basic concepts. So yeah, the only constraint is that of inflation. Essentially, the size of the deficit, given the current macroeconomic malaise, is largely not a problem, unless you think we'll magically be at full employment tomorrow.

The sad part is you're clueless and you don't even realize it.

You again?? Why must my day be filled with EDPs???



OK....you require another spanking.

Here goes.


The Liberal debt polices that you and the Obamunists endorse has actually resulted in
the following:

"Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession"
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard



I realize now that calling you a moron was far too kind.


You're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies". The guy is basically a Wall Street hack and you geniuses think he's a progressive? Personally, I disagreed with the bailouts and his policies about spending.

By the way, do have an ORIGINAL thought in your head? I'm genuinely curious.

So tell me, how exactly does the US borrow its own fiat? You seemed to ignore my question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And EVERYONE can read my responses in that thread. I literally attempted to do you a favor by explaining some very basic concepts. So yeah, the only constraint is that of inflation. Essentially, the size of the deficit, given the current macroeconomic malaise, is largely not a problem, unless you think we'll magically be at full employment tomorrow.

The sad part is you're clueless and you don't even realize it.

You again?? Why must my day be filled with EDPs???



OK....you require another spanking.

Here goes.


The Liberal debt polices that you and the Obamunists endorse has actually resulted in
the following:

"Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession"
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard



I realize now that calling you a moron was far too kind.


You're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies". The guy is basically a Wall Street hack and you geniuses think he's a progressive? Personally, I disagreed with the bailouts and his policies about spending.

By the way, do have an ORIGINAL thought in your head? I'm genuinely curious.

So tell me, how exactly does the US borrow its own fiat? You seemed to ignore my question.

"$17 TRILLION DEBT, BUT OBAMA SAYS ‘WE’VE GOT ENOUGH RESOURCES’ TO SPEND MORE"
$17 Trillion Debt, but Obama Says ?We?ve Got Enough Resources? to Spend More | Video | TheBlaze.com




In a recent thread about debt, a self-proclaimed economics wonk revealed the that, actually, he was the bottomless pit of ignorance. He summarized his view of our national debt as ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion." ( Debt: And If I Laugh....)

"First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies"
Yeah, you do.....moron.

 

[Kimura]

You again?? Why must my day be filled with EDPs???



OK....you require another spanking.

Here goes.


The Liberal debt polices that you and the Obamunists endorse has actually resulted in
the following:

"Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession"
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard



I realize now that calling you a moron was far too kind.


You're as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies". The guy is basically a Wall Street hack and you geniuses think he's a progressive? Personally, I disagreed with the bailouts and his policies about spending.

By the way, do have an ORIGINAL thought in your head? I'm genuinely curious.

So tell me, how exactly does the US borrow its own fiat? You seemed to ignore my question.

"$17 TRILLION DEBT, BUT OBAMA SAYS ‘WE’VE GOT ENOUGH RESOURCES’ TO SPEND MORE"
$17 Trillion Debt, but Obama Says ?We?ve Got Enough Resources? to Spend More | Video | TheBlaze.com




In a recent thread about debt, a self-proclaimed economics wonk revealed the that, actually, he was the bottomless pit of ignorance. He summarized his view of our national debt as ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion." ( Debt: And If I Laugh....)

"First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies"
Yeah, you do.....moron.

And that 17 Trillion of public debt.....is in the form US government financial assets, correct? These are essentially dollar deposits at the FED. How is transferring $$$$ between US Treasuries and reserve accounts a problem? How does this cause a financial strain? This is done on a regular basis, day in and day out. We roll over TRILLIONS every year, I have posted links to TREAS for the past 10 years, so you geniuses can see how much we have rolled over in the past 14 or so years.

Again, for the umpteenth time, public debt should be viewed as private wealth, and interest payments are basically private income streams. You have to look at the other side of the ledger. US public debt simply represents all of the past budget deficits ran in the past, which have added net financial assets to the private sector, thus providing the ACTUAL demand for the real goods and services which have helped Americans with income growth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies". The guy is basically a Wall Street hack and you geniuses think he's a progressive? Personally, I disagreed with the bailouts and his policies about spending.

By the way, do have an ORIGINAL thought in your head? I'm genuinely curious.

So tell me, how exactly does the US borrow its own fiat? You seemed to ignore my question.

"$17 TRILLION DEBT, BUT OBAMA SAYS ‘WE’VE GOT ENOUGH RESOURCES’ TO SPEND MORE"
$17 Trillion Debt, but Obama Says ?We?ve Got Enough Resources? to Spend More | Video | TheBlaze.com




In a recent thread about debt, a self-proclaimed economics wonk revealed the that, actually, he was the bottomless pit of ignorance. He summarized his view of our national debt as ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion." ( Debt: And If I Laugh....)

"First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies"
Yeah, you do.....moron.

And that 17 Trillion of public debt.....is in the form US government financial assets, correct? These are essentially dollar deposits at the FED. How is transferring $$$$ between US Treasuries and reserve accounts a problem? How does this cause a financial strain? This is done on a regular basis, day in and day out. We roll over TRILLIONS every year, I have posted links to TREAS for the past 10 years, so you geniuses can see how much we have rolled over in the past 14 or so years.

Again, for the umpteenth time, public debt should be viewed as private wealth, and interest payments are basically private income streams. You have to look at the other side of the ledger. US public debt simply represents all of the past budget deficits ran in the past, which have added net financial assets to the private sector, thus providing the ACTUAL demand for the real goods and services which have helped Americans with income growth.

Let me describe you in economic terms: "mentally insolvent"

 

[Kimura]

"$17 TRILLION DEBT, BUT OBAMA SAYS ‘WE’VE GOT ENOUGH RESOURCES’ TO SPEND MORE"
$17 Trillion Debt, but Obama Says ?We?ve Got Enough Resources? to Spend More | Video | TheBlaze.com




In a recent thread about debt, a self-proclaimed economics wonk revealed the that, actually, he was the bottomless pit of ignorance. He summarized his view of our national debt as ".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion." ( Debt: And If I Laugh....)

"First of all, I don't support Obama's "liberal debt policies"
Yeah, you do.....moron.

And that 17 Trillion of public debt.....is in the form US government financial assets, correct? These are essentially dollar deposits at the FED. How is transferring $$$$ between US Treasuries and reserve accounts a problem? How does this cause a financial strain? This is done on a regular basis, day in and day out. We roll over TRILLIONS every year, I have posted links to TREAS for the past 10 years, so you geniuses can see how much we have rolled over in the past 14 or so years.

Again, for the umpteenth time, public debt should be viewed as private wealth, and interest payments are basically private income streams. You have to look at the other side of the ledger. US public debt simply represents all of the past budget deficits ran in the past, which have added net financial assets to the private sector, thus providing the ACTUAL demand for the real goods and services which have helped Americans with income growth.

Let me describe you in economic terms: "mentally insolvent"

Thanks for the erudite response. Being mentally insolvent, I still need you to explain to me how a sovereign currency issuer borrows its own fiat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And that 17 Trillion of public debt.....is in the form US government financial assets, correct? These are essentially dollar deposits at the FED. How is transferring $$$$ between US Treasuries and reserve accounts a problem? How does this cause a financial strain? This is done on a regular basis, day in and day out. We roll over TRILLIONS every year, I have posted links to TREAS for the past 10 years, so you geniuses can see how much we have rolled over in the past 14 or so years.

Again, for the umpteenth time, public debt should be viewed as private wealth, and interest payments are basically private income streams. You have to look at the other side of the ledger. US public debt simply represents all of the past budget deficits ran in the past, which have added net financial assets to the private sector, thus providing the ACTUAL demand for the real goods and services which have helped Americans with income growth.

Let me describe you in economic terms: "mentally insolvent"

Thanks for the erudite response. Being mentally insolvent, I still need you to explain to me how a sovereign currency issuer borrows its own fiat.

Your claim is that the amount of debt is inconsequential.

The OP proves you to be, as stated, a bottomless pit of abysmal ignorance.

 

[Kimura]

Let me describe you in economic terms: "mentally insolvent"

Thanks for the erudite response. Being mentally insolvent, I still need you to explain to me how a sovereign currency issuer borrows its own fiat.

Your claim is that the amount of debt is inconsequential.

The OP proves you to be, as stated, a bottomless pit of abysmal ignorance.

Answer the question: how does a sovereign currency issuer borrow its own fiat?

Deficits do matter, just not in the way you seem to believe. Deficits can be too big, they can be too small, and the point of government is to make sure we get them right, so we can employ any and all productive capacity.

In other words, just to avoid any confusion, all spending/tax policies by government should be based around ensuring that total spending in the economy is enough to produce a level of real output in which firms will employ any and all available people within the labor force. This is what any budget policy discussion should be based around.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks for the erudite response. Being mentally insolvent, I still need you to explain to me how a sovereign currency issuer borrows its own fiat.

Your claim is that the amount of debt is inconsequential.

The OP proves you to be, as stated, a bottomless pit of abysmal ignorance.

Answer the question: how does a sovereign currency issuer borrow its own fiat?

Deficits do matter, just not in the way you seem to believe. Deficits can be too big, they can be too small, and the point of government is to make sure we get them right, so we can employ any and all productive capacity.

In other words, just to avoid any confusion, all spending/tax policies by government should be based around ensuring that total spending in the economy is enough to produce a level of real output in which firms will employ any and all available people within the labor force. This is what any budget policy discussion should be based around.

"Answer the question: how does blah blah blah....."


First, you've demonstrated that you are clueless in terms of economic reality.
And that learning, on your part, is not an event that any can look forward to.
You'd sell your car to buy gas.


One more time, the phrase that will be chiseled on your tombstone: "The amount of debt incurred really doesn't matter."




Secondly....I don’t take orders well…kinda like Pavlov’s cat.

 

[Kimura]

Your claim is that the amount of debt is inconsequential.

The OP proves you to be, as stated, a bottomless pit of abysmal ignorance.

Answer the question: how does a sovereign currency issuer borrow its own fiat?

Deficits do matter, just not in the way you seem to believe. Deficits can be too big, they can be too small, and the point of government is to make sure we get them right, so we can employ any and all productive capacity.

In other words, just to avoid any confusion, all spending/tax policies by government should be based around ensuring that total spending in the economy is enough to produce a level of real output in which firms will employ any and all available people within the labor force. This is what any budget policy discussion should be based around.

"Answer the question: how does blah blah blah....."


First, you've demonstrated that you are clueless in terms of economic reality.
And that learning, on your part, is not an event that any can look forward to.
You'd sell your car to buy gas.


One more time, the phrase that will be chiseled on your tombstone: "The amount of debt incurred really doesn't matter."




Secondly....I don’t take orders well…kinda like Pavlov’s cat.

You've demonstrated a) you are ignorant about the subject matter at hand and b) you don't have any original ideas at all. You don't even realize your clueless which I find both hilarious and depressing.

There's plenty of local community colleges where you can take Intro to Macro, Intro to Micro, Accounting I & II, Money & Banking, etc. When you want to learn something, or actually understand the basics, let me know. I'd consider it a public service.

And yes, the US will always be able to service its debts, unless of course you think financial strain can be caused by moving $$$ from US Treasuries (savings accounts) to reserve accounts (checking accounts). Again, for the umpteenth time, the only constraint would be that of inflation. If we were at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then we would have to make some fiscal adjustments. However, given our high unemployment numbers and all this excess capacity, inflation is nowhere in sight. The FED has failed to stimulate any inflation over the past seven or so years.

 

[Kimura]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Answer the question: how does a sovereign currency issuer borrow its own fiat?

Deficits do matter, just not in the way you seem to believe. Deficits can be too big, they can be too small, and the point of government is to make sure we get them right, so we can employ any and all productive capacity.

In other words, just to avoid any confusion, all spending/tax policies by government should be based around ensuring that total spending in the economy is enough to produce a level of real output in which firms will employ any and all available people within the labor force. This is what any budget policy discussion should be based around.

"Answer the question: how does blah blah blah....."


First, you've demonstrated that you are clueless in terms of economic reality.
And that learning, on your part, is not an event that any can look forward to.
You'd sell your car to buy gas.


One more time, the phrase that will be chiseled on your tombstone: "The amount of debt incurred really doesn't matter."




Secondly....I don’t take orders well…kinda like Pavlov’s cat.

You've demonstrated a) are ignorant about the subject matter at hand and b) you don't have any original ideas at all. You don't even realize your clueless which I find both hilarious and depressing.

There's plenty of local community colleges where you can take Intro to Macro, Intro to Micro, Accounting I & II, Money & Banking, etc. When you want to learn something, or actually understand the basics, let me know. I'd consider it a public service.

And yes, the US will always be able to service its debts, unless of course you think financial strain can be caused by moving $$$ from US Treasuries (savings accounts) to reserve accounts (checking accounts). Again, for the umpteenth time, the only constraint would be that of inflation. If we were at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then we would have to make some fiscal adjustments. However, given our high unemployment numbers and all this excess capacity, inflation is nowhere in sight. The FED has failed to stimulate any inflation over the past seven or so years.

"You've demonstrated a) are ignorant....."


And, in today's news:


"CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made

Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”
http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2...if-spending-or-tax-changes-are-not-made.html/



In your face, dunce.

 

[JimmieD]

What I'm doing is highlighting a real problem, both for the individual, and for the national government.

So, you don't have a response to some of the things I pointed out.

Of course a dunce like you is perfectly willing to go along with the view that big daddy government will always take care of widdle biddy you.


Would I be correct in assuming that you are a product of government schooling?
Thought so.

LOL. Perfect.

So, you don't have a response to some of the things I pointed out, that your indoctrination came in government schooling?

Do you ever engage in a real conversation? To answer your question, I was indoctrinated with the proper use of logic, math and statistics in undergrad and grad schools that were paid for out of my own pocket, not government funding. Besides, are you saying that math and statistics are invalid if taught at a government funded school?

Now your turn to answer the issues I brought up in my first response.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you don't have a response to some of the things I pointed out.



LOL. Perfect.

So, you don't have a response to some of the things I pointed out, that your indoctrination came in government schooling?

Do you ever engage in a real conversation? To answer your question, I was indoctrinated with the proper use of logic, math and statistics in undergrad and grad schools that were paid for out of my own pocket, not government funding. Besides, are you saying that math and statistics are invalid if taught at a government funded school?

Now your turn to answer the issues I brought up in my first response.

This view of our national debt:

".......it doesn't necessarily matter.... so what? US public debt simply represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. If people correctly referred to it as national savings or equity, it would clear up a TON of confusion."




True or false?

 

[Kimura]

"Answer the question: how does blah blah blah....."


First, you've demonstrated that you are clueless in terms of economic reality.
And that learning, on your part, is not an event that any can look forward to.
You'd sell your car to buy gas.


One more time, the phrase that will be chiseled on your tombstone: "The amount of debt incurred really doesn't matter."




Secondly....I don’t take orders well…kinda like Pavlov’s cat.

You've demonstrated a) are ignorant about the subject matter at hand and b) you don't have any original ideas at all. You don't even realize your clueless which I find both hilarious and depressing.

There's plenty of local community colleges where you can take Intro to Macro, Intro to Micro, Accounting I & II, Money & Banking, etc. When you want to learn something, or actually understand the basics, let me know. I'd consider it a public service.

And yes, the US will always be able to service its debts, unless of course you think financial strain can be caused by moving $$$ from US Treasuries (savings accounts) to reserve accounts (checking accounts). Again, for the umpteenth time, the only constraint would be that of inflation. If we were at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then we would have to make some fiscal adjustments. However, given our high unemployment numbers and all this excess capacity, inflation is nowhere in sight. The FED has failed to stimulate any inflation over the past seven or so years.

"You've demonstrated a) are ignorant....."


And, in today's news:


"CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made

Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”
http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2...if-spending-or-tax-changes-are-not-made.html/



In your face, dunce.

And? What's your point? Japan has twice the debt-to-GDP ratio as we do and they've been running ZIRP for YEARS. The federal government can NEVER have an operational problem servicing its public debt. It's because of discussions like this one I hope and pray we get rid of Treasuries or make them limited to 3 or 6 months.

By the way, this is the same CBO that projected budget surpluses for 15 years under the Clinton Administration, even though the private sector was in deficit.