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

[JimmieD]

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?

It's actually your turn to defend some things you said in your OP that I pointed out some issues with.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

It's actually your turn to defend some things you said in your OP that I pointed out some issues with.

True or false!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"And? What's your point?"

I actually believe that you are so stupid that you don't get the point.

 

[Kimura]

"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.

"And? What's your point?"

I actually believe that you are so stupid that you don't get the point.

Again, get this through your thick skull: the government is the monopoly issuer of the dollar. Its IOUs are ALWAYS accepted as payment. The federal government spends by crediting bank deposits (and crediting the reserve accounts of these banks). In the event you don't desire a bank deposit, the government will give you the cash; if you don't desire the cash, they will give you a Treasury. People work, buy, sell, steal, and even kill to obtain US dollars. Personally, I wish I had IOUs that were in such demand. Do you know of any households which can spend by crediting reserves and bank deposits, or by issuing currency? I don't, maybe with the exception of counterfeiters, but it's illegal and they end up in the clink.

By the way, with the exception of one period of time, the federal government has been in debt since its inception in 1776. Go figure....

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"And? What's your point?"

I actually believe that you are so stupid that you don't get the point.

Again, get this through your thick skull: the government is the monopoly issuer of the dollar. Its IOUs are ALWAYS accepted as payment. The federal government spends by crediting bank deposits (and crediting the reserve accounts of these banks). In the event you don't desire a bank deposit, the government will give you the cash; if you don't desire the cash, they will give you a Treasury. People work, buy, sell, steal, and even kill to obtain US dollars. Personally, I wish I had IOUs that were in such demand. Do you know of any households which can spend by crediting reserves and bank deposits, or by issuing currency? I don't, maybe with the exception of counterfeiters, but it's illegal and they end up in the clink.

By the way, with the exception of one period of time, the federal government has been in debt since its inception in 1776. Go figure....

Debt: good or bad?


Hint: only a moron says it is good...or inconsequential.


Speak up.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

"And? What's your point?"

I actually believe that you are so stupid that you don't get the point.

Again, get this through your thick skull: the government is the monopoly issuer of the dollar. Its IOUs are ALWAYS accepted as payment. The federal government spends by crediting bank deposits (and crediting the reserve accounts of these banks). In the event you don't desire a bank deposit, the government will give you the cash; if you don't desire the cash, they will give you a Treasury. People work, buy, sell, steal, and even kill to obtain US dollars. Personally, I wish I had IOUs that were in such demand. Do you know of any households which can spend by crediting reserves and bank deposits, or by issuing currency? I don't, maybe with the exception of counterfeiters, but it's illegal and they end up in the clink.

By the way, with the exception of one period of time, the federal government has been in debt since its inception in 1776. Go figure....

Edward hasn't posted for a while. I preferred his nonsense to PC, who thinks there really is a dollar factory in Hong Kong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"And? What's your point?"

I actually believe that you are so stupid that you don't get the point.

Again, get this through your thick skull: the government is the monopoly issuer of the dollar. Its IOUs are ALWAYS accepted as payment. The federal government spends by crediting bank deposits (and crediting the reserve accounts of these banks). In the event you don't desire a bank deposit, the government will give you the cash; if you don't desire the cash, they will give you a Treasury. People work, buy, sell, steal, and even kill to obtain US dollars. Personally, I wish I had IOUs that were in such demand. Do you know of any households which can spend by crediting reserves and bank deposits, or by issuing currency? I don't, maybe with the exception of counterfeiters, but it's illegal and they end up in the clink.

By the way, with the exception of one period of time, the federal government has been in debt since its inception in 1776. Go figure....

Edward hasn't posted for a while. I preferred his nonsense to PC, who thinks there really is a dollar factory in Hong Kong.

Gee, IQ-of-Lint, I thought you preferred a handful of peanuts and hanging upside down.

 

[Kimura]

Again, get this through your thick skull: the government is the monopoly issuer of the dollar. Its IOUs are ALWAYS accepted as payment. The federal government spends by crediting bank deposits (and crediting the reserve accounts of these banks). In the event you don't desire a bank deposit, the government will give you the cash; if you don't desire the cash, they will give you a Treasury. People work, buy, sell, steal, and even kill to obtain US dollars. Personally, I wish I had IOUs that were in such demand. Do you know of any households which can spend by crediting reserves and bank deposits, or by issuing currency? I don't, maybe with the exception of counterfeiters, but it's illegal and they end up in the clink.

By the way, with the exception of one period of time, the federal government has been in debt since its inception in 1776. Go figure....

Edward hasn't posted for a while. I preferred his nonsense to PC, who thinks there really is a dollar factory in Hong Kong.

Gee, IQ-of-Lint, I thought you preferred a handful of peanuts and hanging upside down.

More erudite responses while you continuously avoid my basic questions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Debt seemed to bother Democrats when Bush was in office.
Not so much now it seems..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U]Senator Obama calls Bush "unpatriotic" for adding trillions to debt www.RightFace.us - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Edward hasn't posted for a while. I preferred his nonsense to PC, who thinks there really is a dollar factory in Hong Kong.

Gee, IQ-of-Lint, I thought you preferred a handful of peanuts and hanging upside down.

More erudite responses while you continuously avoid my basic questions.

I was recently at the Bronx Zoo, and some macaque was squawking.....and I avoided engaging that monkey, as well.

Rumor had it that the other monkey also believed that debt didn't matter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Debt seemed to bother Democrats when Bush was in office.
Not so much now it seems..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U]Senator Obama calls Bush "unpatriotic" for adding trillions to debt www.RightFace.us - YouTube[/ame]

Great vid.


I wonder what monkey-man from post #48 has to say about Obama's statements about debt.

 

[Kimura]

Gee, IQ-of-Lint, I thought you preferred a handful of peanuts and hanging upside down.

More erudite responses while you continuously avoid my basic questions.

I was recently at the Bronx Zoo, and some macaque was squawking.....and I avoided engaging that monkey, as well.

Rumor had it that the other monkey also believed that debt didn't matter.

Again, comparing the finances of a household (currency user) to a currency issuer (a public monopoly) is not a good idea.

 

[Kimura]

Debt seemed to bother Democrats when Bush was in office.
Not so much now it seems..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U]Senator Obama calls Bush "unpatriotic" for adding trillions to debt www.RightFace.us - YouTube[/ame]

Great vid.


I wonder what monkey-man from post #48 has to say about Obama's statements about debt.

He's part of the clueless brigade regarding monetary operations. The Bush Administration actually consulted Warren Mosler, thank god, which how they changed their tune about deficits. He was brought in, consulted the Bush Administration, and they increased spending with things such as Medicare Part D, etc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Senator Obama calls Bush "unpatriotic" for adding trillions to debt [url]www.RightFace.us - YouTube[/url]

Great vid.


I wonder what monkey-man from post #48 has to say about Obama's statements about debt.

He's part of the clueless brigade regarding monetary operations. The Bush Administration actually consulted Warren Mosler, thank god, which how they changed their tune about deficits. He was brought in, consulted the Bush Administration, and they increased spending with things such as Medicare Part D, etc.

"He's part of the clueless brigade..."

Priceless.



Now I want you to look closely at the small lettering on the lower left hand corner of your mirror.
It says: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

 

[Kimura]

Great vid.


I wonder what monkey-man from post #48 has to say about Obama's statements about debt.

He's part of the clueless brigade regarding monetary operations. The Bush Administration actually consulted Warren Mosler, thank god, which how they changed their tune about deficits. He was brought in, consulted the Bush Administration, and they increased spending with things such as Medicare Part D, etc.

"He's part of the clueless brigade..."

Priceless.



Now I want you to look closely at the small lettering on the lower left hand corner of your mirror.
It says: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[PoliticalChic]

He's part of the clueless brigade regarding monetary operations. The Bush Administration actually consulted Warren Mosler, thank god, which how they changed their tune about deficits. He was brought in, consulted the Bush Administration, and they increased spending with things such as Medicare Part D, etc.

"He's part of the clueless brigade..."

Priceless.



Now I want you to look closely at the small lettering on the lower left hand corner of your mirror.
It says: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

You can lead a horse to water...

Here, let me make you feel at home:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnILIkTipxw]Aba Daba Honeymoon - Song (Vocal) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kimura]

"He's part of the clueless brigade..."

Priceless.



Now I want you to look closely at the small lettering on the lower left hand corner of your mirror.
It says: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

You can lead a horse to water...

Here, let me make you feel at home:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnILIkTipxw]Aba Daba Honeymoon - Song (Vocal) - YouTube[/ame]

I'm going to keep this going. As a matter of accounting, in terms of the government and non-government sectors, you have to realize that government budget deficits add net financial assets (thus adding to the net savings of the non-government) made available to the private sector, with a budget surplus doing the exact opposite. You have to understand this if you want a general overview about modern macroeconomics.

At the center of national income accounting, it's critical to realize that the government's deficit (or surplus) is equal to the non-government's surplus (or deficit). The government sector is the sole entity which can provide the non-government sector with net financial assets (the national unit of account represented as net savings). It's essentially the only entity which can provide any desire to save or remove unemployment as the monopolist of the currency.

Our genius President, as well as many in Congress, need a boot camp to cover national income accounting. This pathological desire to have the government sector run budget surpluses will manifest in a decrease in non-government savings down to the last penny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can lead a horse to water...

Here, let me make you feel at home:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnILIkTipxw]Aba Daba Honeymoon - Song (Vocal) - YouTube[/ame]

I'm going to keep this going. As a matter of accounting, in terms of the government and non-government sectors, you have to realize that government budget deficits add net financial assets (thus adding to the net savings of the non-government) made available to the private sector, with a budget surplus doing the exact opposite. You have to understand this if you want a general overview about modern macroeconomics.

At the center of national income accounting, it's critical to realize that the government's deficit (or surplus) is equal to the non-government's surplus (or deficit). The government sector is the sole entity which can provide the non-government sector with net financial assets (the national unit of account represented as net savings). It's essentially the only entity which can provide any desire to save or remove unemployment as the monopolist of the currency.

Our genius President, as well as many in Congress, need a boot camp to cover national income accounting. This pathological desire to have the government sector run budget surpluses will manifest in a decrease in non-government savings down to the last penny.

"I'm going to keep this going."

Great!!!


I obey this motto: when your opponent is digging himself into a hole, get out of the way and don't interfere.



Once again: your thesis is that debt is great, it's just some kind of saving!

OK, monkey-man.....back to digging.

 

[Kimura]

Here, let me make you feel at home:


Aba Daba Honeymoon - Song (Vocal) - YouTube

I'm going to keep this going. As a matter of accounting, in terms of the government and non-government sectors, you have to realize that government budget deficits add net financial assets (thus adding to the net savings of the non-government) made available to the private sector, with a budget surplus doing the exact opposite. You have to understand this if you want a general overview about modern macroeconomics.

At the center of national income accounting, it's critical to realize that the government's deficit (or surplus) is equal to the non-government's surplus (or deficit). The government sector is the sole entity which can provide the non-government sector with net financial assets (the national unit of account represented as net savings). It's essentially the only entity which can provide any desire to save or remove unemployment as the monopolist of the currency.

Our genius President, as well as many in Congress, need a boot camp to cover national income accounting. This pathological desire to have the government sector run budget surpluses will manifest in a decrease in non-government savings down to the last penny.

"I'm going to keep this going."

Great!!!


I obey this motto: when your opponent is digging himself into a hole, get out of the way and don't interfere.



Once again: your thesis is that debt is great, it's just some kind of saving!

OK, monkey-man.....back to digging.

The government deficits are our savings. Their red is our black.

People have an innate understanding of savings. And this understanding is correct when it comes to households, individuals, and firms.

But this understanding gets murky when discussing surpluses. The problem with this premise is that the federal government doesn’t save when it runs a budget surplus.

Why is this the case? Households will save to have an increased capacity to spend down the road. However, they put off today’s consumption to increase their consumption in the future so to speak. This is done by getting some interest on savings and praying that inflation doesn’t degrade purchasing power of their $$$$.

Like I said, as the monopoly currency issuer, the government can meet any desire to save or greatly reduce unemployment. This is done through net spending, what well call running deficits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to keep this going. As a matter of accounting, in terms of the government and non-government sectors, you have to realize that government budget deficits add net financial assets (thus adding to the net savings of the non-government) made available to the private sector, with a budget surplus doing the exact opposite. You have to understand this if you want a general overview about modern macroeconomics.

At the center of national income accounting, it's critical to realize that the government's deficit (or surplus) is equal to the non-government's surplus (or deficit). The government sector is the sole entity which can provide the non-government sector with net financial assets (the national unit of account represented as net savings). It's essentially the only entity which can provide any desire to save or remove unemployment as the monopolist of the currency.

Our genius President, as well as many in Congress, need a boot camp to cover national income accounting. This pathological desire to have the government sector run budget surpluses will manifest in a decrease in non-government savings down to the last penny.

"I'm going to keep this going."

Great!!!


I obey this motto: when your opponent is digging himself into a hole, get out of the way and don't interfere.



Once again: your thesis is that debt is great, it's just some kind of saving!

OK, monkey-man.....back to digging.

The government deficits are our savings. Their red is our black.

People have an innate understanding of savings. And this understanding is correct when it comes to households, individuals, and firms.

But this understanding gets murky when discussing surpluses. The problem with this premise is that the federal government doesn’t save when it runs a budget surplus.

Why is this the case? Households will save to have an increased capacity to spend down the road. However, they put off today’s consumption to increase their consumption in the future so to speak. This is done by getting some interest on savings and praying that inflation doesn’t degrade purchasing power of their $$$$.

Like I said, as the monopoly currency issuer, the government can meet any desire to save or greatly reduce unemployment. This is done through net spending, what well call running deficits.

'As I said,' not 'Like I said."

Your understanding of syntax is as poor as your understanding of economics.


So.....is more debt even better?

Speak up, monkey-man!