The Question No PROG Will Dare Answer

[rdean]

The only way to bring down the debt is to grow the economy. Republicans don't understand that just a few short 13 years ago, when Bush was sworn into office and the GOP controlled the economy for years, that debt virtually didn't exist. They created it which they won't even admit, so why would anyone think they have some "solution"?

 

[Rshermr]

ONE year at the height of borrowing to fight a WORLD WAR....and then only by a measly 6%...it's you who should be embarrassed....it took you what 3 days to find that flimsy shit? Pitiful little leftists grabbing at (soda) straws because they drink like women same as their guru BarryOh.

Well, dipshit, lets see if you are capable of understanding anything. First, the percent of the gdp that existed in 1946 was 127%. Today, we are at about 101%. So, you say that is only 6% different. See the problem yet, me boy.

As I suggested, you need to find a remedial math class. You really need to take my recommendation. Because, me poor ignorant con, you are making a fool of your self.

So, you adamantly stated that I was nuts for not knowing that the current national debt to gdp rate was not the highest ever. Now you are misquoting the source I provided you and missing the actual difference by about 20%.

See why we worry about you, bull. We worry because you are obviously on the loose, and you are obviously mentally ill.

Then there was the math suggesting that it took me three days to find a link. In fact, it took less than 2 minutes to find the link, dipshit. Hardly a task. That you think it would be again shows your lack of brain activity.

You see, dipshit, I knew about the national debt, and when it had been at it's highest. And I knew, as you are unwilling to consider, that it did not cause a problem of any kind with the economy.

Now, you just made the statement that the increase in the national debt was because of borrowing. It was not, of course. It was mostly due to SPENDING.
Maybe if you took your head out of your ass and spent a little time looking at impartial data, you could actually learn something. Though I seriously doubt that you have the mental capacity.

Only an Idiot would think we can borrow our way into prosperity..................

We are 395 BILLION in interest payments on the debt this year..........

Unfunded Liabilities will put us on permanent deficits of at least a TRILLION A YEAR BY 2020.....

Every year the CBO, GAO, and quite frankly the entire world TELLS US THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE....................

And nobody listens, to our economic doom we go, as we are turning our paper currency into TOILET PAPER.

Only an Idiot would think we can borrow our way into prosperity..................
No body suggested that you could borrow your way into prosperity. However, that crazy idiot Reagan did it. Borrowed more than all of the preceeding presidents combined, and increased taxes 11 times after taking the economy to the point where the unemployment rate was over 10.8% (Second highest and surpassed only during the great republican depression of 1929. And SPENT stimulatively at a very high rate. Increased the size of the fed government substantially. And had a good economy as a result.

We are 395 BILLION in interest payments on the debt this year..........

Yes. You must be so happy with the obama economic team. They have brought the level of the annual payment on the national debt to just about exactly where it was when BUSH 2 ENTERED OFFICE in 2001. And way, way down from the last year of the Bush years, 2008, when it had ballooned to $451,154,049,950.63. And the cbo sees it continuing to decrease over the next years. That is the point you were trying to make, right???
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Unfunded Liabilities will put us on permanent deficits of at least a TRILLION A YEAR BY 2020.....

Well, that is what all of the bat shit crazy con web sites say. Not what the impartial sites say. Must tell us where you spend your time. But, unfunded liabilities are are simple enough. You fund them, at some point. It is no real problem.

Every year the CBO, GAO, and quite frankly the entire world TELLS US THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE....................

No, they do not. And the entire world, frankly, just keeps buying our gov bonds with no problem at all.
And nobody listens, to our economic doom we go, as we are turning our paper currency into TOILET PAPER.
Uh, the rest of the world seems to totally disagree with you. As does nearly every economist in the world. So, apparently you think we should believe you because..........Actually, there is NO reason to believe you.

 

[eflatminor]

hyperinflation has not occurred...hyperinflation has never happened

Gee thee a history book...one that isn't limited to the Progressive era written by a Progressive to be read by Progressives.

,...you do not want to see the wealthy pay any taxes. The fact that they pay some seems to have you upset. But they will pay more in the future

Wanna bet?

Ah yes, the Progressive ideal of stealing from the most productive citizens in order to fund your largess. What could be wrong with that? Of course, your little tax the rich plan is working so beautifully in those European countries sinking into oblivion...

You just listed a couple of economic theories that are about as popular today as a fart in church.

"Boy" bands are really popular too...and they also suck.

You seem to be suggesting MORE debt is the answer. Don't buy it, never will. Jefferson knew better. You don't.

Funny. You keep taking quotes selectively from a hundred fifty years ago or more, and pretending like it is the gospel today.

Milton Friedman's quotes are not from 150 years ago.

Now, another of your heroes certainly agreed with me. When he pushed the unemployment rate to over 10.8%, and saw the deficit shoot up like a rocket, he pushed those policies of stimulus spending, funded by massive borrowing and major tax increases. And what do you know. the government grew in size substantially. AND the economy improved substantially. So, I will match your jefferson and raise you a reagan.

Not a Reagan fan. Spent like a Progressive and a gun grabber. Oh my, another **** up on you!

Now, do you want to show me a time when the economy was bad based on high unemployment where decreasing spending made the economy better?? I keep asking you. Just hear crickets

False assumption. The economy is not bad "based on high unemployment". The economy is bad based on government spending, taxation and meddling in free markets. High unemployment is a result of that central planning.

I reject your insistence that more debt and more taxation is the answer to economic woes. Free markets and free minds have always produced superior results compared to central planners that are just sure they know what's best for all.

 

[jasonnfree]

hyperinflation has not occurred...hyperinflation has never happened

Gee thee a history book...one that isn't limited to the Progressive era written by a Progressive to be read by Progressives.

,...you do not want to see the wealthy pay any taxes. The fact that they pay some seems to have you upset. But they will pay more in the future

Wanna bet?

Ah yes, the Progressive ideal of stealing from the most productive citizens in order to fund your largess. What could be wrong with that? Of course, your little tax the rich plan is working so beautifully in those European countries sinking into oblivion...



"Boy" bands are really popular too...and they also suck.



Milton Friedman's quotes are not from 150 years ago.

Now, another of your heroes certainly agreed with me. When he pushed the unemployment rate to over 10.8%, and saw the deficit shoot up like a rocket, he pushed those policies of stimulus spending, funded by massive borrowing and major tax increases. And what do you know. the government grew in size substantially. AND the economy improved substantially. So, I will match your jefferson and raise you a reagan.

Not a Reagan fan. Spent like a Progressive and a gun grabber. Oh my, another **** up on you!

Now, do you want to show me a time when the economy was bad based on high unemployment where decreasing spending made the economy better?? I keep asking you. Just hear crickets

False assumption. The economy is not bad "based on high unemployment". The economy is bad based on government spending, taxation and meddling in free markets. High unemployment is a result of that central planning.

I reject your insistence that more debt and more taxation is the answer to economic woes. Free markets and free minds have always produced superior results compared to central planners that are just sure they know what's best for all.

You respond with confidence about free markets but do you have examples about where they've been a success?

 

[Rshermr]

So, Eflatminor mad the following statements below in quotes, with my responses in red:

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
hyperinflation has not occurred...hyperinflation has never happened

Gee thee a history book...one that isn't limited to the Progressive era written by a Progressive to be read by Progressives.

As you well know, it is not necessary to read a history book to look at whether hyperinflation has ever occured after large deficits, or national debt increases. Lots of government numbers to check that out and be completely sure. So, me boy, you are simply delusional. Or lying. Because those times in history do not exist.
Quote:
,...you do not want to see the wealthy pay any taxes. The fact that they pay some seems to have you upset. But they will pay more in the future
Wanna bet?

Ah yes, the Progressive ideal of stealing from the most productive citizens in order to fund your largess. What could be wrong with that? Of course, your little tax the rich plan is working so beautifully in those European countries sinking into oblivion...

Another dodge. The rest of the world is suffering from the same exact problem that we are still suffering from. Mostly bank failures. Not overtaxing. But, for the same reason as we, we are suffering from our own form of austerity, they are suffering from austerity forced on them. Well known. Fully accepted by the economic community.
In the mean time, stats show that our taxation rate is lower than it has been in many decades. And it shows that the wealthy to middle class gap has widdened greatly since the 1980's. It is way to easy to show that income redistribution has happened. From the middle class to the wealthy. And there is step, still bitching about our gov taking to much from the wealthy. Sorry, step, it does not pass the giggle test.
Quote:
You just listed a couple of economic theories that are about as popular today as a fart in church.
"Boy" bands are really popular too...and they also suck.
Just saying, economists and the public in general has determined that your two favorite economic theories are junk. Just like they decided the boy bands were junk. Thanks for the agreement.

Quote:
Quote:

You seem to be suggesting MORE debt is the answer. Don't buy it, never will. Jefferson knew better. You don't.

Nope. Never said more debt helped. But it has never hurt. Again, read your history. Maybe you can show when increased debt hurt a bad economy with high unemployment.
Now, what I did say is that stimulus spending almost always HELPS.

Funny. You keep taking quotes selectively from a hundred fifty years ago or more, and pretending like it is the gospel today.

Milton Friedman's quotes are not from 150 years ago.

And, me boy, you did not use quotes from milton.
Quote:
Now, another of your heroes certainly agreed with me. When he pushed the unemployment rate to over 10.8%, and saw the deficit shoot up like a rocket, he pushed those policies of stimulus spending, funded by massive borrowing and major tax increases. And what do you know. the government grew in size substantially. AND the economy improved substantially. So, I will match your jefferson and raise you a reagan.

Not a Reagan fan. Spent like a Progressive and a gun grabber. Oh my, another **** up on you!

Interesting. Reagan had bad employment numbers. He halted spending and decreased taxes greatly in 1981. And the ue rate went to the second highest in history. Over 10.8% after doing EXACTLY what you propose. And the deficit went up like a rocket. And you are NOT a fan. So, we agree, that was a stupid move. It was, as his vp said, voodoo economics. Nice to be in agreement with you.

Quote:
Now, do you want to show me a time when the economy was bad based on high unemployment where decreasing spending made the economy better?? I keep asking you. Just hear crickets

False assumption. The economy is not bad "based on high unemployment". The economy is bad based on government spending, taxation and meddling in free markets. High unemployment is a result of that central planning.

Nice attempt at a dodge, again. I was not suggesting that the economy tubed because of unemployment. It tubed for various reasons at various time, me boy. Obviously. Now, when was there a time when high unemployment existed and decreased gov spending helped that economy??? Without playing word games, me delusional libertarian

I reject your insistence that more debt and more taxation is the answer to economic woes.

Now, now now, me delusional libertarian. Proving that you are indeed delusional, you tried to put words into my mouth. Never said debt was the answer. Nor taxation. That is you lying again. What I said was that deficit spending, and specifically stimulus spending, is generally the answer. And that decreasing spending is pretty much ALWAYS sure to make the economy worse. Debt based on borrowing and taxation can, however, be used to decrease the effect on the deficit and the national debt, if that is a concern, in order to fund stimulus spending. I am sure you understand this, but for some reason you choose to ignore the facts.

 

[mamooth]

Imminent hyperinflation has been predicted nonstop for at least the past 40 years. Why should anyone believe the latest predictions are any more accurate?

 

[BullKurtz]

Imminent hyperinflation has been predicted nonstop for at least the past 40 years. Why should anyone believe the latest predictions are any more accurate?

Remember the 21% interest rates during the Peanut years '77-'80? It's why Jimmy's dollar coin was called the "Carter Quarter".

 

[oldfart]

Imminent hyperinflation has been predicted nonstop for at least the past 40 years. Why should anyone believe the latest predictions are any more accurate?

Ah, but you know they will be right once a century somewhere in the world!

 

[Rshermr]

Imminent hyperinflation has been predicted nonstop for at least the past 40 years. Why should anyone believe the latest predictions are any more accurate?

Remember the 21% interest rates during the Peanut years '77-'80? It's why Jimmy's dollar coin was called the "Carter Quarter".

Me poor ignorant con tool, you need to determine who sets interest rates. Everyone knows, except apparently you, that the FED sets the interest rates. And the federal funds rates were set by the fed, under Fed Chairman Volker, during the 1970's and 1980's. You need to start sending me money. I get so tired from trying to educate you.
By the way, those rates were high in late 1980 and 1981, before lowering. Again due to the actions of the FED. Not Carter. Not Reagan.

Paul Volcker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, me boy, the issue was inflation rates, NOT interest rates. Sorry you are so confused.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Me poor ignorant con tool, you need to determine who sets interest rates. Everyone knows, except apparently you, that the FED sets the interest rates. And the fed rates were set by the fed, under Fed Chairman Volker, during the 1970's and 1980's. You need to start sending me money. I get so tired from trying to educate you.
By the way, those rates were over 11% to around 16% in late 1980 and 1981, before lowering. Again due to the actions of the FED. Not Carter. Not Reagan.

Paul Volcker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, me boy, the issue was inflation rates, NOT interest rates. Sorry you are so confused.

Ah, that must be why they spoke of stagflation....

Oh, and the Volker monetary policy was just because Paul was an asshole, right? He wasn't attempting to stem the bleeding from the disaster that was the Nixon-Ford-Carter Keynesian orgy, right?

 

[Rshermr]

Me poor ignorant con tool, you need to determine who sets interest rates. Everyone knows, except apparently you, that the FED sets the interest rates. And the fed rates were set by the fed, under Fed Chairman Volker, during the 1970's and 1980's. You need to start sending me money. I get so tired from trying to educate you.
By the way, those rates were over 11% to around 16% in late 1980 and 1981, before lowering. Again due to the actions of the FED. Not Carter. Not Reagan.

Paul Volcker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, me boy, the issue was inflation rates, NOT interest rates. Sorry you are so confused.

Ah, that must be why they spoke of stagflation....

Oh, and the Volker monetary policy was just because Paul was an asshole, right? He wasn't attempting to stem the bleeding from the disaster that was the Nixon-Ford-Carter Keynesian orgy, right?

Odd. Seems that you missed completely what I said. I did not say that Volker was an ass hole. Never thought that. He was a brilliant man, though I did not agree with all of his policies. The problem he was addressing was stagflation, which was a new economic phenomenon. Your blaming it on Keynesian policies is quaint. And typical for a con. The factors that created the problem are varied and argued still by economists of good intent. But Keynesian economics simply did not have a good answer to the problem. It was NOT the problem. Modification to Keynesian theory creating great interest in new economic theories including New-Keynesian theory and Post-Keynesian theory.

But none of the other schools, such as the Chicago Theory, the Austrian Theory, or the so called Supply side school (which borrows heavily from the Chicago Theory) have rational answers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again the OP embarrasses himself with his astounding ignorance.

The Long Story of U.S. Debt, From 1790 to 2011, in 1 Little Chart - Matt Phillips - The Atlantic

ONE year at the height of borrowing to fight a WORLD WAR....and then only by a measly 6%...it's you who should be embarrassed....it took you what 3 days to find that flimsy shit? Pitiful little leftists grabbing at (soda) straws because they drink like women same as their guru BarryOh.

A genuine marine would be man enough to admit that he was wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well, dipshit, lets see if you are capable of understanding anything. First, the percent of the gdp that existed in 1946 was 127%. Today, we are at about 101%. So, you say that is only 6% different. See the problem yet, me boy.

As I suggested, you need to find a remedial math class. You really need to take my recommendation. Because, me poor ignorant con, you are making a fool of your self.

So, you adamantly stated that I was nuts for not knowing that the current national debt to gdp rate was not the highest ever. Now you are misquoting the source I provided you and missing the actual difference by about 20%.

See why we worry about you, bull. We worry because you are obviously on the loose, and you are obviously mentally ill.

Then there was the math suggesting that it took me three days to find a link. In fact, it took less than 2 minutes to find the link, dipshit. Hardly a task. That you think it would be again shows your lack of brain activity.

You see, dipshit, I knew about the national debt, and when it had been at it's highest. And I knew, as you are unwilling to consider, that it did not cause a problem of any kind with the economy.

Now, you just made the statement that the increase in the national debt was because of borrowing. It was not, of course. It was mostly due to SPENDING.
Maybe if you took your head out of your ass and spent a little time looking at impartial data, you could actually learn something. Though I seriously doubt that you have the mental capacity.

Only an Idiot would think we can borrow our way into prosperity..................

We are 395 BILLION in interest payments on the debt this year..........

Unfunded Liabilities will put us on permanent deficits of at least a TRILLION A YEAR BY 2020.....

Every year the CBO, GAO, and quite frankly the entire world TELLS US THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE....................

And nobody listens, to our economic doom we go, as we are turning our paper currency into TOILET PAPER.

Only an Idiot would think we can borrow our way into prosperity..................
No body suggested that you could borrow your way into prosperity. However, that crazy idiot Reagan did it. Borrowed more than all of the preceeding presidents combined, and increased taxes 11 times after taking the economy to the point where the unemployment rate was over 10.8% (Second highest and surpassed only during the great republican depression of 1929. And SPENT stimulatively at a very high rate. Increased the size of the fed government substantially. And had a good economy as a result.

We are 395 BILLION in interest payments on the debt this year..........

Yes. You must be so happy with the obama economic team. They have brought the level of the annual payment on the national debt to just about exactly where it was when BUSH 2 ENTERED OFFICE in 2001. And way, way down from the last year of the Bush years, 2008, when it had ballooned to $451,154,049,950.63. And the cbo sees it continuing to decrease over the next years. That is the point you were trying to make, right???
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Unfunded Liabilities will put us on permanent deficits of at least a TRILLION A YEAR BY 2020.....

Well, that is what all of the bat shit crazy con web sites say. Not what the impartial sites say. Must tell us where you spend your time. But, unfunded liabilities are are simple enough. You fund them, at some point. It is no real problem.

Every year the CBO, GAO, and quite frankly the entire world TELLS US THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE....................

No, they do not. And the entire world, frankly, just keeps buying our gov bonds with no problem at all.
And nobody listens, to our economic doom we go, as we are turning our paper currency into TOILET PAPER.
Uh, the rest of the world seems to totally disagree with you. As does nearly every economist in the world. So, apparently you think we should believe you because..........Actually, there is NO reason to believe you.

You Lie........ Reagan received an economy from hell from Carter and turned it around. Unlike your boy Obama. Reagan rebuilt the military as it was in disrepair. Yes he spent a lot of money, but SO HAS OBAMA and the recovery shit.........And still our economy is in the dumps.

Never before has so much been spent, to achieve so little. Our economy is still not recovering, and Obamacare is making it worse.

Comparing to the debt. I've got news for you buddy. As I've already said, they've been cooking the books all year which is why they are asking for a TRILLION plus budget for 2 months, TO PAY OFF THE COOKED BOOKS.

We will see 400 to 600 BILLION IN DEBT AFTER THE Trillion.

Look here people......................Our debt is down.............Aren't we great......Rah Rah Rah..............Ummmm assholes, manipulating the bills to pay it late to say it's great is BS.

Unfunded Liabilities aren't a problem. You pay them.

Hey you IGNORANT LIBERAL ASSHOLE, we aren't paying SHIT. We are paying the bills with FIAT CURRENCY. And of course people like you say it doesn't matter. It matters for our currency value which is dropping to the Yuan. It matters when you purchase something in stores, and the people know this.

POP QUIZ ASSHOLE...........If we can just print money and it doesn't mean anything.......................PRINT 12 TRILLION TOMMORROW from the Federal Reserve and pay off the debt..................

It doesn't matter right.............Doesn't affect anything......................

Bonds, more debt. No worries. Let's spend more.

You refuse to face Reality. Which is by nature normal for a wacked Lib.

 

[BullKurtz]

Me poor ignorant con tool, you need to determine who sets interest rates. Everyone knows, except apparently you, that the FED sets the interest rates. By the way, me boy, the issue was inflation rates, NOT interest rates. Sorry you are so confused.

The Fed sets the PRIME rate ya spaced-out jackass. Any bank can charge any rate they see fit....the PRIME is what money costs them, not you....especially not you. You'll pay the the street rate and if you miss the vig you'll be missing a kneecap. Nice chatting with you though.....I don't usually have a chance like this to interact with a senile 20 something.

 

[BullKurtz]

A genuine marine would be man enough to admit that he was wrong.

Hey Dildo_Te....shouldn't you be flitting around "thanking" the other prog peckerwoods instead of trying to insult me?....We both know that without the mileage of the internet between you and me you'd have been long gone by now. And tidy up that fucked up avatar....ya look like something out of a german beer commercial.

 

[Unkotare]

....We both know that without the mileage of the internet between you and me you'd have been long gone by now.

What are you implying, Joe?

 

[BullKurtz]

....We both know that without the mileage of the internet between you and me you'd have been long gone by now.

What are you implying, Joe?

Look, whoever this "Joe" guy is, you need to get over him....He's moved on from the looks of it...what happened, did he try to charge you for an autograph or something?

 

[Rshermr]

So, eagle, the economic wasteland that he is, says:

You Lie........ Reagan received an economy from hell from Carter and turned it around. Unlike your boy Obama. Reagan rebuilt the military as it was in disrepair. Yes he spent a lot of money, but SO HAS OBAMA and the recovery shit.........And still our economy is in the dumps.

Wow, you do love ronnie, don't you. Sorry to hurt your feelings. I love no president, and have a basic distrust of politicians in general. Reagan inherited a mildly bad economy. The unemployment (ue) rate was about 7.4%. He lowered taxes greatly, stopped as much gov spending as possible, and the ue rate went to 10.8% in about 19 months. And the debt, which he was also concerned about, went way, way up. So, that would be a major problem, a much worse economy than he inherited. Unless, of course, he wanted a recession. I mean, me boy, saying that the second worst ue rate in the history of the us is a winning move just does not pass the giggle test.
The military was hardly in disrepair. That is your opinion. Stupid, but your opinion none the less. And far from a subject relative to this thread.

Really, not sure what your point is about the "recovery shit". Maybe you should rewrite that so it has some meaning. But, in general, here is what ronnie did:
He borrowed more than all presidents before him combined.
He increased taxes 11 times.
AND, he spent like a drunken sailor. Stimulus spending.
AND, he increased the size of the gov substantially.

Sorry you hate me saying this. I do not think that his taxing, and borrowing were bad. He simply was trying to keep the budged deficit down to counter his stimulus spending. Which was a good thing.

Never before has so much been spent, to achieve so little. Our economy is still not recovering, and Obamacare is making it worse.

Under obama, spending is down as a percent of gdp.
Under obama the economy is indeed recovering. The ue rate is down, the gdp has increased greatly, the stock market is soaring, and corporations are making record profits.

Maybe you have some proof for your statements. I think that your statements are simple minded conservative dogma. Or, drivel for short.

Comparing to the debt. I've got news for you buddy. As I've already said, they've been cooking the books all year which is why they are asking for a TRILLION plus budget for 2 months, TO PAY OFF THE COOKED BOOKS.

First, I have to say, I am not your buddy. I prefer to have buddies that have class. You have none.
Relative to the rest of that paragraph, pure drivel. You are trying to cook up a gov conspiracy. Which just proves that you are delusional.

We will see 400 to 600 BILLION IN DEBT AFTER THE Trillion.

I am sure you believe that, me boy. The deficit is decreasing. At record rates. And the interest on the debt is decreasing, dropping below prior rates. Next.

Look here people......................Our debt is down.............Aren't we great......Rah Rah Rah..............Ummmm assholes, manipulating the bills to pay it late to say it's great is BS.

Wow. Let the delusion go wild. You are simply proving you are a nut case. Good for you.

Unfunded Liabilities aren't a problem. You pay them.

The problem is getting the gov to do something about it. Other than that, no problem att all. I would gladly pay what I could if only you could tell me who wants the money. But you can not. Because you are too stupid to understand that it is a sovereign gov debt. Not a debt to any independent entity. And, you see, they NEVER require repayment. Which is why you can NEVER point to a time when the citizenry has ever repaid the gov before.

Hey you IGNORANT LIBERAL ASSHOLE, we aren't paying SHIT. We are paying the bills with FIAT CURRENCY. And of course people like you say it doesn't matter. It matters for our currency value which is dropping to the Yuan. It matters when you purchase something in stores, and the people know this.

Ignorant liberal asshole??? And here you were just calling me your buddy.
China is not asking us to pay them anything. Were you of the opinion that they are? They keep buying our bonds (you know, the ones you say have limited value) and giving us money. Cash. Moola. Then, we buy their stuff. We give them cash back. We get stuff, they get dollars. Now, relative to our dollar compared to the yuan, did you think that was a bad thing? It allows us to buy MORE of their stuff for LESS of our dollars.

POP QUIZ ASSHOLE...........If we can just print money and it doesn't mean anything.......................PRINT 12 TRILLION TOMMORROW from the Federal Reserve and pay off the debt..................

Now, that would be a stupid thing to do. Selling bonds creates money in the good old usa. We do not need to print it. If you think we are, perhaps you have some proof. But of course, you do not. That was a really short, and rally stupid pop quiz. Have you always been that ignorant, or have you been working at it.

It doesn't matter right.............Doesn't affect anything......................

Bonds, more debt. No worries. Let's spend more.

You refuse to face Reality. Which is by nature normal for a wacked Lib.

Yup, that national debt is a real problem in your mind. You can not say what is going to happen if it increases. You can not tell anyone when it has ever caused the us a problem. But you have been told it is.
And you believe it. Good for you. The world needs idiots like you. Makes others appear smart.

 

[Rshermr]

....We both know that without the mileage of the internet between you and me you'd have been long gone by now.

What are you implying, Joe?

Look, whoever this "Joe" guy is, you need to get over him....He's moved on from the looks of it...what happened, did he try to charge you for an autograph or something?

Uh, yeah. That bull guy is really scary, in his own mind. Funny. Kind of like dealing with a high school bully. Except he does not have the knowledge of the average high school student. Poor ignorant guy.

 

[Rshermr]

Me poor ignorant con tool, you need to determine who sets interest rates. Everyone knows, except apparently you, that the FED sets the interest rates. By the way, me boy, the issue was inflation rates, NOT interest rates. Sorry you are so confused.

The Fed sets the PRIME rate ya spaced-out jackass. Any bank can charge any rate they see fit....the PRIME is what money costs them, not you....especially not you. You'll pay the the street rate and if you miss the vig you'll be missing a kneecap. Nice chatting with you though.....I don't usually have a chance like this to interact with a senile 20 something.

Jesus, Bull.
This is getting embarrassing. Yeah, even I am embarrassed for your ignorance.

No, me poor ignorant con tool. The Fed does not set the PRIME RATE. Banks set the Prime Rates, based on a number of factors. To some degree, the banks set the Prime Rate based on the Fed rate, which is known by those who are not as ignorant as you, as the federal funds rate. Which, me boy, is completely independent of the Prime Rate.

So, I will be awaiting your appology. Again.

Here is the thing, Bull. While there is no need to pay back the national debt, and no mechanism to do so, you SHOULD send me a check for your education.

"The prime rate is an interest rate determined by individual banks. It is often used as a reference rate (also called the base rate) for many types of loans, including loans to small businesses and credit card loans. On its H.15 statistical release, "Selected Interest Rates," the Board reports the prime rate posted by the majority of the largest twenty-five banks. Although the Federal Reserve has no direct role in setting the prime rate, many banks choose to set their prime rates based partly on the target level of the federal funds rate--the rate that banks charge each other for short-term loans--established by the Federal Open Market Committee.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/credit_12846.htm"

Now, what the Fed sets is the Federal Funds Rate Target:

In most cases, when economists, academics, investors and central bankers refer to the Federal Funds Rate, they are actually referring to the Fed Funds Rate Target.

"The U.S. Federal Reserve sets a target for the Federal Funds Rate, and keeps the rate on target by executing open market operations, i.e., the buying and selling of U.S. Treasuries, mortgage-backed and agency securities via repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements (also known as "repos.") These repo transactions take place at the Trading Desk inside the Federal Reserve Bank of New York*. The Fed sells debt when it wants to drain cash from the banking system, and buys it when the Fed wants to pump money into the system."

I suspect this was way too much information for a tiny brain like yours. But it was just my intent to educate you, me boy. I am sure you will be pissed, again. But you should be pissed at those feeding you incorrect information.