Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Well, I agree, the government deficit is different from private debt for one simple reason, the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt. The government can get away with this for extended periods of time as long as the inflation does not become excessive (ie late 1970s). By printing money and borrowing more money the government can provide the populace with the services it desires and conduct the wars it desires.
Sooner or later there is a day of reckoning and the government either has to cut expenses or raise taxes or both. The Clinton administration succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels. Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed. Obama inherited a massive financial mess.
According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy.

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President.

Donald Trump isn't running for president. It's a publicity stunt to build ratings for his asinine show on NBC.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Donald Trump isn't running for president. It's a publicity stunt to build ratings for his asinine show on NBC.

I dunno man. He seems serious to me. Although he is himself asinine what with all this birther bullshit.

[randolph]

January 29, 2011 | From an article in Alternet.org



Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”
Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.”

Also--- http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shriek...n-rands-heart/

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt.

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

Originally Posted by randolph

The Clinton administration [and republican congress] succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels.

fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by randolph

Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed.

The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

A couple of days ago, I posted the following:

"So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?"

We're still waiting for your answer.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by randolph
the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt.

The debt can be paid back in cheaper dollars.

Tracy,

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

The dollar amount of the debt does not go up, the "value" of the debt goes down by printing more money.

"Deflates the value of our money" True, what I meant to say is that printing more money can cause inflation. That is, a rise in the price of goods, which is happening right now while we are still in a recession. All the money poured into the economy is being negated by rising prices. Here in California, gas is over four dollars a gallon.

[Enoch Root]

Moral philosophy? Absurd. Unless impoverishing the working people is moral.

Democratic capitalism? That is an oxymoron.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The debt can be paid back in cheaper dollars.
...

The dollar amount of the debt does not go up, the "value" of the debt goes down by printing more money.

Yes, the debt would have to be paid back in 'cheaper' dollars. But that doesn't mean the debt is smaller now. I don't have time to look up the actual numbers, but let me try and illustrate where I'm coming from. Let's define the dollar as 2008$ and 2009$. For this example, let's assume we have a balanced budget and the debt remains constant at 10 trillion 2008$.

So then in 2009 the treasury prints a trillion dollars. Is America suddenly richer? No.

11 2009$ = 10 2008$ (again, not real numbers, just an example)

So in 2009 the debt, which remained constant, is now 11 trillion 2009$. Yes the dollars are now cheaper dollars. i.e. 1 2009$ = .91 2008$. But all that means is we have to pay more cheaper dollars to pay off the debt.

So the dollar amount of the debt DOES go up (in the new value of the dollar). But the value of the debt remains the same. (assuming a balanced budget). The value of the dollar drops, so in turn we owe other countries more, so the overall value (in terms of what we owe other countries) remains the same.

Originally Posted by randolph

"Deflates the value of our money" True, what I meant to say is that printing more money can cause inflation. That is, a rise in the price of goods, which is happening right now while we are still in a recession. All the money poured into the economy is being negated by rising prices.

The money poured into the economy is not negated by rising prices. Like you said in the same quote, it causes rising prices.

So anyway, where does this leave us on this?
It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

[smc]

Originally Posted by smc

A couple of days ago, I posted the following:

"So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?"

We're still waiting for your answer.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... So anyway, where does this leave us on this?
It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

And the wait continues. Tracy Coxx logs back on, reposts this statement about national emergencies, but won't tell us what Tracy Coxx would actually cut of substance from the federal budget. It's political cowardice, no different from the ideologues who Tracy Coxx defends either implicitly or explicitly.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Were the United States never to incur debt as a nation except during a "national emergency," nearly everything -- including things Tracy Coxx probably would like to continue to have provided -- would disappear, unless:

a. "national emergency" were defined to include all those things
b. taxes were raised to their highest levels ever

Even the founders expected the United States to run a deficit. Read Alexander Hamilton. Countries operate this way; the argument that seeks to make it equivalent to continuing to use your personal credit care, whether that argument is stated explicitly or ghosted, is a diversion from the real discussion.

So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?