Liberal free for all coming to an end

[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.

[randolph]

Tracy

It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

During the great depression, the Republicans were very resistant to increase debt in order to stimulate the economy. Consequently many banks failed and millions of people lost their savings (no FDIC). FDR finally did get a modest stimulus going but it was inadequate to really get recovery. It took WWII to get the country back on its feet with a four trillion dollar war debt!
We managed that huge debt and the economy grew rapidly at the same time the maximum tax rate for the rich was seventy percent! During those years we were rebuilding the free world including Japan and Germany. Times were good and the middle class prospered.
Now days the cost of an aging population, exploding retirement costs, obscene military expenses and the loss of working class jobs is threatening the country with bankruptcy. The government keeps borrowing more and more money to cover expenses and stimulate the economy. Why? Because we have a highly distorted tax system. The rich are not paying their fair share, if they did we would not have these massive deficits.
Capitalism is based on economic growth. Growth depends on a populace that can afford to buy what the capital investment produces. If we screw the populace with a distorted tax system that favors the rich then capitalism will fail.

[smc]

FYI for all those who follow this thread: Tracy Coxx was on four hours ago (I write this at 10:38 pm EDT in the United States) and has yet to answer the pressing question. Perhaps Tracy Coxx has been delayed by some kind of "national emergency"?

[randolph]

Tracy

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.

It appears that Tracy is posing the question to other followers of the thread. Is it necessary for her to answer her own question?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy During the great depression, the Republicans were very resistant to increase debt in order to stimulate the economy. Consequently many banks failed and millions of people lost their savings (no FDIC). FDR finally did get a modest stimulus going but it was inadequate to really get recovery. It took WWII to get the country back on its feet with a four trillion dollar war debt!

$4 trillion war debt? Where did you get that? Besides, during the Great Depression, various political sides will have different approaches to the problem. Democrats will want to spend ourselves out of debt. Republicans will want to cut spending and tighten our belt. A Great Depression is a national emergency though, and contrary to what TLB staff will have you believe I'm not talking about national emergencies. I'm talking about the word you bolded in my quote in your post: routinely. So again, in normal times, is it ever a good practice to routinely run a deficit? That is the pressing question.

btw, in the attached image, you'll see that the debt didn't reach $4 trillion until about 1990.

[randolph]

The WWII cost has been estimated to be about five trillion dollars, most of it borrowed dollars (bonds). The war debt exceeded the GDP, the current debt has yet to exceed the GDP.
Its important to keep in mind that we have a far larger economy now than we had in 1945. The skyrocketing debt after Clinton has been the result of irresponsible management of the country by our government. Free-market ideology and endless wars is destroying our country.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

...A Great Depression is a national emergency though, and contrary to what TLB staff will have you believe I'm not talking about national emergencies...

This is the second time that you have posted TLB staff. Who are you referring to? The only staff of TLB is the site owner. If you are referring to one specific person then mention that person. Don't make blanket statements lumping several people into one group when you only intend to refer to one person.