The Incessant Irrational Fear of Debt continues by Republican's even amidst Good News

So let's send everyone $10,000 and let them spend it then we should see happy days again according to your theory. Certainly you agree we the citizens can spend it better than government.

 

Yes and no. For instance, the Supreme Court has never taken up Social Security as an insurance program as it was sold as a lie to the American Public but pushed as a tax and spend authority by threatening the court. Something that progressives are not unwilling to do, threaten to get around the Constitution.

You are right, it is a moral argument, something else progressives have no interest in as long as their ends are met. Screw your children and grand children as long as you get what you want today.

 

Yes, I guess us liberals lack morality when we are trying to get healthcare for people who need healthcare, social security for elders so they have a retirement when they no longer can work, welfare for individuals who don't have any money, food stamps for those who can't eat. I guess us "liberals" are real life immoral monsters!

LMAO! But the very moral conservatives who are more than willing to spend as much money as possible to build bombs, weapons, ammo, tanks, nukes, etc, etc to blow people up while trying to strip any other spending for any other reason are the moral ones!

Wow, you guys have such a skewed view of the real world. The fact you honestly think you are "moral" is mind boggling.

 

Not everyone needs $10,000. There would be no point sending $10,000 to people who already have an income. The point is to get money to those that don't have any money as they are wasted human capital who no longer contribute to the economy whether it's through consumption, labor, or production.

You guys simply don't get it and never will. Your ideology simply makes it impossible for you to understand why Govt debt is a necessity in our monetary system and what it is used for.

You guys think too simplistic. Like... "oh if you say spending works, why not just give everyone $10,000 or $1,000,000". That's the common question I get in response to stimulus spending. Quantity theory of money, portfolio balancing, etc. Stuff you need to know to understand who the Govt should spend money on and why.

And remember, this isn't a new theory... I'm not advocating the Govt to do anything they haven't been doing in the past 75 years. You guys are the ones that don't even understand what the Govt does and why and now because your ideology tells you that you should be afraid of debt, you are now trying to force the Govt to do something they have not done in your entire life.

 

Barrack Obama referred to it as being irresponsible and un-American.

 

Politicians say the darnedest things. Luckily it's just words and doesn't change reality.

 

This, with all due respect, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

We have so many politicians who have never ran a business, never had a real job, and all they know is how to engage in horse trading, campaigning, and defeating political opponents .. and you think these people are the ones who should be deciding how our economy should run, which products to manufacture, which companies should win, which should lose?

Wow, if you want to see political corruption, see what happens when politicians start waving around trillions of dollars with one hand, and a guillotine with the other.

 

The Government is not a business. They are not trying to spend money to generate profits. Something that you will have to learn to understand our monetary system and why Government spending is a necessity. They are not a corporation, they are not a business. And you can come up with all the conspiracies you want about Govt spending, but in reality, 10s of millions of people and 10s of thousands of businesses are funded by the Govt. So the corruption angle is really not your best argument.

And your misunderstanding of Govts role in the economy is a major flaw in your logic.

 

They would spend it and that would grow the economy according to your theory.

Why don't we go around a break windows so then people could be hired to fix them and make the glass to replace them?

I have money and could spend it just as fast as they do.

So giving them money means they are no longer "wasted human capital". OK I'll quit my job tomorrow and you can send me $100,000 and just think how much the economy will grow then.

 

Silly Bluesguy.

Don't you know that government handouts aren't for everyone?

Only deadbeat Obama voters are entitled to spend other peoples money as if it were their own.

 

Government is not a business? No kidding?

Government is full of power hungry, corrupt, greedy politicians. Many of them go into government to enrich themselves, their friends, even their relatives, and of course let's not forget their political and corporate cronies. How else do people of modest means enter the congress and come out millionaires?

Government's role is not to decide which technologies win, and which lose, nor to hand over free taxpayer money to one company, and not the other. It would not be the federal government's role to give GM billions in taxpayer subsides, and none to Ford.

Government's role in the US is not to become Fascist or Marxist, even if you would rather they would.

 

Your opinion on this subject is not one to be taken seriously

They don't

They aren't

 

Actually the broken window fallacy is a fallacy itself. There are many instances where natural disasters such as Hurricane Sandy or after wars that spur tremendous increases in economic growth. But, there is no reason to have a natural disaster or a war to spend money to generate growth.

You are one man out of 310,000,000... I'm glad you can come up with your entire economic theory based on your own actions. 100% chance you are a Republican.

What's the difference of you working for $100k and spending it versus you not working and spending $100k? Is there something magical about the money you earn? Or is it just your crazy philosophy about "working hard"?

 

just an observation

if you're going to point out something you think is dumb

try make it look like you got past 6th grade english

 

Try capitalizing the word English, if you are going to try and puff up your chest by nitpicking in a casual forum discussion.

 

i can type faster without capitalization

you know, like ee cummings and bill gates did

and i didn't pick any nits, i made a pertinent observation

you'd do well to heed my words in the future, if you want intelligent people to listen

 

that was what 0bama said in response to Bush adding $2 trillion in new debt for each of his two terms in office. Now 0bama added $5 trillion in his first term....hmmm. is there a better term for that beyond "irresponsible and unpatriotic," I wonder

Candidate 0bama: "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

 

...and still you feel the need to denigrate and belittle people, in an attempt to puff up your paper chest?

 

If interest rates go up to normal levels in the coming years, I wonder how people will feel that all income tax will go to pay the debt interest. In other words, you will be working for China, Japan, etc.. We are headed down that road.

 

you have no clue what i feel, try to get a grip on reality

no we're not

that was in order to save our financial system from crashing, thanks to bush

and currently, our deficit spending is falling at the fastest rate since the end of wwII

 

It never fails.

When libs are losing on the merits of their logic they turn to personal attacks against their tormentors.

 

My opposition to debt has nothing to do with efficiency or national wealth, I'm sure that a lot of the Fed's policies do indeed stimulate growth. You say that we rely too much on a piece of paper from the 1700s, presumably the constitution. To illustrate my position, I assume you like freedom of speech? It would be silly to throw back at you "well it's just a 200 year old piece of paper", because your advocacy of free speech is prior to the constitutional recognition of it.

This is similar to my position on debt. Ultimately, it must come from the people. There's no such thing as free money. You have an infinitely more efficient (and constitutional) method of revenue raising - namely direct taxation. Either way it's going to come back to taxation, the only difference is that borrowing the money from China adds interest.

It makes no sense for a billionaire to borrow money when he has $100,000,000,000 in his account. He's just wasting money. Access your own funds and give the interest a miss. The government should do the same.

[hr][/hr]

I'm not concerned with consequences, I'm concerned with violations of liberty - violations which are increased through spend and borrow and print policies.

 

The question I love to ask people to get their minds thinking is... Where do people get our made up money to lend to the government?

 

Money is a representation of value, ensured by confidence in the issuing body. That doesn't mean that the government have created value through coinage of currency.

Without money we'd use some other stably valued benchmark to trade, or we'd trade goods themselves. Currency makes things easier, that's about all.

 

Yes, and your policies back then lead to big sluggishness in the economy that kept the misery going. Obama can't build an economy. He is one person and most of the time he has fund raisers to attend and communities to organize against each other. Good news though, the 350 million plus Americans who live here can. Let us get a little of our money back and we will show you. But printing it up and spending on campaign contributors is a slap in the face to people who get out and work to produce the goods and services that have actual unsubsidized value.