Romney’s voters are not moochers or victims

[kimmy]

You're conflating two different questions.

"Are food stamps a stimulus?" (yes)

"Is it effective to fight a recession using deficit spending?" (highly debatable)

-k

[kraychik]

If a country is running a deficit and they increased the ammount of food stamps circulated in an attempt to stimulate the economy then all that money comes from bond investors. Its really no different than tax cuts or infrastructure development in that regard. That money is brand new... it didnt come from ANYONE at least not yet.

Right, and what does that debt do to the economy? Borrowed money is just deferred taxation. Moreover, it increases the minimum interest payments required to service the existing debt. Food stamps are NOT a stimulus, they constitute a redistribution of wealth program. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The cost of the program is borne in one way or another by the very people who benefit from it.

[kraychik]

You're conflating two different questions.

"Are food stamps a stimulus?" (yes)

No. "Government stimulus" is a nonsensical Keynesian term, anyways. In its popular culture usage by economic illiterates (like yourself), it is even more useless.

"Is it effective to fight a recession using deficit spending?" (highly debatable)

It's debatable if you value dishonesty or stupidity as valid argumentation.

[dre]

Tax revenues composed about 65% of American federal spending in 2011. There's a point I want to get to, though. Economic illiterates love to throw around the term "stimulus", thinking that somehow money for programs like food stamps fall from the sky. If it's such a great "stimulus" for the economy (and it is absolutely not, no government program is), why not double it? Triple it? The same ridiculous argument can be advanced that minimum wage regulations constitute a "stimulus" (which actually increase unemployment). Or mileage-efficiency regulations for cars (which make cars more dangerous). Or even rent controls (which diminish housing supply). The government cannot "stimulate" the broader economy with spending and borrowing.

Economic illiterates love to throw around the term "stimulus", thinking that somehow money for programs like food stamps fall from the sky. If it's such a great "stimulus" for the economy (and it is absolutely not, no government program is), why not double it? Triple it?

Well again, you dont know what economic stimulus is. Your second sentence there... "why not double it? Triple it?" makes that really clear. Your suggestion seems to be that if policy is "good stimulus" you should be able to have a whole lot of it. This is really an epic "swing and a miss", and shows a complete ignorance of macro economics. Economic stimulus is basically just a fancy phrase to describe the dumping of money into the economy by the central bank to ward of a recession or prevent the economy from slipping into one. Its inherently short term policy, and its often very short sighted. You want to do as little as possible, you dont want "double it", or "triple it".

ALso, Im explaining this stuff to you and Shady because you guys clearly need some help with these concepts, but that does not mean I endorse it, nor does it mean I think the best way for the government to stimulate the economy is through food stamp programs.

[kraychik]

Well again, you dont know what economic stimulus is. Your second sentence there... "why not double it? Triple it?" makes that really clear. Your suggestion seems to be that if policy is "good stimulus" you should be able to have a whole lot of it. This is really an epic "swing and a miss", and shows a complete ignorance of macro economics. Economic stimulus is basically just a fancy phrase to describe the dumping of money into the economy by the central bank to ward of a recession or prevent the economy from slipping into one. Its inherently short term policy, and its often very short sighted. You want to do as little as possible, you dont want "double it", or "triple it".

ALso, Im explaining this stuff to you and Shady because you guys clearly need some help with these concepts, but that does not mean I endorse it, nor does it mean I think the best way for the government to stimulate the economy is through food stamp programs.

The government cannot stimulate the economy through borrowing and spending. Period.

Edited September 26, 2012 by kraychik

[dre]

Right, and what does that debt do to the economy? Borrowed money is just deferred taxation. Moreover, it increases the minimum interest payments required to service the existing debt. Food stamps are NOT a stimulus, they constitute a redistribution of wealth program. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The cost of the program is borne in one way or another by the very people who benefit from it.

Kimmy already tried to explain where youre going wrong here. You are combining two completely distinct arguments and hopping from one to the other.

Thats why youve been reduced to the internet forum equivalent of a monkey in the zoo flinging his feces at people who walk by his cage.

Crap like this...

economic illiterates (like yourself)

[dre]

The government cannot stimulate the economy through borrowing and spending. Period.

Sure it can. It can heat up the economy in the short term by infusing it with cash by either increasing government spending, reducing the interbank rate, or quantitative easing.

Theres very little debate that it does work in the short term, but the problem is that its often shortsighted policy. If you grow the money supply too fast then the economy will grow too quickly and you will end up with bubbles across various different asset classes. This is whats known as the business cycle.

Again... Im not defending monetary easing as a policy. There could and should be a debate about whether central banks should engage in this policy, and if you dont think they should then you could have a debate about whether central banks should even exist because that is pretty much the entire point of them. Maybe we should just allow economic downturns to run their course, and the boom/bust cycle would be less violent.

But Im not sure theres much point in moving on to a debate about the merits of keynsian monetary policy until you understand the basics of economic stimulus is and how its supposed to work.

[kraychik]

Sure it can. It can heat up the economy in the short term by infusing it with cash by either increasing government spending, reducing the interbank rate, or quantitative easing.

Theres very little debate that it does work in the short term, but the problem is that its often shortsighted policy. If you grow the money supply too fast then the economy will grow too quickly and you will end up with bubbles across various different asset classes. This is whats known as the business cycle.

So it "works", as long as you look at a short slice of time and remove the future context. That's like me giving you a $500 thousand credit card and you spending it on a new home and saying that you're more wealthy in the short term, until you fall behind on interest payments and have your home foreclosed on.

And, that is not what the business cycle is. The business cycle is a naturally-occurring phenomenon in a truly free market, you're trumpeting government manipulation of the economy as something it isn't. Again, the government CAN NOT stimulate the economy via borrowing and spending.

Again... Im not defending monetary easing as a policy. There could and should be a debate about whether central banks should engage in this policy, and if you dont think they should then you could have a debate about whether central banks should even exist because that is pretty much the entire point of them. Maybe we should just allow economic downturns to run their course, and the boom/bust cycle would be less violent.

Sure, we can debate with economic illiterates that think borrowing and spending can stimulate the economy, while they tell us that a phase of deregulation that never took place is to blame for the financial decline starting in 2008.

[punked]

So it "works", as long as you look at a short slice of time and remove the future context. That's like me giving you a $500 thousand credit card and you spending it on a new home and saying that you're more wealthy in the short term, until you fall behind on interest payments and have your home foreclosed on.

No it really isn't like this at all. Know why? Because Macro and Micro economics are different a person and a family are not countries. Sorry the rules of Basketball are different then Baseball no matter how much you want them to be the same because it makes it simpler for you to understand.

[dre]

So it "works", as long as you look at a short slice of time and remove the future context.

THats exactly right. When economic stimulus does in fact is quite literally move future consumption to today. Lets say we cut the interbank rate, and dump a bunch of new money into the system through bank loans. It will stimulate consumption for a while for obvious reasons. Those low rates make it easier to buy stuff. But it reduces FUTURE consumption because when next year rolls around consumers have all this debt on their balance sheets, and maintaining it eats up more of their income so now they can consume less.

That is the exactly point of economic stimulus though and exactly what the governmnent is TRYING to do, so you cant really say it "doesnt work"... at least you wont once you understand what it is, and is meant for.

[kraychik]

THats exactly right. When economic stimulus does in fact is quite literally move future consumption to today. Lets say we cut the interbank rate, and dump a bunch of new money into the system through bank loans. It will stimulate consumption for a while for obvious reasons. Those low rates make it easier to buy stuff. But it reduces FUTURE consumption because when next year rolls around consumers have all this debt on their balance sheets, and maintaining it eats up more of their income so now they can consume less.

That is the exactly point of economic stimulus though and exactly what the governmnent is TRYING to do, so you cant really say it "doesnt work"... at least you wont once you understand what it is, and is meant for.

In other words, it seems that you finally do understand that the government cannot stimulate the economy through borrowing and spending. You're welcome.

[Smallc]

In other words, it seems that you finally do understand that the government cannot stimulate the economy through borrowing and spending. You're welcome.

What they can do, is pull the growth forward. The idea is to make the lows less difficult, and the highs a little less high.

[kraychik]

What they can do, is pull the growth forward.

No, they can't.

The idea is to make the lows less difficult, and the highs a little less high.

Perhaps reality is more important than ideas.

Edited September 27, 2012 by kraychik

[Smallc]

No, they can't.

Yes, actually, they can. The money can be introduced into the economy at a time when it wouldn't be otherwise available. That means it isn't available later, and must be paid off (with interest) so it puts a drag on growth later. Stimulus....smooths out the the bumps.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Smallc

[BubberMiley]

Kraychick is not quite old enough yet to have learned about how the Great Depression ended.

[Shady]

A perfect example of the typical Obama voter. This is the cornerstone of his constituency.

[punked]

A perfect example of the typical Obama voter. This is the cornerstone of his constituency.

That and right now 52% of America. Apparently you don't agree with Democracy any more?

Here is the new Obama Ad high lighting those 47% Shady. Glad that you and your side are running the dumbest campaign that anyone has ever seen though.

Edited September 27, 2012 by punked

[Mr.Canada]

What Romney said was correct. 47% of American pay no taxes. I don't see what's wrong with stating that.

[BubberMiley]

What Romney said was correct. 47% of American pay no taxes. I don't see what's wrong with stating that.

Well, for starters, they don't pay "no taxes." They don't pay net federal income tax.

But I don't see what's wrong with stating that, and then following it up with an analysis that these people feel they are "victims" and that they are unwilling to take personal responsibility either.

I think the Republicans should keep pushing that point straight through to November.

[Shady]

Well, for starters, they don't pay "no taxes." They don't pay net federal income tax.

But I don't see what's wrong with stating that, and then following it up with an analysis that these people feel they are "victims" and that they are unwilling to take personal responsibility either.

I think the Republicans should keep pushing that point straight through to November.

Most of Obama's constituency is made of people that they're victims. Without "victims" he couldn't get elected as dog catcher let alone president.

[BubberMiley]

Most of Obama's constituency is made of people that they're victims. Without "victims" he couldn't get elected as dog catcher let alone president.

Elitist victims. Since Obama has more than 50% of the country on his side, you are certainly demonstrating your contempt for much of the U.S. population.

Such anti-Americanism is unbecoming. Why do you hate the U.S. so?

[dre]

In other words, it seems that you finally do understand that the government cannot stimulate the economy through borrowing and spending. You're welcome.

Are you joking?

[BubberMiley]

So on top of that 47% who pay no income taxes, there are the guaranteed votes of overpaid union workers, public sector employees, teachers, university professors, elitist limousine liberals, scientists out for government grants, and business owners who profit from government largesse.

I guess it's going to be a landslide after all.

[GostHacked]

Are you joking?

I believe he is right. The government cannot further the economy. The private sector and a free market drives the economy. But since we don't really have a free economy anymore we can see that there is an eventual downturn. Try being a local shop while competing with the big box stores. Most of these stores are owned by a handful of companies. So they are conglomerates in actuality. Every company has a parent company if it is to play on a large scale.

The government facilitates this kind of behaviour and environment through deregulation and skewing everything in the favour of the big players. So they are not driving economic diversity in any way, they are helping the big become bigger and own everything. Monopolies never last long, unless it's government approved.

Edited September 27, 2012 by GostHacked

[Shady]

Elitist victims. Since Obama has more than 50% of the country on his side, you are certainly demonstrating your contempt for much of the U.S. population.

No, just the bulk of his support comes from the "victim" class. He needs people dependent on government in order to win elections. That's why the last 4 years has been so successful for him. Dependency has grown by leaps and bounds. That's what's ironic about the so-called Obama recovery. More people on umemployment. More people on disability. More people on foodstamps. Make no mistake, if Obama gets 4 more years, there will be even more people on goverment assistance than there are now.