Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
12 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's really not my concern that you "believe"me. We're talking about basic facts and figures available to everyone. 

If you want to be perceived as someone very, very stupid, keep pretending we've had 20 million illegal immigrants over the last 4 years. (Jeebus, of you're going to tell outlandish lirs, why stop there? Why not 100 million?)

Keep pretending that producing dramatically more oil drives up has prices. 

Keep pretending that Biden's deficits are awful, but Trump's larger deficit was fine. 

You have a perfect formula for becoming a brain-dead partisan lunatic.

If you're not concerned, why do you reply?

I do not believe anything related to Brandon's administration. Especially Mayorkis.

The Trump economy pre-Rona was magnificent.! You can and will deny that... you're lying...again.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Again with the adjectives. 

“The economy was great” is vague. An economy is made of jobs and money, but you never quote figures, because Trump’s results sucked. 

Brilliant. In the same comment, you complain about the vagueness of the economy was great. You say his results sucked...

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
4 hours ago, Rebound said:

The thing about the national deficit is that it includes massive interest payments.  I don’t know if you’ve ever paid a mortgage, but what do you suppose the interest payment is on a trillion dollars?  The interest payments alone make the deficit swell each year if revenue and spending are flat.  

But it's not flat.

 Have a look.  Turns out most of the revenues for the feds come from rich people, and they kept earning. SO we had a small drop in revenues, but coming out of covid revenues actually peaked at a very high level and remain substantially higher than they were pre covid

Government Revenue | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

image.thumb.png.7611ca978e92c537207a55997ed85525.png

 

So revenue wasn't the problem. 

What about interest on all that money borrowed? Well it's a drop in the bucket as we'll see. It made a small diference but very small. 

However - interest payments DID start shooting up in 2022.  Why? I mean, covid was largely over by then. An it KEPT shooting up through 2023. I mean up like a rocket,

What happened? Sure the us borrowed more money but not THAT much?

What happened was interest rates shot up.  Not the size of the debt. 

Biden's policies created vastly elevated inflation. SOME of it was caused by covid but biden's policies made it far worse, and his spending made inflation last much longer.  And interest rates had to go up to fight that. 

Every cent biden borrowed at that point had VASTLY more interest, and as previous debt rolled over as terms came due it was renewed at the new rate, meaning OLD debt suddenly started to cost more.  

It's been almost three years of that now - so the interest payments on the debt are RADICALLY higher than the amount of money borrowed would have caused. Which is why 2020 and 2021 really didn't show substantially higher interest payments. 

Federal government current expenditures: Interest payments (A091RC1Q027SBEA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

 

People didn't think about the effect higher interest rates would have on the national debt much.  But that is STILL a 'biden/harris' problem, not a covid problem. 

 

 

Posted
39 minutes ago, User said:

And? It was doing great after too. 

Just highlighting the cherry-picking.  You'll grant Trump the credit for the already-booming economy he inherited (but didn't create), and Biden all of the blame for inflationary mess he inherited.  Somehow, the debt that Trump piled up via tax cuts and spending at the top/end of the economic cycle were not inflationary...but Biden's spending coming out of COVID is mostly to blame.  

39 minutes ago, User said:

What truth is it you think I am running from?

Hodad was the one who ran from the reality of Democrat spending during the Biden administration that took place beyond COVID relief. 

He didn't.  He pointed out the absurd, blind hypocrisy of criticizing Biden's deficits when Trumps were much, much larger, even after removing COVID spending from the equation.  

  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

If you're not concerned, why do you reply?

I do not believe anything related to Brandon's administration. Especially Mayorkis.

The Trump economy pre-Rona was magnificent.! You can and will deny that... you're lying...again.

Eh, there are people playing along at home and they deserve to know the facts. 

The pre-COVID Trump economy was a good continuation of the Obama economy (the trajectories didn't change at all) just with higher deficits. The economy Trump promised and the GDP growth he promised never materialized. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Just highlighting the cherry-picking.  You'll grant Trump the credit for the already-booming economy he inherited (but didn't create), and Biden all of the blame for inflationary mess he inherited.  Somehow, the debt that Trump piled up via tax cuts and spending at the top/end of the economic cycle were not inflationary...but Biden's spending coming out of COVID is mostly to blame.  

Not cherry-picking anything. When the argument is ARG TRUMP BAD, saying Trump good is the response. 

I did not give Biden all the blame for anything. 

No, debt in and of itself is not inflationary... it is the spending. And yes, the Pandemic spending certainly contributed to all that. As did the continued spending from Biden and Democrats after. 

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

He didn't.  He pointed out the absurd, blind hypocrisy of criticizing Biden's deficits when Trumps were much, much larger, even after removing COVID spending from the equation.  

He didn't... what? Hodad did run from this. That is why you are here arguing about it and he isn't. 

No, Trumps deficits were not much larger even after removing COVID spending. I have pointed this out numerous times on here. 
 

2017: 700 Billion - TRUMP

2018: 800 Billion - TRUMP

2019: 1 Trillion - TRUMP

2020: 3.1 Trillion - TRUMP (Also Pandemic $$$)

2021: 2.8 Trillion - BIDEN (Also Pandemic $$$)
2022: 1.4 Trillion - BIDEN
2023: 1.7 Trillion - BIDEN

2024: 1.6 Trillion - BIDEN - Estimated

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Eh, there are people playing along at home and they deserve to know the facts. 

The pre-COVID Trump economy was a good continuation of the Obama economy (the trajectories didn't change at all) just with higher deficits. The economy Trump promised and the GDP growth he promised never materialized. 

You guys are just absolute liars. This is why you hide from me, because I pick apart your BS. 

Deficit spending by year:

2009: 1.4 Trillion 

2010: 1.3 Trillion

2011: 1.3 Trillion

2012: 1.1 Trillion

All more deficit spending than any non-pandemic year under Trump. 

 

  • Thanks 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, User said:

You guys are just absolute liars. This is why you hide from me, because I pick apart your BS. 

 

 

That is precisely why they hide. You'll notice that anybody who puts forward facts on a regular basis tends to get blocked by the same group of lefties on this board. The remaining ones will spend their time complaining about the source :) 

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is precisely why they hide. You'll notice that anybody who puts forward facts on a regular basis tends to get blocked by the same group of lefties on this board. The remaining ones will spend their time complaining about the source :) 

It is a bad game of wack-a-mole. I already had these same debates in another thread with these same numbers and they all ran away there and just mindlessly repeat the same crap again. 

  • Like 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
26 minutes ago, User said:

No, debt in and of itself is not inflationary... it is the spending. 

That's not how economics work 

Whether the government is spending the money directly, or it's being distributed to the private sector as tax cuts, the money is being borrowed and added to the economy.  In Trumpo-world, I guess, numbers, math and accounting work differently.  🙄

28 minutes ago, User said:

You guys are just absolute liars. This is why you hide from me, because I pick apart your BS. 

Who do you figure is hiding from you, exactly?  

  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Eh, there are people playing along at home and they deserve to know the facts. 

The pre-COVID Trump economy was a good continuation of the Obama economy (the trajectories didn't change at all) just with higher deficits. The economy Trump promised and the GDP growth he promised never materialized. 

It was a great economy.!

  • Haha 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's not how economics work 

Whether the government is spending the money directly, or it's being distributed to the private sector as tax cuts, the money is being borrowed and added to the economy.  In Trumpo-world, I guess, numbers, math and accounting work differently.  🙄

Yeah, that is literally how economics work. 

Money in the form of tax cuts doesn't get spent at nearly the same rate as money spent by the government. They are not equivalent at all. When individuals invest their money, save their money... that is not adding to demand in the economy the same way. 

That is basic economics. 

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Who do you figure is hiding from you, exactly?  

He is a coward. I engaged with him point for point and ripped his crap apart. He got tired of it. Easier to hide now. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted (edited)
On 10/1/2024 at 6:32 PM, User said:

Yeah, that is literally how economics work. 

Money in the form of tax cuts doesn't get spent at nearly the same rate as money spent by the government. They are not equivalent at all. When individuals invest their money, save their money... that is not adding to demand in the economy the same way. 

That is basic economics. 

Yes, that's really basic "economics", like saying the answer to the following equation:

X= 2+2[(3 / y^5)*(z)] 

is 4, because 2+2 = 4.  

You're absolutely right that 2+2 =4, and I suppose that is basic math, but it's not really algebra, just like what you offered above isn't really economics.  

Edited by Moonbox

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
22 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, that's really basic "economics", like saying the answer to the following equation:

X= 2+2[(3 / y^5)*(z)] 

is 4, because 2+2 = 4.  

You're absolutely right that 2+2 =4, and I suppose that is basic math, but it's not really algebra, just like what you offered above isn't really economics.  

This is what you came back for to say? LOL

Yes, it is basic economics that the way dollars are spent matters, you can't actually argue about that fact, so you just obfuscate like you usually do. 

 

  • Like 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
57 minutes ago, User said:

This is what you came back for to say? LOL

I'm not here every day.  Sorry? 🙃

57 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, it is basic economics that the way dollars are spent matters, you can't actually argue about that fact, so you just obfuscate like you usually do. 

The way dollars are spent matters, the way tax cuts are targeted matters, the timing of both matter, as does an exhaustive list of other factors.  Saying "tax cuts are less inflationary than government spending", as you did, is pseudo-economic bullshit.  Whether you knew that already and just view the topic with your usual orange-tinted goggles, or you're just another ill-informed dupe here to sing us the virtues of trickle-down economics is the question.   

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Saying "tax cuts are less inflationary than government spending", as you did, is pseudo-economic bullshit.  

No nore BS than the way you said this:

"Whether the government is spending the money directly, or it's being distributed to the private sector as tax cuts, the money is being borrowed and added to the economy. "

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, User said:

No nore BS than the way you said this:

"Whether the government is spending the money directly, or it's being distributed to the private sector as tax cuts, the money is being borrowed and added to the economy. "

Is the money being borrowed?  Yes. 

Is it being added to the economy? Yes. 

Unless you figure they are piling it into rockets and then firing it all into the sun, what about that was BS?  😑

 

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Is the money being borrowed?  Yes. 

Is it being added to the economy? Yes. 

Unless you figure they are piling it into rockets and then firing it all into the sun, what about that was BS?  😑

 

Tax cuts are in fact less inflationary than gov't spending.

Tax cuts leave "earned" dollars in the system.  A dollar of market value was left in the system for the dollar spent by the spender.  That doesn't create inflation in the same way. 

A dollar borrowed by the gov't and injected into the system increases currency without increasing market created value. It creates a faux economy and increases inflationary pressure much more than leaving money created by the economy does. 

If inflation is an issue  and the choice is between tax cuts and deficit spending, all else being equal tax cuts is less inflationary.  Although the issue is usually slightly more complex than that 

Posted
9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Tax cuts are in fact less inflationary than gov't spending.

Not inherently.  Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.  Government spending on critical infrastructure can boost the supply side of the equation, thereby lowering inflation (new port terminals, highways, rails, power generation etc). 

Conversely, poorly timed and poorly targeted tax cuts can do the opposite.   

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Tax cuts leave "earned" dollars in the system.  A dollar of market value was left in the system for the dollar spent by the spender.  That doesn't create inflation in the same way. 

A dollar borrowed by the gov't and injected into the system increases currency without increasing market created value. It creates a faux economy and increases inflationary pressure much more than leaving money created by the economy does. 

Pseudo-economic gobbledygook.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If inflation is an issue  and the choice is between tax cuts and deficit spending, all else being equal tax cuts is less inflationary.  Although the issue is usually slightly more complex than that 

What sort of choice is this!?  You can have tax cuts or you can have deficit spending? 

All else is never equal in economics.  At least you acknowledge it's "slightly" more complex....

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Not inherently.  Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.  Government spending on critical infrastructure can boost the supply side of the equation, thereby lowering inflation (new port terminals, highways, rails, power generation etc). 

I'll rephrase it to "they have a natural tendancy".  Agreed, there's always caveats. 

Quote

Conversely, poorly timed and poorly targeted tax cuts can do the opposite.   

Sure, the devil's in the details, but "all else being equal" assuming that the spending or tax cuts are good policy the tax cuts are less likely to produce inflation.

Quote

Pseudo-economic gobbledygook.

I guess that's one way of saying it's above your intellectual knowledge :) 

It's not that complex.  Capitalism works because for someone to get a thing they must produce a thing of equal value in the end. If money enters the market without that happening it creates inflation. Tax cuts are leaving the natural money in the market in the market,  less or no inflation.  Borrowing and infusing money into the economy violates that principle even if it's going to things like wages, and puts pressure on inflation. 

 

Quote

What sort of choice is this!?  You can have tax cuts or you can have deficit spending? 

I said IF.... IF  a person was choosing between the two, tax cuts would tend to have less inflatonary pressure. 

So if a govt' was looking to put money back in the economy to stimulate activity for example tax cuts would tend to be a better choice as far as inflation goes. 
 

Quote

All else is never equal in economics.  At least you acknowledge it's "slightly" more complex....

Yeah, i'm the one who just told you that.  But if all the other variables remain in a neutral state then tax cuts produce less inflation. 

You're starting to get argumentative for no reason at all. My reply was both correct and polite. If you don't agree with some part of it then make your case but try to avoid having a hissy fit and do better than DERP!!!! WHAT YOU SAID IS CORRECT BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY IT"S CORRECT!!!"

Ffs, you're so damn tribal sometimes. 

Posted
5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I guess that's one way of saying it's above your intellectual knowledge :) 

When you write was pseudo-intellectual nonsense, it's not above anyone's knowledge.  

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Tax cuts are leaving the natural money in the market in the market,  less or no inflation.  Borrowing and infusing money into the economy violates that principle even if it's going to things like wages, and puts pressure on inflation. 

You contradict yourself here.  

Unless tax cuts come with corresponding decreases to spending, you are financing them with borrowing, which is injecting liquidity into the system and doing exactly what you describe above. 

There are all sorts of reasons why government spending may (or often would be) highly inflationary, but as I've already said there are cases where it wouldn't.  Runaway program spending and a ballooning, overpaid public service?  Very inflationary.  Critical infrastructure spending? The opposite.  

The same works for tax cuts.  Well-timed, properly targeted tax cuts might spur investment and innovation in the economy and therefore boost supply.  Tax cuts at the top of the cycle, with near-full employment and corporations already sitting on piles of cash usually do the opposite.  

  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
On 10/8/2024 at 7:03 PM, Moonbox said:

Is the money being borrowed?  Yes. 

Is it being added to the economy? Yes. 

Unless you figure they are piling it into rockets and then firing it all into the sun, what about that was BS?

I love how you are dishonestly ignoring your preface. 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

When you write was pseudo-intellectual nonsense, it's not above anyone's knowledge.  

when you have to lie and pretend it's 'pseudo anything' without being able to offer any kind of rebuttal it's obviously above yours.

Quote

You contradict yourself here.  

There is zero contradiction.  That's a straight forward concept, leaving money that the market created in the market causes less inflation that borrowing money that the market didn't create and injecting it.

See? Told you it was over your head :) 

Quote

Unless tax cuts come with corresponding decreases to spending, you are financing them with borrowing, which is injecting liquidity into the system and doing exactly what you describe above. 

If there isn't an increase in gov't spending then even under those circumstances borrowing  to maintan the current spending and giving tax cuts will still produce lower inflation. 

This isn't theory. Consider trump's tax cuts in his term. He cut substantially for all income groups (except the poor thow don't pay much tax) and while the economy picked up there was no significant inflation. Same with harper vs trudeau.

Quote

There are all sorts of reasons why government spending may (or often would be) highly inflationary, but as I've already said there are cases where it wouldn't. 

Very few. Increasing spending and borrowing almost always leads to inflation. Maintaining spending and cutting taxes tends to do so less.  That's all i'm saying.

Quote

Runaway program spending and a ballooning, overpaid public service?  Very inflationary.  Critical infrastructure spending? The opposite.  

Even the critical infrastructure spending is likely to be inflationary and almost certainly wouldn't be deflationary (which would be the opposite).  IT may be NECESSARY and it may pay for itself over time in increased taxable earnings but it will put inflationary pressure on the market. 

Quote

The same works for tax cuts.  Well-timed, properly targeted tax cuts might spur investment and innovation in the economy and therefore boost supply.  Tax cuts at the top of the cycle, with near-full employment and corporations already sitting on piles of cash usually do the opposite.  

when did they ever do the opposite? At the worst they don't work and increase the debt burden without benefit (which is still pretty bad) but i don't recall a time when they some how drove inflation up? When did we see a tax cut at peak economic activity which lead to increased inflation?

Posted
On 10/9/2024 at 11:56 PM, User said:

I love how you are dishonestly ignoring your preface. 

It's fascinating how quickly and how regularly you fall back on this when you don't actually have an argument to make.  

What preface are you referring to, and how have I ignored it?  🥱

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Posted
On 10/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, CdnFox said:

Even the critical infrastructure spending is likely to be inflationary and almost certainly wouldn't be deflationary (which would be the opposite).  IT may be NECESSARY and it may pay for itself over time in increased taxable earnings but it will put inflationary pressure on the market. 

If it pays for itself over time, that's because it sufficient improved the supply side of the equation.  That's deflationary

On 10/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, CdnFox said:

when did they ever do the opposite? At the worst they don't work and increase the debt burden without benefit (which is still pretty bad) but i don't recall a time when they some how drove inflation up?

If tax cuts "don't work" that means they didn't improve the supply side.  If the tax cuts lead to increase borrowing, then all you've done is increased liquidity in the economy, and thus increased demand.  That's inflationary.  

There are always two sides to the equation.  People forget that when they're schilling for their parties, left or right.  

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,859
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    DARYLE
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...