But I guess the thing I would have a problem with Ė especially with using a starting point of 2003 Ė is that just because govít revenue was greater year after year *does not prove* that the tax cuts led to a greater revenue collection than what the govít would have collected w/out the tax cuts. Tax revenue usually always increases year after year no matter what.
Take this example:
3 - $8
4 - $9
5 - $10
6 - $11
7 - $12
This looks like revenue is increasing.
1 - $10
2 - $11
3 - $8
4 - $9
5 - $10
6 - $11
7 - $12
This looks like we have lost money because you would have expected the $12 to hit in yr 3 when in fact we saw $8. This was a loss of $4. I would have expected $13 to hit in yr4 without the cut so thatís another loss of $4.
Do you see my point?
Here is where we disagree. While I can see you point that elimination of government jobs will indeed cut the purchasing power. But why does spending cuts always have to relate to the loss of jobs?=Goldenboy219;1059782178]It was a simple mathematical representation that proves what happens when you cut government spending, ceteris paribus. Of course, cutting government spending during periods of high unemployment will also cause investment and consumption to decrease, but that was beyond the point i was trying to convey. Reason being, if cops, military personal, permit issuers, statisticians, etc... employed by the government lose their jobs, they will undoubtedly spend less, which will cause local companies to layoff workers, which causes consumption to fall until it reaches a bottom.
If our economy falls by 20%, it will require 25% of growth to get back to its previous level. In the meantime, capital depreciates, people get older, and skills begin to stagnate as unemployment continues to stay high.
I COMPLETELY agree we need to cut spending, but not when unemployment is @ 9.1%. The best time to cut government spending is when the economy is strong, so it can pick up the slack of the public sector.
Now is not the time.
I've said this before, why can't we look to cut waste and fraud? Why can't we just end earmarks? What about staff for our elected officials, here are a couple of links,
Congressional staff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Congressional offices and staff - SourceWatch
Are all those really necessary? I just know this, that if you or I was able to view the budget of every dept. line item by line item within our government, I have not doubt that either of us could come up with ample cuts. That would effect a very few people, and I don't think that is too much to ask of our elected officials as well.
Now I will grant you these type of cuts would be nominal, but even if 5% was found in waste and fraud in every dept of government, with a budget of 3.5 trillion, thats a savings of 175 billion dollars a year. That type of cut doesn't effect anyone, it just makes the spending of our money efficient and it's a start, that we could implement now. Then continue with more cuts as our economy improves .
Your also a protector of the faithful like Iron Man, protecting America from lowbrow agendas, for truth, righteousness and theeeeeeeee American waaaayy. Protect us Captain Goldenbuoy.
your reply:Add 16 trillion in secret loans to derivative gamblers ... now there a bailout.
Did you provide evidence of conspiracy? Unawareness is not conspiracy.The conspiracy section is here.
your reply:Enjoy Senator Sanders conspiracy page
So we have gone from me stating there were 16 trillion dollars in secret bailouts to ... your request for info whom was it loaned to, liability, and are their any defaults. And the FED not having 16 trillion. And a lesson in banking for me. Bank of America taking 1 day loans for 100 billion 160 times ... So I misrepresented notional amounts and you as yet had no info on the loans.Would it be too much to ask for you to provide a bit more... eh... detail in regards to these $16 trillion in loans? For example, where did the money go (what parties are liable), who holds the debt (which is an asset), and has there been any defaults?
I guess if Bank of America would borrow $100 billion per day and repay it the following day and the process is repeated 160 times, i can see how "$16 trillion in loans" could emerge in the time span of 160 days or so. However, the Fed does not have $16 trillion in assets from these loans on their books.
Talk about misrepresenting the situation.... If you really knew what you were talking about, the term "notional amount" would have been used quite a bit!
Basically ... look for your self if you are interested. Foreign and national interests were helped.As it was common knowledge and I do know where it went ... or a great portion ... its inconsequential. It was a stimulus to the banks and businesses recovery from losses. Its a search away on google ... and I've already debated the issue. Foreign and national interests were helped. That's what matters. If you like this stuff ... do a search on Q2 600 billion going to foreign banks through their American subsidiaries. So much for credit being available here in the US. Our little contribution to the PIIGS 's problems.
Now that's a doozy ... a loan is not a bailout. The FED expectations as a lender have what to do with the amounts they loaned? 16 Trillion reduced to to 16 Billion? Were the loans secret? Did anyone in government have knowledge of these loans? Did any of these loans make it into a newspaper?A loan is not a bailout.... The Fed is expected to be the lender of last resort.
You made a statement that $16 billion in secret loans were given to banks, as though the Fed was doing something wrong. Consider this statment:
Actually 16 trillion is technically correct ... that was the amount of the loans. If you would like to prove the GAO report of 266 pages is a lie ... step up to the plate.Primary dealer credit facility (PDCF) loans were certainly not secret, and were a function of either the discount window or Fed funds overnight market. The manner in which they are being described is intellectually dishonest. Let's go directly to the source:
Quote Originally Posted by GAO
Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made loans for periods longer than overnight.
Which is why posting "$16 trillion in loans" is not technically correct because it does not make a distinction between time frames. You may admit your error, there is no shame.
So is an overnight loan ... not a loan? Is it the money fairy come to visit you in your sleep?
Page 144 of the report ... see that little number in the lower right hand corner ... that's the loan amount.
sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf
FED table 8.jpg
This is where I have to explain to an economics expert that a loan is a bailout. You didn't actually respond to this did you?
My reply:In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to an entity (a company, a country, or an individual) that is in danger of failing, in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion.
This is where I have to explain to you it was a one time audit the FED was trying to avoid. See when you have no oversight ... you can do what ever you want ... like 16 trillion in secret loans.
The audit was conducted on a one-time basis, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed last year. Fed officials had strongly discouraged lawmakers from ordering the audit, claiming it may serve to undermine confidence in the monetary system.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. PattonNew opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
It's a pipe dream that even the tea party and other conservatives dont hold their representatives to. Politicians as a majority will NEVER give up their luxuries just as their voters don't vote them out as a majority to do it.
It's a nice pipe dream but until people stop thinking in terms of GOP and Dem it isn't going to happen.