Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Kushinator]

Thank you for your incredible expertise on reading charts and your arrogance in the discussion. You are definitely a socialist clone who will never accept the amount of money spent by the govt. as being enough and always looking for bigger and more intrusive govt. Switzerland GDP is approximately 660 billion US Dollars compared to our 18 trillion, it is a small country so comparing that to this country is apples to oranges. Further the higher the GDP the lower the percentage spending yet the higher the actual govt. spending in terms of dollars. Tell me why exactly do we need a 4.2 trillion dollar debt along with 50 sovereign states and their budgets? why is Federal Spending in a country this size so important to you?

You haven't addressed my point, and continue to peddle mindless partisan drivel. We could use per-capita government spending figures, or a slew of others that would exemplify the same point: the U.S. isn't the only economy that has a dominant private sector. Furthermore, you still cannot address why interest rates are so low across the developed world.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting pretty sick of these lazy conservatives, always expecting other people to do the learning, then sitting back and mooching off of other people's educations. Stand on your own two feet, pick up a book for once, and do some work! We're tired of dragging your lazy butts into the 21st century and carrying the intellectual load for the whole country.

 

[Conservative]

You haven't addressed my point, and continue to peddle mindless partisan drivel. We could use per-capita government spending figures, or a slew of others that would exemplify the same point: the U.S. isn't the only economy that has a dominant private sector. Furthermore, you still cannot address why interest rates are so low across the developed world.

I asked the question how much is enough? why is per capita even an issue with you and what does that prove? do you understand that there are 50 states in this country all with budgets and responsibilities to their citizens. Why is per capita spending by the govt. a benchmark in comparison with the world even an issue? You really don't understand the role of the Federal Govt. here do you?

 

[Kushinator]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting pretty sick of these lazy conservatives, always expecting other people to do the learning, then sitting back and mooching off of other people's educations. Stand on your own two feet, pick up a book for once, and do some work! We're tired of dragging your lazy butts into the 21st century and carrying the intellectual load for the whole country.

Books are bad, and reading them books with all their fancy charts means you are street stupid! In the real world, logic and human behavior trumps book smarts! My 71 years of expertise in the business world, where i made billions of dollars and employed millions of people (who sometimes had to be fired for being lazy liberals) is all i need to prove you wrong!
:lamo

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Look, let's stop with the *****footing around, we have an 18 trillion dollar economy, a 4.2 trillion dollar proposed govt. How much is enough for you? How much federal spending and on what do you want the bureaucrats in DC to authorize. It is quite interesting that you ignore the size of the federal govt, and its scope defined by the Constitution to promote a leftwing socialist agenda. Show any country in the world that is a socialist utopia that has massive govt. spending to prop up its economy? I await an answer to the question, how much is enough, what is that amount, and where should it be spent?

And here we are with argument ploy number 2, when yer arguments on specific points spectacularly phail......well then.....shift it to as large of an argument as you possibly can. Demand the opponent present his MASTER PLAN of the UNIVERSE, whereby you can expose your opponent as not being GAWD!!!!.....but someone with feet of clay.

Dude, you prove time and again you are trying to operate WAY above yer paygrade in ANY argument on specifics.......and the comedy of shifting the argument to the UNIVERSE and everything else....would be beyond stupid. It isn't me pushing the concept that "economic utopia" exists, you start a new distraction based on a strawman argument, a begging the question rhetorical fallacy.

Yer never going to accept that the most successful countries, based on the concept of living conditions for the general population, tend towards increasing levels of "socialism", ie higher rates of marginal taxes redistributed for the common good. It will always be your Ayn Randian/Drumpfian "me first" ideology versus what the rest of the world already understands, selfishism is totalitarianism.

 

[Kushinator]

I asked the question how much is enough?

The answer isn't some fixed amount. Furthermore, why have you not addressed anything asked, which is the reason we are having this discussion in the first place. How are interest rates so low, and why are they low across the board?

why is per capita even an issue with you and what does that prove?

It gives us a comparative measuring mark.

do you understand that there are 50 states in this country all with budgets and responsibilities to their citizens.

Nah, never knew that. Thank you for such enlightenment.

Why is per capita spending by the govt. a benchmark in comparison with the world even an issue? You really don't understand the role of the Federal Govt. here do you?

You made the asinine point that the U.S. is a private sector economy. When it was pointed out that there are other economies that have a more dominant private sector, you go ape-**** nuts again making all kinds of accusations and statements, that do not in any way pertain to the discussion at hand.

In other words, you lack the mental capacity to continue with the flow of the discussion, and your rage pushes you to make really ridiculous responses.

 

[Conservative]

And here we are with argument ploy number 2, when yer arguments on specific points spectacularly phail......well then.....shift it to as large of an argument as you possibly can. Demand the opponent present his MASTER PLAN of the UNIVERSE, whereby you can expose your opponent as not being GAWD!!!!.....but someone with feet of clay.

Dude, you prove time and again you are trying to operate WAY above yer paygrade in ANY argument on specifics.......and the comedy of shifting the argument to the UNIVERSE and everything else....would be beyond stupid. It isn't me pushing the concept that "economic utopia" exists, you start a new distraction based on a strawman argument, a begging the question rhetorical fallacy.

Yer never going to accept that the most successful countries, based on the concept of living conditions for the general population, tend towards increasing levels of "socialism", ie higher rates of marginal taxes redistributed for the common good. It will always be your Ayn Randian/Drumpfian "me first" ideology versus what the rest of the world already understands, selfishism is totalitarianism.

And apparently you are never going to accept the true role of the Federal Govt. as related to state and local responsibilities. Absolutely stunning how poorly informed you are regarding state and local government roles responsibilities and budget. When you take the per capita spending at the state and local level added to the Federal level, what do you get?

I am still waiting for you to tell me one the role of the Federal govt, and how much spending is enough for you?

 

[Conservative]

The answer isn't some fixed amount. Furthermore, why have you not addressed anything asked, which is the reason we are having this discussion in the first place. How are interest rates so low, and why are they low across the board?



It gives us a comparative measuring mark.



Nah, never knew that. Thank you for such enlightenment.



You made the asinine point that the U.S. is a private sector economy. When it was pointed out that there are other economies that have a more dominant private sector, you go ape-**** nuts again making all kinds of accusations and statements, that do not in any way pertain to the discussion at hand.

In other words, you lack the mental capacity to continue with the flow of the discussion, and your rage pushes you to make really ridiculous responses.

Will be happy to address interest rates on another thread but this thread is about deficit spending. I asked you a question, how many countries around the world have state and local governments with budgets and spending responsibilities. What does that number amount to when added to the federal govt? How much is enough spending for people like you and is there ever an amount of debt that is too much?

When you point out other countries as a comparison you take the information out of context as there are no other countries like this one and this one has 50 sovereign states with budgets and spending requirements yet all you want to do is expand the role of the Federal govt. Why?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

And apparently you are never going to accept the true role of the Federal Govt. as related to state and local responsibilities. Absolutely stunning how poorly informed you are regarding state and local government roles responsibilities and budget. When you take the per capita spending at the state and local level added to the Federal level, what do you get?

I am still waiting for you to tell me one the role of the Federal govt, and how much spending is enough for you?

Would you like the version I learned in law school, or should we go with what you learned in your high school civics class?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

This country has the greatest economy in the world

No, it has the LARGEST economy, it is not "great" from the standpoint of opportunity for the most vulnerable.... infant mortality, economic mobility, quality of life, happiness.....all sorts of indicators of general health. It is a system wonderfully setup to exploit for maximum profit, a supreme example of trickle (or gusher) up, but no, it is not the greatest for the greatest number of individuals. It is not a system for cooperative raising up, but a system of competition to determine an economic winner......with plenty of losers left in their wake.

 

[Conservative]

No, it has the LARGEST economy, it is not "great" from the standpoint of opportunity for the most vulnerable.... infant mortality, economic mobility, quality of life, happiness.....all sorts of indicators of general health. It is a system wonderfully setup to exploit for maximum profit, a supreme example of trickle (or gusher) up, but no, it is not the greatest for the greatest number of individuals. It is not a system for cooperative raising up, but a system of competition to determine an economic winner......with plenty of losers left in their wake.

Yes, of course personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world. I asked you a question which you didn't answer. What is the role of the Federal, State, and local governments with regard to the issues of concern to you? Who pays for the cost of the poor, most vulnerable in society, state or federal taxpayers? You want it all shifted to the Federal Govt. and the bureaucrats in DC instead of focusing on it locally. The federal govt. needs to do its job of securing the borders and your local costs are going to go down. Rather that delegate your local responsibility to the Federal govt. solve it at your local level.

 

[Conservative]

The answer isn't some fixed amount. Furthermore, why have you not addressed anything asked, which is the reason we are having this discussion in the first place. How are interest rates so low, and why are they low across the board?



It gives us a comparative measuring mark.



Nah, never knew that. Thank you for such enlightenment.



You made the asinine point that the U.S. is a private sector economy. When it was pointed out that there are other economies that have a more dominant private sector, you go ape-**** nuts again making all kinds of accusations and statements, that do not in any way pertain to the discussion at hand.

In other words, you lack the mental capacity to continue with the flow of the discussion, and your rage pushes you to make really ridiculous responses.

Here is what you want to ignore and focus on Federal Spending per capita ignoring state and local responsibilities as well as spending

US Per Capita Government Spending for 2016 - Charts

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And apparently you are never going to accept the true role of the Federal Govt. as related to state and local responsibilities. Absolutely stunning how poorly informed you are regarding state and local government roles responsibilities and budget. When you take the per capita spending at the state and local level added to the Federal level, what do you get?

I am still waiting for you to tell me one the role of the Federal govt, and how much spending is enough for you?

The model of the US government has changed, every new law changes the govt, it is constantly evolving to meet the needs of citizens.....or at least that was supposed to be the plan, but it has been twisted to the needs of the powerful monied interests (which was always possible in the framework). You and I are expressing differing argument, you are making the corporate argument, I am making the argument for the worker. I know most of your weak, ignorant corporatist ploys, you are not going to win with argument about "civics", which is just another distraction you use when argument on specific macro concepts phails.

You won't address the point I just made, that all healthy successful countries tend towards "socialism", because it is a system focused on the general welfare and suppresses selfish totalitarianism.

 

[Kushinator]

Will be happy to address interest rates on another thread but this thread is about deficit spending.

Your memory deceives you:

As the debt goes up and the interest rates go up the debt service cost will go up. The reason rates aren't going up is because "your" president's economic policies have been a disaster as evidenced by the actual numbers.

I asked you a question, how many countries around the world have state and local governments with budgets and spending responsibilities. What does that number amount to when added to the federal govt?

Many of the countries in the world have provincial and local governments. I have already provided the figures when we include federal, state, and local... while taking the level of output into consideration.

How much is enough spending for people like you and is there ever an amount of debt that is too much?

A worthless question that is founded on ignorance. In 1945, total government debt was around $260 billion. Trying to peg a fixed number is utterly useless, as it ignores the long term dynamics of an economy and financial system. You are clearly incapable of grasping this point, which is why you continue to respond with nonsense.

When you point out other countries as a comparison you take the information out of context as there are no other countries like this one and this one has 50 sovereign states with budgets and spending requirements yet all you want to do is expand the role of the Federal govt. Why?

Another worthless response. We can and do make international comparison for a reason, it puts our economy in perspective. Many countries have provincial governments, city governments, etc.... There is absolutely no point to continue to obfuscate over this.

 

[Kushinator]

Here is what you want to ignore and focus on Federal Spending per capita ignoring state and local responsibilities as well as spending

US Per Capita Government Spending for 2016 - Charts

I have already provided this (with better data)!!!!!!!!!!

Your hypocrisy and ignorance is absolutely legendary!!!! In one hand, you claim superiority from previous administrations, and in another you claim failure on the current with actual superior data points. Fact of the matter is, total government spending, as a percentage of GDP, is lower than basically any point in Reagan's presidency. You just cannot handle reality.

Any idea why per capita government spending has been able to increase, while being lower as a percentage of GDP during the 1980's?

Anything of actual substance?

 

[Conservative]

The model of the US government has changed, every new law changes the govt, it is constantly evolving to meet the needs of citizens.....or at least that was supposed to be the plan, but it has been twisted to the needs of the powerful monied interests (which was always possible in the framework). You and I are expressing differing argument, you are making the corporate argument, I am making the argument for the worker. I know most of your weak, ignorant corporatist ploys, you are not going to win with argument about "civics", which is just another distraction you use when argument on specific macro concepts phails.

You won't address the point I just made, that all healthy successful countries tend towards "socialism", because it is a system focused on the general welfare and suppresses selfish totalitarianism.

What you are promoting is a govt. that meets the needs of the career politicians and not the needs of the people. If you think a Federal Govt. bureaucrat in DC is going to solve a problem in your local community you are grossly naïve and living a pipe dream. If you truly cared about the workers you would handle the problem at the local level but by delegating that responsibility to the federal govt. it allows you to whine and complain about the results as well as claim not enough money is being spent to solve the problem. Amazing how term limits in your state and no term limits at the federal govt. are ignored and you want more power at the federal level. says a lot about you

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes, of course personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world. I asked you a question which you didn't answer. What is the role of the Federal, State, and local governments with regard to the issues of concern to you? Who pays for the cost of the poor, most vulnerable in society, state or federal taxpayers? You want it all shifted to the Federal Govt. and the bureaucrats in DC instead of focusing on it locally. The federal govt. needs to do its job of securing the borders and your local costs are going to go down. Rather that delegate your local responsibility to the Federal govt. solve it at your local level.

This is just another diversion when yer argument phails, you were happily arguing about federal macro policy, but when that collapsed you shift to "states rights". I would be more than happy if you want to start arguing for Texass to seceded, to go off on its own....which is the ultimate "states rights" argument (which ironically defeats itself, since the state becomes its own "federal" entity, but you don't think that far ahead, a characteristic of most "states rights advocates) since it would occupy your time and get you off this forum.

I still wonder how it is that you spend every waking hour here.....and still have any sort of normal retirement. I think yer just an old version of the guy living in his parents basement.....it is just that the basement....is yer own.

 

[Kushinator]

Conservative's point is crystal clear: debt, deficits, and government spending are only acceptable when a republican is in the White House. Otherwise, we must and ironically often do reduce them!

 

[Conservative]

Your memory deceives you:





Many of the countries in the world have provincial and local governments. I have already provided the figures when we include federal, state, and local... while taking the level of output into consideration.



A worthless question that is founded on ignorance. In 1945, total government debt was around $260 billion. Trying to peg a fixed number is utterly useless, as it ignores the long term dynamics of an economy and financial system. You are clearly incapable of grasping this point, which is why you continue to respond with nonsense.



Another worthless response. We can and do make international comparison for a reason, it puts our economy in perspective. Many countries have provincial governments, city governments, etc.... There is absolutely no point to continue to obfuscate over this.

Yes, and I stand by that argument, right now we have historically low interest rates and the debt is financed on short term rates when those rates rise the interest on the debt will rise. It currently is the fourth largest budget item and is down because the economy is basically stagnant, still too many under employed/discouraged workers.

I guess I am not going to get an answer from you, how much should the Federal Govt. be spending on the people since apparently 4.1 trillion isn't enough. You still have a problem understanding roles of the various governments we have thus of course it is a worthless response on my part asking the question. Big govt. liberals like you are always looking for utopia, never accepting that personal behavior and responsibility are the true problem and those have to be addressed at the local level by a politician accountable to the people and subject to term limits.

You seem to want a big Federal govt. to provide for the services you want at the local level. Why? what makes the federal govt. more accountable than the local government for results. You make international comparisons because you are unwilling to look at the role of those governments in relationship to ours and what it truly costs those governments vs ours to deliver what you think is necessary

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What you are promoting is a govt. that meets the needs of the career politicians and not the needs of the people.

Sure.....I'm pointing out that all "socialist" govts have higher levels of general health of their populations....and I'm not arguing about meeting the needs of a population.


As far as leaving it to states, Arizona is doing a pitiful job of "meeting the needs", and we aren't even the worst.....but it is typical of Southern conservative selfishism.

 

[Conservative]

This is just another diversion when yer argument phails, you were happily arguing about federal macro policy, but when that collapsed you shift to "states rights". I would be more than happy if you want to start arguing for Texass to seceded, to go off on its own....which is the ultimate "states rights" argument (which ironically defeats itself, since the state becomes its own "federal" entity, but you don't think that far ahead, a characteristic of most "states rights advocates) since it would occupy your time and get you off this forum.

I still wonder how it is that you spend every waking hour here.....and still have any sort of normal retirement. I think yer just an old version of the guy living in his parents basement.....it is just that the basement....is yer own.

No, actually I am quite happy watching left coast people move to TX to fund the local economy here and watching people like you whine and complain about how bad it is living here. You see, Texans get it, they understand personal responsibility and the true role of the government we have not asking the Federal Govt. to pay for anything other than what it mandates.

You are nothing more than a typical liberal who whines about results but never has a solution to generate the results you want other than throwing more money at the problem. It is never holding people accountable for poor choices and decisions made. You live in the wrong country because you certainly cannot compete in this one.

I am here because of construction on my home and because I love kicking the crap out of you showing you to be the true socialist you are, someone out of touch with reality and the role of the Federal, State, and local governments

 

[Kushinator]

Yes, and I stand by that argument, right now we have historically low interest rates and the debt is financed on short term rates when those rates rise the interest on the debt will rise. It currently is the fourth largest budget item and is down because the economy is basically stagnant, still too many under employed/discouraged workers.

Is this the case for the rest of the developed world as well?

I guess I am not going to get an answer from you, how much should the Federal Govt. be spending on the people since apparently 4.1 trillion isn't enough.

I already answered you, as it is not some fixed amount. Much of the waste from government spending is in the form of imperialism: maintaining a global military presence, which ironically enough, allows the rest of the developed world to piggy-back off of it and provide healthcare to their citizens. All at a direct cost to American taxpayers.

You still have a problem understanding roles of the various governments we have thus of course it is a worthless response on my part asking the question. Big govt. liberals like you are always looking for utopia, never accepting that personal behavior and responsibility are the true problem and those have to be addressed at the local level by a politician accountable to the people and subject to term limits.

Your opinion is based on anger, frustration, fear, and partisan ignorance. It's therefore worthless.

You seem to want a big Federal govt. to provide for the services you want at the local level. Why? what makes the federal govt. more accountable than the local government for results. You make international comparisons because you are unwilling to look at the role of those governments in relationship to ours and what it truly costs those governments vs ours to deliver what you think is necessary

I use international comparison to get an idea how the U.S. is performing, relative to the rest of the world. When we want to consider our education system, we compare it to that of Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Brazil, China, etc.... The reason we do so is beyond your ability to comprehend.

 

[Conservative]

Sure.....I'm pointing out that all "socialist" govts have higher levels of general health of their populations....and I'm not arguing about meeting the needs of a population.


As far as leaving it to states, Arizona is doing a pitiful job of "meeting the needs", and we aren't even the worst.....but it is typical of Southern conservative selfishism.

Good for them, how do they pay for it? The beauty of this country is if you don't like what is going on in Arizona you can move to a state more to your liking like California. It is amazing how stupid people are, isn't it as the population growth in those southern conservative states continues to grow and lead the nation. People just love to move to TX with its low wages, no insurance, high pollution and continue to vote for a conservative govt. I know this is going to come as a shock to you but have you ever considered that the problem could just be with you?

 

[Kushinator]

I am here because of construction on my home and because I love kicking the crap out of you showing you to be the true socialist you are, someone out of touch with reality and the role of the Federal, State, and local governments

All you do on this forum is provide a reference point for when we need to move our parents into a nursing home. Nothing you have stated is of any value, and you repeat it constantly, as though each instance of repetition makes it stronger.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

when those rates rise the interest on the debt will rise.

Yer back to where you and I began, I asked what mechanism is going to change, to cause interest rates to increase, to reverse a trend going on 4 decades. You would not answer then (you distracted to "Obummer"), so I'll ask again, explain how rate declines will reverse a long term trend.