Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Kushinator]

Actually I don;t know what you are talking about.

I get no such notifications.

Yet funny enough.. I seem to be able to respond to your diatribes.

I think its funny that you think I am trying to "avoid argument"..

Honestly.. THATS hilarious.

No, he is correct. You do this all the time when pressed on a subject. It makes you a coward.

 

[Conservative]

So it's ok for the right (or Moderate Right and a few others specifically) to say that everyone above poverty needs to pay some federal income tax, without regard to the fact that overall taxation per quintile is pretty evenly split to correlate to the percentage of income garnered by that quintile, but when the left wants to segregate federal deficit spending, that's not ok, even though the states can't deficit spend.

Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes? As usual you address the wrong issue, the issue is the role of the federal govt. and the part it should play in solving social problems which affect the state and local communities a lot more than it affects the Federal Taxpayers. All I ever see from people like you is class warfare and jealousy. I was taught to try and emulate the right, why weren't you taught that then you can do with your money whatever you want including helping actually solving social problems rather than just throwing money and lip service at them

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Well John.. taking it out of the equation does not prove me wrong.

Yes it does. You thought that everything was fine without deficit spending, credit, or net exports because income would always pop back up to $50,000. What you fail to understand is that income doesn't just pop back up to $50,000 after net saving without one of those other demand injections. The fact that you thought it did just demonstrates that you don't understand where income comes from.

You just admit it:

Again, hardly an admission.

See.. but you don't understand the mechanisms of why we save. You assume that the reason that we don't "dis save" is a static state. when its not.

It doesn't matter what the reasons are. We almost never dis-save, so it is not a demand injection, it is a demand leakage, and it is certainly NOT how our economy grows. Your reasons don't change the math.

Ummm wrong..

In your equation.. less deficit spending would mean less income than the year before which according to you means a recession, and long enough a depression.. unless something else picked up the full amount of decrease.

You still don't get it. Less deficit spending only means less of an addition to demand. If you made $100,000 profit in 2015 and only $80,000 profit in 2016, that doesn't mean your 2016 was unprofitable.

Now, less deficit spending coupled with a demand leakage like savings might be the difference between growth and contraction. If income is $15 trillion, savings is $2 trillion, and deficit spending is only $1.5 trillion, that only adds up to $14.5 trillion in demand, and your economy would shrink. But if deficit spending was $2.5 trillion, then that adds up to $15.5 trillion in demand, and your economy would grow. Not difficult.

sorry John.. but no wiggling around here.

I'm not the one doing the wiggling. My position has been exactly the same throughout the whole thread. And threads before this one, for that matter.

Speaking of wiggling, I'm still waiting for you to explain how innovation can be a demand injection without credit, deficit spending, dis-saving, or net exports.

 

[Conservative]

All borrowing that occurred during high interest rate portion of the recession.



On the contrary, it is you that cannot understand what makes a good leader. Running under the Republican ticket isn't the be all end all.

All those goods and services purchased by companies to meet the needs of potential customers is purchased on credit. Everyone felt the 81-82 recession, I didn't feel this one at all nor did most of the people in TX

I do understand leadership, I was a leader, I was a manager, i was an executive, I got results with and through people. I sought consensus when necessary and didn't rule by executive order or shutting out the other side. Anyone that calls Obama a good leader doesn't have a lot of credibility. he was a community agitator never running anything, never having to employ anyone and never having to deal with a budget. He is operating like a college professor in the highest position in the country, do it my way or else. That isn't leadership.

 

[Critter7r]

Medicare and SS weren't supposed to be what they have become which is typical of most govt. programs. there were to be a supplement to retirement, not sole retirement ....

BS. It was designed so that seniors wouldn't end up in poverty. The only seniors that would end up in poverty are the ones that DIDN'T HAVE A RETIREMENT FUND TO "SUPPLEMENT".

....and in fact most people weren't supposed to be alive to collect it when it was first created. It has turned into a Ponzi Scheme as the money put into the account was spent as part of the unified budget and people working today are paying for my retirement supplement. Medicare is similar to any govt. program red tape, inefficiencies, and have created a dependence that will never go away.

I've always wondered why this format bothered people, or if they just liked that they could call it a Ponzi scheme and make it sound nefarious. Workers continually pay into the system, and retirees continually draw from the system. It works. Current workers fund the current retirees. What's the problem?

Doesn't take much intelligence to take what you contribute to SS and your employer, put that money into a simple savings account and then see what you have after your 35 years of employment and the money is yours and your families.

Which would explain why you didn't provide a dollar figure.

Yes, addicted, that is what govt. programs do and why they are a failure when considering the alternative

You appear to be rather smart, do yourself a favor and use a simple investment calculator to see what you would have had you and your employer contributed to a simple savings account over 35 years. As I have told you, my wife died of cancer four years ago. She paid into SS during her working career, died at age 62, I got $255 dollars. where did her contributions go?

Saving $200/month at 1% gets you to about $100k after 35 years.

 

[Critter7r]

Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes? As usual you address the wrong issue, the issue is the role of the federal govt. and the part it should play in solving social problems which affect the state and local communities a lot more than it affects the Federal Taxpayers. All I ever see from people like you is class warfare and jealousy. I was taught to try and emulate the right, why weren't you taught that then you can do with your money whatever you want including helping actually solving social problems rather than just throwing money and lip service at them

I'm on a city council that is basically a volunteer position ($900/year), I'm the chair of the local Parks Commission, on the finance committee and public safety committee. I spend two Saturdays per year leading a group of about 30 other volunteers cleaning up our city's parks, I spend 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday for three weekends after Thanksgiving manning various posts in our city's winter festival, I spent a few hours per week for the past 4 months raising funds with a dedicated group of volunteers to get a playscape built for an underserved and less affluent area in the city, I spend countless hours talking with local residents about the goings-on in our community and later this very evening I will be sitting in a storefront in our downtown area in an effort to reach out to the locals and hear what they have to say about how our city council and administration is doing. All while working a 50-hour-a-week job that is a 45-minute commute each way.

Don't accuse me of giving lip service. I'm in the local ****ing trenches while you're over there keyboard warrior'ing it from your memory banks about how it "used to be".

 

[Conservative]

Critter7r;1066214183]BS. It was designed so that seniors wouldn't end up in poverty. The only seniors that would end up in poverty are the ones that DIDN'T HAVE A RETIREMENT FUND TO "SUPPLEMENT".

BS, it was implemented when the life expectancy was 62 but the bigger problem is the Federal Govt. using your contributions for everything other than your own retirement supplement

I've always wondered why this format bothered people, or if they just liked that they could call it a Ponzi scheme and make it sound nefarious. Workers continually pay into the system, and retirees continually draw from the system. It works. Current workers fund the current retirees. What's the problem?

What do you call it when your money goes to fund someone else's retirement supplement? Current workers were never supposed to fund past retirees, the money was for their own retirement supplement. You really have been duped by the liberal left

Which would explain why you didn't provide a dollar figure.

Use bankrate.com put in the amount of money you put into SS each paycheck and that of your employers. Use historical interest rates and see what you will have when you turn 65.

Saving $200/month at 1% gets you to about $100k after 35 years.

1% return on a savings account over 35 years? Wow, you really are naïve and very poorly informed. Further your contribution to SS is going to go up as your pay increases and your employer is going to match that contribution. You are so far off it is scary and that is what is wrong with the left today, false information passed off as fact

 

[Conservative]

I'm on a city council that is basically a volunteer position ($900/year), I'm the chair of the local Parks Commission, on the finance committee and public safety committee. I spend two Saturdays per year leading a group of about 30 other volunteers cleaning up our city's parks, I spend 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday for three weekends after Thanksgiving manning various posts in our city's winter festival, I spent a few hours per week for the past 4 months raising funds with a dedicated group of volunteers to get a playscape built for an underserved and less affluent area in the city, I spend countless hours talking with local residents about the goings-on in our community and later this very evening I will be sitting in a storefront in our downtown area in an effort to reach out to the locals and hear what they have to say about how our city council and administration is doing. All while working a 50-hour-a-week job that is a 45-minute commute each way.

Don't accuse me of giving lip service. I'm in the local ****ing trenches while you're over there keyboard warrior'ing it from your memory banks about how it "used to be".

LOL, I am sure your community appreciates your service now stop expecting the Federal govt. to take care of social problems in your own community. Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes? That is jealousy

 

[Critter7r]

BS, it was implemented when the life expectancy was 62 but the bigger problem is the Federal Govt. using your contributions for everything other than your own retirement supplement

What do you call it when your money goes to fund someone else's retirement supplement?

I call it a tax.

Current workers were never supposed to fund past retirees, the money was for their own retirement supplement. You really have been duped by the liberal left

How is that possible when the first retirees received checks just a few years after the program started? You don't really think the gov't hold onto your money in some sort of personal retirement account, do you? How cute.

Use bankrate.com put in the amount of money you put into SS each paycheck and that of your employers. Use historical interest rates and see what you will have when you turn 65.

I DID THAT.

Simple Savings Calculator - Savings Interest & Investment Growth Calculator

1% return on a savings account over 35 years? Wow, you really are naïve and very poorly informed. Further your contribution to SS is going to go up as your pay increases and your employer is going to match that contribution. You are so far off it is scary and that is what is wrong with the left today, false information passed off as fact

The irony is astounding.

 

[Conservative]

=Critter7r;1066214326]I call it a tax.

then set it up as a tax that funds others not an individual retirement supplement

How is that possible when the first retirees received checks just a few years after the program started? You don't really think the gov't hold onto your money in some sort of personal retirement account, do you? How cute.

More money was coming in than going out and that is why LBJ put the money on budget so it could be used. The govt. is holding on to your money for decades and spending it on things other than its intention. Where is your outrage?

I DID THAT.

]




The irony is astounding.

Good, now where is the pay adjustment over time and where did you get 1%? Is that the average interest rate over 35 years?

 

[jaeger19]

No, he is correct. You do this all the time when pressed on a subject. It makes you a coward.

Please.. like I care if you call me a "coward". :mrgreen:

I have absolutely no need to avoid being "pressed on a subject". If anything I spend too much time answering inane posts..

Oh.. like this one.

 

[mmi]

The amount of stupid in this post is truly mind boggling.

And yet you fail to refute or challenge even one word of it. I accept yer pathetic surrender.

>>Nothing anyone can say will dissuade you and your ilk from the utterly stupid ideas you forward.

Well, I can't say. Try something other than mindless blather and we'll see.

>>The only thing Americans can do is defeat you by any means necessary.

Reactionary Americans (ya know, RW morons) attempt to do so, by they inevitably fail. Liberalism always rules — His will be done.

>>Trying to argue with idiots is an exercise in futility.

I see yer point. I try to avoid arguing with them, and instead simply expose their foolish crap for what it is.

>>Have a nice day.

You too. ☺

much hope that they can run the healthcare business any better.

I managed my mom's healthcare for six years while she was on Medicare. No problems. What's yer complaint? Not enough pecker pills?

Hillary is a known, incompetent, a habitual liar with nothing to truly show for all the positions held. More of the same, more entitlements, more spending, and more selling of access.

Completely unsupported.

There are many including me who say we have failed.

I agree — you do not have a monopoly on RW stupidity.

Medicare and SS … money put into the account was spent as part of the unified budget

It was not "spent," but rather invested in Treasury securities that earn interest. Social Security currently has a surplus of $2.8 trillion, after adding $23 billion in 2015 if you include interest income. Medicare's trust funds have a current surplus of $263 billion.

>>Doesn't take much intelligence to take what you contribute to SS and your employer, put that money into a simple savings account and then see what you have after your 35 years

Doesn't take much intelligence to realise that SS is insurance, not a savings account. I suppose that's why you have a problem recognising it.

a world on fire

Gunk Blech idiocy.

poor leadership and incompetence led to a prolonged recession

Poor leadership and incompetence (i.e., SSE policies) created the Jul 1981 - Oct 1982 recession and the 2008 collapse.

>>the results don't look as good as they did under Reagan

Unemployment was above seven percent until Oct 1986. National debt as a percentage of GDP doubled under Reagan and his unfortunate successor.

>>liberals call this one worse than the 81-82

A near-collapse of the financial sector, on the verge of a worldwide depression.

Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes?

Justice. Look it up.

>>All I ever see from people like you is class warfare and jealousy.

Another RWer who labels others as "jealous" and doesn't know what the word means.

"Class warfare" has been waged for decades against the working and middle classes. The Left is seeking to reverse the tide of battle.

When I cry unto thee, then shall mine enemies turn back: this I know; for God is for me.​

Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes? That is jealousy

You don't know what "jealousy" means. Remarkable stupidity.

More money was coming in than going out and that is why LBJ put the money on budget so it could be used.

That's a filthy, stinkin', RW lie. The unified budget was created so that people could look at one set of numbers.

I spend too much time answering inane posts.

I'd say you spend too much time putting them up.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes it does. You thought that everything was fine without deficit spending, credit, or net exports because income would always pop back up to $50,000. What you fail to understand is that income doesn't just pop back up to $50,000 after net saving without one of those other demand injections. The fact that you thought it did just demonstrates that you don't understand where income comes from. .

just so you know.. I am not breaking out your conversation because god forbid.. somehow you don't get a notification.. it might make Kushinator blow a gasket. :2razz:

1. John.. That's all in your mind. I never said. "everything is fine without credit, deficit spending, net exports". Never ever ever. That's just you.. yet again trying to make up a position for me.

What I have contended is that we don't need the deficit spending that you claim we do. And we don't need it for the reasons that you claim we do. Unfortunately.. to get you out of your ideological stance.. I often have to dumb down the conversation into very simple things. So.. I point out that we have tons of savings available. Its not a money supply issue.. like you claim it is.
Our economy has issues that are way way way more important than money supply.

2. The reasons that we save VERY much matter. And I think that even you recognize that it matters at some level.. because I have gotten you to admit that production would be different if more income was to go to poorer people.. than to 1-2 rich people.. yet the income of the country would be the same.

Wait.. well you floundered a bit on that.. trying to claim that income in 2016 wouldn't affect production in 2016 but only in 2017. But when I pointed out that's absurd because people spend income in the same year that they earn it and that means they influence production in that year.. well you failed to respond.. so I am assuming you got it.

The problem john.. is that the reasons we are net savers matter. If you would get off your ideology of deficit spending for a minute.. you might realize that its possible that the deficit spending that we are doing is actually encouraging saving and less "dis saving". Maybe.. just maybe you can take a deep breath and think for a minute. MAYBE just maybe one of the reasons that we are good savers is because that deficit spending is NOT going to help the poor and middle class. Maybe that money is going directly to rich people with more propensity to save it.. or maybe more of that money is going to things that might superficially benefit a poor person..but then ends up right in the hands of the rich person. Or MAYBE that deficit spending is going into subsidizing workers for wealthy people.. (like walmart being subsidized by welfare,) and this is creating more inequity.

Maybe that money is going to subsidize large companies over smaller ones.. so that smaller companies don't invest because they can't compete. Like when one of the big Ag guys I compete with gets a subsidy that allows him to buy up ground that three smaller producers like myself would all have bought.

Maybe that money is directly competing with private money... for example a government housing unit being built.. when it would have been build by private concerns or a healthcare clinic being built by the government.

But you can't seem to get past your ideology. So you push for more deficit spending.. and when its pointed out that its not had the positive effects that you claim it will.. after decades of deficit spending.. you simply claim.. "well its not enough".

3. John.. sorry but you are going back on your examples

According to you .. If I made 100,000 in profit in 2015. And only made 80,000 in 2016. Then according to you.. I would have to contract because I would only have 80,000 to spend in 2017.

Where in 2016.. I had 100,000 (from 2015).

In other words.. "aggregate" demand in 2016 was 100,000 (because that was the available income from 2015). While aggregate demand fell to 80,000 in 2017 (because that was the available income in 2016)

(I of course would say.. well I have more than enough money and if I needed it. I could get the 100,000 I made in 2015 out of the bank.. but well.. you know you would have a hemorrhage.).

Sorry sir.. but that has been your argument all along.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm on a city council that is basically a volunteer position ($900/year), I'm the chair of the local Parks Commission, on the finance committee and public safety committee. I spend two Saturdays per year leading a group of about 30 other volunteers cleaning up our city's parks, I spend 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday for three weekends after Thanksgiving manning various posts in our city's winter festival, I spent a few hours per week for the past 4 months raising funds with a dedicated group of volunteers to get a playscape built for an underserved and less affluent area in the city, I spend countless hours talking with local residents about the goings-on in our community and later this very evening I will be sitting in a storefront in our downtown area in an effort to reach out to the locals and hear what they have to say about how our city council and administration is doing. All while working a 50-hour-a-week job that is a 45-minute commute each way.

Don't accuse me of giving lip service. I'm in the local ****ing trenches while you're over there keyboard warrior'ing it from your memory banks about how it "used to be".

A big HECK YES" on that one.

What saddens me is that while Conservative thinks wistfully on how things "used to be".

He forgets that the city budget was probably large enough that the parks were being cleaned by a civil employee. Who was getting paid a wage that he could raise a child and have a wife that did not work outside the home.

He forgets that how things used to be.. is that public colleges often provided free college education to poor and middle class students (like my parents.)

He forgets that manufacturing base in this country was different.

That unions were stronger.

that pay was such that it was a rarity that a woman even had to work if she was married.

then he get sore because a family with one kid.. and two parents working 50 hours a week and barely seeing each other.. with a120,000 dollars of college loans biting at their heads. With no increase in real wages compared to inflation.

He gets sore that they aren;t working hard enough.

 

[Conservative]

A big HECK YES" on that one.

What saddens me is that while Conservative thinks wistfully on how things "used to be".

He forgets that the city budget was probably large enough that the parks were being cleaned by a civil employee. Who was getting paid a wage that he could raise a child and have a wife that did not work outside the home.

He forgets that how things used to be.. is that public colleges often provided free college education to poor and middle class students (like my parents.)

He forgets that manufacturing base in this country was different.

That unions were stronger.

that pay was such that it was a rarity that a woman even had to work if she was married.

then he get sore because a family with one kid.. and two parents working 50 hours a week and barely seeing each other.. with a120,000 dollars of college loans biting at their heads. With no increase in real wages compared to inflation.

He gets sore that they aren;t working hard enough.

How liberal of you, knowing what I think and what is going on in my community. You couldn't be more wrong but that's ok, most liberal thinking individuals are wrong. The liberal in you judges everyone else by your own standards and personal responsibility doesn't exist as it is always someone else's fault for personal failures.

The liberal in you simply doesn't have a clue. The only solution to the local problems has to be handled by the people in your community and to say there isn't enough money then maybe you ought to quite having the federal govt. take tax dollars out of your community so there is more funding for local programs. Reagan saw record spending on charities because people had more money but you fail to recognize the drain the federal govt. has on local services because you think all that rhetoric about spending in the name of compassion is just that, rhetoric, results don't truly matter as people appeal to the hearts of good people

When will you ever hold the federal govt responsible for the demand for more and more tax dollars taking it from whom??

One of the things I love about TX is we find away to get things done, we find a way to take care of people just like Interfaith of The Woodlands and other local charities. You look at numbers and charts out of context and never question what is really going on in TX giving the people very little credit. Do you believe that people move to TX because of low wages, no insurance, high pollution? Think about the brainwashing the left is doing.

But in the meantime stop telling me who I am, what I think, and that things cannot get done locally. My community proves differently

 

[Kushinator]

Please.. like I care if you call me a "coward". :mrgreen:

You've bypassed the notification function, and have been called out for being cowardly on numerous occasions.

I have absolutely no need to avoid being "pressed on a subject". If anything I spend too much time answering inane posts.

Then why do you do it? You have to purposefully avoid it.

 

[Moderate Right]

How liberal of you, knowing what I think and what is going on in my community. You couldn't be more wrong but that's ok, most liberal thinking individuals are wrong. The liberal in you judges everyone else by your own standards and personal responsibility doesn't exist as it is always someone else's fault for personal failures.

The liberal in you simply doesn't have a clue. The only solution to the local problems has to be handled by the people in your community and to say there isn't enough money then maybe you ought to quite having the federal govt. take tax dollars out of your community so there is more funding for local programs. Reagan saw record spending on charities because people had more money but you fail to recognize the drain the federal govt. has on local services because you think all that rhetoric about spending in the name of compassion is just that, rhetoric, results don't truly matter as people appeal to the hearts of good people

When will you ever hold the federal govt responsible for the demand for more and more tax dollars taking it from whom??

One of the things I love about TX is we find away to get things done, we find a way to take care of people just like Interfaith of The Woodlands and other local charities. You look at numbers and charts out of context and never question what is really going on in TX giving the people very little credit. Do you believe that people move to TX because of low wages, no insurance, high pollution? Think about the brainwashing the left is doing.

But in the meantime stop telling me who I am, what I think, and that things cannot get done locally. My community proves differently

Oh jeeeeeeeeeeees. Here we go again, with the far right accusing moderates of being liberals.

 

[Conservative]

Oh jeeeeeeeeeeees. Here we go again, with the far right accusing moderates of being liberals.

How many moderates do you know that claim they know more about someone else, where they live, and what their community is doing. I really didn't realize that believing in smaller govt. returning power to the states, believing in fiscal responsibility is being far right. What part of my post do you disagree with?

 

[Moderate Right]

How many moderates do you know that claim they know more about someone else, where they live, and what their community is doing. I really didn't realize that believing in smaller govt. returning power to the states, believing in fiscal responsibility is being far right. What part of my post do you disagree with?

The part that claims Jaegar is a liberal. Most of the ones he is debating with are the real liberals.

 

[Conservative]

The part that claims Jaegar is a liberal. Most of the ones he is debating with are the real liberals.

I said the liberal in him and didn't call him a liberal. All of us have some liberal in us but fortunately it hasn't taken over our minds and our body.

 

[austrianecon]

I'm on a city council that is basically a volunteer position ($900/year), I'm the chair of the local Parks Commission, on the finance committee and public safety committee. I spend two Saturdays per year leading a group of about 30 other volunteers cleaning up our city's parks, I spend 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday for three weekends after Thanksgiving manning various posts in our city's winter festival, I spent a few hours per week for the past 4 months raising funds with a dedicated group of volunteers to get a playscape built for an underserved and less affluent area in the city, I spend countless hours talking with local residents about the goings-on in our community and later this very evening I will be sitting in a storefront in our downtown area in an effort to reach out to the locals and hear what they have to say about how our city council and administration is doing. All while working a 50-hour-a-week job that is a 45-minute commute each way.

Don't accuse me of giving lip service. I'm in the local ****ing trenches while you're over there keyboard warrior'ing it from your memory banks about how it "used to be".

Couple of issues with your post..

1) You run for city council, so it's NOT a volunteer position. You are getting paid for your time, so again not volunteer position.

2) Being a Chair of Parks and on committees of Finance and Public Safety isn't a big deal. Only so many seats on city council.

3) Good for you volunteering in your community.

4) This is your choice to do this. Just as it's others choice not to do it.

5) and this is the big one.. what does local issues have to do with federal taxes? Not a damn thing and you should know this. Cities and Town actually collect taxes via property taxes or in some case a sales and income tax which is levied at a flat rate and are bound by budgetary restraints. I have the trifecta in my community when it comes to those taxes but guess what.. those taxes can be tax deductible.. so When Federal dollars do come down to local level directly it's earmarked for things like roads, water, fire departments, and police.

Your assertion that State's can't run deficits is a bold fat lie. Only State in the US that has a balanced budget amendment to their State Constitution is Vermont (Bernie's state). Rather State's budget work the way of Keynesian theory (save during good, spend during bad) and that's what State's do. State's have raining day funds and offset budget costs vs lower tax revenue during recessions as a way to keep people employed. Ohio does it. Michigan has one called the Counter Cyclical Budget and Economic Stabilization Fund.

So think about that before you get all indignant about it.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

just so you know.. I am not breaking out your conversation because god forbid.. somehow you don't get a notification.. it might make Kushinator blow a gasket. :2razz:

1. John.. That's all in your mind. I never said. "everything is fine without credit, deficit spending, net exports". Never ever ever. That's just you.. yet again trying to make up a position for me.

Yes, you did:

Yes.. john there are other ways to grow the economy besides net exports, credit and deficit spending.

Innovation from the private sector, building of infrastructure from the government, education investments from the private sector and government.

And it does not have to occur with credit. or net exports or deficit spending.

*******

What I have contended is that we don't need the deficit spending that you claim we do. And we don't need it for the reasons that you claim we do. Unfortunately.. to get you out of your ideological stance.. I often have to dumb down the conversation into very simple things. So.. I point out that we have tons of savings available. Its not a money supply issue.. like you claim it is.
Our economy has issues that are way way way more important than money supply.

And I have to keep pointing out that, while there are tons of savings available, we don't use them.

2. The reasons that we save VERY much matter. And I think that even you recognize that it matters at some level.. because I have gotten you to admit that production would be different if more income was to go to poorer people.. than to 1-2 rich people.. yet the income of the country would be the same.

The income of the country would be the same THAT YEAR. Distribution of that income would matter NEXT YEAR.

Wait.. well you floundered a bit on that.. trying to claim that income in 2016 wouldn't affect production in 2016 but only in 2017. But when I pointed out that's absurd because people spend income in the same year that they earn it and that means they influence production in that year.. well you failed to respond.. so I am assuming you got it.

I'm not floundering on anything, Jaeger. There has to be a cutoff; we measure income annually, we measure GDP annually, we measure savings annually, and we measure investment annually. Of course income and consumption happen every day, but that in no way invalidates what I am saying when I put in in annual terms. You earn money today, and you spend it in the future, whether it's tomorrow, next week, or two years from now.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

(cont.)

The problem john.. is that the reasons we are net savers matter. If you would get off your ideology of deficit spending for a minute.. you might realize that its possible that the deficit spending that we are doing is actually encouraging saving and less "dis saving". Maybe.. just maybe you can take a deep breath and think for a minute. MAYBE just maybe one of the reasons that we are good savers is because that deficit spending is NOT going to help the poor and middle class. Maybe that money is going directly to rich people with more propensity to save it.. or maybe more of that money is going to things that might superficially benefit a poor person..but then ends up right in the hands of the rich person. Or MAYBE that deficit spending is going into subsidizing workers for wealthy people.. (like walmart being subsidized by welfare,) and this is creating more inequity.

Yeah,... no. You don't solve the income inequality problem by starving the lower end. Government spending goes overwhelmingly to the poor and working class Americans.

Maybe that money is going to subsidize large companies over smaller ones.. so that smaller companies don't invest because they can't compete. Like when one of the big Ag guys I compete with gets a subsidy that allows him to buy up ground that three smaller producers like myself would all have bought.

Small potatoes.

3. John.. sorry but you are going back on your examples

According to you .. If I made 100,000 in profit in 2015. And only made 80,000 in 2016. Then according to you.. I would have to contract because I would only have 80,000 to spend in 2017.

Where in 2016.. I had 100,000 (from 2015).

In other words.. "aggregate" demand in 2016 was 100,000 (because that was the available income from 2015). While aggregate demand fell to 80,000 in 2017 (because that was the available income in 2016)

No, I was only talking about your business in the context of explaining why lower deficit spending is still a demand injection, and not a negative. The point was that your smaller profit is still a profit. You didn't lose money just because you made less of it. Whereas you had been trying to say that going from $5000 annual savings to $2000 annual savings was somehow economic growth, when it was, in fact, just a smaller contraction.

Once again, you have screwed up an example that was perfectly understandable to everybody else.

 

[mmi]

Your assertion that State's can't run deficits is a bold fat lie. Only State in the US that has a balanced budget amendment to their State Constitution is Vermont

I think you may have this upside-down. Not surprising.

All but one state in the United States (Vermont) has a balanced budget requirement. Budget rules vary significantly across the U.S. states, mostly applying only to the operating budget (general fund). (source)​

The situation is a bit complicated.

What is meant by a balanced budget is not as clear as it may seem intuitively. Even the number of states whose laws require a balanced budget can be disputed, depending on the way the requirements are defined. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has traditionally reported that 49 states must balance their budgets, with Vermont being the exception. Other authorities add Wyoming and North Dakota as exceptions, and some authorities in Alaska contend that it does not have an explicit requirement for a balanced budget. Two points can be made with certainty, however: Most states have formal balanced budget requirements with some degree of stringency, and state political cultures reinforce the requirements. (source)​

>>So think about that before you get all indignant about it.

Sounds like good advice.

 

[austrianecon]

I think you may have this upside-down. Not surprising.

Actually, I am correct on this.

The situation is a bit complicated.

No, it's not. I don't care what the NCSL said. I clearly EXPLAINED when States run budget deficits and when they do, they take from their rainy day fund to pay for their budgets.. which is traditional Keynesian theory. In 2016, 16 states are running deficits as their rainy day fund is $0. Other States run deficits and dip in to their Net State savings to pay for the gap between revenue and deficit. Taking from the rainy day fund is deficit spending.

States actually run deficits because of lack Federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid in the first place. States pay the cost and wait for reimbursement. It's why so many States told the Federal Government to get bent when it came to medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

Sounds like good advice.

Maybe you should heed it while actually reading what's written.