US Treasury asks Congress to lift debt ceiling

Kushinator · Jan 9, 2011

Conservative said:
That is your opinion as there is nothing to back up that claim at all.

What are you referring to? The fact that you constantly resort to the use of fallacies because you cannot articulate your point in a compelling manner? Your post history is my "evidence".

Why you claim to be a Libertarian is beyond me.

Another fallacy.

No Libertarian supports this massive healthcare program.

And another; better read up on that site i previously posted.

The private sector given the proper incentive has not only the means but the ability to alleviate the recession. Happens every time except with more liberal social engineering.

How long are you willing to wait? You see, i have quite a bit of assets in equity markets. Watching them fall to 1/8 their purchased price is not something I, nor anyone who has any sort of wealth is willing to do.

As for the question, i was against the TARP bailout but understood it, further it was basically a loan and most of it has been paid back. There is no way of knowing what would have happened without the bailout but we do know what has happened with the Obama Stimulus, 4 million more unemployed and 3.5 trillion added to the debt creating very low economic growth

Lets do a simple example to get the point across.

GDP = Y

Y= C + I + G + NX

Assume in year one, C= 100, I= 20, G= 20, and NX= 0; Y= 140

Now a demand shock comes along and pushes consumption and investment down by 10% each.

C= 90, I= 18, and G (well lets just leave G constant)= 20; Y= 128

Now assume government can run a deficit and increase G to 30

C= 90, I= 18, G= 30, and Y now equals 138.

Where would the economy be better off, when GDP is 128 or 138?

Conservative · Jan 9, 2011

Goldenboy219;1059206922]What are you referring to? The fact that you constantly resort to the use of fallacies because you cannot articulate your point in a compelling manner? Your post history is my "evidence".

you have no evidence that we would have gone into a depression without the govt. spending, NONE!

Another fallacy.

Really? Libertarians support massive expansion of the govt.?

And another; better read up on that site i previously posted.

I prefer history books and actual non partisan data which shows 4 million more unemployed today than when Obama took office and 3.5 trillion added to the debt yet you claim things are better?

How long are you willing to wait? You see, i have quite a bit of assets in equity markets. Watching them fall to 1/8 their purchased price is not something I, nor anyone who has any sort of wealth is willing to do.

Sounds like poor investment choices to me. Now you want the govt. to bail you out? So much for personal responsibility.

Lets do a simple example to get the point across.

GDP = Y

Y= C + I + G + NX

Assume in year one, C= 100, I= 20, G= 20, and NX= 0; Y= 140

Now a demand shock comes along and pushes consumption and investment down by 10% each.

C= 90, I= 18, and G (well lets just leave G constant)= 20; Y= 128

Now assume government can run a deficit and increase G to 30

C= 90, I= 18, G= 30, and Y now equals 138.

Where would the economy be better off, when GDP is 128 or 138?

Not interested in your equations and theory because that is all they are, reality seems to disagree with you. Assumptions are just that and are about as good as the assumptions given to the CBO by Congress. I prefer reality.

Consumption= almost 2/3rds of GDP and thus is consumer driven. When you have 16 milllion less employed that affects consumption thus consumer spending. obama stimulus plan did nothing to promote the private sector to create jobs.

Goldenboy, you can throw out your theory and assumptions until hell freezes over but all they do is prove that you don't understand our consumer driven private sector economy. Get your head out of the books and get out in the real world. Take Krugman with you.

Kushinator · Jan 9, 2011

Conservative said:
you have no evidence that we would have gone into a depression without the govt. spending, NONE!

It was just explained to you in the simplest way.

Really? Libertarians support massive expansion of the govt.?

Do you even understand what an argumentative fallacy is?

I prefer history books and actual non partisan data which shows 4 million more unemployed today than when Obama took office and 3.5 trillion added to the debt yet you claim things are better?

The link was to a list of all argumentative fallacies and their descriptions. Do try and keep up!

Sounds like poor investment choices to me. Now you want the govt. to bail you out? So much for personal responsibility.

I did quite fine following the market crash in 2008, and early 2009. I was able to short (buy puts/sell calls) on a great deal of financial firms, specifically Chinese banks, and then purchase greatly devalued US Financial equities at a discount. Partially because Chairman Bernanke put his hand underneath the market to prevent a liquidationist bottom (otherwise i wouldn't have bought Citi at 1.22/share). Many other people did not fare so well.

Not interested in your equations and theory because that is all they are, reality seems to disagree with you. Assumptions are just that and are about as good as the assumptions given to the CBO by Congress. I prefer reality.

This is reality; GDP is complied from this very simple equation.

Consumption= almost 2/3rds of GDP and thus is consumer driven. When you have 16 milllion less employed that affects consumption thus consumer spending. obama stimulus plan did nothing to promote the private sector to create jobs.

Deficit spending prevented GDP from falling far lower than it did. This is an undeniable fact, and national product accounts attest to this.

Goldenboy, you can throw out your theory and assumptions until hell freezes over but all they do is prove that you don't understand our consumer driven private sector economy. Get your head out of the books and get out in the real world. Take Krugman with you.

And another fallacy (actually two). The only person in this discussion who lacks an even basic understanding of capitalism is surely not you. :roll: You cannot even hold a conversation without pushing anti-intellectualism as a means to camoflague your inadaquecies regarding such topics.

Remember, this is the internet. Your ideas will be judged on the basis of their validity. So far, all you can muster is a slew of fallacies, attacks, and calls to "dumb down" the discussion to ease your insecurity. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

Kushinator · Jan 9, 2011

The facts are on my side:

Notice how investment is falling, government spending is increasing, and GDP stays above $14 trillion.

Gross investment fell by $706 billion, while government spending increased by $240 billion.

Conservative · Jan 9, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
It was just explained to you in the simplest way.

Do you even understand what an argumentative fallacy is?

The link was to a list of all argumentative fallacies and their descriptions. Do try and keep up!

I did quite fine following the market crash in 2008, and early 2009. I was able to short (buy puts/sell calls) on a great deal of financial firms, specifically Chinese banks, and then purchase greatly devalued US Financial equities at a discount. Partially because Chairman Bernanke put his hand underneath the market to prevent a liquidationist bottom (otherwise i wouldn't have bought Citi at 1.22/share). Many other people did not fare so well.

This is reality; GDP is complied from this very simple equation.

Deficit spending prevented GDP from falling far lower than it did. This is an undeniable fact, and national product accounts attest to this.

And another fallacy (actually two). The only person in this discussion who lacks an even basic understanding of capitalism is surely not you. :roll: You cannot even hold a conversation without pushing anti-intellectualism as a means to camoflague your inadaquecies regarding such topics.

Remember, this is the internet. Your ideas will be judged on the basis of their validity. So far, all you can muster is a slew of fallacies, attacks, and calls to "dumb down" the discussion to ease your insecurity. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

Deficit spending on the part of the Govt. has to be paid for and is in debt service and printing more money. It doesn't solve the problem as evidenced by the results. You believe the economy staying about 14 trillion is a good thing when the debt is now almost 100% of GDP?

Goldenboy, I lived and worked in the real world. Nothing you say is going to change my mind nor the actual results generated. When the GDP is maintained at these levels because of Govt. spending it is the cost that destroys your message. If all that govt. spending is so good, let's just completely destroy the private sector and let the govt. run 100% of the economy? Of course you know the reason that isn't done but are too much of an ideologue to admit it.

How my ideas are judged here doesn't matter, what matters are the actual results. "Your" President has implemented an economic policy boosted by massive govt. spending and has created 4 million more unemployed people and added 3.5 trillion to the debt. Those are undeniable facts. All your comments are theory and intellectual psychobabble that doesn't put the food on the table for millions of unemployed Americans including millions more that aren't being counted

Kushinator · Jan 9, 2011

Conservative said:
Deficit spending on the part of the Govt. has to be paid for and is in debt service and printing more money. It doesn't solve the problem as evidenced by the results. You believe the economy staying about 14 trillion is a good thing when the debt is now almost 100% of GDP?

Nobody claimed it "solved". Only that is alleviated a depression. Nobody claimed it did not have to be repaid. Two fallacies! How many is that for the day?

Goldenboy, I lived and worked in the real world.

As do I!

Nothing you say is going to change my mind nor the actual results generated. When the GDP is maintained at these levels because of Govt. spending it is the cost that destroys your message.

Would you have liked it to fall even more? Does 20% U-3 unemployment actually appeal to you, or your ideology?

If all that govt. spending is so good, let's just completely destroy the private sector and let the govt. run 100% of the economy? Of course you know the reason that isn't done but are too much of an ideologue to admit it.

Another fallacy. Increased government spending during economic downturns has been implemented by both Reagan and Bush II. You cannot deny it.

How my ideas are judged here doesn't matter, what matters are the actual results.

Huh????

"Your" President has implemented an economic policy boosted by massive govt. spending and has created 4 million more unemployed people and added 3.5 trillion to the debt.

Obama's policy is responsible for 4 million unemployed people? You can back this up with some sort of tangible evidence other than an ill-informed opinion?

Those are undeniable facts. All your comments are theory and intellectual psychobabble that doesn't put the food on the table for millions of unemployed Americans including millions more that aren't being counted

This is the reality of how the economy is composed. If it is over your head, please refrain from attempting to dumb down the conversation with useless drivel.

Conservative · Jan 9, 2011

Goldenboy219;1059207055]Nobody claimed it "solved". Only that is alleviated a depression. Nobody claimed it did not have to be repaid. Two fallacies! How many is that for the day?

Millions of Americans would disagree with you and that is what really matters. How do you know it alleviated a depression and what exactly are you crediting with doing that, TARP or the Stimulus?

As do I!

Have seen no evidence of that, only book theory and equations. What business did you run and how many did you employ?

Would you have liked it to fall even more? Does 20% U-3 unemployment actually appeal to you, or your ideology?

No one has an accurate number on the real unemployment number. Millions of contractors and small businesses that went out of business weren't counted.

Another fallacy. Increased government spending during economic downturns has been implemented by both Reagan and Bush II. You cannot deny it.

Not at these levels and all that spending of Reagan actually got us out of a worse recession than we were in when Obama took office. Reagan did it the right way, tax cuts put money into the hands of the individual taxpayer and spending on national defense. Obama gave the taxpayer a rebate check not a rate cut which served no purpose and prolonged the recession.

Huh????

Actual results matter, not how my ideas are judged. BEA.gov, BLS.gov and the U.S. Treasury data is non partisan and shows the results. BEA will give you the four components of GDP, suggest you learn something there.

Obama's policy is responsible for 4 million unemployed people? You can back this up with some sort of tangible evidence other than an ill-informed opinion?

Obama claimed his stimulus policy would cap unemployment at 8%. Since implementation the unemployment rate is far exceeded 8%, BLS.gov. You need to stop buying what you are told and think.

This is the reality of how the economy is composed. If it is over your head, please refrain from attempting to dumb down the conversation with useless drivel.

Stick with your theory and equations and I will stick to reality and actual numbers.

Kushinator · Jan 9, 2011

Conservative;1059207079[B said:
]Millions of Americans would disagree with you[/B] and that is what really matters. How do you know it alleviated a depression and what exactly are you crediting with doing that, TARP or the Stimulus?

Another fallacy (maybe two). Is it possible for you to have a discussion without being blatantly fallacious?

Deficit spending!

Have seen no evidence of that, only book theory and equations. What business did you run and how many did you employ?

This is the internet for christ sake. Would you like me to say, "i ran a $200 million business that employed a 1000 people"? Does a claim made on a message board give validity to ones statements regardless of whether they contain a shred of substance?

Not at these levels and all that spending of Reagan actually got us out of a worse recession than we were in when Obama took office.

Every banker, economist, statistician, etc... disagrees with you. (i used a fallacy too!)

Reagan did it the right way, tax cuts put money into the hands of the individual taxpayer and spending on national defense. Obama gave the taxpayer a rebate check not a rate cut which served no purpose and prolonged the recession.

Cutting taxes any further would have resulted in a downgrade from the big three credit ratings agencies.

Actual results matter, not how my ideas are judged. BEA.gov, BLS.gov and the U.S. Treasury data is non partisan and shows the results. BEA will give you the four components of GDP, suggest you learn something there.

I already referenced BEA product accounts, of which you totally dismissed the "evidence" because it conflicts your ideology.

Obama claimed his stimulus policy would cap unemployment at 8%. Since implementation the unemployment rate is far exceeded 8%, BLS.gov. You need to stop buying what you are told and think.

Because he made a bad claim, it caused 4 million people to lose jobs.... Brilliant!

Stick with your theory and equations and I will stick to reality and actual numbers.

I live in a world where theory and equations are essential in modeling equity and currency derivatives.

Conservative · Jan 9, 2011

Goldenboy219;1059207104]Another fallacy (maybe two). Is it possible for you to have a discussion without being blatantly fallacious?

Sorry but didn't know that actual facts were fallacious

Deficit spending!

Deficit spending has to be paid for whereas private sector spending costs the govt nothing. Deficit spending led to the results we have today, 4 million plus more unemployed and 3.5 trillion added to the debt leading to very meager economic growth

This is the internet for christ sake. Would you like me to say, "i ran a $200 million business that employed a 1000 people"? Does a claim made on a message board give validity to ones statements regardless of whether they contain a shred of substance?

You could say it but your posts would show that to be a lie. you don't understand human behavior but you sure understand theory and equations. Human behavior will always trump your assumptions.

Every banker, economist, statistician, etc... disagrees with you. (i used a fallacy too!)

Wow, I disagree with bankers, economists, and statisticians? How will I ever live with that disappointment? Seems all those that you named live in a dream world that ignores reality. The results speak for themselves.

Cutting taxes any further would have resulted in a downgrade from the big three credit ratings agencies.

Says those same people? Raising taxes isn't going to increase taxpayers. Wonder why you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn and if you believe your take home pay is an expense to the govt?

I already referenced BEA product accounts, of which you totally dismissed the "evidence" because it conflicts your ideology.

Didn't dismiss it at all, BEA is credible and shows very meager economic growth and where that growth is occurring. How is govt. spending benefiting anyone when it is offset by debt service and a decrease in the value of the dollar?

Because he made a bad claim, it caused 4 million people to lose jobs.... Brilliant!

He created bad economic policy and that caused the increase in unemployment. Obama lied and 4 million more people lost their jobs. he got shellacked in Nov.

I live in a world where theory and equations are essential in modeling equity and currency derivatives.

There are millions of unemployed who can tell you what exactly to do with your theory and modeling.

bigrobmjca · Jan 11, 2011

Why would they not request to have the debt ceiling raised? How many times has the debt ceiling been raised anyway?

bigrobmjca · Jan 11, 2011

And one more thing? How much US debt does China own?

ricksfolly · Jan 11, 2011

cholla said:
And therin lies the root problem. The govt is not a business and does not have to make a profit (or even break even) ,

Wrong... The Government IS required to balance the yearly budget. If they spend more than they take in, the Fed Reserve makes up the difference. As evidenced by no deficit carry-over to the next years budget.

It's essential for the Fed Reserve to balance the budget every year. Can you imagine what our world wide credit rating would drop to if we reported a yearly carry-over deficit?

ricksfolly

Conservative · Jan 11, 2011

ricksfolly said:
Wrong... The Government IS required to balance the yearly budget. If they spend more than they take in, the Fed Reserve makes up the difference. As evidenced by no deficit carry-over to the next years budget.

It's essential for the Fed Reserve to balance the budget every year. Can you imagine what our world wide credit rating would drop to if we reported a yearly carry-over deficit?

ricksfolly

Where on earth did you get the idea that the Federal Govt. has to balance their budget every year? If they did there wouldn't be a 14 trillion dollar debt. I believe the Federal Govt. should balance the budget yearly there is no such mandate. States have them plus states have term limits. The Federal Govt. has neither.

ricksfolly · Jan 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Where on earth did you get the idea that the Federal Govt. has to balance their budget every year? If they did there wouldn't be a 14 trillion dollar debt.

From what I understand, the rising National Debt is caused by what the Fed Reserve spends for many different causes, usually short term, TARP, and other strapped gov agencies...

ricksfolly

Conservative · Jan 11, 2011

ricksfolly said:
From what I understand, the rising National Debt is caused by what the Fed Reserve spends for many different causes, usually short term, TARP, and other strapped gov agencies...

ricksfolly

Wrong, the National Debt is caused by the U.S. Govt. spending more money than it takes in. The Federal Reserve doesn't spend a dime, it is the Congress that spends the money and creates the debt. Notice the difference between revenue and expenses?

Receipt 2010

Individual Income tax 898.5
Corporate Taxes 191.4

Total 1089.9

SS/Unemploy/Other 864.8

Excise Taxes 66.9

2021.6

Expenses

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41.6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.5
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9

Total 3537.6

justabubba · Jan 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Wrong, the National Debt is caused by the U.S. Govt. spending more money than it takes in. The Federal Reserve doesn't spend a dime, it is the Congress that spends the money and creates the debt. Notice the difference between revenue and expenses?

Receipt 2010

Individual Income tax 898.5
Corporate Taxes 191.4

Total 1089.9

SS/Unemploy/Other 864.8

Excise Taxes 66.9

2021.6

Expenses

Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41.6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.5
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9

Total 3537.6

now you recognize that (since clinton, anyway) the government spends more than it receives in revenues
so, tell us from what source those borrowed dollars are realized ... what organization in the USA handles the borrowing of those extra monies required to operate our government

Conservative · Jan 11, 2011

justabubba said:
now you recognize that (since clinton, anyway) the government spends more than it receives in revenues
so, tell us from what source those borrowed dollars are realized ... what organization in the USA handles the borrowing of those extra monies required to operate our government

Now you realize that the answer to that question has nothing to do with the post. Congress authorizes and spends the money thus creates the debt, not the Federal Reserve. As for Clinton a very simple question, did Clinton propose budgets and spending more or less than the GOP Congress approved? An answer is required before giving Clinton credit for the budget condition.

justabubba · Jan 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Now you realize that the answer to that question has nothing to do with the post. Congress authorizes and spends the money thus creates the debt, not the Federal Reserve. As for Clinton a very simple question, did Clinton propose budgets and spending more or less than the GOP Congress approved? An answer is required before giving Clinton credit for the budget condition.

yes, the house initiates the appropriations budget
but you pretend that the fed plays no role in bridging the gap between the revenues the government takes in and the obligations of the government ... since the last republican regime, a negative number
i wanted to see if you truly were ignorant of the fed's role in assuring that adequate funds - were made available to bridge that revenue gap and that the fed plays a critical function in making sure it is available

Conservative · Jan 11, 2011

justabubba said:
yes, the house initiates the appropriations budget
but you pretend that the fed plays no role in bridging the gap between the revenues the government takes in and the obligations of the government ... since the last republican regime, a negative number
i wanted to see if you truly were ignorant of the fed's role in assuring that adequate funds - were made available to bridge that revenue gap and that the fed plays a critical function in making sure it is available

Again, what does this have to do with the FACT that Congress spends the money and it is the Congress that creates the debt, 5 trillion since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. The Federal Reserve manages the monetary policy and has a responsibility for borrowing or printing the money to cover the debt which there wouldn't be any if the Congress and President didn't spend the money. You seem easily confused by the rhetoric.

justabubba · Jan 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Again, what does this have to do with the FACT that Congress spends the money and it is the Congress that creates the debt, 5 trillion since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. The Federal Reserve manages the monetary policy and has a responsibility for borrowing or printing the money to cover the debt which there wouldn't be any if the Congress and President didn't spend the money. You seem easily confused by the rhetoric.

not at all
you seemed to want to dismiss the feds involvement in bridging the funding gap

Conservative · Jan 11, 2011

justabubba said:
not at all
you seemed to want to dismiss the feds involvement in bridging the funding gap

I completely understand that role of the Fed but they have nothing to do with spending or creating the deficits and the debt which isn't what has been stated here by you or another poster.

justabubba · Jan 11, 2011

Conservative said:
I completely understand that role of the Fed but they have nothing to do with spending or creating the deficits and the debt which isn't what has been stated here by you or another poster.

so then, you aren't sure what has gotten your panties in a wad?

Conservative · Jan 11, 2011

justabubba said:
so then, you aren't sure what has gotten your panties in a wad?

Then obviously you didn't read rickfolly's post that started this discussion.

justabubba · Jan 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Then obviously you didn't read rickfolly's post that started this discussion.

sure i did
that was the point at which i jumped in to illustrate the fed's involvement; the one you attempted to deny existed
delighted to see i was able to set you straight

Conservative · Jan 11, 2011

justabubba said:
sure i did
that was the point at which i jumped in to illustrate the fed's involvement; the one you attempted to deny existed
delighted to see i was able to set you straight

Really? That is your response to this post?

Wrong... The Government IS required to balance the yearly budget. If they spend more than they take in, the Fed Reserve makes up the difference. As evidenced by no deficit carry-over to the next years budget.

It's essential for the Fed Reserve to balance the budget every year. Can you imagine what our world wide credit rating would drop to if we reported a yearly carry-over deficit?

First of all, you believe that the Federal Govt. is required to balance the yearly budget?

Then you believe it is the Federal Reserve is the entity that does that?

Now a couple of you don't seem to understand what a balanced budget is and if you think borrowed or printed money balances the budget then we have a more serious problem that I thought. What the Federal Reserve does isn't balancing the budget, it is borrowing or printing money to equal the deficit. that isn't a balanced budget. Want to try again?

To me a balanced budget is Revenue and expenses being equal. A deficit means more expense than revenue and anyone who believes that borrowed or printed money is an asset really has a problem. Both are debt and thus liabilities.

US Treasury asks Congress to lift debt ceiling

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Conservative

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Conservative

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Conservative

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Conservative

bigrobmjca

Member

bigrobmjca

Member

ricksfolly

Conservative

ricksfolly

Conservative

justabubba

long standing member

Conservative

justabubba

long standing member

Conservative

justabubba

long standing member

Conservative

justabubba

long standing member

Conservative

justabubba

long standing member

Conservative