Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Just that if the government was selling enough treasury bonds, there wouldn't be a deficit.

Treasury notes aren't funding the deficit,

By definition, nothing funds a deficit. 

:)

Side mathematical exercise:

Let's say the federal government just completely shuts down everything except tax collecting, reducing expenditures to ZERO (excluding whatever interest must be paid on existing debt).  Everyone that is currently working in non-government jobs will continue to make money and pay taxes, so the revenue stream won't be immediately affected.  All taxes collected go towards paying down the debt... period.  No more social programs, no more farm subsidies, no more unemployment checks.

If you don't work, you don't get any money or government services.  Period.

That will reduce the deficit.

So, SHUTTING PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT DOWN is part of the solution.  Cutting services down will reduce the deficit.  Eliminating programs that pay people NOT to work (and therefore don't contribute to deficit reduction) is a good start.

Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Quit avoiding my question.

Please explain your genius deficit reduction plan. I'd love to hear how the government should just sell more securities to eliminate the deficit.

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Side mathematical exercise:

Let's say the federal government just completely shuts down everything except tax collecting, reducing expenditures to ZERO (excluding whatever interest must be paid on existing debt).  Everyone that is currently working in non-government jobs will continue to make money and pay taxes, so the revenue stream won't be immediately affected.  All taxes collected go towards paying down the debt... period.  No more social programs, no more farm subsidies, no more unemployment checks.

If you don't work, you don't get any money or government services.  Period.

That will reduce the deficit.

So, SHUTTING PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT DOWN is part of the solution.  Cutting services down will reduce the deficit.  Eliminating programs that pay people NOT to work (and therefore don't contribute to deficit reduction) is a good start.

That would absolutely destroy the economy.

And completely **** over retirees.

Badluck, we get it.  You can't sell more bonds and reduce the deficit (unless you sell them to smaller countries/companies, and immediately obliterate them).

For example, if we sold a bunch of bonds to, say, Korea.  And a week later, we reduce their country to glowing thermonuclear rubble.  Essentially, we took money from them NOW, in exchange for bonds that they'll never cash.  We'll be able to write the bonds down as uncollectable and keep the money.

Stop harping on Mike's lack of economic prowess, and try to make a genuine point.

Are you running away from your stupid claims?

I've already said I realized that I became tinfoil hat guy with regards to government, rhetoric, terminology and conspiracy theory.  I then made a  hasty. poorly-worded, alcohol-fueled, stupid statement.   Wasn't the first, won't be the last. 

You, on the other hand, made a stupid statement and have proceeded to defend it.  Yet, when asked to elaborate, you won't.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Side mathematical exercise:

Let's say the federal government just completely shuts down everything except tax collecting, reducing expenditures to ZERO (excluding whatever interest must be paid on existing debt).  Everyone that is currently working in non-government jobs will continue to make money and pay taxes, so the revenue stream won't be immediately affected.  All taxes collected go towards paying down the debt... period.  No more social programs, no more farm subsidies, no more unemployment checks.

If you don't work, you don't get any money or government services.  Period.

That will reduce the deficit.

So, SHUTTING PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT DOWN is part of the solution.  Cutting services down will reduce the deficit.  Eliminating programs that pay people NOT to work (and therefore don't contribute to deficit reduction) is a good start.

That would absolutely destroy the economy.

And completely **** over retirees.

I didn't say it was feasible or even desirable.  I was pointing out how government spending on social programs IS A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM.  Do you get tired of having points sail past you?

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Side mathematical exercise:

Let's say the federal government just completely shuts down everything except tax collecting, reducing expenditures to ZERO (excluding whatever interest must be paid on existing debt).  Everyone that is currently working in non-government jobs will continue to make money and pay taxes, so the revenue stream won't be immediately affected.  All taxes collected go towards paying down the debt... period.  No more social programs, no more farm subsidies, no more unemployment checks.

If you don't work, you don't get any money or government services.  Period.

That will reduce the deficit.

So, SHUTTING PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT DOWN is part of the solution.  Cutting services down will reduce the deficit.  Eliminating programs that pay people NOT to work (and therefore don't contribute to deficit reduction) is a good start.

That would absolutely destroy the economy.

And completely **** over retirees.

I didn't say it was feasible or even desirable.  I was pointing out how government spending on social programs IS A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM.  Do you get tired of having points sail past you?

Part of what problem? The slow economy?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Holy ****, you are one ******* stupid person.

I'm dumb?

Let's look at your story, with a little added explanation:

People had mortgages they couldn't afford. When the mortgages reset past the intro rate, those people couldn't keep paying the mortgage. So they cut back on spending, or sold their house at a loss, or lost it to foreclosure. The short sales and foreclosures had ripple effects in real estate, construction, & finance. More people lost jobs so more people had to cut back on spending. Businesses that sell things to people who work in construction, real estate, and finance (ALL BUSINESSES) saw a reduction in demand and laid off workers, so those people had to cut back on spending.

So what caused the recession? Sure, people borrowing beyond what they could afford lit the fuse, but the real problem was the massive shrinking demand for all products and services.

Why don't you tell me where I'm wrong, tec?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Hello?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Hello?

Why would I want to argue with someone who doesn't have a ******* clue what they are talking about? I wouldn't argue with my six year old about this and he knows more about macroeconomics than you do.

The Community Reinvestment Act was part of the trigger.  It forced (and incented) banks to give loans to subprime borrowers that they couldn't pay off, because, well, they're ******* SUBPRIME BORROWERS, and don't have the brain cells necessary to manage their funds. 

So they default, lose their homes, and immediately start sucking at the govt teat.  Since they're poor money managers, they welcome the nanny state, and like sitting at home watching Oprah and Springer, eating CheezyPoofs, and basically using tax dollars to subsidize their inactivity.  Since they can only afford the essentials (cell phone, cable tv/DVR, fast food, and alcohol), they're not buying "luxury items" and aren't creating jobs with their purchases (like a new house would).

THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN.  Making more government-dependent money wasters, and making the workers and wage-earners pay for them.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Quit avoiding the questions.  I'll repeat them:

And stupid, wasteful spending by the government will do create a demand and fix the economy, right?

In addition to renting all the vacant buildings in the US, do you think the govt should purchase all empty houses?


Please answer them.   I'm trying to learn something here.

Hello?

Why would I want to argue with someone who doesn't have a ******* clue what they are talking about? I wouldn't argue with my six year old about this and he knows more about macroeconomics than you do.

WHAT????

You've argued young earth with biz for months in multiple threads.   You've brought up some Bernie Williams point from November in multiple threads.  

The real question is "What the **** won't you argue about?" and "When the **** did you become picky about who you were arguing with?"

And I'm saddened that you have a son.  Little bastard doesn't stand a chance in this world with a raging ******* like you as an authority figure.  Please tell me you made that up.

And then answer the ******* questions.