soy_bomb: Propain_az: I have a delima. I want to purchase a new MacBook Pro (15" matte screen), but I can only afford it if I cut my other spending (food, rent, etc. and stuff for kid). I'm thinking I should apply for government assistance for food and rent. THen I can get the laptop. Is that a good idea? I think it is.

See if you can pay for it with an EBT card.

/this your tax dollars at work!

Kiss up, kick down, little scared man.

goatleggedfellow: Imagine if we'd cut deeper. Look at how austerity has inspired the European Spring.

goatleggedfellow: Imagine if we'd cut deeper. Look at how austerity has inspired the European Spring.

Good point. Vote R, everyone!

burning_bridge: Propain_az: shamanwest: Propain_az: shamanwest: Propain_az: I have a delima. I want to purchase a new MacBook Pro (15" matte screen), but I can only afford it if I cut my other spending (food, rent, etc. and stuff for kid). I'm thinking I should apply for government assistance for food and rent. THen I can get the laptop. Is that a good idea? I think it is.

Do you know how I know you'd qualify for assistance?

/stupid Apple
//only loved by lazy "artists" who can't get a real job
///stupid Apple
////is the only thing that makes the lazy "artists" annoying

Well that is my point, I could qualify. I haven't abused it becuase we (my family) can make it without it. But I want this laptop and I can get it by not spending my own money on food, etc.
Oh, and I am by no means an artist. Maybe a fartist. heh!

Well, you are wanting to buy a MacBook. Buy a real computer, and I'll have more respect.

Also, remember that assistance is income-based, not what you spend on food-based. If you have a "struggling" artist income, you should be fine. Otherwise, I would consider more children. Depending on your state, each child adds 5-10k to your cap. If you have enough kids, you can really rake in the welfare money.

It's awesome.

/dammit stupid kids, put that shiat down
//can't you see i'm typin' on the computer?

Don't worry based on my income, I'm good. Don't want anymore kids.


So do it already, christ. And you know what? I'd rather my tax money for that than another oil "subsidy." Because you spending money actually helps move the economy. Something giving yet another hand-out to those corporate welfare queens who then just toss it on their pile to sit on don't do.

I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

theknuckler_33: randomjsa: The minds of liberals...

"Taking money out of the private sector and having the government spend it somehow grows the economy! Failure to do so stops economic growth!"

Whatever logic has to be twisted and contorted to fit your world view I suppose. Only in the mind of a liberal could the government make better choices about how to spend money than the people who actually earned that money.

Apparently government spending is not part of GDP. You hearing this folks!?!?!? This is what conservatives actually believe.

Where do they think the federal government spends that money?

Oh wow, it's almost as if the idea is to push the economy into further depression. Almost as if the US is run by a bunch of kleptocratic idiots. Almost as if trickle-down economics is a cynical ploy. But hey, that's communist crazy talk.

Propain_az: I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

So you're just an idiot basically?

soy_bomb: When we have a budget that is less than the previous year, I will accept that Government has "cutback".

Well the first step would be getting a Senate that does their jobs and actually writes a budget. Good luck with that.

Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

So you're just an idiot basically?

no, just a potential thief.

RexTalionis: I just want to note this on the graphic MyRandomName posted (which was sourced from the Heritage Foundation)

[i1212.photobucket.com image 640x452]

The pink-tinted area are the years between 2005 and the beginning of the year 2009 (i.e. GWB's second term). The period of massive federal spending coupled with massive dropoff in revenue was during this period (i.e. prior to Obama inauguration).

Following 2009 comes a period of drop-off in federal spending along with a rebound in revenues.

Be quiet... you don't want to confuse them with facts...

It was Obama's fault the GDP slowed. But when GDP growth was higher, that was the doing of Republicans in Congress and Republican governors. But Obama caused the recession, even before he was in office. But Bush had nothing to do with the economy's performance in 2008. But Bush was responsible for the job growth from 2003-2007. But Bush wasn't responsible for the downturn from 2001-2002. But Clinton was not responsible for the economy's performance from 1993-2000. THAT was all Reagan.

^ Literally, the string of logic I've seen over the years from Republicans.

Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

So you're just an idiot basically?

no, just a potential thief.

And an idiot...

Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

So you're just an idiot basically?

no, just a potential thief.

And an idiot...

Wow. You are one witty person!

/Sick burn! You owned me!
/You should put your sick ass burn on another web site, to continue basking in its sick ass burniness!

Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

So you're just an idiot basically?

no, just a potential thief.

And an idiot...

Wow. You are one witty person!

/Sick burn! You owned me!
/You should put your sick ass burn on another web site, to continue basking in its sick ass burniness!

Meh, I've given better burns than this.

This one is just child's play in comparison. ;)

Who ever thought that the dream of violent anarchists through the ages (the complete collapse of the current system) would be orchestrated by the party who wants to control the people's behavior the most. By rewarding the rich with the money of the working class, we have started to unravel this country.

Serious Black: The slowdown in GDP growth is obviously because we didn't cut government spending enough. If we cut a humongous amount of spending by, say, abolishing food stamps and Medicaid, I guarantee that GDP would grow by at least 10,000% the following quarter.

Or it could be because 'government spending' is counted in the formula for computing GDP.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

If you want to grow GDP it's easy. Have the government borrow a ton of money and spend it to hire one group of people to dig ditches, and another group to fill the same ditches back in. You won't do anything to grow the *real* economy, or to improve infrastructure, or anything else even remotely useful. But the completely artificial measurement that is "GDP" will go through the roof.

And before you try saying 'But the people the government hired will spend that money on goods and services, and that will grow the real economy!' please keep in mind that we're not spending a *surplus* like Keynes would have had us do. We're spending *borrowed* money. Borrowing that money has an *opportunity cost*. Every dollar the government borrows is a dollar that someone else can't borrow.

So congrats FARK, you just discovered the GDP growth is a meaningless (or at least easily manipulated) statistic.

MyRandomName: OMG, LOOK AT THESE GOVERNMENT CUTBACKS PUTTING US ALL THE WAY BACK TO NEAR HISTORIC SPENDING RATES!!!

[galens.typepad.com image 385x245]

God some of you are farking idiots.

You do realize that the red and blue blobs are growing in proption, with spikes in government spending spiking during these tiny events known as WWI, WWII and the the great recession of 2008?

X-boxershorts: Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

So you're just an idiot basically?

no, just a potential thief.

And an idiot...

Wow. You are one witty person!

/Sick burn! You owned me!
/You should put your sick ass burn on another web site, to continue basking in its sick ass burniness!

Well, to be fair (and balanced) you do seem pretty stupid.

judge people much? Next thing I know you'll be making fun of midgets.

Gyrfalcon: Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: Mrtraveler01: Propain_az: I'm just going to steal one. Much easier that way. And the rich farker I steal it from can go buy another.

So you're just an idiot basically?

no, just a potential thief.

And an idiot...

Wow. You are one witty person!

/Sick burn! You owned me!
/You should put your sick ass burn on another web site, to continue basking in its sick ass burniness!

"Sick burn"???

How old are you, twelve? My nephews don't use that lame kind of response.

My age is no concern of yours Perhaps you nephews are cooler than I am.

Ok, when banks lend you money they create the principle out of thin air (fractionalized reserve) but not the interest. The money needed to pay the interest needs to come from another source whether it be more borrowing or the creation of tangible goods. Therefore, the global creation of real goods (in leu of borrowing more money) needs to keep pace with the aggregate obligations to pay interest on existing debt (debt service).

All is fine until the global economy contracts enough that enough real wealth (tangible goods) falls below the amount needs to service existing debt. When this happens, everyone defaults (not enough "real" money) and the banks wind up owning everything.

The "We Knew From Day One This Mumbo-Jumbo Wouldn't Fly!" Inevitable Massive Default Tour. Coming soon to a country near you!

Additional information

fusillade762: It's fermented Tang.

Sounds like something that goes with frumundah cheese.

X-boxershorts: That's unture.

Having a sovereign currency, our borrowing limit is as good as the faith in our ability to pay it back. And with a net negative interest rate on what we are currently borrowing, that faith is currently not even close to being tested.

We could write ourselves a trillion dollar infrastructure check tomorrow and it wouldn't affect the amount of funds available to the private sector by one penny.

Except, shortly thereafter, with the very high velocity of money going to many who need it badly, there would be a significant uptick in spending which would be a major boost to all levels of the economy and might actually inject useable private money into the credit markets at a noticeable rate.

MacroEconomics 101- even Milton Friedman knew this to be true.

Um. No. We don't simply 'write ourselves a check' (with the exception of QE1 and QE2). We sell bonds. Every dollar worth of bonds that the US sells is a dollar worth of bonds that someone else isn't able to sell in order to finance other things. Could we do what you suggest? Probably. Are we? No. Your point is so invalid that I may as well have a bird for hair.

Talondel: X-boxershorts: That's unture.

Having a sovereign currency, our borrowing limit is as good as the faith in our ability to pay it back. And with a net negative interest rate on what we are currently borrowing, that faith is currently not even close to being tested.

We could write ourselves a trillion dollar infrastructure check tomorrow and it wouldn't affect the amount of funds available to the private sector by one penny.

Except, shortly thereafter, with the very high velocity of money going to many who need it badly, there would be a significant uptick in spending which would be a major boost to all levels of the economy and might actually inject useable private money into the credit markets at a noticeable rate.

MacroEconomics 101- even Milton Friedman knew this to be true.

Um. No. We don't simply 'write ourselves a check' (with the exception of QE1 and QE2). We sell bonds. Every dollar worth of bonds that the US sells is a dollar worth of bonds that someone else isn't able to sell in order to finance other things. Could we do what you suggest? Probably. Are we? No. Your point is so invalid that I may as well have a bird for hair.

The Fed is already "printing money".

Either of you want to dive into a discussion of Quantitative Easing?

Corporate Self: The Fed is already "printing money".

Either of you want to dive into a discussion of Quantitative Easing?

I already noted that those were the exception (did you think that QE1 and QE2 in my post stood for "Queen Elizabeth the First" and "Queen Elizabeth the Second"?). But QE1 and QE2 are relatively small (roughly 1.6T) compared to the deficits we've run since 2009 (5.3T).

Talondel: Serious Black: The slowdown in GDP growth is obviously because we didn't cut government spending enough. If we cut a humongous amount of spending by, say, abolishing food stamps and Medicaid, I guarantee that GDP would grow by at least 10,000% the following quarter.

Or it could be because 'government spending' is counted in the formula for computing GDP.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

If you want to grow GDP it's easy. Have the government borrow a ton of money and spend it to hire one group of people to dig ditches, and another group to fill the same ditches back in. You won't do anything to grow the *real* economy, or to improve infrastructure, or anything else even remotely useful. But the completely artificial measurement that is "GDP" will go through the roof.

And before you try saying 'But the people the government hired will spend that money on goods and services, and that will grow the real economy!' please keep in mind that we're not spending a *surplus* like Keynes would have had us do. We're spending *borrowed* money. Borrowing that money has an *opportunity cost*. Every dollar the government borrows is a dollar that someone else can't borrow.

So congrats FARK, you just discovered the GDP growth is a meaningless (or at least easily manipulated) statistic.

Have you see the real yield curve for TIPS lately? The 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had a negative rate for months now, and the 10-year has been negative for a few months as well. The market is willing to pay the federal government for the privilege of loaning them money. If there is ever a time for us to borrow barrels of money and spend it on investments like infrastructure, this is the time! And before you (or somebody else) says that we won't make the tough choice to trim the deficit later if we did this, that's completely farking irrelevant. Political climates don't change what the best course of action is. We need to get some politicians with the balls to make hard choices rather than give in to pandering.

X-boxershorts: The Fed's buying up toxic and unsellable mortgage backed assets with American currency, where it sits in a bank propping up reserve levels for those toxic assets that remain on the bank's books. QE1 and QE2 did relatively little for the general economy except prop up too big to fail banks, thus avoiding the major collapse of the world's economy.

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? QE1 bought partly agency securities and partly mortgage backed securities, so that much of your post is correct. But QE2 bought almost entirely US government securities. So unless you consider US Treasury Bonds to be "toxic" your post is fairly inaccurate.

X-boxershorts: Talondel: Corporate Self: The Fed is already "printing money".

Either of you want to dive into a discussion of Quantitative Easing?

I already noted that those were the exception (did you think that QE1 and QE2 in my post stood for "Queen Elizabeth the First" and "Queen Elizabeth the Second"?). But QE1 and QE2 are relatively small (roughly 1.6T) compared to the deficits we've run since 2009 (5.3T).

Deficits have been shrinking since 2010, not by much, but they have been shrinking.

Besides, "deficits don't matter". Or so I've been told

Deficits only matter if there is a Democrat in the White House.

soy_bomb: FTFM. Billion, trillion, it no longer seems like real money. That's the problem.

How is it our fault you're too stupid to tell billions from trillions?

Serious Black: Talondel: Serious Black: The slowdown in GDP growth is obviously because we didn't cut government spending enough. If we cut a humongous amount of spending by, say, abolishing food stamps and Medicaid, I guarantee that GDP would grow by at least 10,000% the following quarter.

Or it could be because 'government spending' is counted in the formula for computing GDP.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

If you want to grow GDP it's easy. Have the government borrow a ton of money and spend it to hire one group of people to dig ditches, and another group to fill the same ditches back in. You won't do anything to grow the *real* economy, or to improve infrastructure, or anything else even remotely useful. But the completely artificial measurement that is "GDP" will go through the roof.

And before you try saying 'But the people the government hired will spend that money on goods and services, and that will grow the real economy!' please keep in mind that we're not spending a *surplus* like Keynes would have had us do. We're spending *borrowed* money. Borrowing that money has an *opportunity cost*. Every dollar the government borrows is a dollar that someone else can't borrow.

So congrats FARK, you just discovered the GDP growth is a meaningless (or at least easily manipulated) statistic.

Have you see the real yield curve for TIPS lately? The 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had a negative rate for months now, and the 10-year has been negative for a few months as well. The market is willing to pay the federal government for the privilege of loaning them money. If there is ever a time for us to borrow barrels of money and spend it on investments like infrastructure, this is the time! And before you (or somebody else) says that we won't make the tough choice to trim the deficit later if we did this, that's completely farking irrelevant. Political climates don't change what the best course of action is. We need to get ...

I do not disagree that this is an excellent time to be running huge deficits. But that doesn't change the fact that government borrowing increases GDP, and reducing government borrowing lowers it, not because it necessarily has any impact on the actual economy, but simply because it's PART OF THE DAMN FORMULA FOR CALCULATING GDP.

Talondel: Serious Black: Talondel: Serious Black: The slowdown in GDP growth is obviously because we didn't cut government spending enough. If we cut a humongous amount of spending by, say, abolishing food stamps and Medicaid, I guarantee that GDP would grow by at least 10,000% the following quarter.

Or it could be because 'government spending' is counted in the formula for computing GDP.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

If you want to grow GDP it's easy. Have the government borrow a ton of money and spend it to hire one group of people to dig ditches, and another group to fill the same ditches back in. You won't do anything to grow the *real* economy, or to improve infrastructure, or anything else even remotely useful. But the completely artificial measurement that is "GDP" will go through the roof.

And before you try saying 'But the people the government hired will spend that money on goods and services, and that will grow the real economy!' please keep in mind that we're not spending a *surplus* like Keynes would have had us do. We're spending *borrowed* money. Borrowing that money has an *opportunity cost*. Every dollar the government borrows is a dollar that someone else can't borrow.

So congrats FARK, you just discovered the GDP growth is a meaningless (or at least easily manipulated) statistic.

Have you see the real yield curve for TIPS lately? The 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had a negative rate for months now, and the 10-year has been negative for a few months as well. The market is willing to pay the federal government for the privilege of loaning them money. If there is ever a time for us to borrow barrels of money and spend it on investments like infrastructure, this is the time! And before you (or somebody else) says that we won't make the tough choice to trim the deficit later if we did this, that's completely farking irrelevant. Political climates don't change what the best course of action is. ...

Do you think that all government spending is identical? That seems to be your argument, and I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you before I respond.

X-boxershorts: Deficits have been shrinking since 2010, not by much, but they have been shrinking.

No they haven't. The deficit in 2011 was 6 billion more than in 2010 (1.299T vs 1.293T). Both of those are lower than the record set in 2009, so maybe that's what you meant? In the meantime we can add that to the long list of things you've been wrong about. And, even if they had, what the fark does that have to do with anything we're discussing? The point was that the effect of QE (which you first incorrectly identified as the method by which we're financing our deficits, and then went on to misidentify as programs for purchasing up toxic assets (which is partially true for QE1, but entirely false for QE2)) is far smaller than the effect of deficits. Which are financed by bond sales. Not by 'writing ourselves a check' as you originally claimed.

X-boxershorts: Besides, "deficits don't matter". Or so I've been told

Well you may have been told that, but not by me. What you've engaged in here is called a 'straw man.' You've attributed to me an argument that I did not make, and what's more, one that's completely irrelevant to the current subject (and in case you haven't noticed the current subject is your willingness to continue speaking about a subject long after you've demonstrated your ignorance on the topic).

I understand the reason you've resorted to the straw man is that you're desperate to take the attention off all of the errors you've already made. But a better approach is simply to admit that you were mistaken and try to respond with a better argument. I won't hold my breath.

Propain_az: I have a delima. I want to purchase a new MacBook Pro (15" matte screen), but I can only afford it if I cut my other spending (food, rent, etc. and stuff for kid). I'm thinking I should apply for government assistance for food and rent. THen I can get the laptop. Is that a good idea? I think it is.

An education would work better.

X-boxershorts: And had little impact in the real economy.

But QE was exactly that "writing ourselves a check" method of deficit finance you were praising earlier. It's almost like you're admitting that allowing the government to simply miracle money into existence doesn't actually help anything.

Serious Black: Do you think that all government spending is identical? That seems to be your argument, and I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you before I respond.

No. Not all government spending is identical, and that's not the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I was unclear. The point I am making is that there isn't any reason to think that US Government borrowing and spending is more effective at stimulating the economy than that which is crowded out. If the US hadn't borrowed $1.3 Trillion last year, that money still would have been invested somewhere. Just not by the US government. So unless you believe the US Government is more effective at stimulating the economy than the alternatives, there's no reason to think that borrowing actually accomplishes anything. But GDP calculations assume that it is in fact more effective.

As I pointed out, government could borrow $1 Trillion and spend $500 Billion digging ditches, and another $500 Billion filling them in. That would raise GDP by $1 Trillion, but would do nothing to improve the real economy. It would have the effect of moving $1 Trillion from investors to laborers. So maybe if you believe that laborers are better at building the economy than investors that would be a valid strategy. I don't know any economists who actually believe that. But hey, it's better than nothing.