New unemployment numbers show cutting govt spending doesnt crash the economy. (generations, suspect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no difference in adding $1 of debt or $1 trillion of debt? Wow. I give up.
I didnt say there was no difference, I said does it matter what the total was because regardless it added to the debt.
If you cant read a 1 sentence reply and comprehend it, then you really need to go talk to your parents and ask them how you managed to graduate from elementary school
If you Have $1,000 and you buy $1,000 in tbills, how do you still have $1,000 left to spend?
And when you have to to give me back $1100 to buy those tbills back from me, where does the money come from?
Explain this new math to me
What you are trying to say (but doing an awful job) is that government borrowing crowds out private borrowing and leads to higher interest rates that drive up costs and is inflationary.
That happens in normal economic times. However, we are not in normal economic times. We are in a liquidity trap and vast borrowing by the government has not resulted in higher interest rates nor inflation.
Thus, the government can borrow widely without the negative consequences until full employment is reached.
Well according to left wing posters here, government should be increasing spending to boost the economy, so that jobs can be created.
Is this is true, then explain to me how new unemployment numbers are lowest in 5 years, considering we are "cutting" federal spending under sequester..
In a way, the furloughs portion of the sequester could actually result in lower unemployment. That is, the sequesters could persuade some federal employees to retire or quit working. That would open a new position which could conceivably go to someone currently unemployed. The federal employee who retired would no longer be considered as part of the workforce and the newly employed person would now longer be unemployed. The result would be a a slight drop in the unemployment rate.
What you are trying to say (but doing an awful job) is that government borrowing crowds out private borrowing and leads to higher interest rates that drive up costs and is inflationary.
Actually I'm not saying that at all.. I'm saying EXACTLY what I wanted to say.. Stop pretending others said things they didnt say, just so you can dispute it..
Once again, if I'm buying $1K in tbills, then that $1K is $1K I CANT SPEND...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
That happens in normal economic times. However, we are not in normal economic times. We are in a liquidity trap and vast borrowing by the government has not resulted in higher interest rates nor inflation.
Thus, the government can borrow widely without the negative consequences until full employment is reached.
More failure. The reason interest rates are so low is because the money is being lent to the government in such vast amounts, that banks wont loan money to the private sector.
Either Obamacare or the sequestor will kill jobs. The lefts hero squatting in the White House loses on both counts.
On top of that, he lost his cherished gun control.
His legacy will be LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then why are we seeing employment gains every month?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have been saying that for years.
