Grow out of a deficit??

Originally posted by @suzianne
To my understanding, most of this debt is held by other countries, like China, in the form of Treasury bills, or T-bills.

Less than 1/3 of US debt is owed to governments or citizens of other countries. A plurality is owed to US citizens and almost a third is actually owed to other federal agencies.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124

Originally posted by @shavixmir
What are treasury bills and T-bills?

And what happens if the US just says: screw it, we’re resetting the economy and cancelling all debt we owe to other countries?

Treasury bills are bonds that are issued by the US government (all other governments do the same) that borrow money on prescribed interest rates.

===And what happens if the US just says: screw it, we’re resetting the economy and cancelling all debt we owe to other countries?===

It would cripple the US economy, since Americans hold most federal debt. The currency would undergo wild inflation as the government would have to offer huge interest rates on its new, now B-rated bonds to entice new buyers.

Still, that is a possibility that the Chinese do have some reason to be concerned about. That's one of the reasons why I think China depends on the US more so than the other way around.

Originally posted by @whodey
...At the end of the day, the government will always run huge deficits. That's because taxes are not about paying down debt, it's about perfecting political power. It's really all just monopoly money. Nobody cares

You wisdom knows no bounds, whodey, but I disagree with your conclusion. Given the lack of a gold or any other value standard, to fix the value of money, the global economy, papered by central bank fiat currency, is effectively run with monopoly money and will continue to do so only as long as everyone remains seated and plays by the rules, but it only takes one hothead to care enough about how the winning player is bending the rules, to get sick of losing and upend the board as they storm off and go to the mattresses.

Originally posted by @kmax87
You wisdom knows no bounds, whodey, but I disagree with your conclusion. Given the lack of a gold or any other value standard, to fix the value of money, the global economy, papered by central bank fiat currency, is effectively run with monopoly money and will continue to do so only as long as everyone remains seated and plays by the rules, but it only takes ...[text shortened]... the rules, to get sick of losing and upend the board as they storm off and go to the mattresses.

But why pretend we need to raise taxes to pay for things we need?

It's disingenuous to say the least.

So why not give everyone a tax break, including the "rich"? Why is passing a stimulus better than passing a tax break?

Hmm?

You do realize that the system is rigged to fail, right?

I suppose it will be the fault of a free market, no doubt.

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
Question from that article: "Why help companies and investors if workers are the ones in trouble?"
Answer: look at who Donald's closest friends and allies are.

Exactly.

Originally posted by @whodey
At the end of the day, the government will always run huge deficits. That's because taxes are not about paying down debt, it's about perfecting political power. It's really all just monopoly money. Nobody cares

Except that, in the 1990's, in Bill Clinton's administration, all the budget surpluses (remember those?) went directly to pay down the US debt.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Except that, in the 1990's, in Bill Clinton's administration, all the budget surpluses (remember those?) went directly to pay down the US debt.

Bill Clinton and who Suzy?

Who twisted his arm Suzy or did Bill pass legislation all by his lonesome?

That is ancient history now. There are no politicians that talk about deficit spending other than Rand Paul who has become a party of one.

Originally posted by @whodey
Bill Clinton and who Suzy?

Who twisted his arm Suzy or did Bill pass legislation all by his lonesome?

That is ancient history now. There are no politicians that talk about deficit spending other than Rand Paul who has become a party of one.

Watch what happens AFTER the Republicans pass this huge set of tax cuts for plutocrats and corporations. They'll rediscover the deficit issue and insist on massive cuts in social programs including Social Security and Medicare.

That will be after the 2018 midterms, however.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Watch what happens AFTER the Republicans pass this huge set of tax cuts for plutocrats and corporations. They'll rediscover the deficit issue and insist on massive cuts in social programs including Social Security and Medicare.

That will be after the 2018 midterms, however.

Thumbs up No.1, this is great news.

You're on to it.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Watch what happens AFTER the Republicans pass this huge set of tax cuts for plutocrats and corporations. They'll rediscover the deficit issue and insist on massive cuts in social programs including Social Security and Medicare.

That will be after the 2018 midterms, however.

So how much debt is too much debt, or is it all monopoly money?

Originally posted by @wajoma
Thumbs up No.1, this is great news.

You're on to it.

Yep, the RNC's motto: F the poor.

Glad to see you're onboard.

Originally posted by @whodey
But why pretend we need to raise taxes to pay for things we need?

It's disingenuous to say the least.

So why not give everyone a tax break, including the "rich"? Why is passing a stimulus better than passing a tax break?

Hmm?

You do realize that the system is rigged to fail, right?

I suppose it will be the fault of a free market, no doubt.

The role of the central bank is to regulate the flow of currency in the market. At any given moment in time the money in circulation is not enough to cover the debt that accrues by creating it.

Lowering taxes is not the same as decreasing the supply of new money into the system. Lowering taxes simply decreases government revenue to meet its debt interest obligations.

The supposed benefit of lowering taxes, is that the economy should grow bigger, which should generate more governmental revenue overall. Except that the voodoo economics scenario outlined has never really happened, partly because the boost to the economy is a lagging factor that takes time, and should occur if and only if all businesses reinvested their tax savings into expanding their businesses by building new infrastructure. What actually tends to happen though, is that the difference in lowered taxes tends to be stashed away as savings or stock repurchase programs or executive benefits largesse, and in the short term money dries up and becomes tight forcing the Fed to push more into the economy just so that people will take out a damn loan....Even though this rising tide lifts all boats scenario has been roundly debunked and shown to only accelerate the polarisation of wealth in society, the mantra remains and regardless of all the analysis, those who thought Trump was for them will definitely have raised taxes to deal with and increased costs all round as there will be less money to pay for subsidised benefits, in order to cover the shortfall of the wealthy really being let off the hook, and yet no doubt the little lemmings will still think this is a great idea!...


....And Jesus wept.

Originally posted by @kmax87
The role of the central bank is to regulate the flow of currency in the market. At any given moment in time the money in circulation is not enough to cover the debt that accrues by creating it.

Lowering taxes is not the same as decreasing the supply of new money into the system. Lowering taxes simply decreases government revenue to meet its debt interest ...[text shortened]... no doubt the little lemmings will still think this is a great idea!...


....And Jesus wept.

So where did all the stimulus go that Obama spent?

I dare you to show me a chart.

Answer: you have no freaking idea where all the money went, and that is by design. Nor could you prove that if you did know where the money went, that it benefited the economy in any substantial way

There are all kinds of examples where the government has directed funds to "create wealth" that never pan out. As I recall, Obama made some predictions as to how the stimulus would effect the economy and he gave specific numbers, which never came about.

At the end of the day, people like you just shrug their shoulders and say how much worse it would have been without the stimulus with virtually nothing to back us such claims.

Moreover, who made people like you the money police? What if someone wants to actually save money, God forbid, instead of spending it on what you think they should? Are we a free people or not?

Originally posted by @whodey
So where did all the stimulus go that Obama spent?

I dare you to show me a chart.

Answer: you have no freaking idea where all the money went, and that is by design. Nor could you prove that if you did know where the money went, that it benefited the economy in any substantial way

There are all kinds of examples where the government has directed fu ...[text shortened]... God forbid, instead of spending it on what you think they should? Are we a free people or not?

Good grief... Yet you dare to call Democrats 'dim'.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Watch what happens AFTER the Republicans pass this huge set of tax cuts for plutocrats and corporations. They'll rediscover the deficit issue and insist on massive cuts in social programs including Social Security and Medicare.

That will be after the 2018 midterms, however.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/9ae6ad9d-44d5-3aad-a0cf-52b23c0063c2/ss_sen.-rubio-tells-a-secret%3A.html

Well it looks like you win a cookie. They do plan to cut entitlements.

Of course, the problem is that nothing is guaranteed to the American people via Social Security or health care. In essence, America has given their politicians all the power over their retirement and health care along side a blank check. Very sad.

I suppose every nanny state winds up like Greece eventually.