Re: #Krugman: Why We Regulate

[Sid9]

"Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:b3704ea3-6acf-428d...@googlegroups.com...
> This is not just limited to CEOs. I have jet to hear demands for fewer
> benefits by Medicaid recipients when local governments have difficulty
> funding their health care, for example. Provide examples of wanting less
> from Congress. The country finds itlesf bankrupt. Who demands less for The
> Common Good? http://www.EndIt.info/how.html
.
.
.
There you go again.
Denigrating America.
America is not bankrupt...that's a Republican lie.

[Bible Studies with Al Sharpton]

The Destruction Of The American Middle Class By The Obozo Regime -
Real median household income is down $4,300 since Obozo took office in
January 2009
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-30/obama-fails-to-stem-middle-class-slide-he-blamed-on-bush
The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated
relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the
middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even
those who are employed.
-----
Bad News For America Is Bad News For Obozo

On May 18, 12:49 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message

>
> news:b3704ea3-6acf-428d...@googlegroups.com...> This is not just limited to CEOs. I have jet to hear demands for fewer
> > benefits by Medicaid recipients when local governments have difficulty
> > funding their health care, for example. Provide examples of wanting less
> > from Congress. The country finds itlesf bankrupt. Who demands less for The

> > Common Good?http://www.EndIt.info/how.html

[Oglethorpe]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jp5ujq$jor$1...@dont-email.me...

America is broke. It's not a lie. The lie is that the way to pay down
deficits is to increase them.

[Sid9]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:Dv2dnYw4Nfr5difS...@mchsi.com...

We are the wealthiest nation in the world.
We have most powerful military in history.
We are looked upon world-wide as the safest place to keep money....in US
Treasury bonds (debt)
We are a low tax nation.

The deficit and debt are made up Republican crises that can be dealt with in
an orderly manner.

Your problem:
You believe the current Republican campaign bullshit.

If they win the election it will all go on the back burner until a Democrat
is elected

[Clave]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:Dv2dnYw4Nfr5difS...@mchsi.com...
>

> America is broke. It's not a lie...

It most certainly is a lie -- you've just been told to believe it, so you
do.

No soveriegn nation is "broke" if it's able to sell its debt, and the US is
in no trouble at all that way.

The sky is not falling -- it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that
it is.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/21/2012 10:02 PM, Clave wrote:
> "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:Dv2dnYw4Nfr5difS...@mchsi.com...
>>
>> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:jp5ujq$jor$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b3704ea3-6acf-428d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>> This is not just limited to CEOs. I have jet to hear demands for fewer
>>>> benefits by Medicaid recipients when local governments have difficulty
>>>> funding their health care, for example. Provide examples of wanting less
>>>> from Congress. The country finds itlesf bankrupt. Who demands less for
>>>> The Common Good? http://www.EndIt.info/how.html
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> There you go again.
>>> Denigrating America.
>>> America is not bankrupt...that's a Republican lie.
>>
>> America is broke. It's not a lie...
>
> It most certainly is a lie -- you've just been told to believe it, so you
> do.

Where does our money come from?

48 cents of every dollar that government spends is borrowed and they
print a bunch too.

Why do people with money borrow half of their cost of living?

> No soveriegn nation is "broke" if it's able to sell its debt, and the US is
> in no trouble at all that way.

you can print money but who says we will use it?

> The sky is not falling -- it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that
> it is.

is anything floating up to the sky? One way is rapture and the other
is economic/political collapse.


What's the forecast for the sky tomorrow?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/21/2012 9:36 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:Dv2dnYw4Nfr5difS...@mchsi.com...
>>
>> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:jp5ujq$jor$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b3704ea3-6acf-428d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>> This is not just limited to CEOs. I have jet to hear demands for
>>>> fewer benefits by Medicaid recipients when local governments have
>>>> difficulty funding their health care, for example. Provide examples
>>>> of wanting less from Congress. The country finds itlesf bankrupt.
>>>> Who demands less for The Common Good? http://www.EndIt.info/how.html
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> There you go again.
>>> Denigrating America.
>>> America is not bankrupt...that's a Republican lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> America is broke. It's not a lie. The lie is that the way to pay down
>> deficits is to increase them.
>>
>
> We are the wealthiest nation in the world.

And we borrow money and print money to pay for that wealthy life style.

> We have most powerful military in history.

The most powerful that borrowed money can buy.

> We are looked upon world-wide as the safest place to keep money....in US
> Treasury bonds (debt)

We are also buying our own debt with printed money QE2 and so on,
because we can't get enough money from people buying our debt any longer.

> We are a low tax nation.

tell yourself that.

> The deficit and debt are made up Republican crises that can be dealt
> with in an orderly manner.

Fannie and Freddie were NOT in trouble either, were they?

> Your problem:
> You believe the current Republican campaign bullshit.

So far the democrats and their bullshit are the ones that believed
Fannie and Freddie were NOT heading for a mortgage crisis and then what
happened?

>
> If they win the election it will all go on the back burner until a
> Democrat is elected

Democrats are all Socialists NOW.





--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit
is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government
cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing
financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's
reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us
domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops
here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today
onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt
problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
*Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006*

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4FBAFBCE...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

> On 5/21/2012 10:02 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
>> news:Dv2dnYw4Nfr5difS...@mchsi.com...
>>>
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jp5ujq$jor$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> "Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:b3704ea3-6acf-428d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>> This is not just limited to CEOs. I have jet to hear demands for fewer
>>>>> benefits by Medicaid recipients when local governments have difficulty
>>>>> funding their health care, for example. Provide examples of wanting
>>>>> less
>>>>> from Congress. The country finds itlesf bankrupt. Who demands less for
>>>>> The Common Good? http://www.EndIt.info/how.html
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> There you go again.
>>>> Denigrating America.
>>>> America is not bankrupt...that's a Republican lie.
>>>
>>> America is broke. It's not a lie...
>>
>> It most certainly is a lie -- you've just been told to believe it, so you
>> do.
>
> Where does our money come from?

Idiot.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >>
> >> America is broke. It's not a lie...

That is correct. A large portion of the US
private sector is teetering on the edge of
insolvency. The govt. can not go broke, but
a large portion of the US private economy can.

> >
> > It most certainly is a lie -- you've just been told to believe it, so you
> > do.
>
> Where does our money come from?

Mostly, money came from private sector borrowing. From
1948-2008 private borrowing pumped up the money supply.
Unfortunately during this entire period the private debt
grew at 10%/year while production grew at only 3%.
The difference (the extra money) all went into
inflating prices.

For those 60 years it was believed that leverage was
the stepping stone to accumulating wealth. Then in 2008
$15 trillion in US household assets just suddenly disappeared.
And suddenly the widespread faith in borrowing vanished.

http://tinyurl.com/77rhzrf

And along with the end of borrowing came the end of the money
making machine. And an economy that has only known expanding
credit (and thus expanding money supply) for 60 years now is
faced with a long term contraction in total debt for
the first time since the Great Depression.

http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf

>
> 48 cents of every dollar that government spends is borrowed and they
> print a bunch too.
>

You should be thankful. It is the private sector that
has deep debt problems, not the federal govt.

When Congress decides to stop borrowing,
there will be a depression that will be
worse than the Great Depression.
Unemployment may go as high as 50% and
many businesses will go bankrupt. Asset prices
will plunge as the private sector will be forced
to sell off assets to meet their debt obligations.
The Dow will fall below 400. House prices will fall
to 1960 levels. Pension plans will go bust.

_________________________________________________________

Each dollar of debt still unpaid becomes a bigger
dollar, and if the over-indebtedness with which we
started was great enough, the liquidation of debts
cannot keep up with the fall of prices which it
causes. In that case, the liquidation defeats itself.
While it diminishes the number of dollars owed, it
may not do so as fast, as it increases the value of
each dollar owed. Then, the very effort of
individuals to lessen their burden of debts
increases it, because of the mass effect of the
stampede to liquidate in swelling each dollar
owed. --Irving Fisher,1933

http://seekingalpha.com/article/104135-irving-fisher-on-debt-deflation-and-depression

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > We are the wealthiest nation in the world.
>
> And we borrow money and print money to pay for that wealthy life style.

You must mean the US used to "borrow money and print money"

>
> We are also buying our own debt with printed money QE2 and so on,
> because we can't get enough money from people buying our debt any longer.

QE2 ended a year ago and the demand for Treasuries has
not diminished. And what is more the money that was "printed"
by QE2 is still sitting in reserve accounts of banks and never
made it into circulation.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTRESNS?cid=123

[Gary Forbis]

On May 21, 8:26 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message

.
> > There you go again.
> > Denigrating America.
> > America is not bankrupt...that's a Republican lie.
>
> America is broke. It's not a lie. The lie is that the way to pay down
> deficits is to increase them.

Why do businesses take on debt?
Is it not to increase business?
$100 is 10% of $1,000 but only .1% of $100,000.
Paying down debt is much easier when one's income
is greater.

What does "being broke" mean? It means one has
no hope to produce sufficient income to service one's debts.
With so many unemployeed we are no where near that.
Our problem is we are wasting valuable labor. Labor sidelined
is labor lost. We're not getting back the hundreds of millions
of human-years of labor lost in this downturn. Just think what
capital could have been formed with that labor and how much
greater our standard of living (consumption) could have been.

Finalcial wealth only serves one purpose, that is to allocate
resources and production. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can
only work when the masses have sufficient financial wealth to
allocate resources and production according to their needs and
wishes. The concentration of financial wealth has caused our
current problem.

The concentration of financial wealth is a natural outcome
of an underregulated system. There are always power differences
in economic activity. We are not financial equals. The individual
with the least need for the trade can always come out ahead by
pushing for a slightly better deal. As long as the power between
accumulators of wealth and the productive are roughly equal all
is well but the system is unstable and needs active monitoring
and adjustment by the government when thing start to get out
of hand.

Our system is broken but we are not broke. We have lots of
unutilized and under-utilized resources. We have misused and
abused our environment so better market signalling needs to be
developed. Cap and trade used to be the Republican way until
Democrats accepted it.

Democrats have often set ideals without developing systems
to put them into market competiton against each other. Without
such competition people cannot make rational prioritization of
resources. None the less, they have typically been better for
the economy because they have found was to fund social goals
favoring the masses over the individual where markets involving
the individuals break down.

Our nation is no where near broke.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

QE2 paid for the Treasuries, that are sitting in banks..... they make
3% for free they borrowd the cash from the FED's QE2 at near zero
interest and turned around and bought treasury notes that paid 3% and
they made taxpayers pay interest on money the FED conjured from thin air
in a computer.

SO yes the banks have the money in treasury bonds.... that pay them
interest and the Government is spending the cash.


It was money laundering and it was the Federal Government buying it's
own debt.

Now they are talking about QE3....

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:09:11 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 5/22/2012 7:36 AM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> We are the wealthiest nation in the world.
>>>
>>> And we borrow money and print money to pay for that wealthy life style.
>>
>> You must mean the US used to "borrow money and print money"
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We are also buying our own debt with printed money QE2 and so on,
>>> because we can't get enough money from people buying our debt any longer.
>>
>> QE2 ended a year ago and the demand for Treasuries has
>> not diminished. And what is more the money that was "printed"
>> by QE2 is still sitting in reserve accounts of banks and never
>> made it into circulation.
>>
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTRESNS?cid=123
>
>
>QE2 paid for the Treasuries, that are sitting in banks..... they make
>3% for free they borrowd the cash from the FED's QE2 at near zero
>interest and turned around and bought treasury notes that paid 3% and
>they made taxpayers pay interest on money the FED conjured from thin air
>in a computer.
>
>SO yes the banks have the money in treasury bonds.... that pay them
>interest and the Government is spending the cash.

Are you talking about the same thing, QE2 was
the FBR buying up treasuries _from_ investors,
wasn't it?

>It was money laundering and it was the Federal Government buying it's
>own debt.

That sounds right, but it resulted in emoney
in the hands of investors, banks or not, it was
assumed to result in increased money circulating,
but the people with a lot of money don't spend it,
they already have everything.

>Now they are talking about QE3....

Habits are hard to break, trained people
only do what they are trained to do, that is
why things are stagnant, it becomes just
going through the motions.
It shows why government supported
anything is expensive, inefficient, and boring.

The Fed should stop trying to control
money in such a stupid way, even stop trying
to control money, they should leave that up
to the treasury and stop taking a piece of
the action for the bank owners.


It is time incomes and labor were no longer
taxed, any taxing should be done in a way to
stimulate the economy.
Money started out as a way to increase
the efficiency of transactions, but now is
better used to get people to work, plain
and simple, more work, more money.
That should be what legislation should
work toward, governments have been
doing more to hold back the economy
than to stimulate it.

The multi-hundred Billion dollar stimulus
loans and grants to one entity is a crime,
no grant should be more than $100,000,
then a million people trying might result
in 500,000 succeeding.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 5/22/2012 7:36 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> We are the wealthiest nation in the world.
> >>
> >> And we borrow money and print money to pay for that wealthy life style.
> >
> > You must mean the US used to "borrow money and print money"
> >
> >
> >>
> >> We are also buying our own debt with printed money QE2 and so on,
> >> because we can't get enough money from people buying our debt any longer.
> >
> > QE2 ended a year ago and the demand for Treasuries has
> > not diminished. And what is more the money that was "printed"
> > by QE2 is still sitting in reserve accounts of banks and never
> > made it into circulation.
> >
> >
> > http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTRESNS?cid=123
>
> QE2 paid for the Treasuries, that are sitting in banks.....

The Fed traded bank owned treasury paper for reserves.

> they make
> 3% for free

No the bank's make practically nothing on reserves.

Uncle Sam gets the interest on the treasuries that the
Fed swapped for reserve. The difference was insignificant
because the treasuries were short term and Congress passed law
that gave the banks a small amount of interest on the reserves,
Either way the banks make about the same, which is close to 0%

> they borrowd the cash from the FED's QE2 at near zero
> interest

You have everything backwards.
The banks exchanged low interest bearing Treasuries
for low interest bearing reserves.

> and turned around and bought treasury notes that paid 3%

No the banks had to first invest in the treasuries and then
the Fed gave them cash for the treasury notes. The exchange
didn't really have any impact on the economy except the
psychological effect. You are an example of how it has a
psychological effect.

> and
> they made taxpayers pay interest on money the FED conjured from thin air
> in a computer.

No they don't. In fact it reduce interest costs slightly.
But on short term notes interest is close to zero anyway.

>
> SO yes the banks have the money in treasury bonds....

No they don't. The Fed is holding the treasury bonds.
The banks have the Reserves that were swapped for the
treasury bonds.
Any interest the Fed collects is paid to the Treasury.

[Lamont Cranston]

American can never be broke, moron, because we use a fiat monetary system.

The lie is that the way to pay down deficits is to reduce government
revenue.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Even you say they are laundering the money from QE2 and it's ending up
that treasury bonds were acquired by "someone" with printed money from
the FED.... SO it was in reality just the FED buying the debt.


Funny that you disagree with me and yet you tell us they were laundering
the Money and someone owns treasury notes because the FED printed
QE2.... as if "how" they laundered the money makes any difference to
the fact they did launder the money.

[Lamont Cranston]

Beamer, give it up. You have no fucking clue and you don't know what
you're talking about. Jim has given up his valuable time to educate you
and you, being the typical rightwingnut, ignore him and argue with him.
Just reinsert your head in your ass and don't take up any more of his
time.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:23:38 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

Not exactly, _after_ salaries and expenses.


The FRB took the treasuries and gave the
banks emoney which they could trade for cash
if they wanted to, there is not that much paper
currency in existence.

To be certain of getting money into circulation
it has to be given to people who don't have enough
money in the first place, not to banks and big
investors.

Trying to regulate circulating money without
actually putting the money out and taking in
money from those that have the most is just
a worthless exercise.
The day of money creating jobs is over,
unless people have ideas and inventions
they feel will make money they are not
going to borrow or ask for start-up money.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > No they don't. The Fed is holding the treasury bonds.
> > The banks have the Reserves that were swapped for the
> > treasury bonds.
> > Any interest the Fed collects is paid to the Treasury.
>
> Even you say they are laundering the money from QE2 and it's ending up
> that treasury bonds were acquired by "someone" with printed money from
> the FED.... SO it was in reality just the FED buying the debt.

Yes the Fed possesses the Treasury notes.
And the banks have excess reserves.
The procedure is all determined by law. The Fed doesn't
have the option of doing it any other way.

It takes an addled brain to equate that with
money laundering.

The whole purpose of Quantitative Easing was to increase
the amount of bank lending to the private sector.
It turned out to be a failure. Private sector entities
that have good credit still are not borrowing.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:13:02 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 5/22/2012 4:23 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2012 7:36 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are the wealthiest nation in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we borrow money and print money to pay for that wealthy life style.
>>>>
>>>> You must mean the US used to "borrow money and print money"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are also buying our own debt with printed money QE2 and so on,
>>>>> because we can't get enough money from people buying our debt any longer.
>>>>
>>>> QE2 ended a year ago and the demand for Treasuries has
>>>> not diminished. And what is more the money that was "printed"
>>>> by QE2 is still sitting in reserve accounts of banks and never
>>>> made it into circulation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTRESNS?cid=123
>>>
>>> QE2 paid for the Treasuries, that are sitting in banks.....
>>
>> The Fed traded bank owned treasury paper for reserves.

Jim should have said the Fed bought treasuries from
banks and others and paid for them with emoney which
possibly all or part of was reserves emoney, but some
may have been created on FRB computers.

>>> they make
>>> 3% for free
>>
>> No the bank's make practically nothing on reserves.
>>
>> Uncle Sam gets the interest on the treasuries that the
>> Fed swapped for reserve. The difference was insignificant
>> because the treasuries were short term and Congress passed law
>> that gave the banks a small amount of interest on the reserves,
>> Either way the banks make about the same, which is close to 0%

The Fed didn't swap treasuries for reserves,
they swapped reserves for treasuries.

>>> they borrowd the cash from the FED's QE2 at near zero
>>> interest
>>
>> You have everything backwards.
>> The banks exchanged low interest bearing Treasuries
>> for low interest bearing reserves.

No, the Fed exchanged emoney for used treasuries.

>>> and turned around and bought treasury notes that paid 3%
>>
>> No the banks had to first invest in the treasuries and then
>> the Fed gave them cash for the treasury notes. The exchange
>> didn't really have any impact on the economy except the
>> psychological effect. You are an example of how it has a
>> psychological effect.

Did the Fed plan just to play a game?

>>> and
>>> they made taxpayers pay interest on money the FED conjured from thin air
>>> in a computer.
>>
>> No they don't. In fact it reduce interest costs slightly.
>> But on short term notes interest is close to zero anyway.
>>
>>>
>>> SO yes the banks have the money in treasury bonds....
>>
>> No they don't. The Fed is holding the treasury bonds.
>> The banks have the Reserves that were swapped for the
>> treasury bonds.
>> Any interest the Fed collects is paid to the Treasury.
>
>
>Even you say they are laundering the money from QE2 and it's ending up
>that treasury bonds were acquired by "someone" with printed money from
>the FED.... SO it was in reality just the FED buying the debt.

How does laundering get into this, the idea of
the QEs was to make more money available for loans,
there just wasn't enough responsible people wanting
to borrow.

The Fed buying used paper doesn't make sense,
but at least there was no way to lose money.

>Funny that you disagree with me and yet you tell us they were laundering
>the Money and someone owns treasury notes because the FED printed
>QE2.... as if "how" they laundered the money makes any difference to
>the fact they did launder the money.

Nobody owns treasury notes from this, they are
laying at the FRB or were redeemed, chances are
they much of it was paper the Fed bought, that the
Fed could not resell, only certain treasuries can be
resold or traded at today's rates.

What it sounds like is that the Fed bought 3%
paper, and that money in the hands of the banks
or investors will only bring about 1% now, a good
move for the Fed excess revenue fund if it doesn't
go for salaries and expenses.

[Oglethorpe]

"Gary Forbis" <forbi...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ee0465b0-278b-4594...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

On May 21, 8:26 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
.
> > There you go again.
> > Denigrating America.
> > America is not bankrupt...that's a Republican lie.
>
> America is broke. It's not a lie. The lie is that the way to pay down
> deficits is to increase them.

Why do businesses take on debt?
Is it not to increase business?

====================

Government isn't a business.

=================

$100 is 10% of $1,000 but only .1% of $100,000.
Paying down debt is much easier when one's income
is greater.

=====================

It means you spent more money than you have. Governments can print money.
They keep doong that and it takes a wheelbarrow full to buy a coke.

[Sid9]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message

news:ZMqdnUvpwLxuxiHS...@mchsi.com...

Whew! You are dumb!

[Gary Forbis]

On May 22, 10:39 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
> "Gary Forbis" <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote in message

>
> news:ee0465b0-278b-4594...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 8:26 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
>
> > "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> .
> > > There you go again.
> > > Denigrating America.
> > > America is not bankrupt...that's a Republican lie.
>
> > America is broke. It's not a lie. The lie is that the way to pay down
> > deficits is to increase them.
>
> Why do businesses take on debt?
> Is it not to increase business?
>
> ====================
>
> Government isn't a business.

That's true. But the same situation applies given your assertion.

> =================
> $100 is 10% of $1,000 but only .1% of $100,000.
> Paying down debt is much easier when one's income
> is greater.
>
> =====================
>
> It means you spent more money than you have.  Governments can print money.
> They keep doong that and it takes a wheelbarrow full to buy a coke.

The US government doesn't print money and spend it.
The Federal Reserve buys script from the Treasury at printing costs
and destroys soiled bills from service. It buys coin at face value
from the US Mint. I'm not sure how worn out coins are handled.

The US government accounts are increased by revenues or by
selling bonds on the open market. As far as I know the Federal
Reserve never buys bonds directly from the Treasury and it if did
it would be at the Federal Reserve's discression not the Treasury's.

Because the US government bonds are sold on the open market
there is a decrease in the account of someone that exactly matches
the increase in the government account. This isn't inflationary and
doesn't affect the money supply.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

What has Obama done that hasn't turned out to be a failure?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Did they then buy NEW Treasuries with that "cash"


Treasuries are the Worlds reserves are they NOT?



In the end the appearance is that the TREASURY was NOT buying their own
bonds when in reality they did just that with a little money
laundering..... Corporation personnel would be in Prison with Maddoff
if they handled and avoided above board transactions used to hide the
actual flow of cash.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:42:03 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

The FRB had the treasury notes or bonds,
the banks had the "cash".

The banks were supposed to loan the money
out to businesses and individuals, but not enough
people had good enough credit to borrow it.

>Treasuries are the Worlds reserves are they NOT?

The dollar is called the world reserve currency
because it is the most stable and sought after,
but that is all that means.

The US economy is large enough and the
currency is stable enough that much of the
world sees it as the currency or bonds to have
for security.

>In the end the appearance is that the TREASURY was NOT buying their own
>bonds

The US FRB is not the treasury, it is an
independent agency, apart and separate from
the US government as long as congress does
not exert control.

>when in reality they did just that with a little money
>laundering.....

The treasury was not involved at all.

>Corporation personnel would be in Prison with Maddoff
>if they handled and avoided above board transactions used to hide the
>actual flow of cash.

Nothing was hidden, supposedly the emoney
the FRB used to but US treasure bonds and notes
was reserve deposits that banks are required to
have at the FRB. But chances are some emoney
had to be created, the FRB has been doing a lot
of bailing out banks in the US and other places.

The US Treasury is not allowed to do anything
like this unless ordered to by the congress and/or
president.

The FRB is governed by the board selected
by the banks, with the chairman nominated by
the president, and the board is the only entity
that can direct FRB operations.


There is a very large group of people that
think the FRB is "owned" by a big group of
world bankers and big money people and
that these people get the profits.
That is not true, any "excess revenue
goes to the US treasury general fund at
the end of every year.
The excess revenue comes from interest
banks pay for loans, and from the seigniorage
(profit) that results from selling US printed
paper for face value plus shipping to entities
around the world and in the US (minus printing
costs).


Note that I feel times have changed so
much, money is no longer the simple tool
for trade and commerce it had been before.
Now money is what makes people willing
to work, to invent, to grow crops, and innovate
ways to create wealth.

Mass production and heavy machinery
allows easier to produce and more plentiful
"everything" including most raw materials,
So the system of taxes, circulation of
money (emoney and paper currency), and
even the distribution of money through grants,
loans, and government contracts can be
changed in any way that will get more people
working and planning.
People starving and laying around doing
nothing because there is not enough jobs
now becomes a problem that government
can solve simply buy working out a way
to tax or create emoney to pay people to
create and produce wealth and necessities.

As long as they do it using only money
and emoney, I feel that is what they should
be doing, and nobody should be starving.
I don't think it should all be done with
taxes or laws with fines and penalties,
controlling people and forcing them to
do things against their will.

[Lamont Cranston]

Actually, nothing that he has done has turned out to be a failure.

In his first two years, this president helped pull the economy back from
a depression, rescued the American auto industry, passed a health care
reform law 100 years in the making, signed Wall Street reform, DADT
repeal, the woefully under-appreciated student loan reform, New START,
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the biggest overhaul of our
food-safety laws in 70 years, new regulation of the credit card
industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate
Crimes Prevention Act, net neutrality, the most sweeping land-protection
act in 15 years, and health care for 9/11 rescue workers, among other
things.

The Stimulus was a massive success. It kept the country from falling
into the Second Great Republican Depression. It took GDP growth from
-9% to +2.5%. It took job creation from -800,000 a month to +200,000 a
month.

Here's a short list of other significant successes:

Overhauled the food safety system
Advanced women's rights in the work place
Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military
Stopped defending DOMA in court.
Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people
who can't afford it.
Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in
health insurance.
Invested in clean energy.
Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more
consumer-friendly.
Started the re-regulation of the financial sector.
Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Improved benefits for veterans
Improved benefits for those injured during the clean-up after the
9/11 attacks.
Killed Osama Bin Laden
Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders
Ended the War in Iraq
Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan
End-run Republican obstructionism by recess-appointing Richard
Cordray to run the
Consumer Financial Protection Board.

For a longer list, go here:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html


Obama's legislative achievements during his first two years rank among
the greatest in history.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Sure as soon as you prove that, I'll give that one to you....

> rescued the American auto industry,

Yet it was unconstitutional and didn't really save anything it simply
kicked the can down the road a little and the same thing will happen yet
again.

> passed a health care
> reform law 100 years in the making,

You mean Bribed and Extorted Senators votes to go against the will of
the people.


> signed Wall Street reform,
It is helping cause the death of the economy.


> DADT repeal,

Fixed the military? More likely it will harm and erode the military.
It cost money in a time that as you point out we don't have because
Obama Bailed out GM and wasted our tax money.

> the woefully under-appreciated student loan reform,

Over rated by Socialists.... it will destroy the higher education in
America, but that may be a good thing, I'm NOT sure I can give you this
one but I'm on the fence. Destroying the Socialist indoctrination of
millions of empty headed college kids is good but the waste of tax
dollars is disturbing.

> New START,
> the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the biggest overhaul of our
> food-safety laws in 70 years, new regulation of the credit card
> industry,

Regulations cost money to comply with and to enforce.... more wasted
money and the real reason we are still in a depression.

> a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate
> Crimes Prevention Act, net neutrality, the most sweeping land-protection
> act in 15 years, and health care for 9/11 rescue workers, among other
> things.
>

All wasted tax dollars and we borrowed all that money from China.

> The Stimulus was a massive success.

Obama said there are NO shovel ready JOBS. Are you that dumb?

> It kept the country from falling

Prove that will you?

> into the Second Great Republican Depression.

Mortgages were coerced by Democrat-Socialists.

> It took GDP growth from
> -9% to +2.5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate_%28latest_year%29

1.5% for 2011 and that is a "virtual economy" that Obama has propped up
like he propped up the stock market and GM and Solyndra.....

A phony market propped up with phoney printed QE2 and you pay $40 for a
Zuckerburg stock called FACEBOOK when it was worth maybe $20
You are bidding against your own tax dollars for stocks so they have to
be over prices and Martha Stewart and others go to PRISON for
manipulating the market to artificially inflate prices and Obama
deserves to be stuffed into Martha Stewart's old jail cell.

> It took job creation from -800,000 a month to +200,000 a
> month.

We have to run out of jobs to lose, sooner or later, and Obama just
caused it to dump them fast and furious.

That's a list of lies and phony issues.

None of it solved any problems and what it did was create more problems
and it was ALL A DISTRACTION from the real problem of economic problems.




--
�The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit

is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government
cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing
financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's
reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us
domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops
here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today
onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt

problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.�

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/23/2012 7:49 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:

Sure as soon as you prove that, I'll give that one to you....

> rescued the American auto industry,

Yet it was unconstitutional and didn't really save anything it simply
kicked the can down the road a little and the same thing will happen yet
again.

> passed a health care
> reform law 100 years in the making,

You mean Bribed and Extorted Senators votes to go against the will of
the people.


> signed Wall Street reform,
It is helping cause the death of the economy.


> DADT repeal,

Fixed the military? More likely it will harm and erode the military.
It cost money in a time that as you point out we don't have because
Obama Bailed out GM and wasted our tax money.

> the woefully under-appreciated student loan reform,

Over rated by Socialists.... it will destroy the higher education in
America, but that may be a good thing, I'm NOT sure I can give you this
one but I'm on the fence. Destroying the Socialist indoctrination of
millions of empty headed college kids is good but the waste of tax
dollars is disturbing.

> New START,
> the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the biggest overhaul of our
> food-safety laws in 70 years, new regulation of the credit card
> industry,

Regulations cost money to comply with and to enforce.... more wasted
money and the real reason we are still in a depression.

> a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate
> Crimes Prevention Act, net neutrality, the most sweeping land-protection
> act in 15 years, and health care for 9/11 rescue workers, among other
> things.
>

All wasted tax dollars and we borrowed all that money from China.

> The Stimulus was a massive success.

Obama said there are NO shovel ready JOBS. Are you that dumb?

> It kept the country from falling

Prove that will you?

> into the Second Great Republican Depression.

Mortgages were coerced by Democrat-Socialists.

> It took GDP growth from
> -9% to +2.5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate_%28latest_year%29

1.5% for 2011 and that is a "virtual economy" that Obama has propped up
like he propped up the stock market and GM and Solyndra.....

A phony market propped up with phoney printed QE2 and you pay $40 for a
Zuckerburg stock called FACEBOOK when it was worth maybe $20
You are bidding against your own tax dollars for stocks so they have to
be over prices and Martha Stewart and others go to PRISON for
manipulating the market to artificially inflate prices and Obama
deserves to be stuffed into Martha Stewart's old jail cell.

> It took job creation from -800,000 a month to +200,000 a
> month.

We have to run out of jobs to lose, sooner or later, and Obama just
caused it to dump them fast and furious.

That's a list of lies and phony issues.

None of it solved any problems and what it did was create more problems
and it was ALL A DISTRACTION from the real problem of economic problems.

Where's the BEEF, Where's the JOBS? Obama focused on JOBS and all
that focus produced NO JOBS.


--

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Quantitative Easing #1 #2.......

--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

-Kum bay ya-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/23/2012 3:21 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:

Quantitative Easing #1 #2.......


Its a euphemism for EASING the money supply or expanding the supply of
money, follow me here. When the FED adds money to the money supply it
devalues all the money against the commodities and that is inflation of
the DOLLAR price of anything connected to those commodities.

This is NOT replacing or adding money that is "created wealth" or
dollars created to symbolize work done. It is MONEY FROM nothing.

MONEY FROM NOTHING creates inflation.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > Because the US government bonds are sold on the open market
> > there is a decrease in the account of someone that exactly matches
> > the increase in the government account. This isn't inflationary and
> > doesn't affect the money supply.

But it does make it slightly easier for banks to lend.
The intent was to create increased bank lending which
would increase the money supply. Initially, it was
announced that QE would create $9 trillion in private credit
expansion, but that never happened. Net borrowing remained
negative although we don't know how much more private credit
might have contracted without QE.

>
> Quantitative Easing #1 #2.......
>
> Its a euphemism for EASING the money supply or expanding the supply of
> money, follow me here.

Ha ha ha . Yeah right. Follow the guy who is
lost into the weeds.

> When the FED adds money to the money supply it
> devalues all the money against the commodities and that is inflation of
> the DOLLAR price of anything connected to those commodities.

The Fed has added very little to the money supply.
the expanding money supply is almost entirely due
to private sector credit expansion.
And since 2008 private sector credit has been contracting.

Private credit contraction is why the global economy
collapsed in 2008. Credit contraction is why the broadest
measure of Money M3 contracted and still
has not returned to its 2008 peak despite $5 trillion
on Federal borrowing.

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/m3-2006.gif

And credit contraction is why inflation was much
higher before 2008 than after.


When Congress tries to balance the budget, the
private sector credit contraction will cause a sharp
reduction in the money supply followed quickly by
a depression.

>
> This is NOT replacing or adding money that is "created wealth" or
> dollars created to symbolize work done. It is MONEY FROM nothing.
>
> MONEY FROM NOTHING creates inflation.

That is correct.
The $25 trillion that the private sector borrowed
from 1998-2008 was all money from nothing. And very
little of that borrowed money was invested in increased
production as GDP only increased $4 trillion in that
period. Most of the borrowed money went into inflating
asset prices (AKA Capital Gains). So now the US economy
has a huge level of private debt ($45 Trillion) balanced
against highly inflated assets and insufficient production and
a money supply that will collapse as soon as Congress
tries to balance the budget.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 24, 5:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

that is a lie. have fun explaining away the inflation that was
rampant in europe under the gold standard. have fun explaining away
deflation in a fiat currency economy. we are not swimming in excess
currency. we are deflating.

[Lamont Cranston]

There is not a single lie nor a single phony issue in the list and many
problems were solved including the most serious economic problem that
we've had since the Great Depression. That's why Obama is *already*
rated by presidential historians as the 15th greatest POTUS in history,
little Beamer.

[Gary Forbis]

On May 24, 3:43 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

I'd like to know if you know anthing. Please explain what
these were and how they worked and how well they worked.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/06/qe1-versus-qe2-versus-q3.html
if you need help.

[Lamont Cranston]

I don't have to prove it because it happened and it's widely accepted by
economists and other knowledgeable people. That's the problem with
being a stupid Republican -- you had no idea how close we were to an
economic catastrophe.

>
>
>> rescued the American auto industry,
>
> Yet it was unconstitutional and didn't really save anything it simply
> kicked the can down the road a little and the same thing will happen yet
> again.

No, it was not unconstitutional and it did save the auto industry. Your
predictions will be as accurate as everything else you say.

>
>> passed a health care
>> reform law 100 years in the making,
>
> You mean Bribed and Extorted Senators votes to go against the will of
> the people.

No, I mean passed a health care reform law without bribes and very much
in touch with the people's will except that it did not go far enough in
the minds of many. But, it is an excellent first step.

>
>
>> signed Wall Street reform,
> It is helping cause the death of the economy.
>
>
>> DADT repeal,
>
> Fixed the military? More likely it will harm and erode the military.
> It cost money in a time that as you point out we don't have because
> Obama Bailed out GM and wasted our tax money.

Yes, fixed the military. DADT repeal has been implemented with no
problems whatsoever.

The loan to GM save millions of jobs, moron, and will cost taxpayers
*absolutely nothing.* In fact, a profit seems to be in the works.

>
>> the woefully under-appreciated student loan reform,
>
> Over rated by Socialists.... it will destroy the higher education in
> America, but that may be a good thing, I'm NOT sure I can give you this
> one but I'm on the fence. Destroying the Socialist indoctrination of
> millions of empty headed college kids is good but the waste of tax
> dollars is disturbing.

ROTFLMAO!!! "Socialists."!!!! Education is the lifeblood of any
nation, you fucking idiot. In many of the countries against whom we
compete in the global economy, all education is free for whatever level
a student is able to achieve. That's what we're competing against.

>
>> New START,
>> the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the biggest overhaul of our
>> food-safety laws in 70 years, new regulation of the credit card
>> industry,
>
> Regulations cost money to comply with and to enforce.... more wasted
> money and the real reason we are still in a depression.

So, you're against paying people the same amount for the same work. How
very unsurprising.

>
>
>> a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate
>> Crimes Prevention Act, net neutrality, the most sweeping land-protection
>> act in 15 years, and health care for 9/11 rescue workers, among other
>> things.
>>
>
> All wasted tax dollars and we borrowed all that money from China.

No wasted tax dollars whatsoever. You weren't complaining when Bush was
borrowing money from China and running the deficit up to over a trillion
dollars a year. I wonder why you care so much now.

>
>
>> The Stimulus was a massive success.
>
> Obama said there are NO shovel ready JOBS. Are you that dumb?

The Stimulus was a massive success.

>
>> It kept the country from falling
> Prove that will you?

It didn't happen, did it? Most economists agree with my assertion.

>
>> into the Second Great Republican Depression.
>
> Mortgages were coerced by Democrat-Socialists.

That statement makes no sense whatsover. It's something that you heard
Limbaugh say, isn't it?

>
>> It took GDP growth from
>> -9% to +2.5%.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate_%28latest_year%29
>
> 1.5% for 2011 and that is a "virtual economy" that Obama has propped up
> like he propped up the stock market and GM and Solyndra.....

It's now growing at 2.5%, Beamer. If you really think that a President
can prop up the stock market, why did Bush allow it to fall from 14,000
to 8,300, you moron?

>
> A phony market propped up with phoney printed QE2 and you pay $40 for a
> Zuckerburg stock called FACEBOOK when it was worth maybe $20
> You are bidding against your own tax dollars for stocks so they have to
> be over prices and Martha Stewart and others go to PRISON for
> manipulating the market to artificially inflate prices and Obama
> deserves to be stuffed into Martha Stewart's old jail cell.

You have no idea how stupid your comments above reveal you to be.
American corporations just had their most profitable quarter in history,
you fucking imbecile. That's why the market is high, not because of
some magical "prop" job that Obama has done.

>
>> It took job creation from -800,000 a month to +200,000 a
>> month.
>
>
> We have to run out of jobs to lose, sooner or later, and Obama just
> caused it to dump them fast and furious.

Obama has added 4 million jobs to the economy. Again, your statement is
the nonsense of a moron.

No lies and no phony issues, Beamer, which is why you were unable to
identify any.

>
> None of it solved any problems and what it did was create more problems
> and it was ALL A DISTRACTION from the real problem of economic problems.

All of the items solved real problems and addresses the real problem of
the economic problems created by George W. Bush and the GOP.

>
> Where's the BEEF, Where's the JOBS? Obama focused on JOBS and all
> that focus produced NO JOBS.

Four million jobs, Beamer, and 26 straight months of private sector job
growth. That you are ignorant of these facts proves that you are a
dumbfuck Republican.

[Sid9]

"Lamont Cranston" <L...@TS.org> wrote in message
news:jpmll0$624$2...@news.datemas.de...

.
.
Since NOTHING that BMUS has against President Obama holds up, there can only
be one cause for his hatred.
Racism. Irrational unending racism!

Racism, the unspoken consistent element for the anti-Obama people!

[Gary Forbis]

On May 24, 3:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

But it's not the government doing it. It's the federal reserve.
The government isn't spending money into existence. It's
a quasi governmental organization doing it independent of
the government spending.

The Fed eases because it isn't seeing inflation and is seeing
the lack of growth. The problem with this model vs government
spending to spur growth is that it depends upon people spending
who would rather hold cash. Why would people want to hold
cash if they expected inflation?

[clairbear]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:jpmnti$l7c$1...@dont-email.me:

And you said you nver lie
That must have been a lie
It is his political stance, his world wide apologist tour, his
persistent pass the buck, his failure to keep promises, his failue to
control the debt, his hubris, and the fact that he has done as much as
his predecessor to widen the politica divide that make some hate him. I
don't hate the man I just do not like the way he is running(or is that
ruining) this country. But his race only a fool hate bbased on race
and in light of all these reason only a mind numb, usefull idiot,
lieberal fool or a completely ammoral liar would say it is all about
race. So which are you a liar, a fool or a lieing fool?

[Sid9]

"clairbear" <SidCanbe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA05DE7B50...@216.196.97.142...

Then you are a fool and a racist because your claims about the president are
lies and half truths(lies)

[clairbear]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:jpmsc8$99g$1...@dont-email.me:

I am no racist you silly foolish senile ass, You are the fool here. You
call facts lies but you cannot refute a thing, because YOU I SPEAK THE
TRUTH Leftists like YOU have no clue, Obama is on his way to being a
worse president than Jimmy Carter. But then you are little more than a
shill for Obama and the DNC

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Borrowing makes money loose and then tight as it has to be paid back.
When government does it, it is in essence a deferred tax.

I knew people that would BORROW money for appliances and some extra and
once they get the cash they would live high on the hog and even party on
it, until it was spent and when they start getting the bills to pay it
back and pay the interest, they were broke again with another bill to
pay. I laughed and called that woman "Night Life" and called that
money management style "creative financing" where they would get loans
for more than what was needed for the item they purchased and the extra
was a party fund and then they wasted the extra money. Obama and
Democrats are doing the same thing.

> http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/m3-2006.gif
>
> And credit contraction is why inflation was much
> higher before 2008 than after.

Tax and paying for the borrowing, created tax inflation and printing
created more inflation, and now..... as Obama's pals say "THE CHICKENS
ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST"


We will pay for the government involvement.

> When Congress tries to balance the budget, the
> private sector credit contraction will cause a sharp
> reduction in the money supply followed quickly by
> a depression.

When the money runs out and the party is over and the BILL comes in the
mail.... the "creative financing" will have come to its conclusion and
the bill has to be paid and YES that has created stagnation as people
scrape by and only pay their bills and have no discretionary spending
cash. Our cash is all being sucked up by paying for borrowing and the
new inflation that isn't even counted in the government's inflation numbers.

And you get Stagnant growth and high inflation from the printing
inflation/borrowing and the after effects of the loose money and when
government does it it means "NEW TAXES" and that is also inflation on
taxpayers and NO the government inflation numbers don't include TAXES in
their inflation index.


They hide taxes by leaving them out of the formula for inflation and the
same with energy and food, but that doesn't stop those prices from going
up due to taxes and higher costs of doing business.


So stagnation and inflation kick in at the same time, and we ate
beginning to see signs of these two as GDP and JOBS are going stagnant,
and calls for hire taxes and printing is driving up food and oil costs.
Food and Oil aren't figured into inflation.... Jobs and a dead GDP are
fudged to make them look better than they are.


That leaves us in a real mess, we're like the Jimmy Carter years ONLY
WORSE. There is coming *STAGFLATION* and *the velocity of money* is
showing the signs.

*STAGNATION* is taking hold, to be followed by *INFLATION* in coming
years and the two combined will last this time for decades.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > Private credit contraction is why the global economy
> > collapsed in 2008. Credit contraction is why the broadest
> > measure of Money M3 contracted and still
> > has not returned to its 2008 peak despite $5 trillion
> > on Federal borrowing.
>
> Borrowing makes money loose and then tight as it has to be paid back.
> When government does it, it is in essence a deferred tax.

No it isn't. No taxpayer paid a dime of the money
the federal govt borrowed during WW2. Tax payers
are now paying less of their income in taxes than
any time in the last 50 years. And low taxation will
continue for many years to come.

The question is why do you want people o believe that
which all the evidence shows is not true?

>
> I knew people that would BORROW money for appliances and some extra and
> once they get the cash they would live high on the hog and even party on
> it, until it was spent and when they start getting the bills to pay it
> back and pay the interest, they were broke again with another bill to
> pay. I laughed and called that woman "Night Life" and called that
> money management style "creative financing" where they would get loans
> for more than what was needed for the item they purchased and the extra
> was a party fund and then they wasted the extra money.

What you are describing is the US private sector before 2008.
The fact that the private sector borrowed $25 trillion from
1998-2008 and the economic production grew by about 1/6 of
that amount suggests that more than 80% of that borrowing before 2008
went to inflating prices rather than improved production.

But things are different now. US households lost $16 trillion
in net worth as inflated set prices collapsed in 2008. Now the
private sector is very adverse to borrowing.

Private sector borrowing was the Great Money Making Machine
from WW2 until 2008. Now all the king's horses and
all the King's men can't put that machine back together again.

http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf

>
> > http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/m3-2006.gif
> >
> > And credit contraction is why inflation was much
> > higher before 2008 than after.
>

>

> When the money runs out

There is a much better chance that
you will run out of words to blather
long before
the govt runs out of money.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/25/2012 1:03 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Private credit contraction is why the global economy
>>> collapsed in 2008. Credit contraction is why the broadest
>>> measure of Money M3 contracted and still
>>> has not returned to its 2008 peak despite $5 trillion
>>> on Federal borrowing.
>>
>> Borrowing makes money loose and then tight as it has to be paid back.
>> When government does it, it is in essence a deferred tax.
>
> No it isn't. No taxpayer paid a dime of the money
> the federal govt borrowed during WW2. Tax payers
> are now paying less of their income in taxes than
> any time in the last 50 years. And low taxation will
> continue for many years to come.

["Federal tax policy was highly contentious during the war, with
President Franklin D. Roosevelt battling a conservative Congress.
However, both sides agreed on the need for high taxes (along with heavy
borrowing) to pay for the war: top marginal tax rates ranged from
81%-94% for the duration of the war, and the income level subject to the
highest rate was lowered from $5,000,000 to $200,000. Roosevelt tried
unsuccessfully, by executive order 9250,[3] to impose a 100% surtax on
after-tax incomes over $25,000 (equal to $335,769 today). Congress also
enlarged the tax base by lowering the minimum income to pay taxes, and
by reducing personal exemptions and deductions. By 1944 nearly every
employed person was paying federal income taxes (compared to 10% in
1940).[4]"]

>
> The question is why do you want people o believe that
> which all the evidence shows is not true?

So far all I see is evidence that what you said is NOT true.





--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22] *He has the most who is most content with
the least* -Diogenes-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/25/2012 2:26 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:36:57 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> Borrowing makes money loose and then tight as it has to be paid back.
>> When government does it, it is in essence a deferred tax.
>

> Don't seem to be a problem with you slavering idiots when it's loaned
> to billionaires to renovate their football stadiums, invest in massive
> nonsense that eventually gets bailed out by taxpayers.


"I" don't support government meddling in business - the politicians are
too stupid - to be allowed to inject themselves into business.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>> >> Borrowing makes money loose and then tight as it has to be paid back.
> >> When government does it, it is in essence a deferred tax.
> >
> > No it isn't. No taxpayer paid a dime of the money
> > the federal govt borrowed during WW2.
> >

> > The question is why do you want people o believe that
> > which all the evidence shows is not true?
>
> So far all I see is evidence that what you said is NOT true.
>

The federal debt at the end of WW2 was 271 billion
By 1965 the federal debt had grown to 320 billion
by 1975 the federal debt was 540 billion

No taxpayer ever paid a dime to pay down
the federal debt that was created during WW2.

Last year federal taxes were 15% of Gross National Income
In 2010 taxes were 14.8% of National income.
You have to go all the way back to 1950 to find
the last year that taxes were less than 15% of
national income. When Reagan was president taxes were
18% of national income. That is 20% higher than now.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/25/2012 5:49 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>>> Borrowing makes money loose and then tight as it has to be paid back.
>>>> When government does it, it is in essence a deferred tax.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. No taxpayer paid a dime of the money
>>> the federal govt borrowed during WW2.
>>>
>>> The question is why do you want people o believe that
>>> which all the evidence shows is not true?
>>
>> So far all I see is evidence that what you said is NOT true.
>>
>
>
>
> The federal debt at the end of WW2 was 271 billion
> By 1965 the federal debt had grown to 320 billion
> by 1975 the federal debt was 540 billion
>
> No taxpayer ever paid a dime to pay down
> the federal debt that was created during WW2.
>

Social programs in 1964 drove the debt into high gear.


*We did pay on the debt*, you are trying to say or NOT trying to say and
dancing around, the fact that the government has failed to use the taxes
we pay for the debt but instead spend it on NEW Social Programs or
missiles and forget to pay the bills that they have on their desk right now.

That is what I have been telling you Obama is doing, ignoring the DEBT
and spending like.... well..... *LIKE A LIBERAL*.

> Last year federal taxes were 15% of Gross National Income
> In 2010 taxes were 14.8% of National income.

Taxes are going up and ObamaCare is a tax, that's what they told teh
Supreme Court, or did the Obama team LIE to the Supreme Court.... What
is worse is that the TAX you paid into Obama care was already spent and
Obama is going to have to pay for ObamaCare yet all this 3 or 4 years of
tax was supposed to help get ObamaCare kicked off. It was a scam.

> You have to go all the way back to 1950 to find
> the last year that taxes were less than 15% of
> national income.

Obama is fudging the GDP and the growth rate of GDP, the numbers are
fake we are at zero or less in growth and the 1.5% they say we had in
2011 is within the margin of error to show GDP growth is 0.0%.

We are *STAGNANT* and now we wait for the inflation to climb so high
that Obama can't lie about it any longer.... then we have *STAGFLATION*
and it's coming and coming to stay for 20-50 years.

Thank you Obama.... Deduct the fudged numbers and the interest on the
National debt... and you get the real GDP. It's *NOT* 14 Trillion,
more like 12.5 trillion.

> When Reagan was president taxes were
> 18% of national income. That is 20% higher than now.

and we aren't out of the woods are we... Time to cut government and
government regulations again but do it for real this time.





--

*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

-Kum bay ya-

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > The federal debt at the end of WW2 was 271 billion
> > By 1965 the federal debt had grown to 320 billion
> > by 1975 the federal debt was 540 billion
> >
> > No taxpayer ever paid a dime to pay down
> > the federal debt that was created during WW2.
> >
>
> Social programs in 1964 drove the debt into high gear.
>
> *We did pay on the debt*, you are trying to say or NOT trying to say and
> dancing around, the fact that the government has failed to use the taxes
> we pay for the debt but instead spend it on NEW Social Programs or
> missiles and forget to pay the bills that they have on their desk right now.

You are the one dancing a jig. You claimed that when the
govt borrows that is deferred tax. The evidence from the
last 200 years says you are wrong. How many more centuries
does your prediction have to fail before you would
admit it is wrong?

>
> > Last year federal taxes were 15% of Gross National Income
> > In 2010 taxes were 14.8% of National income.
>
> Taxes are going up

You have no evidence for that. It is simply what
you hope will happen. Even if spending
goes up there is no evidence there will be
an increase in taxes.

> > You have to go all the way back to 1950 to find
> > the last year that taxes were less than 15% of
> > national income.
>
> Obama is fudging the GDP and the growth rate of GDP, the numbers are
> fake we are at zero or less in growth and the 1.5% they say we had in
> 2011 is within the margin of error to show GDP growth is 0.0%.

So you admit you have no evidence just hope.
According to you, the economy could be growing from
0% to 3% , but you are hoping the economy is growing
at 0%.

>
> We are *STAGNANT* and now we wait for the inflation to climb so high

That is what you hope will happen, but the evidence
says deflation
is far more likely.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/25/2012 8:01 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The federal debt at the end of WW2 was 271 billion
>>> By 1965 the federal debt had grown to 320 billion
>>> by 1975 the federal debt was 540 billion
>>>
>>> No taxpayer ever paid a dime to pay down
>>> the federal debt that was created during WW2.
>>>
>>
>> Social programs in 1964 drove the debt into high gear.
>>
>> *We did pay on the debt*, you are trying to say or NOT trying to say and
>> dancing around, the fact that the government has failed to use the taxes
>> we pay for the debt but instead spend it on NEW Social Programs or
>> missiles and forget to pay the bills that they have on their desk right now.
>
> You are the one dancing a jig. You claimed that when the
> govt borrows that is deferred tax. The evidence from the
> last 200 years says you are wrong. How many more centuries
> does your prediction have to fail before you would
> admit it is wrong?

The evidence says that some tax has been deferred for 200 years.

Time to pay the piper.... and the piper wants 200 years of tax that
adds up to 16 trillion dollars.

Thanks for playing.

>>> Last year federal taxes were 15% of Gross National Income
>>> In 2010 taxes were 14.8% of National income.
>>
>> Taxes are going up
>
> You have no evidence for that. It is simply what
> you hope will happen. Even if spending
> goes up there is no evidence there will be
> an increase in taxes.

Obama care is a tax according to the argument in front of the USSC.

Bush tax rates are gone in January.

Obama/Progressives is adding and increasing fees and fines.

>>> You have to go all the way back to 1950 to find
>>> the last year that taxes were less than 15% of
>>> national income.
>>
>> Obama is fudging the GDP and the growth rate of GDP, the numbers are
>> fake we are at zero or less in growth and the 1.5% they say we had in
>> 2011 is within the margin of error to show GDP growth is 0.0%.
>
> So you admit you have no evidence just hope.
> According to you, the economy could be growing from
> 0% to 3% , but you are hoping the economy is growing
> at 0%.

If the economy is growing at 3% then we are in bigger trouble than I
have ever predicted.... things are this bad with that much growth, it
means inflation is running much higher than I suspect.

>
>>
>> We are *STAGNANT* and now we wait for the inflation to climb so high
>
> That is what you hope will happen, but the evidence
> says deflation
> is far more likely.

Yet History says different....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/26/2012 12:19 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sat, 26 May 2012 00:00:22 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Time to pay the piper.... and the piper wants 200 years of tax that
>> adds up to 16 trillion dollars.
>

> Didja know that it takes the total salaries of nearly 4,000 working
> men/women their entire lives (ENTIRE) wages to make ONE (1) CEO's
> yearly compensation?

DO I care?


Do I care if that CEO has a nasty rash?




Do I care why you are ignorant?




NONE of that is my problem so no I don't know why you have an ass rash
on your lips or whether you earned a million dollars yesterday and I
don't care either.


If I want any of those things, I'll go out and get them for myself....


I can compete, but do I want those things enough to compete?


Do I want a million dollars so bad that I'll plant my lips on Obama's
ass next to yours and get ass rash on my lips too? Naaaaaahhhhh I
don't think I'd sell my dignity. I see too many Liberals that are
begging for a chance to sell their human dignity and it ain't pretty.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > You are the one dancing a jig. You claimed that when the
> > govt borrows that is deferred tax. The evidence from the
> > last 200 years says you are wrong. How many more centuries
> > does your prediction have to fail before you would
> > admit it is wrong?
>
> The evidence says that some tax has been deferred for 200 years.
>
> Time to pay the piper.... and the piper wants 200 years of tax that
> adds up to 16 trillion dollars.

That may be what you want, but
that isn't going to happen.

The economy is out of balance because of
excessive private sector debt. If Congress tries to
balance the budget, it will throw the economy into
a deflationary depression.

An attempt by Congress to reduce the deficit won't
fix anything. It will make the private sector debt
problem much worse. That means it will force many
of those who are heavily in debt into bankruptcy and
foreclosure. Many will lose their
jobs as demand for goods and services fall even lower.

In the end the effort to balance the budget will fail
because servicing private debt will drag the economy
down and a poor performing economy will lower federal
revenue.

[Sid9]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:67ydnRU7Yt88cl3S...@bright.net...

.
.
.
They do not learn from history.
They cannot grasp that private debt
and public debt are different things
even though they are described by
the same word

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/26/2012 10:58 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You are the one dancing a jig. You claimed that when the
>>> govt borrows that is deferred tax. The evidence from the
>>> last 200 years says you are wrong. How many more centuries
>>> does your prediction have to fail before you would
>>> admit it is wrong?
>>
>> The evidence says that some tax has been deferred for 200 years.
>>
>> Time to pay the piper.... and the piper wants 200 years of tax that
>> adds up to 16 trillion dollars.
>
> That may be what you want, but
> that isn't going to happen.
>
> The economy is out of balance because of
> excessive private sector debt. If Congress tries to
> balance the budget, it will throw the economy into
> a deflationary depression.
>

Interesting that you say Obama has economic problems, because Obama and
Democrats say there are NO problems, Obama's regulations have fixed it.

> An attempt by Congress to reduce the deficit won't
> fix anything. It will make the private sector debt
> problem much worse.

It already collapsed according to you, how much worse can it get?

How did that work out for FACE BOOK and Zuckerburg?

> That means it will force many
> of those who are heavily in debt into bankruptcy and
> foreclosure. Many will lose their
> jobs as demand for goods and services fall even lower.
>

FACE BOOK will collapse?

Did Obama prop up FACE BOOKS IPO like it has propped up bank and AUTO
INDUSTRY stocks?

> In the end the effort to balance the budget will fail
> because servicing private debt will drag the economy
> down and a poor performing economy will lower federal
> revenue.

And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?


FIGHT DEBT WITH EVEN MORE DEBT?

Maybe I should call you "NIGHT LIFE-2"

[clairbear]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:jpqsaa$gvn$1...@dont-email.me:

So grace us with you vast knowledge and ex[lane in your own words what
you think the difference is and why others don't get, IF YOU CAN

[Gary Forbis]

On May 26, 8:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?

I figure you must be paid to be ingorant.

I wish I could find the actual quote because if I heard it right
when Mitt was directly asked how he would reduce the deficit
in the first year he replied that he wouldn't because that would
cause a recession.

The US Treasury prints Federal Reserve Notes, that's for sure,
but they don't spend them into existence. They print and deliver
them to the Federal Reserve as asked to do and they charge the
Federal Reserve the printing cost not the face value for the scripts.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:


> > An attempt by Congress to reduce the deficit won't
> > fix anything. It will make the private sector debt
> > problem much worse.
>
> It already collapsed according to you, how much worse can it get?

When Congress tries to balance the budget, it will
get much worse than the Great Depression.

> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
>
> FIGHT DEBT WITH EVEN MORE DEBT?

In the last 3 year, the total US debt (public + private) has
been trending down relative to the US income for the first
time in 70 years.

http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf

When Congress tries to balance the budget, that trend will end.
Total debt will grow relative to GDP just as it did when
Congress unsuccessfully tried to balance the budget from
1929-1932.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/7/428250-13363801587809994-Michael-Clark.png

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/26/2012 1:58 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>

>

>> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
>>
>> FIGHT DEBT WITH EVEN MORE DEBT?
>
> In the last 3 year, the total US debt (public + private) has
> been trending down relative to the US income for the first
> time in 70 years.
>
> http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf

Have you Notice the number of bankruptcies and home foreclosures?

I sure hope the debt public went down with a million foreclosures in the
works.

Or did Obama just turn around and loan all those people taxpayer dollars
to create new debt?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/26/2012 12:18 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On May 26, 8:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
>
> I figure you must be paid to be ingorant.

I am donating my time here as a purely unselfish act and lowering my
responses to your level is a necessary evil that I must endure so that
you will maybe grasp enough of it to figure out that you are wrong
99.99% of the time.

>
> I wish I could find the actual quote because if I heard it right
> when Mitt was directly asked how he would reduce the deficit
> in the first year he replied that he wouldn't because that would
> cause a recession.

Why would you NOT "reduce" a deficit? We can cut government and it
won't cause a recession.

> The US Treasury prints Federal Reserve Notes, that's for sure,
> but they don't spend them into existence. They print and deliver
> them to the Federal Reserve as asked to do and they charge the
> Federal Reserve the printing cost not the face value for the scripts.

And it costs us plenty....

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 5/26/2012 12:18 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> > On May 26, 8:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
> >
> > I figure you must be paid to be ingorant.
>
> I am donating my time here

So that would be ignorant without pay?

[Gary Forbis]

On May 26, 5:17 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 12:18 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 8:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
>
> > I figure you must be paid to be ingorant.
>
> I am donating my time here as a purely unselfish act and lowering my
> responses to your level is a necessary evil that I must endure so that
> you will maybe grasp enough of it to figure out that you are wrong
> 99.99% of the time.
>
>
>
> > I wish I could find the actual quote because if I heard it right
> > when Mitt was directly asked how he would reduce the deficit
> > in the first year he replied that he wouldn't because that would
> > cause a recession.
>
> Why would you NOT "reduce"  a deficit?   We can cut government and it
> won't cause a recession.

Neither Mitt nor his advisors believe that. They are mouthing what
they think their constituants want to hear but won't implement the
measures. Instead they think they can cut taxes and "spending" and
all will be well. Unfortunately they don't grasp that not all
spending
is equal. Tax cuts are some of the worst spending programs during
a recession. The reason should be obvious, paul is not made full
by peter's eating.

> > The US Treasury prints Federal Reserve Notes, that's for sure,
> > but they don't spend them into existence.  They print and deliver
> > them to the Federal Reserve as asked to do and they charge the
> > Federal Reserve the printing cost not the face value for the scripts.
>
> And it costs us plenty....

In what way? I happen to think the nation is not well served by
the Federal Reserve doing anything but mainaining the value of money
but for some goofy reason it was tasked with minimizing unemployment.
The Federal Reserve doesn't have the right tools for that secondary
task.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 5/26/2012 1:58 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >
> >> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
> >>
> >> FIGHT DEBT WITH EVEN MORE DEBT?
> >
> > In the last 3 year, the total US debt (public + private) has
> > been trending down relative to the US income for the first
> > time in 70 years.
> >
> > http://comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf
>
> Have you Notice the number of bankruptcies and home foreclosures?
>
> I sure hope the debt public went down with a million foreclosures in the
> works.

In the last 3 years, total US debt has increased by
600 billion while the economy grew by 1237 billion

Compare that to the years before 2008:

Annual increase in Total US Debt
2003 2815
2004 3992
2005 3462
2006 4064
2007 4711

Annual increase in US National Income
2003 648
2004 709
2005 777
2006 683
2007 669

It is pretty obvious that before 2008 the US
had unsustainable runaway debt. And it is also
obvious that the borrowed money was not being
invested in growth. Since 2008 the US has had growth
that exceeds debt expansion.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NO one could pay me enough to stay at your level of ignorant..... So I
do it as a public service to humanity, because every now and then you
see a liberals weak little energy saver light-bulb in their head get
replaced with something that triggers real thinking.


If I can get a Liberal off the addiction of Liberal-Socialism it's as
great a success as getting an alcoholic to quit their self destructive
behavior of drinking.

In the end both can become self destructive addictions to their useless
lifestyles. Neither will accomplish anything they hurt the ones they
love and they drag down all the people around them.

Addictive behavior like alcohol drugs and Liberalism are beatable....
but you have to want to stop the destructive behaviors.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/26/2012 10:13 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:43:56 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you Notice the number of bankruptcies and home foreclosures?
>

> Republican policy has ruined the nation, you're correct.


We're living in Obamaville..... have been for near 4 years.

If Obama was AWOL from his post for 4 years, that a good enough reason
to get someone more responsible.



>> I sure hope the public debt went down with a million foreclosures in the
>> works.
>
> It sure helped people like Rumney


Your kind say public indebtedness is rising? Where is the public
getting the money?

>> Or did Obama just turn around and loan all those people taxpayer dollars
>> to create new debt?
>

> Speaking of debt created, or otherwise
>
> Why is a dumb asshole like you supporting the political party which
> was responsible for over 85% of it?


Because what they did create was over 40 years and what Obama is
creating was over 3.5 years.... At that rate, Obama will over take the
other party in less than half that 40 years and it works out to Obama is
spending twice as fast and therefore twice as much as the others did.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> Your kind say public indebtedness is rising? Where is the public
> getting the money?

Private sector indebtedness is declining. It has declined about
$3.5 trillion in the last 3 years. That is more than $10,000 per
person (on average) less debt. But it is only About 6% of the
total private debt, so the private sector still has a long way to go
before it's debt situation is healthy again.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/7/428250-13363801587809994-Michael-Clark.png

The only area where private debt is increasing is student loans and
the students get the money from the federal govt. The govt gets
the money by issuing treasuries.

>
> Because what they did create was over 40 years and what Obama is
> creating was over 3.5 years.... At that rate, Obama will over take the
> other party in less than half that 40 years and it works out to Obama is
> spending twice as fast and therefore twice as much as the others did.

Doesn't matter who gets elected in November the private debt
situation guarantees the federal debt will continue to
climb. It will climb faster when Congress tries to
balance the budget just like it did when Congress tried to

[Gary Forbis]

On May 27, 8:34 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 8:29 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
>
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> >> On 5/26/2012 12:18 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> >>> On May 26, 8:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
>
> >>> I figure you must be paid to be ingorant.
>
> >> I am donating my time here
>
> > So that would be ignorant without pay?
>
> NO one could pay me enough to stay at your level of ignorant.....

rather than trading insults, why not trade information?

> So I
> do it as a public service to humanity, because every now and then you
> see a liberals weak little energy saver light-bulb in their head get
> replaced with something that triggers real thinking.

That's what we are looking for from you, some real thinking.

> If I can get a Liberal off the addiction of Liberal-Socialism it's as
> great a success as getting an alcoholic to quit their self destructive
> behavior of drinking.

Why not seek the truth rather than an ideology. I'm a
free(fair)market
socialist but I'm not stuck on an ideology. Sometimes I lean anarcho-
capitalist.
I'm looking for working systems where the minority cannot overpower
the
productive for gain.

> In the end both can become self destructive addictions to their useless
> lifestyles. Neither will accomplish anything they hurt the ones they
> love and they drag down all the people around them.

Again, rather than drowning in your noise why not approach the
situation rationally and empirically? I know you distain empirical
science.
I suspect it is out of fear.

> Addictive behavior like alcohol drugs and Liberalism are beatable....
> but you have to want to stop the destructive behaviors.

more noise.

Now I wonder if you are paid to distract from reason and empiricism.

[Nickname unavailable]

galbraith said he was for whatever worked.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/27/2012 4:05 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:34:53 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If I can get a Liberal off the addiction of Liberal-Socialism it's as
>> great a success as getting an alcoholic to quit their self destructive
>> behavior of drinking.
>

> And then which of your famous capitalist clowns are going to invest in
> Massive infrastructure repair
>
> Moron

The ones that see potential profits in doing so....

if you tax them they'll just look for ways to do it without you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/27/2012 1:46 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On May 27, 8:34 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2012 8:29 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/26/2012 12:18 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>>>> On May 26, 8:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
>>
>>>>> I figure you must be paid to be ingorant.
>>
>>>> I am donating my time here
>>
>>> So that would be ignorant without pay?
>>
>> NO one could pay me enough to stay at your level of ignorant.....
>
> rather than trading insults, why not trade information?

The presumption being that he has "information"?


Yet this little dance is a necessary part of the information getting posted.



Without the insults, Liberals would think I didn't like them. It's a
sociological and cultural thing, they need to post crap so they can see
if you're stupid enough to believe any of it. If you believe
anything they say, it's like a dog smelling fear, they know they can
fill the page with their lies. So I have to do the dance and show
their BS and exchange their insults, then we can move on.

[Gary Forbis]

On May 27, 5:31 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/2012 1:46 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 8:34 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2012 8:29 PM, jim wrote:
>
> >>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/26/2012 12:18 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> >>>>> On May 26, 8:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> And your solution is for Obama to borrow and print more money?
>
> >>>>> I figure you must be paid to be ingorant.
>
> >>>> I am donating my time here
>
> >>> So that would be ignorant without pay?
>
> >> NO one could pay me enough to stay at your level of ignorant.....
>
> > rather than trading insults, why not trade information?
>
> The presumption being that he has "information"?

That's why one looks to primary sources if one thinks what
one reads is incorrect. Some of the stuff you dismiss is just
basic economics.

> Yet this little dance is a necessary part of the information getting posted.

No it isn't. It's just your way of ignoring information and posting
uninformed opinion as if fact. If you're getting this from someone
else rather than making it up yourself you need to widen your
reading. You don't have to agree with everything you read,
if you do you aren't reading enough, but you should be able
to explain the positions.

> Without the insults, Liberals would think I didn't like them.   It's a
> sociological and cultural thing, they need to post crap so they can see
> if you're stupid enough to believe any of it.     If you believe
> anything they say, it's like a dog smelling fear, they know they can
> fill the page with their lies.   So I have to do the dance and show
> their BS and exchange their insults, then we can move on.

This must have been written for your fellow conservatives.
Do you think it productive to talk past people?

What can I do to help you understand the difference between
the difference between the financial system in the Weimar
Republic that lead to hyperinflation and our financial system?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Try explaining why OUR FIAT DOLLAR IS DIFFERENT/BETTER THAN THEIR FIAT
DOLLAR?

EXPLAIN "how" we can ever pay off our debt and what the National debt
and printing money has to do with private economics?

The Velocity of money indicates the direction the economy is moving, and
right now the velocity is lower than the norm, where are we headed
looking at velocity? Considering Obama is redistributing money as fast
as governmentally possible, why is velocity still low?

I expect you won't have a rational cogent answer because a fiat dollar
is a fiat dollar no matter who promises you they will guarantee its
value. Rome fell and before they did they debased their coins and took
out the valuable metal and created social programs from taxes.

You do see, you assumed that you have the answer and that I need help to
see your correct answer.... that's the dance right there, you're trained
to do the dance and don't even know it. You have been indoctrinated and
it was so total that you never even saw it coming.

I wonder what it's like to not know that you're so well indoctrinated by
the 32" screen in your living room that you feel the need to spread that
propaganda to others.... I on the other hand question every thing I
think and everything I know and, I assume we are "all" wrong until I see
the most viable interpretation of the so called truth.

I'm a skeptic and I don't believe my ideas any more than others ideas
until they're tested. I have fun putting out NEW and ORIGINAL thoughts
to see if they can hold up to the scrutiny. That's far different from
waiting for the talking points from your dear leaders.

To change my mind you'll have to tell me something I don't know and if
plausible or interesting I could look into it.

No doubt I'll look it up and do some homework if there is any reason,
then I'll make some points and ask some questions. If I get to a place
that I'm satisfied that I have enough to make conclusions then I might
do that. But I usually keep asking questions. Having been at this for
years, I have a fairly wide variety of things that I have already
researched that Liberals use over and over to distract from the real
issues.




Why is there NO reason to expect inflation in the near future, and
hasn't 3 years of stagnant numbers 0-1.5% GDP growth been what we call
STAGNANT. WE being the USA that expects 6% or more of GDP growth?


France gets 1.5% GDP growth and they think that's good.

[Gary Forbis]

On May 28, 9:58 am, BeamMeUpScotty

Their central government was in control of their central bank.
They printed dollars to pay off debt. Our central bank is
independent.
While the government can whine it cannot print dollars to pay off
debt.
Our central government has to borrow money on the open market to
pay its debt if it has no other revenues.

> EXPLAIN "how" we can ever pay off our debt and what the National debt
> and printing money has to do with private economics?

While the national debt can be paid off, it was once in the 1800, our
central bank uses a portion of the national debt as reserve. As long
as the national debt can be serviced and the reason we have it is
sound
there's no need to pay it off.

So, unless you want to use barter the society needs a monetary system.
Money has certain properties, such as a unit of account, a store of
value,
and a medium of exchange. What stands in for money is a bit harder.
Shells, gold, paper, etc can be used as money. The important part
is that the system allows divisibility sufficient to settle accounts
for
normal transactions and is by rare enough to maintain value and
pervasive enough to allow exchange.

While gold and silver have often been used as money their weight
presents a problem so script has often stood it for them. Script has
the advantage of being denominated as needed for transactions of
any size--a one pound note and a 100 pound note weight the same
and cost the same to produce. Script has the disadvantage of trust,
that is one has to trust the issuer can produce value on demand.

While gold notes were issued to fund the current central reserve bank,
for a long time silver certificates were used. Still we were engaged
in fractional reserve, that is while silver certificates could be
exchanged
"for lawful money" (i.e. silver coin) there wasn't enough coin to
exhange
for all the bills. Further, since gold and silver prices fluxuate
relative to
each other one could engage in arbitrage with melted coin of one or
the
other. By the '30s gold coins were removed from circulation. By the
mid-60s
silver coin were untenable. Since then the federal reserve has used
an arbitrary basket of goods to measure the value of its money.

> The Velocity of money indicates the direction the economy is moving, and
> right now the velocity is lower than the norm, where are we headed
> looking at velocity? Considering Obama is redistributing money as fast
> as governmentally possible, why is velocity still low?

Wait a moment here. Why do you make this claim about the
velocity of money? Further you make a claim about Obama
redistributing money I don't believe is true either. Why are you
making these random assertion as if fact.

It seems to me that a low velocity of money indicates people
would rather hold money than products they could buy with money.
If inflation was high they wouldn't want to hold it and having money
would be like a game of hot potato.

> I expect you won't have a rational cogent answer because a fiat dollar
> is a fiat dollar no matter who promises you they will guarantee its
> value.  Rome fell and before they did they debased their coins and took
> out the valuable metal and created social programs from taxes.

Metal is a bad currency in a stable society. Metal can be forged and
shaved. Metal is open to price manipulation. If you don't trust your
government then metal provides some security but most of the time
one just want to look at the face value of the coin and assume it
can be exchanged at that face value so the materials in the coin
or script doesn't matter. While I have some gold and silver as part
of my diversity planning I wouldn't use it for normal trade. I save
all
my pennies not because their matieral cost exceeds their face value
but because it's a hobby, none the less, having coin whose material
costs exceed face value is a problem.

> You do see, you assumed that you have the answer and that I need help to
> see your correct answer.... that's the dance right there, you're trained
> to do the dance and don't even know it.  You have been indoctrinated and
> it was so total that you never even saw it coming.

You can't even present a rational argument for your claims. You just
make them as if they needed no support. Whose in the grips of an
ideology?

> I wonder what it's like to not know that you're so well indoctrinated by
> the 32" screen in your living room that you feel the need to spread that
> propaganda to others....  I on the other hand question every thing I
> think and everything I know and, I assume we are "all" wrong until I see
> the most viable interpretation of the so called truth.

Are you a lost cause?

> I'm a skeptic and I don't believe my ideas any more than others ideas
> until they're tested.

So you assert but the tests indicate otherwise.

> I have fun putting out NEW and ORIGINAL thoughts
> to see if they can hold up to the scrutiny.  That's far different from
> waiting for the talking points from your dear leaders.
>
> To change my mind you'll have to tell me something I don't know and if
> plausible or interesting I could look into it.

I doubt it. You seem to recite the right wing line without reason.

> No doubt I'll look it up and do some homework if there is any reason,
> then I'll make some points and ask some questions.   If I get to a place
> that I'm satisfied that I have enough to make conclusions then I might
> do that. But I usually keep asking questions.  Having been at this for
> years, I have a fairly wide variety of things that I have already
> researched that Liberals use over and over to distract from the real
> issues.
>
> Why is there NO reason to expect inflation in the near future, and
> hasn't 3 years of stagnant numbers 0-1.5% GDP growth been what we call
> STAGNANT.   WE being the USA that expects 6% or more of GDP growth?

Inflation is cause by too much money chasing too few goods. Debt is
as
good as money in this regard. As jim has pointed out many times there
has
been a huge contraction in private debt. Unless there's money to
spend
people won't spend it. In a deflationary cycle people would rather
hold
money than buy goods they don't immediately need.

What do you suppose would cause the GDP to grow?

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> EXPLAIN "how" we can ever pay off our debt and what the National debt
> and printing money has to do with private economics?

The private economy is what has printed most of the money
that exist in the US economy.
The banks make loans to private individuals and that creates
money "out of thin air". The new money appears in the borrower's
deposit account. The borrower can then write a check (print money)
and spend more than that individuals income.

From 1998 to 2008 the private sector added $25 trillion to its
debt load. that is a sum equal to 55 of US GDP for that period.

Expanding private sector credit above and beyond the growth
in production is clearly the primary source of all inflation
and money devaluation.

The current economic problems stem from the private sector
printing too much money (that is, they borrowed far beyond
their means). All that money printing artificially boosted the
economy as long s credit was expanding. And now that it has come
to an end and credit is contracting the economy is burdened by
debt repayment and saturated with private debt balanced against
insufficient production and capital.

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/10/saupload_428250-13363801587809994-Michael-Clark.png

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The collapse of the mortgage market and home foreclosures, That's NOT
too much money chasing too few goods, It is a contraction and it is
deflation..... or at least stagnation because the government is trying
to print and borrow their way out and just can't do it.

And then in stepped the Fed, and they printed and the treasury
borrowed.... and they did what with all the trillions they created?


So far by printing whether they spent it or NOT it is driving up OIL and
other commodity prices against the DOLLAR. Looks like "inflation"!

When they borrowed trillions, they now cause people to ask when and how
it will be paid back with interest? That question has only one answer,
it will be later and with TAX DOLLARS and what happens when you raise
taxes for government to pay for its spending? Yes that's it, things
cost more as the new tax makes its way around the economy and that is
once again inflationary.

> Unless there's money to
> spend
> people won't spend it. In a deflationary cycle people would rather
> hold
> money than buy goods they don't immediately need.

Velocity says people are holding money, so something is awry!

> What do you suppose would cause the GDP to grow?

Stagnation of GDP and people NOT spending and NO jobs and Housing is
still off the cliff, and prices like OIL, FOOD and other necessities are
rising in price....

What do you call that?

People can't afford houses they can't afford a new car or gas to get to
work, and gas and cars and rent and what we need to live is costing more.


CUT REGULATIONS and cut the TAX system AND THAT WILL CUT HIDDEN COSTS in
the system AND THE FREEDOM WILL SPUR ECONOMIC INVESTMENT AND competition
and GROWTH and maybe some prices that reflect their real cost and NOT
the cost of government regulations.


You say we're deflating or "as I said it" we are approaching "STAGNANT"
at this time?

Where have I heard that? And that "is" with money printed and
Borrowing trillions.... HHHhhhhhmmmmmm? Inflation but NOT inflation?
Why can we print and borrow TRILLIONS and there will be no inflation?
When you print money someone loses and someone wins. As with all
redistribution.



Where, is the printed money and where, is the borrowed money? Is it
stimulating any inflation? Is it in government hands and has NOT yet
hit the private sector?

Why do you think the GDP will grow when/if we get inflation from that
printed and borrowed/excess money that you say causes inflation, how
will it drive "growth"?







We are about to have more inflation added to what we are already seeing,
it's NOT from growth and excessive money from growth, it's from printing
and borrowing. This is like a "JOBLESS RECOVERY" that Liberals were
yapping about.


The truth is it's just a NON growth inflationary period. Which is
STAGFLATION. We have been there and done that with Jimmy Carter.


Cutting regulations and waste in government helped get out of it last
time. Borrowing and printing will make it last longer and run deeper.

[Gary Forbis]

On May 26, 5:17 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> Why would you NOT "reduce"  a deficit?   We can cut government and it
> won't cause a recession.

What do you believe causes a recession?

[Gary Forbis]

On May 28, 1:34 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:29 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

>
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >EXPLAIN "how" we can ever pay off our debt and what the National debt
> >and printing money has to do with private economics?
>

> a) We can pay off our debt by a balance of cuts and revenue increases.
>
> b) I have no idea what you mean by "private economics" (I doubt if you
> do, other than the phrase seems "nice")

I think he was thinking about our individual financial situations.

When money is printed into existence my share of the financial pie
decreases and it takes more money for me to buy things. Since
my wages are more sticky than the price on the goods I buy I lose
ground.

The game is rigged to favor the powerful. Even the new facebook
IPO was played with private information to the "right" people. We're
playing a won game where individual initiative by the vast majority
doesn't matter. BMUS seems to focus on the government when
it's the power elite that prints and contracts money as they see fit
to rig the game.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > Inflation is cause by too much money chasing too few goods. Debt is
> > as
> > good as money in this regard. As jim has pointed out many times there
> > has
> > been a huge contraction in private debt.
>
> The collapse of the mortgage market and home foreclosures, That's NOT
> too much money chasing too few goods, It is a contraction and it is
> deflation..... or at least stagnation because the government is trying
> to print and borrow their way out and just can't do it.

Your socialist beliefs are tiresome. The govt didn't
cause the mortgage crises nor is it capable of fixing
it. The private sector got deep into debt by pursuing
rising assets. But the asset prices were rising only
because of massive influx of new credit created
money. Then when the asset prices fell the private sector
money making machine went into reverse. The last time that
happened was the Great Depression and that took 15 years.
This time will be longer because this time the
private debt is much worse.

http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/121911_0526_Movementatt5.png

>
> And then in stepped the Fed, and they printed and the treasury
> borrowed.... and they did what with all the trillions they created?

The govt created trillions in Treasury notes which
is an asset to the private sector. And you should be
thankful, because without those additional assets
the private sector would now be deep in a depression far

worse than the Great Depression.

But don't worry Congress will eventually try to balance
the budget and the weight of the private sector debt will
cause the economy to crash. Then there will be no doubt.

>
> So far by printing whether they spent it or NOT it is driving up OIL and
> other commodity prices against the DOLLAR. Looks like "inflation"!

The price of gasoline is $.40 cheaper than it was
on this day 4 years ago. That looks like deflation.

>
> When they borrowed trillions, they now cause people to ask when and how
> it will be paid back with interest? That question has only one answer,
> it will be later and with TAX DOLLARS and what happens when you raise
> taxes for government to pay for its spending?

No it won't. That is just your delusion.
You hallucinate and then think you have facts.,

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 11:58 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:


SNICKER,


More options May 27, 4:38 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, sci.econ
From: Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 14:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, May 27 2012 4:38 pm
Subject: a strong pro middle class centralized government is the key
to a strong currency:The U. S. has done little more than print
billions of dollars to drag its economy out of the Great Recession/
This coupled with its huge debt mountain should have
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author
a strong pro middle class centralized government is the key to a
strong currency:The U. S. has done little more than print billions of
dollars to drag its economy out of the Great Recession/This coupled
with its huge debt mountain should have sparked rampant inflation/
pushed the country further into the morass/But it didn't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-doran/euro-money-crisis_b_1544784...

James Doran
Deputy business editor, Abu Dhabi's 'The National'

Euro at Risk of Falling to Bits Just Like Pieces of Eight
Posted: 05/25/2012 4:50 pm

Money really is funny stuff. There it sits, in the bank, waiting
patiently to be turned into just about anything you need, from a loaf
of bread to a Lamborghini. It will always be there for you until, of
course, it isn't.
Hard currency is nothing more than a promise, a notion that one day
the economic carousel will turn full circle so that the producer of
some goods or the performer of some services will receive what the
marketplace collectively agrees is fair compensation for said goods
and services. But the fact is that day never actually comes. We are
instead quite content to keep the currency dream alive and get by on
these promissory notes as if they were tangible stuff.
To maintain this fiction, for that is what it is, those who rely upon
currency must have faith that the institution that prints it has the
wherewithal to meet all those promises.
It is amazing, then, that the euro hasn't entirely evaporated.
Speculation that Greece will leave the euro intensifies every day but
the question to ask is not whether the country is fit to stay in the
currency but whether the currency can exist with such a fundamental
flaw. That is, if a country as weak as Greece was allowed to be part
of the euro, was the euro ever really worth what those who produce it
said it was worth? And will we ever be able to trust it again?
The euro is not Europe's first attempt at a single currency. It has
tried, and failed, before.
Back in the 16th century, the Spanish
minted "pesos de ocho reales" from thousands of tons of plundered
South American silver. They were what every student of piracy knows as
"pieces of eight."
The currency quickly caught on, and by the 1570s became a global
standard of exchange for everyone from pirates to Phillip II. The
conquistadors found so much silver in Aztec Mexico and Inca Peru that
they were able to mint billions of pure silver coins to fund the
expansion of their empire for decades.
So ubiquitous was the peso de ocho that it could be found in the
pockets of traders from China all the way along the silk and spice
routes of the Middle East and central Asia to Europe.
But it was this
rapid and expansive adoption of the peso de ocho that was the
currency's undoing.
As the Spanish empire expanded further and the peso de ocho was
produced in greater and greater numbers to fuel trade in more and more
countries, inflation took hold and faith in the peso's strength
diminished.
Chinese traders, in particular, were sceptical of the value of this
large silver coin that came from a mine in South America and was
stamped with the head of a king they had never seen. How could it be
worth the same as a bolt of silk, they wondered?
At the end of the 16th century, meanwhile, Spain was bankrupt thanks
to endless wars with England and France further undermining faith in
the empire and its currency. Not long after Phillip II's death in
1598, the peso de ocho ceased to be a true global currency.
This lesson from history shows that political cohesion is paramount to
a currency's success. Look at the dollar. The United States has done
little more than print billions of dollars of currency to drag its
economy out of the Great Recession. This, coupled with its huge debt
mountain, should have sparked rampant inflation and pushed the country
further into the morass.
But it didn't, because the world clings to the belief that the U.S. is
a strong federal union in which we have faith.
The euro zone is a polar opposite. It has no federal core, none of its
members can be trusted to act in the best interest of the bloc or even
to follow the instructions of its almost powerless central bank to
maintain faith in the economy.
If Europe does not undertake wholesale political reform to create a
strong central core to enforce its economic rules, the euro risks
going the same way as the peso de ocho which, you will recall, ended
up as little more than three words repeated by a parrot in a
children's story.

[Gary Forbis]

On May 28, 2:59 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 2:20 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> > On May 28, 9:58 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2012 9:57 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
> >> No doubt I'll look it up and do some homework if there is any reason,
> >> then I'll make some points and ask some questions.   If I get to a place
> >> that I'm satisfied that I have enough to make conclusions then I might
> >> do that. But I usually keep asking questions.  Having been at this for
> >> years, I have a fairly wide variety of things that I have already
> >> researched that Liberals use over and over to distract from the real
> >> issues.
>
> >> Why is there NO reason to expect inflation in the near future, and
> >> hasn't 3 years of stagnant numbers 0-1.5% GDP growth been what we call
> >> STAGNANT.   WE being the USA that expects 6% or more of GDP growth?
>
> > Inflation is cause by too much money chasing too few goods.  Debt is
> > as
> > good as money in this regard.  As jim has pointed out many times there
> > has
> > been a huge contraction in private debt.
>
> The collapse of the mortgage market and home foreclosures, That's NOT
> too much money chasing too few goods, It is a contraction and it is
> deflation.....

Deflationary. The problem with bubbles is they burst. When poeple's
spending priorities change lots of asset values change with it. The
market
is made based upon individual choice. If I'm not selling my house its
value doesn't matter (except for taxes and credit worthiness.)

> or at least stagnation because the government is trying
> to print and borrow their way out and just can't do it.

What will it take for you to understand that the government
doesn't spend the money it prints and coins? The government
can only spend what it gets in revenue or borrows.

You keep making a conclusion without a supporting argument.
The government can borrow very cheaply right now. There
is sidelined labor. As long as the labor is put to use in a way
that adds value the government can borrow and spend on
the labor to teach, build and repair roads, do basic research,
etc without causing inflation. Since, as you note, lots of value
has been drained away in the housing market, and the stock
market, there is plenty of wiggle room for money to be absorbed
into the private economy.

> And then in stepped the Fed, and they printed and the treasury
> borrowed....  and they did what with all the trillions they created?

The Bush administration gave it to its buddies. The Obama
administration played ball with them for awhile but they are just
too greedy. The Repubicans in congress is blocking attempts
to regulate them for our nation's good.

The part of your question I don't understand is what "trillions"?
The stimulus plan was about $800 billion over three years.
The rest of the spending has been Bush scheduled opperational
spending and it has been reduced every year.

My question to you is, if trillions of dollars have been added to
the economy then why haven't we seen inflation set in?

The economy is stagnant because our wealth is too concentrated.
The majority can't afford anything except consumables and cheap
toys. Since the people at the top look to satisfy markets based upon
cheap overseas labor and environmental regulation we aren't seeing
growth at home. Remember GDP is gross domestic product. Until
the international labor markets get saturated and reach our level of
compensation we won't be able to compete. There are signs we are
reaching that point. We should have been protecting our labor markets
while helping expand the labor markets abroad.

> So far by printing whether they spent it or NOT it is driving up OIL and
> other commodity prices against the DOLLAR.  Looks like "inflation"!

Stop confusing the printing of money with goverment activity.
We have an international economy now. We let oil control our
energy economy. We are drilling further out to sea and fracking
the ground. Since we subsidize Oil we can't get a natural transition
to alternative fuels.

Inflation is about the entire basket of goods not specific goods.
That 60 inch flat screen tv that cost $16,000 a few years ago is
now selling for $1,000.

> When they borrowed trillions, they now cause people to ask when and how
> it will be paid back with interest?  That question has only one answer,
> it will be later and with TAX DOLLARS and what happens when you raise
> taxes for government to pay for its spending?  Yes that's it, things
> cost more as the new tax makes its way around the economy and that is
> once again inflationary.

If you grow the economy one needn't raise tax rates to service the
debt.
A smaller portion of a bigger pie can still be a bigger piece of pie.

Remember that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few
goods. If, as you suggest, people are spending more on taxes then
they
have less to spend on goods. That's not too much money chasing too
few goods. The result is deflationary not inflationary.

> > Unless there's money to spend
> > people won't spend it.  In a deflationary cycle people would rather
> > hold money than buy goods they don't immediately need.
>
> Velocity says people are holding money, so something is awry!

Ah, maybe your conclusion is wrong? Maybe we aren't in
an inflationary cycle as you have been asserting.

> > What do you suppose would cause the GDP to grow?
>
> Stagnation of GDP and people NOT spending and NO jobs and Housing is
> still off the cliff, and prices like OIL, FOOD and other necessities are
> rising in price....
>
> What do you call that?

Maybe we should separate the issues.

The stagnation of GDP is an artifact of decades of bad policy.
We have favored foreign produciton over domestic production.
To fund our consumption we were borrowing against asserted
values of our homes. When the values of our homes collapsed
we had to stop doing that. Since the housing bubble collapsed
our spending choices have changed. This increases the price
of some goods relative to others.

> People can't afford houses they can't afford a new car or gas to get to
> work, and gas and cars and rent and what we need to live is costing more.

Until we reduce the concentration of wealth we're going to continue
to have problems. This will happen naturally over several more
decades as the world labor markets adjust or we can help it along
in the US by raising taxes on the very rich. If we helped it along
in the US we would also be helping it along world wide since we
would be able to buy more foreign goods again. We have to produce
to consume.

> CUT REGULATIONS and cut the TAX system AND THAT WILL CUT HIDDEN COSTS in
> the system AND THE FREEDOM WILL SPUR ECONOMIC INVESTMENT AND competition
> and GROWTH and maybe some prices that reflect their real cost and NOT
> the cost of government regulations.

You have it backwards as usual. I've already given you enough.
There's no point in arguing this until we find some common ground.

> You say we're deflating or "as I said it" we are approaching "STAGNANT"
>  at this time?

GDP includes both public and private components. We've been
basically stagnant since globalization took hold. That's not
necessarily
a bad thing. I think we, and the world, would have been better
served
by protecting our labor markets to a certain extent.

I can't deal with any more of your rant right now.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 3:34 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:29 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>

> >EXPLAIN "how" we can ever pay off our debt and what the National debt
> >and printing money has to do with private economics?
>

> a) We can pay off our debt by a balance of cuts and revenue increases.
>
> b) I have no idea what you mean by "private economics" (I doubt if you
> do, other than the phrase seems "nice")

we can do what FDR, TRUMAN, IKE, AND JFK DID, we can grow our way out
of debt.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 11:58 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:


this will sail so far over your head, that you will not even hear the
tremendous "WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH"

no matter how hard we try to penetrate the granite encased pea brains
of "THE CONSERVATIVE", they just do not have the comprehension skills
to understand modern economics:Dollar Scarce as Top-Quality Assets
Shrink 42%


THE EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVES have destroyed not only the euro, but
their own economies. you can always, and i mean always count on "THE
CONSERVATIVE" to do the wrong things, then double down on them.
we are facing deflation, and over priced assets are starting to fall
hard. cash is king in a deflating economy.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-28/dollar-scarce-as-top-quality-assets-shrink-42-after-stimulus.html


Dollar Scarce as Top-Quality Assets Shrink 42%
By John Detrixhe - May 28, 2012 4:00 PM CT

The dollar is proving scarce, even after the Federal Reserve flooded
the financial system with an extra $2.3 trillion, as the amount of the
highest-quality assets available worldwide shrinks.
From last year’s low on July 27, the greenback has risen against all
16 of its major peers. Intercontinental Exchange Inc.’s Dollar Index
surged 12 percent, higher now than when the Fed began creating dollars
to buy bonds under its extraordinary stimulus measures at the end of
2008.

Dollar Scarce as Top-Quality Assets Shrink 42%
The dollar is proving scarce, even after the Federal Reserve flooded
the financial system with an extra $2.3 trillion, as the amount of the
highest-quality assets available worldwide shrinks.
The dollar is proving scarce, even after the Federal Reserve flooded
the financial system with an extra $2.3 trillion, as the amount of the
highest-quality assets available worldwide shrinks. Photographer:
Scott Eells/Bloomberg
International investors and financial institutions that are required
to own only the highest quality assets to meet investment guidelines
or new regulations are finding fewer options beyond dollar-denominated
assets. The U.S. is one of only five major economies with credit-
default swaps on their debt trading at less than 100 basis points,
meaning they are viewed as almost risk free. A year ago, eight Group-
of-10 nations fit that category, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
“The pool of high-rated assets has been shrinking, not just in the
euro zone but elsewhere as well,” Ian Stannard, Morgan Stanley’s head
of Europe currency strategy, said in a May 22 telephone interview.
“With the core of Europe shrinking, and the available assets for
reserve purposes shrinking, it makes the euro zone less attractive.”
Euro Depreciation
The dollar is gaining mainly at the expense of the euro, which has
depreciated almost 5 percent the past six months against a basket of
nine major currencies tracked by Bloomberg as nations from Spain to
Italy see their credit ratings downgraded amid the region’s sovereign
crisis.
Spain, which has about $917.5 billion of debt, has been cut six levels
by Moody’s Investors Service to A3 from Aaa in September 2010. Italy,
with more than $2 trillion of debt, has been reduced four levels to A3
from Aa2 in October.
“We’re seeing many more periods of dollar buying during these
uncertain times,” Ken Dickson, an investment director of currencies at
Standard Life Investments in Edinburgh, which manages $257 billion,
said May 24 in a telephone interview.
The U.S. currency appreciated 2.06 percent last week to $1.2517 per
euro in New York after touching $1.2496, the strongest since July
2010. It gained 0.84 percent to 79.68 yen. The Dollar Index jumped
1.37 percent to 82.402, its fourth- straight weekly rally.
Bigger Share
The five economies with default swaps trading at less than 100 basis
points have a combined $14 trillion in debt, with the U.S. accounting
for 75 percent, according to CMA data compiled by Bloomberg. A year
ago, when there were eight nations, the total was $24 trillion, with
America making up 38 percent.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s AAA Rated Global Fixed Income Index
contained 3,597 securities with the highest ratings as of April 30,
down from a high of 5,331 in December 2007, the fewest since November
2005. Dollar assets make up 65 percent of the index, up from 56
percent in 2008.
Hungary’s central bank is among reserve managers diversifying foreign-
exchange holdings as the credit quality of European assets declines.
The central bank said it will include dollars, yen and British pounds
in its reserves, currently invested exclusively in euro-denominated
securities.
“The number of euro-denominated assets that meet our quality standards
has dropped radically,” Magyar Nemzeti Bank President Andras Simor
told reporters on May 14 in Budapest. “More and more securities were
dropped from our portfolio as the credit grade of more and more
countries fell below the single A category and as more and more
securities don’t meet our market quality requirements.”
No ‘Master Plan’
China Investment Corp. President Gao Xiqing said May 10 the nation’s
sovereign wealth fund stopped buying government debt in Europe as the
region’s turmoil intensifies. With an estimated $440 billion in
assets, CIC is the world’s fifth-largest country fund, according to
the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute.
“Ever since the debt crisis broke out, there has never been a master
plan for a resolution,” Jin Liqun, chairman of CIC’s supervisory
board, said at an event hosted by the Centre for Policy Studies in
London on May 22.
Such comments are bolstering the dollar’s status as the world’s
primary reserve currency after a decade-long decline.
The greenback’s share of global foreign-exchange reserves climbed in
the last three-months of 2011 to 62.1 percent, the highest since June
2010, while holdings of euros fell to the lowest since September 2006
at 25 percent, according to the latest quarterly data from the
International Monetary Fund.
Official Holdings
Foreign official holdings of U.S. government debt increased in each of
the first three months of 2012, climbing by 3.24 percent to $3.73
trillion in the best start to a year since 2009, according to data
from the Treasury Department.
Demand from outside the U.S. helps the administration of President
Barack Obama finance a budget deficit forecast to exceed $1 trillion
for a fourth year.
A relatively strong dollar may also damp criticism of the Fed if it
decides to expand its balance sheet to boost the economy. The Dollar
Index tumbled 14 percent during the Fed’s two rounds of asset
purchases, known as quantitative easing, or QE, between December 2008
and June 2011.
While the dollar is “somewhere safe to hide,” the euro is poised to
rebound before Greek elections next month before resuming its decline
against the U.S. currency, said John Taylor, founder of New York-based
currency-hedge fund FX Concepts LLC, which oversees $3.9 billion.
‘Way Oversold’
“We are way oversold in the euro,” Taylor said on May 24 in an
interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Inside Track” with Erik Schatzker
and Sara Eisen.
The dollar’s appeal is also getting a boost as nations generally
perceived as havens become less welcoming.
The Swiss National Bank introduced a 1.20 franc-per-euro limit in
September after its currency rose to a record, hurting exporters and
increasing the risk of deflation.
Japan spent 16.4 trillion yen ($206.6 billion) in intervention in 2010
and 2011, according to the Finance Ministry. The franc has lost 1.9
percent against the dollar this year and the yen has depreciated 3.1
percent.
“The other countries that often have some kind of a safe- haven
attraction to them are slowly but surely saying that we’re not so sure
we want our currencies to be stronger,” Standard Life’s Dickson said.
Bank Demand
Demand for dollars is also showing up in financial institutions
needing to meet Basel III regulations set by the Bank for
International Settlements. The new rules on capital reserves will
“increase the price of safety” embedded in assets deemed a reliable
store of value, the IMF wrote in an April 18 report.
The cost for banks to convert euro interest payments into dollars
through the swaps market for three years has increased to 67.8 basis
points below the euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor, from 34.8
basis points below in March 29, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg. Negative spreads show a premium for dollar funding.
Dollar assets are also looking attractive on a relative basis, with
yields on Treasuries due in 10 years averaging 0.37 percentage point
more than German bunds of similar maturity. As recently as November,
Treasuries yielded about 0.33 percentage point less than bunds.
“With the chronic problems and challenges in Europe, it’s hard to see
how that’s going to overtake the dollar anytime in our lifetime, if
the euro even still exists in our lifetime,” Tim Adams, a managing
director at the Lindsey Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based investment
consultant and former Treasury undersecretary, said May 1 at the
Bloomberg Washington Summit hosted by Bloomberg Link.
To contact the reporter on this story: John Detrixhe in New York at
jdetr...@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Dave Liedtka at
dlie...@bloomberg.net

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/28/2012 8:19 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Inflation is cause by too much money chasing too few goods. Debt is
>>> as
>>> good as money in this regard. As jim has pointed out many times there
>>> has
>>> been a huge contraction in private debt.
>>
>> The collapse of the mortgage market and home foreclosures, That's NOT
>> too much money chasing too few goods, It is a contraction and it is
>> deflation..... or at least stagnation because the government is trying
>> to print and borrow their way out and just can't do it.
>
> Your socialist beliefs are tiresome. The govt didn't
> cause the mortgage crises nor is it capable of fixing
> it. The private sector got deep into debt by pursuing
> rising assets. But the asset prices were rising only
> because of massive influx of new credit created
> money.

Thank you Democrat-Progressives and Obama and Barney Frank and Andrew
Cuomo..... your back door welfare plan has failed.

> Then when the asset prices fell the private sector
> money making machine went into reverse. The last time that
> happened was the Great Depression and that took 15 years.

People don't want to lose money, imagine that.

> This time will be longer because this time the
> private debt is much worse.

It will be longer because of the Government meddling.

>
> http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/121911_0526_Movementatt5.png
>
>>
>> And then in stepped the Fed, and they printed and the treasury
>> borrowed.... and they did what with all the trillions they created?
>
> The govt created trillions in Treasury notes which
> is an asset to the private sector. And you should be
> thankful, because without those additional assets
> the private sector would now be deep in a depression far
> worse than the Great Depression.

We would already be in recovery rather than still floundering.

NOW we face 20 -50 years of stagflation.

>
> But don't worry Congress will eventually try to balance
> the budget and the weight of the private sector debt will
> cause the economy to crash. Then there will be no doubt.
>

Can't make an omelet unless you break some eggs. Capitalism is supposed
to have failures and they are supposed to be due to the MARKETS not that
they are supposed to be saved because they have FRIENDS in Washington
D.C. which is why government according to teh constitution, stays out of
business.

>> So far by printing whether they spent it or NOT it is driving up OIL and
>> other commodity prices against the DOLLAR. Looks like "inflation"!
>
> The price of gasoline is $.40 cheaper than it was
> on this day 4 years ago. That looks like deflation.
>

Gasoline isn't oil and gasoline will go down only because of the
election from here on out.... The only question is what will Obama have
to threaten and or offer to get the price of gasoline that he wants
before the election.

>> When they borrowed trillions, they now cause people to ask when and how
>> it will be paid back with interest? That question has only one answer,
>> it will be later and with TAX DOLLARS and what happens when you raise
>> taxes for government to pay for its spending?
>
> No it won't. That is just your delusion.
> You hallucinate and then think you have facts.,

SO the government can get money without taxing us?


Where in the constitution is that power?

[Bret Cahill]

That's the secret behind the high tax Clinton economic boom.


Bret Cahill

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > Your socialist beliefs are tiresome. The govt didn't
> > cause the mortgage crises nor is it capable of fixing
> > it. The private sector got deep into debt by pursuing
> > rising assets. But the asset prices were rising only
> > because of massive influx of new credit created
> > money.
>
> Thank you Democrat-Progressives and Obama and Barney Frank and Andrew
> Cuomo..... your back door welfare plan has failed.

The markets have payed no attention to those clowns.
it is only you that think they control what people do.

>
> > Then when the asset prices fell the private sector
> > money making machine went into reverse. The last time that
> > happened was the Great Depression and that took 15 years.
>
> People don't want to lose money, imagine that.

The housing bubble happened because
People wanted to make money, imagine that.

>
> > This time will be longer because this time the
> > private debt is much worse.
>
> It will be longer because of the Government meddling.

It is not going to be over until the private debt
is reduced. So far Congress has not gotten in the way
of that happening, but they will.

>
> >
> > http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/121911_0526_Movementatt5.png
> >
> >>
> >> And then in stepped the Fed, and they printed and the treasury
> >> borrowed.... and they did what with all the trillions they created?
> >
> > The govt created trillions in Treasury notes which
> > is an asset to the private sector. And you should be
> > thankful, because without those additional assets
> > the private sector would now be deep in a depression far
> > worse than the Great Depression.
>
> We would already be in recovery rather than still floundering.

Nope that is just your hallucination. When the policies you
advocate are
implemented there will be a full blown depression

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/28/2012 9:46 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 28, 11:58 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
> this will sail so far over your head, that you will not even hear the
> tremendous "WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH"
>
> no matter how hard we try to penetrate the granite encased pea brains
> of "THE CONSERVATIVE", they just do not have the comprehension skills
> to understand modern economics:Dollar Scarce as Top-Quality Assets
> Shrink 42%

I understand... by stopping the wild Socialist spending they ended the
spending party the Socialists started with a stolen credit card.


That's like saying the police caused the dead people when they tried to
stop the BANK ROBBERY.

> THE EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVES have destroyed not only the euro, but
> their own economies. you can always, and i mean always count on "THE

The EURO was destroyed a long time ago, the thing that's happening now
is that the Socialist spending can NO LONGER BE SUSTAINED. WAIT till
France hits that wall in a few years, just like Italy and Socialist
Spain did.

> CONSERVATIVE" to do the wrong things, then double down on them.
> we are facing deflation, and over priced assets are starting to fall
> hard. cash is king in a deflating economy.

There will be NO deflation, it is stagnation..... Look at Japan.

> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-28/dollar-scarce-as-top-quality-assets-shrink-42-after-stimulus.html
>
>
> Dollar Scarce as Top-Quality Assets Shrink 42%
> By John Detrixhe - May 28, 2012 4:00 PM CT
>
> The dollar is proving scarce, even after the Federal Reserve flooded
> the financial system with an extra $2.3 trillion, as the amount of the
> highest-quality assets available worldwide shrinks.

They used these worthless dollars to buy GOLD and SILVER and OIL before
the dollar loses value and those holding dollars are big losers.



> From last year�s low on July 27, the greenback has risen against all
> 16 of its major peers. Intercontinental Exchange Inc.�s Dollar Index

> surged 12 percent, higher now than when the Fed began creating dollars
> to buy bonds under its extraordinary stimulus measures at the end of
> 2008.
>

You are measuring a weak losing dollar who's credit rating was dropped
from "AAA" against Nations and "currency" that are crashing?


Wow, we are doing great because we haven't completely collapsed like
others. Now that is a recommendation isn't it?

> Dollar Scarce as Top-Quality Assets Shrink 42%
> The dollar is proving scarce, even after the Federal Reserve flooded
> the financial system with an extra $2.3 trillion,

consentrating on teh wron thing here aren't you...the point you should
pay attention to is that $2.3 (T)rillion dollars were created from
NOTHING. Being scarce just means the government used it to hide their
real losses and pay off their Union Bosses.

The money has yet to make to the public and create inflation, but it will.

> as the amount of the
> highest-quality assets available worldwide shrinks.
> The dollar is proving scarce, even after the Federal Reserve flooded
> the financial system with an extra $2.3 trillion, as the amount of the
> highest-quality assets available worldwide shrinks. Photographer:
> Scott Eells/Bloomberg
> International investors and financial institutions that are required
> to own only the highest quality assets to meet investment guidelines
> or new regulations are finding fewer options beyond dollar-denominated
> assets. The U.S. is one of only five major economies with credit-
> default swaps on their debt trading at less than 100 basis points,
> meaning they are viewed as almost risk free. A year ago, eight Group-
> of-10 nations fit that category, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

> �The pool of high-rated assets has been shrinking, not just in the
> euro zone but elsewhere as well,� Ian Stannard, Morgan Stanley�s head

> of Europe currency strategy, said in a May 22 telephone interview.

> �With the core of Europe shrinking, and the available assets for
> reserve purposes shrinking, it makes the euro zone less attractive.�


Can't get/afford gold/silver then buy something that is "least likely to
fail". FDIC will insure dollars in a U.S. bank.

> Euro Depreciation
> The dollar is gaining mainly at the expense of the euro, which has

As I said, shift to what will be the last to fail, that looks like the
U.S. Dollar and not the Euro.

> depreciated almost 5 percent the past six months against a basket of
> nine major currencies tracked by Bloomberg as nations from Spain to

> Italy see their credit ratings downgraded amid the region�s sovereign

> crisis.
> Spain, which has about $917.5 billion of debt, has been cut six levels

> by Moody�s Investors Service to A3 from Aaa in September 2010. Italy,

> with more than $2 trillion of debt, has been reduced four levels to A3
> from Aa2 in October.

> �We�re seeing many more periods of dollar buying during these
> uncertain times,� Ken Dickson, an investment director of currencies at

> Standard Life Investments in Edinburgh, which manages $257 billion,
> said May 24 in a telephone interview.
> The U.S. currency appreciated 2.06 percent last week to $1.2517 per
> euro in New York after touching $1.2496, the strongest since July
> 2010. It gained 0.84 percent to 79.68 yen. The Dollar Index jumped
> 1.37 percent to 82.402, its fourth- straight weekly rally.
> Bigger Share
> The five economies with default swaps trading at less than 100 basis
> points have a combined $14 trillion in debt, with the U.S. accounting
> for 75 percent, according to CMA data compiled by Bloomberg. A year
> ago, when there were eight nations, the total was $24 trillion, with
> America making up 38 percent.

> Bank of America Merrill Lynch�s AAA Rated Global Fixed Income Index

> contained 3,597 securities with the highest ratings as of April 30,
> down from a high of 5,331 in December 2007, the fewest since November
> 2005. Dollar assets make up 65 percent of the index, up from 56
> percent in 2008.

> Hungary�s central bank is among reserve managers diversifying foreign-

> exchange holdings as the credit quality of European assets declines.
> The central bank said it will include dollars, yen and British pounds
> in its reserves, currently invested exclusively in euro-denominated
> securities.

> �The number of euro-denominated assets that meet our quality standards
> has dropped radically,� Magyar Nemzeti Bank President Andras Simor
> told reporters on May 14 in Budapest. �More and more securities were

> dropped from our portfolio as the credit grade of more and more
> countries fell below the single A category and as more and more

> securities don�t meet our market quality requirements.�
> No �Master Plan�
> China Investment Corp. President Gao Xiqing said May 10 the nation�s

> sovereign wealth fund stopped buying government debt in Europe as the

> region�s turmoil intensifies. With an estimated $440 billion in
> assets, CIC is the world�s fifth-largest country fund, according to

> the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute.

> �Ever since the debt crisis broke out, there has never been a master
> plan for a resolution,� Jin Liqun, chairman of CIC�s supervisory

> board, said at an event hosted by the Centre for Policy Studies in
> London on May 22.

> Such comments are bolstering the dollar�s status as the world�s

> primary reserve currency after a decade-long decline.

> The greenback�s share of global foreign-exchange reserves climbed in

> the last three-months of 2011 to 62.1 percent, the highest since June
> 2010, while holdings of euros fell to the lowest since September 2006
> at 25 percent, according to the latest quarterly data from the
> International Monetary Fund.
> Official Holdings
> Foreign official holdings of U.S. government debt increased in each of
> the first three months of 2012, climbing by 3.24 percent to $3.73
> trillion in the best start to a year since 2009, according to data
> from the Treasury Department.
> Demand from outside the U.S. helps the administration of President
> Barack Obama finance a budget deficit forecast to exceed $1 trillion
> for a fourth year.
> A relatively strong dollar may also damp criticism of the Fed if it
> decides to expand its balance sheet to boost the economy. The Dollar

> Index tumbled 14 percent during the Fed�s two rounds of asset

> purchases, known as quantitative easing, or QE, between December 2008
> and June 2011.

> While the dollar is �somewhere safe to hide,� the euro is poised to

> rebound before Greek elections next month before resuming its decline
> against the U.S. currency, said John Taylor, founder of New York-based
> currency-hedge fund FX Concepts LLC, which oversees $3.9 billion.

> �Way Oversold�
> �We are way oversold in the euro,� Taylor said on May 24 in an
> interview on Bloomberg Television�s �Inside Track� with Erik Schatzker
> and Sara Eisen.
> The dollar�s appeal is also getting a boost as nations generally

> perceived as havens become less welcoming.
> The Swiss National Bank introduced a 1.20 franc-per-euro limit in
> September after its currency rose to a record, hurting exporters and
> increasing the risk of deflation.
> Japan spent 16.4 trillion yen ($206.6 billion) in intervention in 2010
> and 2011, according to the Finance Ministry. The franc has lost 1.9
> percent against the dollar this year and the yen has depreciated 3.1
> percent.

> �The other countries that often have some kind of a safe- haven
> attraction to them are slowly but surely saying that we�re not so sure
> we want our currencies to be stronger,� Standard Life�s Dickson said.

> Bank Demand
> Demand for dollars is also showing up in financial institutions
> needing to meet Basel III regulations set by the Bank for
> International Settlements. The new rules on capital reserves will

> �increase the price of safety� embedded in assets deemed a reliable

> store of value, the IMF wrote in an April 18 report.
> The cost for banks to convert euro interest payments into dollars
> through the swaps market for three years has increased to 67.8 basis
> points below the euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor, from 34.8
> basis points below in March 29, according to data compiled by
> Bloomberg. Negative spreads show a premium for dollar funding.
> Dollar assets are also looking attractive on a relative basis, with
> yields on Treasuries due in 10 years averaging 0.37 percentage point
> more than German bunds of similar maturity. As recently as November,
> Treasuries yielded about 0.33 percentage point less than bunds.

> �With the chronic problems and challenges in Europe, it�s hard to see
> how that�s going to overtake the dollar anytime in our lifetime, if
> the euro even still exists in our lifetime,� Tim Adams, a managing

> director at the Lindsey Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based investment
> consultant and former Treasury undersecretary, said May 1 at the
> Bloomberg Washington Summit hosted by Bloomberg Link.
> To contact the reporter on this story: John Detrixhe in New York at
> jdetr...@bloomberg.net
> To contact the editors responsible for this story: Dave Liedtka at
> dlie...@bloomberg.net
>
>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

JFK lowered taxes.


Ike built Interstates


Truman sucked up the spoils of war.


FDR never grew out of it he just made it worse everyday.

[Oglethorpe]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:mfGdnXOgBYItVF7S...@bright.net...

NOPE the cutrrent economic problem is the result of government spending too
much money.

[Gary Forbis]

> >http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/10/saupload_428250-...

>
> NOPE the cutrrent economic problem is the result of government spending too
> much money.

More of your reasonless assertions. If you are rational you can
explain your reasoning, exposing it to examination.

As it turns out I happen to believe our current economic problems
are the result of the Bush administration spending too much money
unwisely. One of the first things it did was cut taxes on the rich.
One of the next big things it did was get us into a war in Iraq.
It privatized many government function such as state department
security. It greatly expanded privatized logistical support for
the military. It allowed "faith based initiatives" at public expense.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 9:22 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> > > Your socialist beliefs are tiresome. The govt didn't
> > > cause the mortgage crises nor is it capable of fixing
> > > it. The private sector got deep into debt by pursuing
> > > rising assets. But the asset prices were rising only
> > > because of massive influx of new credit created
> > > money.
>
> > Thank you Democrat-Progressives and Obama and Barney Frank and Andrew
> > Cuomo.....  your back door welfare plan has failed.
>
> The markets have payed no attention to those clowns.
> it is only you that think they control what people do.
>
>
>
> > > Then when the asset prices fell the private sector
> > > money making machine went into reverse. The last time that
> > > happened was the Great Depression and that took 15 years.
>
> > People don't want to lose money, imagine that.
>
> The housing bubble happened because
> People wanted to make money, imagine that.
>
>
>
> > > This time will be longer because this time the
> > > private debt is much worse.
>
> > It will be longer because of the Government meddling.
>
> It is not going to be over until the private debt
> is reduced. So far Congress has not gotten in the way
> of that happening, but they will.
>
>
>

> > >http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/121911_...

>
> > >> And then in stepped the Fed, and they printed and the treasury
> > >> borrowed....  and they did what with all the trillions they created?
>
> > > The govt  created trillions in Treasury notes which
> > > is an asset to the private sector. And you should be
> > > thankful, because without those  additional assets
> > > the private sector would now be deep in a depression far
> > > worse than the Great Depression.
>
> > We would already be in recovery rather than still floundering.
>
> Nope that is just your hallucination. When the policies you
> advocate are
> implemented there will be a full blown depression

correct, just look at what the dim bulb conservatives in europe have
done.


can "THE CONSERVATIVE" even comprehend what their policies have done
to europe:nope:they are still trying to discredit keynes/FDR who won
over 80 years ago:)The end of the euro system looks like this/The
periphery suffers ever deeper recessions



i warned conservative cranks in 2008, that austerity will not bolster
a currency or a economy, it will under cut and could destroy a
currency and economy.
why is it so hard for "THE CONSERVATIVE" to understand the basics of
capitalism, it takes wages to spur demand, and profits are the results
of that demand.
it takes money to make money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/euro-collapse_b_1549444.html


Simon Johnson and Peter Boone



The End of the Euro: A Survivor's Guide
Posted: 05/27/2012 5:56 pm
In every economic crisis there comes a moment of clarity. In Europe
soon, millions of people will wake up to realize that the euro-as-we-
know-it is gone. Economic chaos awaits them.
To understand why, first strip away your illusions. Europe's crisis to
date is a series of supposedly "decisive" turning points that each
turned out to be just another step down a steep hill. Greece's
upcoming election on June 17 is another such moment. While the so-
called "pro-bailout" forces may prevail in terms of parliamentary
seats, some form of new currency will soon flood the streets of
Athens. It is already nearly impossible to save Greek membership in
the euro area: depositors flee banks, taxpayers delay tax payments,
and companies postpone paying their suppliers -- either because they
can't pay or because they expect soon to be able to pay in cheap
drachma.
The troika of the European Commission (EC), European Central Bank
(ECB), and International Monetary Fund (IMF) has proved unable to
restore the prospect of recovery in Greece, and any new lending
program would run into the same difficulties. In apparent frustration,
the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, remarked last week, "As far as
Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are
trying to escape tax all the time."
Ms. Lagarde's empathy is wearing thin and this is unfortunate --
particularly as the Greek failure mostly demonstrates how wrong a
single currency is for Europe. The Greek backlash reflects the
enormous pain and difficulty that comes with trying to arrange
"internal devaluations" (a euphemism for big wage and spending cuts)
in order to restore competitiveness and repay an excessive debt level.
Faced with five years of recession, more than 20 percent unemployment,
further cuts to come, and a stream of failed promises from politicians
inside and outside the country, a political backlash seems only
natural. With IMF leaders, EC officials, and financial journalists
floating the idea of a "Greek exit" from the euro, who can now invest
in or sign long-term contracts in Greece? Greece's economy can only
get worse.
Some European politicians are now telling us that an orderly exit for
Greece is feasible under current conditions, and Greece will be the
only nation that leaves. They are wrong. Greece's exit is simply
another step in a chain of events that leads towards a chaotic
dissolution of the euro zone.
During the next stage of the crisis, Europe's electorate will be
rudely awakened to the large financial risks which have been foisted
upon them in failed attempts to keep the single currency alive. When
Greece quits the euro, its government will default on approximately
121 billion euros of debt to official creditors, and about 27 billion
euros owed to the IMF.
More importantly and less known to German taxpayers, Greece will also
default on 155 billion euros directly owed to the euro system
(comprised of the ECB and the 17 national central banks in the euro
zone). This includes 110 billion euros provided automatically to
Greece through the Target2 payments system -- which handles
settlements between central banks for countries using the euro. As
depositors and lenders flee Greek banks, someone needs to finance that
capital flight, otherwise Greek banks would fail. This role is taken
on by other euro area central banks, which have quietly lent large
funds, with the balances reported in the Target2 account. The vast
bulk of this lending is, in practice, done by the Bundesbank since
capital flight mostly goes to Germany, although all members of the
euro system share the losses if there are defaults.
The ECB has always vehemently denied that it has taken an excessive
amount of risk despite its increasingly relaxed lending policies. But
between Target2 and direct bond purchases alone, the euro system
claims on troubled periphery countries are now approximately 1.1
trillion euros (this is our estimate based on available official
data). This amounts to over 200 percent of the (broadly defined)
capital of the euro system. No responsible bank would claim these sums
are minor risks to its capital or to taxpayers. These claims also
amount to 43 percent of German Gross Domestic Product, which is now
around 2.57 trillion euros. With Greece proving that all this
financing is deeply risky, the euro system will appear far more
fragile and dangerous to taxpayers and investors.
Jacek Rostowski, the Polish Finance Minister, recently warned that the
calamity of a Greek default is likely to result in a flight from banks
and sovereign debt across the periphery, and that -- to avoid a
greater calamity -- all remaining member nations need to be provided
with unlimited funding for at least 18 months. Mr. Rostowski expresses
concern, however, that the ECB is not prepared to provide such a
firewall, and no other entity has the capacity, legitimacy, or will to
do so.
We agree: Once it dawns on people that the ECB already has a large
amount of credit risk on its books, it seems very unlikely that the
ECB would start providing limitless funds to all other governments
that face pressure from the bond market. The Greek trajectory of
austerity-backlash-default is likely to be repeated elsewhere -- so
why would the Germans want the ECB to double- or quadruple-down by
suddenly ratcheting up loans to everyone else?
The most likely scenario is that the ECB will reluctantly and
haltingly provide funds to other nations -- an on-again, off-again
pattern of support -- and that simply won't be enough to stabilize the
situation. Having seen the destruction of a Greek exit, and knowing
that both the ECB and German taxpayers will not tolerate unlimited
additional losses, investors and depositors will respond by fleeing
banks in other peripheral countries and holding off on investment and
spending.
Capital flight could last for months, leaving banks in the periphery
short of liquidity and forcing them to contract credit -- pushing
their economies into deeper recessions and their voters towards anger.
Even as the ECB refuses to provide large amounts of visible funding,
the automatic mechanics of Europe's payment system will mean the
capital flight from Spain and Italy to German banks is transformed
into larger and larger de facto loans by the Bundesbank to Banca
d'Italia and Banco de Espana -- essentially to the Italian and Spanish
states. German taxpayers will begin to see through this scheme and
become afraid of further losses.
The end of the euro system looks like this. The periphery suffers ever
deeper recessions -- failing to meet targets set by the troika -- and
their public debt burdens will become more obviously unaffordable. The
euro falls significantly against other currencies, but not in a manner
that makes Europe more attractive as a place for investment.
Instead, there will be recognition that the ECB has lost control of
monetary policy, is being forced to create credits to finance capital
flight and prop up troubled sovereigns -- and that those credits may
not get repaid in full. The world will no longer think of the euro as
a safe currency; rather investors will shun bonds from the whole
region, and even Germany may have trouble issuing debt at reasonable
interest rates. Finally, German taxpayers will be suffering
unacceptable inflation and an apparently uncontrollable looming bill
to bail out their euro partners.
The simplest solution will be for Germany itself to leave the euro,
forcing other nations to scramble and follow suit. Germany's guilt
over past conflicts and a fear of losing the benefits from 60 years of
European integration will no doubt postpone the inevitable. But here's
the problem with postponing the inevitable -- when the dam finally
breaks, the consequences will be that much more devastating since the
debts will be larger and the antagonism will be more intense.
A disorderly break-up of the euro area will be far more damaging to
global financial markets than the crisis of 2008. In fall 2008 the
decision was whether or how governments should provide a back-stop to
big banks and the creditors to those banks. Now some European
governments face insolvency themselves. The European economy accounts
for almost 1/3 of world GDP. Total euro sovereign debt outstanding
comprises about $11 trillion, of which at least $4 trillion must be
regarded as a near term risk for restructuring.
Europe's rich capital markets and banking system, including the market
for 185 trillion dollars in outstanding euro-denominated derivative
contracts, will be in turmoil and there will be large scale capital
flight out of Europe into the United States and Asia. Who can be
confident that our global megabanks are truly ready to withstand the
likely losses? It is almost certain that large numbers of pensioners
and households will find their savings are wiped out directly or
inflation erodes what they saved all their lives. The potential for
political turmoil and human hardship is staggering.
For the last three years Europe's politicians have promised to "do
whatever it takes" to save the euro. It is now clear that this promise
is beyond their capacity to keep -- because it requires steps that are
unacceptable to their electorates. No one knows for sure how long they
can delay the complete collapse of the euro, perhaps months or even
several more years, but we are moving steadily to an ugly end.
Whenever nations fail in a crisis, the blame game starts. Some in
Europe and the IMF's leadership are already covering their tracks,
implying that corruption and those "Greeks not paying taxes" caused it
all to fail. This is wrong: the euro system is generating miserable
unemployment and deep recessions in Ireland, Italy, Greece, Portugal
and Spain also. Despite Troika-sponsored adjustment programs,
conditions continue to worsen in the periphery. We cannot blame
corrupt Greek politicians for all that.
It is time for European and IMF officials, with support from the U.S.
and others, to work on how to dismantle the euro area. While no
dissolution will be truly orderly, there are means to reduce the
chaos. Many technical, legal, and financial market issues could be
worked out in advance. We need plans to deal with: the introduction of
new currencies, multiple sovereign defaults, recapitalization of banks
and insurance groups, and divvying up the assets and liabilities of
the euro system. Some nations will soon need foreign reserves to
backstop their new currencies. Most importantly, Europe needs to
salvage its great achievements, including free trade and labor
mobility across the continent, while extricating itself from this
colossal error of a single currency.
Unfortunately for all of us, our politicians refuse to go there --
they hate to admit their mistakes and past incompetence, and in any
case, the job of coordinating those seventeen discordant nations in
the wind down of this currency regime is, perhaps, beyond reach.
Forget about a rescue in the form of the G20, the G8, the G7, a new
European Union Treasury, the issue of Eurobonds, a large scale debt
mutualization scheme, or any other bedtime story. We are each on our
own.
Simon Johnson is the co-author of White House Burning: The Founding
Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters To You, available from
April 3rd. This post is cross-posted from The Baseline Scenario. Read
more from the Fiscal Affairs series here. Peter Boone is chair of
Effective Intervention, a UK-based charity, an associate at the Centre
for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, and a principal
in Salute Capital Management Limited.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 9:53 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:






WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

[Nickname unavailable]

> >http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/10/saupload_428250-...

>
> NOPE the cutrrent economic problem is the result of government spending too
> much money.

that is a lie. back it up.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 28, 9:57 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 9:08 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 3:34 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:29 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>
> >> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >>> EXPLAIN "how" we can ever pay off our debt and what the National debt
> >>> and printing money has to do with private economics?
>
> >> a) We can pay off our debt by a balance of cuts and revenue increases.
>
> >> b) I have no idea what you mean by "private economics" (I doubt if you
> >> do, other than the phrase seems "nice")
>
> >  we can do what FDR, TRUMAN, IKE, AND JFK DID, we can grow our way out
> > of debt.
>
> JFK lowered taxes.
>

he did not, he closed loopholes on the wealthy.

> Ike built Interstates
>



GASP!!!!!! SOCIALISM!!! he did it when the high rate on the wealthy
was in the low 90% range, GASP!!! SOCIALISM!!!

> Truman sucked up the spoils of war.
>

it was the new deal he helped create, and the fair deal he created,
and the g.i. bill he helped usher into existence. GASP!!!
SOCIALISM!!!!

> FDR never grew out of it he just made it worse everyday.
>

ROTFLOL!!!! NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO LIE, FDR'S GDP GROWTH TRAMPLED
ANYTHING THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER DONE.

[jim]

Oglethorpe wrote:

> >
> > The current economic problems stem from the private sector
> > printing too much money (that is, they borrowed far beyond
> > their means). All that money printing artificially boosted the
> > economy as long s credit was expanding. And now that it has come
> > to an end and credit is contracting the economy is burdened by
> > debt repayment and saturated with private debt balanced against
> > insufficient production and capital.
> >
> > http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/10/saupload_428250-13363801587809994-Michael-Clark.png
>
> NOPE the cutrrent economic problem is the result of government spending too
> much money.

And what facts do you have to back that conclusion up?

The fact is the private sector expanded it's debt by
by 10% every year for 60 years from 1948-2008.
Just how long did you think that could continue in an
economy that was growing at only 3%-4% per year?

From 1948-2008 private debt grew from 60% of GDP to 300%
of GDP. While Federal debt contracted from
120% of GDP to 60% of GDP in the WW2-2008 period.

At the peak of the 60 year credit bubble the private sector
borrowed $4.3 trillion in 2007. That was more than 30% of GDP
for that year. That is an enormous quantity of extra money
pumped into the economy through private sector borrowing.

The question is - where did all the extra money created by all
that borrowing go? We know it did not go into productive investment.
The US economy only grew by $0.67 trillion so it is obvious that
85% of the borrowed money was going to inflating prices.

And then in 2008 asset prices collapsed and the net worth of
US households dropped by $16 trillion (more than $100K per household)

Suddenly the markets saw the folly of expanding credit to acquire
already overly-inflated assets and the whole 60 year process of
credit expansion and money creation shifted into reverse.

Now the US economy is no longer defined by a private sector
constantly expanding credit at a rate faster than economic growth.
The US economy is defined
by private sector that is paralyzed by debt and deleveraging.

http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/research/deleveraging/an-in-depth-look-at-deleveragings--ray-dalio-bridgewater.pdf

[clairbear]

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in news:e07dd236-2741-439b-
8d00-073...@p16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

>> JFK lowered taxes.
>>
>
>
> he did not, he closed loopholes on the wealthy.

Here is some proof again you do not know waht yopu are talking abou

THE SAGE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL

JFK: Democrats' role model?

Larry Elder points out huge policy gaps between Obama, President Kennedy
Published: 09/04/2008 at 12:00 AM
by Larry ElderEmail | Archive
Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find
out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit
www.LarryElder.com.More ?


The John F. Kennedy legacy came up repeatedly during the Democratic
National Convention. But today, would JFK even be a Democrat?

Kennedy supported, in today’s lexicon, a George W. Bush-like
“belligerent” approach to fighting the Cold War, and told CBS’ Walter
Cronkite it would be “a great mistake” to withdraw the American presence
from Vietnam. In his 1961 inaugural speech, Kennedy said, “Let every
nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any
price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

How would such a man feel about fighting today’s global peril – Islamo-
fascism?

Barack Obama likes to point to the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev summit to
support his desire for meetings “without preconditions” with enemies
such as Iran and North Korea.

But Kennedy’s secretary of state, Dean Rusk, urged against such a non-
conditions-based summit. And later, Kennedy called the summit meeting
the “roughest thing in my life. (Khrushchev) just beat the hell out of
me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have
no guts.” Indeed, Khrushchev thought Kennedy a weak amateur. Following
the summit, Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall and placed missiles in
Cuba, an action that led the world to the brink of nuclear conflict.

Kennedy believed in cutting taxes – deeply and dramatically. Before
Kennedy’s tax cuts, the top marginal tax rate stood at over 90 percent,
and Kennedy – albeit after his assassination – got it reduced to 70
percent, a much greater percentage reduction than did Bush. Kennedy, in
a 1962 speech before the Economic Club of New York said, “It is a
paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are
too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is
to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries
and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax
reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full
employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to
that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a
budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy,
which can bring a budget surplus.”

In January 1963, Kennedy addressed Congress: “Lower rates of taxation
will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and
corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a
reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” Several days
later, JFK sent another message to Congress: “Our tax system still
siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and
business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment
and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national
growth rate.”

In a televised national address just two months before his
assassination, Kennedy broke it down: “A tax cut means higher family
income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every
taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a
new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every
businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash
register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as
the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up
with more revenues.”

Kennedy, unlike Obama, opposed race-based preferences. In a 1963
interview, Kennedy expected blacks to resist a call for preferential
treatment: “The Negro community did not want job quotas to compensate
for past discrimination. What I think they would like is to see their
children well educated, so that they could hold jobs … and have
themselves accepted as equal members of the community. … I don’t think
we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a
good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a
decent education. We have to do the best we can now. That is what we are
trying to do.”

Kennedy also objected to assigning positions or granting promotions
based on what today’s advocates call under-representation: “I think it
is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion or race
– color – nationality. … On the other hand, I do think that we ought to
make an effort to give a fair chance to everyone who is qualified – not
through a quota – but just look over our employment rolls, look over our
areas where we are hiring people and at least make sure we are giving
everyone a fair chance. But not hard and fast quotas. … We are too
mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis
of race or color.”

So when the haze disappears, what remains? A man of limited government,
low taxes and strong national defense who rejected a government-led
redistribution of wealth.

In other words, someone who would today fit very comfortably in the
party – the Republican Party.