The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

Which proves that number isn't all inclusive. The Fed has way more than a trillion on its books now. The QEs alone were way bigger than that.

Well yeah...because QE1 didn't buy treasuries, it bought Mortgage-backed securities and other securities from private firms.

[southsider2k5]

Well yeah...because QE1 didn't buy treasuries, it bought Mortgage-backed securities and other securities from private firms.

 

So in other words, all of the spending of the fed isn't known, which means it isn't included in the debt.

[Balta1701]

So in other words, all of the spending of the fed isn't known, which means it isn't included in the debt.

How on Earth do you not understand the difference between the Federal Reserve spending and the National Debt?

 

The Federal Reserve can print its own money. If it loses money it doesn't matter, except if it pushes the inflation button. It has the ability to write things off, effectively.

[southsider2k5]

How on Earth do you not understand the difference between the Federal Reserve spending and the National Debt?

 

The Federal Reserve can print its own money. If it loses money it doesn't matter, except if it pushes the inflation button. It has the ability to write things off, effectively.

 

The Federal Reserve doesn't operate in a vacuum, even if it accountants operate in ways that would make Arthur Andersen applaud. That is money that has to be paid back.

[Balta1701]

The Federal Reserve doesn't operate in a vacuum, even if it accountants operate in ways that would make Arthur Andersen applaud. That is money that has to be paid back.

No, it doesn't. That's what the Federal Reserve is. They were sitting on a trillion dollars before the crisis started and they had to print an extra $2 trillion or so out of thin air. That's the whole "Expanding the monetary base" bit. If they lose every dollar there, no one has to pay it back, the Federal Reserve can't go bankrupt, it just creates more money to cover its losses.

[StrangeSox]

So what exactly would you term this deficit as?

 

Even huger, thanks in large part to wars, tax cuts, TARP, economic downturn which led to decreased revenues and increase safety net spending (duh) and partially the stimulus but that's tapering off now.

 

But you've got to be pretty crazy to claim the Bush economy was anything close to "good" or even "not bad" since the entire thing was built on a giant bubble that collapsed four years ago and sent damn near the entire world into a recession.

[southsider2k5]

Even huger, thanks in large part to wars, tax cuts, TARP, economic downturn which led to decreased revenues and increase safety net spending (duh) and partially the stimulus but that's tapering off now.

 

But you've got to be pretty crazy to claim the Bush economy was anything close to "good" or even "not bad" since the entire thing was built on a giant bubble that collapsed four years ago and sent damn near the entire world into a recession.

 

And nothing has fundamentally changed, plus we have all of the bad things now. That alone means it is way better than what we are looking at now no matter what terminology you want to use to describe it.

[southsider2k5]

No, it doesn't. That's what the Federal Reserve is. They were sitting on a trillion dollars before the crisis started and they had to print an extra $2 trillion or so out of thin air. That's the whole "Expanding the monetary base" bit. If they lose every dollar there, no one has to pay it back, the Federal Reserve can't go bankrupt, it just creates more money to cover its losses.

 

Again if it were that easy, you could look at M1 and know what was on the feds books.

[StrangeSox]

And nothing has fundamentally changed, plus we have all of the bad things now. That alone means it is way better than what we are looking at now no matter what terminology you want to use to describe it.

Well yeah it was "better" because the bubble hadn't popped yet but it was still impending doom. And it still popped under his watch and was pretty terrible by the time he left office.

[southsider2k5]

Well yeah it was "better" because the bubble hadn't popped yet but it was still impending doom. And it still popped under his watch and was pretty terrible by the time he left office.

 

The bubble really popped at the end of the Clinton administration, and we have just spent the last 10 years trying to rebuild the economy by whatever artificial means possible.

[StrangeSox]

The bubble really popped at the end of the Clinton administration, and we have just spent the last 10 years trying to rebuild the economy by whatever artificial means possible.

 

Uh, wasn't the whole housing run-up and derivatives nonsense started in the early 2000's?

 

edit: I do like that, no matter what, this must not be Bush's fault and there's no way his tax cuts weren't a brilliant economic idea.

Edited July 15, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Uh, wasn't the whole housing run-up and derivatives nonsense started in the early 2000's?

 

edit: I do like that, no matter what, this must not be Bush's fault and there's no way his tax cuts weren't a brilliant economic idea.

 

The reality is that Obama is using pretty much the same policies as Bush and getting the same results. Free money for everyone isn't working. All though I do like how no matter what, this has to be Bush's fault, and there is no way that what Obama is doing isn't brilliant.

[StrangeSox]

The reality is that Obama is using pretty much the same policies as Bush and getting the same results. Free money for everyone isn't working.

 

You mean half-assed quasi-stimulus and a bunch of tax cuts aren't working? Shocking. Maybe if we cut federal spending by huge amounts and throw in some more tax breaks, everything will be awesome (even though it seems like an overwhelming majority of economists disagree).

 

All though I do like how no matter what, this has to be Bush's fault, and there is no way that what Obama is doing isn't brilliant.

 

Well, it's not Bush's fault directly, but it did happen during his Presidency and his "temporary" tax cuts to refund a surplus that the GOP will never, ever give up are his fault.

 

What Obama is doing, focusing so much on the deficit and ignoring the giant unemployment and stagnant economy problem, is stupid and ineffective because fixing the later problem will drastically improve the former. I'm not sure why you keep forgetting in topic after topic that I don't support Obama.

 

[Balta1701]

Again if it were that easy, you could look at M1 and know what was on the feds books.

Of course, that depends on how you value the assets they have on their books. If only we had someone to explain Mark 2 Market valuations to us.

[southsider2k5]

Of course, that depends on how you value the assets they have on their books. If only we had someone to explain Mark 2 Market valuations to us.

 

Valuations shouldn't matter, M1 differences would be able to tell us what the paid for them.

[southsider2k5]

You mean half-assed quasi-stimulus and a bunch of tax cuts aren't working? Shocking. Maybe if we cut federal spending by huge amounts and throw in some more tax breaks, everything will be awesome (even though it seems like an overwhelming majority of economists disagree).

 

 

 

Well, it's not Bush's fault directly, but it did happen during his Presidency and his "temporary" tax cuts to refund a surplus that the GOP will never, ever give up are his fault.

 

What Obama is doing, focusing so much on the deficit and ignoring the giant unemployment and stagnant economy problem, is stupid and ineffective because fixing the later problem will drastically improve the former. I'm not sure why you keep forgetting in topic after topic that I don't support Obama.

 

What we need to do right now is control spending. The cuts need to come when, however long that might be, the economy turns around. No more trillion dollar bombs that don't fix the real problems at hand. The economy needs to fix itself, and all we have been doing is a bunch of plans that just put off of the eventual reckoning date. Keep things steady right now.

[Balta1701]

What we need to do right now is control spending. The cuts need to come when, however long that might be, the economy turns around. No more trillion dollar bombs that don't fix the real problems at hand. The economy needs to fix itself, and all we have been doing is a bunch of plans that just put off of the eventual reckoning date. Keep things steady right now.

Keeping things steady right now and controlling spending is the path to the exact type of job market we've had for the last year. Public sector job cuts and anemic private sector growth. We have been controlling spending and cutting back in the public sector...it's just all happened at the state and local levels since they can't print money.

[southsider2k5]

Keeping things steady right now and controlling spending is the path to the exact type of job market we've had for the last year. Public sector job cuts and anemic private sector growth. We have been controlling spending and cutting back in the public sector...it's just all happened at the state and local levels since they can't print money.

 

The job market was picking up pretty well, as you pointed out many times, on its own. The job market died when the Presidents policies exploded commodities prices.

[StrangeSox]

What we need to do right now is control spending. The cuts need to come when, however long that might be, the economy turns around. No more trillion dollar bombs that don't fix the real problems at hand. The economy needs to fix itself, and all we have been doing is a bunch of plans that just put off of the eventual reckoning date. Keep things steady right now.

 

Unless I'm reading this wrong, you're rejecting the plans to raise the debt ceiling that include trillions in cuts?

[Balta1701]

The job market was picking up pretty well, as you pointed out many times, on its own. The job market died when the Presidents policies exploded commodities prices.

Then the fact that there was a huge burst in those prices in June to the point that the full CPI was negative in June means we're in the clear.

[southsider2k5]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, you're rejecting the plans to raise the debt ceiling that include trillions in cuts?

 

Pretty much yes. I hate both parts of this negotiation. Raise the ceiling because you have to, and don't do anything to make the economy worse.

[southsider2k5]

Then the fact that there was a huge burst in those prices in June to the point that the full CPI was negative in June means we're in the clear.

 

Well all except for confidence numbers being in the toilet, and commodities prices not being appreciably different, i am going to go with no.

[Balta1701]

Pretty much yes. I hate both parts of this negotiation. Raise the ceiling because you have to, and don't do anything to make the economy worse.

Wow, something I can fully agree with. Yay!

[StrangeSox]

The job market was picking up pretty well, as you pointed out many times, on its own. The job market died when the Presidents policies exploded commodities prices.

 

It died when they decided to focus on the deficit instead of unemployment, though I'll point out correlation/causation and merely note timing.

 

Also I'm not sure the President's policies are to blame for the Arab Spring and the resulting oil jumps and worldwide ecological problems resulting in lower crop yields.

Edited July 15, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Pretty much yes. I hate both parts of this negotiation. Raise the ceiling because you have to, and don't do anything to make the economy worse.