> The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy wrote: >> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote
>>>>>>>> A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods >>>>>>>> and services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who are >>>>>>>> the folks most likely to do so? >>>>>>> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. >>>>>>> Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because >>>>>>> I never did. >>>>>> How does one take money "out" of circulation? >>>>> Circulation, in this context, was limited to the US economy in the >>>>> short term. I should have been more clear about the short/long >>>>> term distinction - although I do think it's pretty clear that we >>>>> were talking about the US economy, not the global economy.
>>>>> Given the proper context, your question kinda answers itself, right? >>>> So you're talking about the trade deficit or something? Chris contends >>>> we need to tax the rich heavily to keep money in circulation, which is >>>> not true. Money is fungible and highly useful -- the rich typically >>>> don't have huge cash reserves; they have assets and bank accounts. >>> ...which do exactly nothing to keep the economy moving.
>> Buying assets like houses, yachts, and stocks doesn't keep the >> economy moving? Banks lending money doesn't either?
> with kyle and chris, obvious stuff like this just zooms on by.
It must be all that reality around us, distracting us from the wisdom of your theories.
Chris Bellomy wrote: > stephenJ wrote, On 11/6/09 6:50 PM: >> The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy wrote: >>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote
>>>>>>>>> A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods >>>>>>>>> and services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who are >>>>>>>>> the folks most likely to do so? >>>>>>>> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. >>>>>>>> Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because >>>>>>>> I never did. >>>>>>> How does one take money "out" of circulation? >>>>>> Circulation, in this context, was limited to the US economy in the >>>>>> short term. I should have been more clear about the short/long >>>>>> term distinction - although I do think it's pretty clear that we >>>>>> were talking about the US economy, not the global economy.
>>>>>> Given the proper context, your question kinda answers itself, right? >>>>> So you're talking about the trade deficit or something? Chris >>>>> contends >>>>> we need to tax the rich heavily to keep money in circulation, which is >>>>> not true. Money is fungible and highly useful -- the rich typically >>>>> don't have huge cash reserves; they have assets and bank accounts. >>>> ...which do exactly nothing to keep the economy moving.
>>> Buying assets like houses, yachts, and stocks doesn't keep the >>> economy moving? Banks lending money doesn't either?
>> with kyle and chris, obvious stuff like this just zooms on by.
> It must be all that reality around us, distracting us > from the wisdom of your theories.
Odds are, it's actually all that loony FDR/LBJ welfare state ideology infesting your brains.
--
I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
>>>>>>>>>>> A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods >>>>>>>>>>> and services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who are >>>>>>>>>>> the folks most likely to do so? >>>>>>>>>> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. >>>>>>>>>> Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because >>>>>>>>>> I never did. >>>>>>>>> How does one take money "out" of circulation? >>>>>>>> Circulation, in this context, was limited to the US economy in the >>>>>>>> short term. I should have been more clear about the short/long >>>>>>>> term distinction - although I do think it's pretty clear that we >>>>>>>> were talking about the US economy, not the global economy.
>>>>>>>> Given the proper context, your question kinda answers itself, >>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>> So you're talking about the trade deficit or something? Chris >>>>>>> contends >>>>>>> we need to tax the rich heavily to keep money in circulation, which >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> not true. Money is fungible and highly useful -- the rich typically >>>>>>> don't have huge cash reserves; they have assets and bank accounts. >>>>>> ...which do exactly nothing to keep the economy moving. >>>>> Buying assets like houses, yachts, and stocks doesn't keep the >>>>> economy moving? >>>> Not very well, otherwise our economy would be a cruise control >>>> right now, wouldn't it?
>>> Taxing the rich doesn't work very well either apparently.
>> Seemed to work great after WWII.
>> This isn't an exercise in the abstract, you know.
> True, it's dumb correlating those things too tightly 'cause > you'd need to explain the Reagan tax cuts ending stagflation.
Easy enough: They didn't. The Fed shocking the system with high interest rates stopped inflation, and Reagan having money printed like mad and tripling the national debt afterwards was responsible for the end of the economic stagnation.
> This isn't an exercise in insult the dumb fuck who walked > into another one, you know.
If the u-rate hit 10.2% when Bush was President, it would be the HEADLINE of every msm site in the country. But today? nope.
--
I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:12:41 -0600, stephenJ wrote... > If the u-rate hit 10.2% when Bush was President, it would be the > HEADLINE of every msm site in the country. But today? nope.
Perhaps you noticed a little incident in Texas today, Jaros?
> Chris Bellomy wrote: >> stephenJ wrote, On 11/6/09 6:50 PM: >>> The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy wrote: >>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods >>>>>>>>>> and services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who >>>>>>>>>> are the folks most likely to do so? >>>>>>>>> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. >>>>>>>>> Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because >>>>>>>>> I never did. >>>>>>>> How does one take money "out" of circulation? >>>>>>> Circulation, in this context, was limited to the US economy in >>>>>>> the short term. I should have been more clear about the >>>>>>> short/long term distinction - although I do think it's pretty >>>>>>> clear that we were talking about the US economy, not the global >>>>>>> economy.
>>>>>>> Given the proper context, your question kinda answers itself, right? >>>>>> So you're talking about the trade deficit or something? Chris >>>>>> contends >>>>>> we need to tax the rich heavily to keep money in circulation, >>>>>> which is >>>>>> not true. Money is fungible and highly useful -- the rich typically >>>>>> don't have huge cash reserves; they have assets and bank accounts. >>>>> ...which do exactly nothing to keep the economy moving.
>>>> Buying assets like houses, yachts, and stocks doesn't keep the >>>> economy moving? Banks lending money doesn't either?
>>> with kyle and chris, obvious stuff like this just zooms on by.
>> It must be all that reality around us, distracting us >> from the wisdom of your theories.
> Odds are, it's actually all that loony FDR/LBJ welfare state ideology > infesting your brains.
Did you notice the subject header before you decided to poast?
JGibson wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Ike wrote:
>>> And yet all we see or hear is "health care". >> If the u-rate hit 10.2% when Bush was President, it would be the >> HEADLINE of every msm site in the country. But today? nope.
> It wasn't the headline? It was the top story this morning on cnn.com > (knocking the Fort Hood shooting way down the page).
not on any of the sites i looked at (including cnn) right before i posted.
-- the one great principle of the Law is to make business for itself. viewed in this light, it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them but once but clearly perceive that its one grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:34:40 -0600, stephenJ wrote... > JGibson wrote: > > On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Ike wrote:
> >>> And yet all we see or hear is "health care". > >> If the u-rate hit 10.2% when Bush was President, it would be the > >> HEADLINE of every msm site in the country. But today? nope.
> > It wasn't the headline? It was the top story this morning on cnn.com > > (knocking the Fort Hood shooting way down the page).
> not on any of the sites i looked at (including cnn) right before i posted.
Two possibilities:
1. CNN.com is sending special pages to you or your area. 2. You're lying.
You posted at 8:12pm ET. I checked CNN.com before replying to your post at 8:21pm ET, and there it was on the front page.
> > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 6, 6:10 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
> > >>> And yet all we see or hear is "health care". Now as everyone knows, > > >>> people losing their jobs lose their healthcare(eventually anyway). > > >>> Are the the unemployed being used to leverage the passage of a > > >>> healthcare reform? > > >> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > > >> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > > What should they do to address unemployment?
> > > Employment is a trailing indicator. It will turn around now that the > > > economy is improving.
> > > Jon
> > Ok, how long have we been hearing that the "economy is improving"?? > > Since June?
> Real GDP increased 3.5% in the third quarter of 2009. This is after > four straight quarters of decreases. So factually the economy is > improving. In real terms we are still at where we were during the > third quarter of 2006 however.
That depends on what caused the GDP to rise.
GDP = C + I + G + (EX - IM) where C = private consumption I = private investment G = government expenditure EX = exports of goods and services IM = imports of goods and services
I'd suggest it's an awful lot of "G" and very little, if any "C" and "I".
> If you look here at the tables you can see the statistics.
> Tom Enright wrote: > > On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> >> What should they do to address unemployment?
> > Do not increase taxes. > > Do not increase spending. > > Do not increase the deficit. > > Do not increase regulation.
> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > regulation. Stuff like that.
> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > the @!#$ing roof.
> Cheers.
the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> Tom Enright wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >>> Do not increase taxes. >>> Do not increase spending. >>> Do not increase the deficit. >>> Do not increase regulation. >> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant >> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to >> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing >> regulation. Stuff like that.
>> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context >> of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with >> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things >> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really >> and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through >> the @!#$ing roof.
>> Cheers.
> the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
Shit, I guess my dad's career at General Dynamics wasn't really in a private sector job!
Tom Enright wrote: > On Nov 6, 9:10 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote: >> And yet all we see or hear is "health care". Now as everyone knows, >> people losing their jobs lose their healthcare(eventually anyway).
>> Are the the unemployed being used to leverage the passage of a >> healthcare reform?
-- "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
On Nov 6, 9:56 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> Kyle T. Jones wrote, On 11/6/09 11:36 AM:
> > A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods and > > services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who are the folks > > most likely to do so?
> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. > Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because > I never did.
What wealth do the new teachers add to the economy?
> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > On Nov 6, 10:43 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 9:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >>>> Tom Enright wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. > >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? > >>>>> Do not increase taxes. > >>>>> Do not increase spending. > >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. > >>>>> Do not increase regulation. > >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. > >>> Increased government spending, if done quickly and well, does help. > >>> Governments who have shut down their spending during the beginning of > >>> a downturn generally have made the problem worse. > >>> But increasing taxation is 100 times worse....all that does is take > >>> money out of the consumer's hands. > >>> Jon > >> What if you restrict your tax increases to the top 1%, but hit 'em hard?
> > Why? They don't spend money?
> > Jon
> Say the government mandates a max class size of 20 students for public > school classes. They pay for this with by increasing taxation on the > top 1% of earners.
always about class envy with you guys, isn't it. Do you honestly believe you make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor? Know any poor people who hire employees?
> >>>>> A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods and > >>>>> services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who are the folks > >>>>> most likely to do so? > >>>> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. > >>>> Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because > >>>> I never did. > >>> How does one take money "out" of circulation? > >> Circulation, in this context, was limited to the US economy in the short > >> term. I should have been more clear about the short/long term > >> distinction - although I do think it's pretty clear that we were talking > >> about the US economy, not the global economy.
> >> Given the proper context, your question kinda answers itself, right?
> > So you're talking about the trade deficit or something? Chris contends > > we need to tax the rich heavily to keep money in circulation, which is > > not true. Money is fungible and highly useful -- the rich typically > > don't have huge cash reserves; they have assets and bank accounts.
> ...which do exactly nothing to keep the economy moving.
So lower taxes on everyone and increase the velocity of money.
> The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy wrote, On 11/6/09 4:36 PM:
> > "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods and > >>>>>>>>> services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who are the > >>>>>>>>> folks most likely to do so? > >>>>>>>> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. > >>>>>>>> Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because > >>>>>>>> I never did. > >>>>>>> How does one take money "out" of circulation? > >>>>>> Circulation, in this context, was limited to the US economy in the > >>>>>> short term. I should have been more clear about the short/long term > >>>>>> distinction - although I do think it's pretty clear that we were > >>>>>> talking about the US economy, not the global economy.
> >>>>>> Given the proper context, your question kinda answers itself, right? > >>>>> So you're talking about the trade deficit or something? Chris contends > >>>>> we need to tax the rich heavily to keep money in circulation, which is > >>>>> not true. Money is fungible and highly useful -- the rich typically > >>>>> don't have huge cash reserves; they have assets and bank accounts. > >>>> ...which do exactly nothing to keep the economy moving. > >>> Buying assets like houses, yachts, and stocks doesn't keep the > >>> economy moving? > >> Not very well, otherwise our economy would be a cruise control > >> right now, wouldn't it?
> > Taxing the rich doesn't work very well either apparently.
> Seemed to work great after WWII.
So you want to turn half of Europe and all of Japan into rubble so we can be dominate?
> On Nov 6, 3:14 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy wrote, On 11/6/09 4:36 PM:
>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> A better question - when is money that could be spent on goods and >>>>>>>>>>> services *actually* taken "out" of circulation, and who are the >>>>>>>>>>> folks most likely to do so? >>>>>>>>>> Good luck, Kyle. I've been trying to make this point for years. >>>>>>>>>> Hopefully you'll find the right way of getting it across, because >>>>>>>>>> I never did. >>>>>>>>> How does one take money "out" of circulation? >>>>>>>> Circulation, in this context, was limited to the US economy in the >>>>>>>> short term. I should have been more clear about the short/long term >>>>>>>> distinction - although I do think it's pretty clear that we were >>>>>>>> talking about the US economy, not the global economy. >>>>>>>> Given the proper context, your question kinda answers itself, right? >>>>>>> So you're talking about the trade deficit or something? Chris contends >>>>>>> we need to tax the rich heavily to keep money in circulation, which is >>>>>>> not true. Money is fungible and highly useful -- the rich typically >>>>>>> don't have huge cash reserves; they have assets and bank accounts. >>>>>> ...which do exactly nothing to keep the economy moving. >>>>> Buying assets like houses, yachts, and stocks doesn't keep the >>>>> economy moving? >>>> Not very well, otherwise our economy would be a cruise control >>>> right now, wouldn't it? >>> Taxing the rich doesn't work very well either apparently. >> Seemed to work great after WWII.
> So you want to turn half of Europe and all of Japan into rubble so we > can be dominate?
Do I want to take on the cost of rebuilding Europe and Japan? No. I'd settle for rebuilding the United States.
> On Nov 6, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 10:43 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 9:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Enright wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >>>>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >>>>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >>>>>>> Do not increase taxes. >>>>>>> Do not increase spending. >>>>>>> Do not increase the deficit. >>>>>>> Do not increase regulation. >>>>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant >>>>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to >>>>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing >>>>>> regulation. Stuff like that. >>>>> Increased government spending, if done quickly and well, does help. >>>>> Governments who have shut down their spending during the beginning of >>>>> a downturn generally have made the problem worse. >>>>> But increasing taxation is 100 times worse....all that does is take >>>>> money out of the consumer's hands. >>>>> Jon >>>> What if you restrict your tax increases to the top 1%, but hit 'em hard? >>> Why? They don't spend money? >>> Jon >> Say the government mandates a max class size of 20 students for public >> school classes. They pay for this with by increasing taxation on the >> top 1% of earners.
> always about class envy with you guys, isn't it.
I'm going to bring my sig back out for you, I think.
It's like this, you putz: EVERYBODY GETS TAXED THE SAME. You don't tax the top 1% any differently than you tax everybody else. It's just that their income surpasses the brackets at which most others pay. But their first $100k and mine? THE EXACT SAME RATE. NOBODY IS BEING SINGLED OUT.
Now that this is clear, I do hope that you will take your "class envy" bullshit and jam it in your left ear.
cb
-- "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
lein wrote: > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> Tom Enright wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >>> Do not increase taxes. >>> Do not increase spending. >>> Do not increase the deficit. >>> Do not increase regulation. >> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant >> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to >> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing >> regulation. Stuff like that.
>> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context >> of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with >> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things >> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really >> and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through >> the @!#$ing roof.
>> Cheers.
> the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
> > Tom Enright wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > > >> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > > >>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > >> What should they do to address unemployment?
> > > Do not increase taxes. > > > Do not increase spending. > > > Do not increase the deficit. > > > Do not increase regulation.
> > You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > > unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > > create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > > regulation. Stuff like that.
> > You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > > of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > > less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > > through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > > and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > > the @!#$ing roof.
> > Cheers.
> the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
In that case, I'm guessing General Electric and other people getting money from DHS aren't actually in the private sector.
|
