Yet another reason we don't want The Felon

[Jarhyn]

Trump is now on tape claiming that "if you vote for me just this one time, you'll never have to vote again".

But sure, both sides are the same...

Yeah, but that's being misinterpreted. He's saying it's very important to vote for him this time around. Next time, things will be ok and it's not an urgent matter. He's not saying you won't be able to vote. There's enough real evil, don't make up more.

No, it's not.

It's being properly interpreted. He literally used the terminology (see also Dog Whistle) that things will be "fixed".

Either he chose the worst possible phraseology for that "misinterpretation" or he meant it as a dog whistle.

If he meant it any other way, that's worse, because it would mean something put in effect which permanently cements such minority rule (theocracy, dictatorship, whatever). There's no situation where Republicans can win without all needing to vote except the situation where "leftists" are in camps or are not allowed to vote, because they only win by "leftist" apathy in the first place.

 

[RamblingFool]

Trump is now on tape claiming that "if you vote for me just this one time, you'll never have to vote again".

But sure, both sides are the same...

Yeah, but that's being misinterpreted. He's saying it's very important to vote for him this time around. Next time, things will be ok and it's not an urgent matter. He's not saying you won't be able to vote. There's enough real evil, don't make up more.

LORD HAVE MERCY! Trump didn't actually mean what he said?

He didn't say that, but if he did, he didn't mean it.
And if he did mean it we misunderstood it.
And if we understood it, it's no big deal, others have said worse.

 

[Jarhyn]

Trump is now on tape claiming that "if you vote for me just this one time, you'll never have to vote again".

But sure, both sides are the same...

Yeah, but that's being misinterpreted. He's saying it's very important to vote for him this time around. Next time, things will be ok and it's not an urgent matter. He's not saying you won't be able to vote. There's enough real evil, don't make up more.

LORD HAVE MERCY! Trump didn't actually mean what he said?

He didn't say that, but if he did, he didn't mean it.
And if he did mean it we misunderstood it.
And if we understood it, it's no big deal, others have said worse.

LP isn't a trump supporter, AFAICT. It's just that sometimes LP doesn't want to think DJT is as capable of malarkey as he is.

Some people don't want to believe someone is capable of blithe murder or whistling for the end of (or perhaps just 'russian style') elections.

 

[RamblingFool]

Trump is now on tape claiming that "if you vote for me just this one time, you'll never have to vote again".

But sure, both sides are the same...

Yeah, but that's being misinterpreted. He's saying it's very important to vote for him this time around. Next time, things will be ok and it's not an urgent matter. He's not saying you won't be able to vote. There's enough real evil, don't make up more.

LORD HAVE MERCY! Trump didn't actually mean what he said?

He didn't say that, but if he did, he didn't mean it.
And if he did mean it we misunderstood it.
And if we understood it, it's no big deal, others have said worse.

LP isn't a trump supporter, AFAICT. It's just that sometimes LP doesn't want to think DJT is as capable of malarkey as he is.

Some people don't want to believe someone is capable of blithe murder or whistling for the end of (or perhaps just 'russian style') elections.

Speakers tend to play to "their audience." One only needs to realize THAT part of a speaker's speech to realize why they use certain terms or make certain promises.

 

[Jarhyn]

Trump is now on tape claiming that "if you vote for me just this one time, you'll never have to vote again".

But sure, both sides are the same...

Yeah, but that's being misinterpreted. He's saying it's very important to vote for him this time around. Next time, things will be ok and it's not an urgent matter. He's not saying you won't be able to vote. There's enough real evil, don't make up more.

LORD HAVE MERCY! Trump didn't actually mean what he said?

He didn't say that, but if he did, he didn't mean it.
And if he did mean it we misunderstood it.
And if we understood it, it's no big deal, others have said worse.

LP isn't a trump supporter, AFAICT. It's just that sometimes LP doesn't want to think DJT is as capable of malarkey as he is.

Some people don't want to believe someone is capable of blithe murder or whistling for the end of (or perhaps just 'russian style') elections.

Speakers tend to play to "their audience." One only needs to realize THAT part of a speaker's speech to realize why they use certain terms or make certain promises.

I'm just saying, you're kinda new here and I've known LP for a long time.

 

[Elixir]

The government does too many things for people they don't like and their solution is to deprive the government of resources to do those things.

Very well said.

In fairness, the government does too many things for a person or two that I don't like.
But I don't think it's a beast that can be starved by cutting government funding, if you know what I mean.

The real reason conservative economic policy never works is because it's not intended to work. It's goal is to wreck the Federal government and prevent it from improving the lives of poor people.

Yup, and that is a principle asymmetry in this "battle". It's orders of magnitude easier to wreck stuff than to build or create stuff.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The GDP doesn't belong to the government, and even if it did the debt exceeds the GDP.

So what?

My debt exceeds my annual income. But I ain't broke; I make my mortgage payments on time and in full every month.

Since you you can't remember anything posted except the most recent post you are replying to, here are items mentioned in other posts in this thread.
1. Government Debts exceed assets.
2. Government Debts exceed entire GDP.
3. The government doesn't own the GDP anyway.
4. Government spending exceeds direct taxation revenue, debts are increasing.

The US Government pays the interest on US debts on time and in full at the agreed schedule. The US Government ain't broke.

Non-sequitur fallacy.

Borrowing money is a smart move, when you are buying stuff you expect to still be benefiting from long after the debt has been repaid.

Sometimes that is true, sometimes it isn't. Composition fallacy.

That's not only harmless, it's a significant benefit to US citizens.

Not proven, and the fact that people are still hurting from the recent inflation indicates otherwise.

Total spending = total taxes

This is a recipe for a disastrous recession, and likely a deflationary spiral.

Just like the conservatives, you didn't understand.

Total spending is always equal to total taxes, it is not a goal it is a definition. If you hadn't snipped the next line you might have understood what I wrote.

Total taxes = direct taxes + indirect taxes

Perhaps you don't understand "indirect taxes", such as borrowing and depreciation (issuing more currency). Total taxes include funds from direct taxation plus borrowing and printing. Every dollar the government spends has to come from somewhere, and it always comes from some sort of taxation. You misunderstand my statement the exact same way conservatives do.

"Total spending = Total income" isn't even a wise budget for a household.

It is very interesting that you wrote that, as progressives often accuse conservatives of making a mistake when comparing the government budget to a household budget. So conservatives compare a government budget to a household budget. You compared the government budget to a household government.

Households don't issue fiat money, so they should have a budget where Total spending < Total income.

Governments that do issue fiat money should have a budget where Total spending > Total income.

You really have no idea what "indirect taxation" is. Here it is a second time: government gets its money through borrowing or depreciation (printing new money). Both of which extract value from the economy, but in a less visible manner. By printing more money the government causes inflation, so while you would have the exact same number of dollars those dollars purchase less. By borrowing more money the government not only absorbs lendable funds leaving less available for others to borrow, those funds will eventually be paid for by future taxation.

Commodity money hasn't been a thing for a long time. And good riddance.

This wasn't even an argument for sound currency. It was simply stating a fact.

But simpletons gonna simple, I guess. If your understanding of money starts and ends with commodity money, everything is easy. Shitty, but easy. Medieval level shitty. Literally.

I didn't realize the late 19th century was Medieval level shitty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unlike conservatives, I don't consider it a tax cut unless spending is cut by the same amount.
Total spending = total taxes
Total taxes = direct taxes + indirect taxes

Neither Democrats nor Republicans, neither progressives nor conservatives, understand BOTH those equations at the same time. Look at you and the way you described the conservative position, and then for reasons unknown to the entire thinking world ascribed it to me.

How do you think the Democrats do not understand this??

A balanced budget has no indirect taxes. It's the Republicans who are trying to cut taxes and thus create indirect taxes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Total spending = total taxes

This is a recipe for a disastrous recession, and likely a deflationary spiral.

"Total spending = Total income" isn't even a wise budget for a household.

What he's saying is that functionally deficit spending takes that money from the people even though there's no transfer of actual $. And he's right. In the long run that $1 of deficit will cost you $1 in current dollars.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trump is now on tape claiming that "if you vote for me just this one time, you'll never have to vote again".

But sure, both sides are the same...

Yeah, but that's being misinterpreted. He's saying it's very important to vote for him this time around. Next time, things will be ok and it's not an urgent matter. He's not saying you won't be able to vote. There's enough real evil, don't make up more.

No, it's not.

It's being properly interpreted. He literally used the terminology (see also Dog Whistle) that things will be "fixed".

Either he chose the worst possible phraseology for that "misinterpretation" or he meant it as a dog whistle.

If he meant it any other way, that's worse, because it would mean something put in effect which permanently cements such minority rule (theocracy, dictatorship, whatever). There's no situation where Republicans can win without all needing to vote except the situation where "leftists" are in camps or are not allowed to vote, because they only win by "leftist" apathy in the first place.

The thing is it also makes sense as saying the next time around there won't be a big problem.

There's plenty of very wrong stuff, I don't see the point in trying to see importance in something like this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LP isn't a trump supporter, AFAICT. It's just that sometimes LP doesn't want to think DJT is as capable of malarkey as he is.

Some people don't want to believe someone is capable of blithe murder or whistling for the end of (or perhaps just 'russian style') elections.

I think The Felon is mostly just an idiot that's being used by those who want to turn the country into a theocracy. Thus I do not attach a lot of importance to his words.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LP isn't a trump supporter, AFAICT. It's just that sometimes LP doesn't want to think DJT is as capable of malarkey as he is.

Some people don't want to believe someone is capable of blithe murder or whistling for the end of (or perhaps just 'russian style') elections.

Speakers tend to play to "their audience." One only needs to realize THAT part of a speaker's speech to realize why they use certain terms or make certain promises.

The thing is The Felon isn't really very good at dog whistling. Look for dog whistles in the Republican positions but I wouldn't put much importance on supposed dog whistle that's an off the cuff remark from him. He's a figurehead, not the moving force.

 

[bilby]

Total spending is always equal to total taxes, it is not a goal it is a definition.

It's neither; It is a massive misunderstanding, popular amongst simpletons.

 

[bilby]

I didn't realize the late 19th century was Medieval level shitty.

You should read some history, then. Or if that's too hard, read some Dickens.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Total spending is always equal to total taxes, it is not a goal it is a definition.

It's neither; It is a massive misunderstanding, popular amongst simpletons.

Only you could think that definitions are simpleton misunderstandings. Loren understood what I wrote first time reading through.

Let's start with the second part, which you completely failed to understand.

Total Taxes = Direct Taxes + Indirect Taxes. I tried to explain that to you, and you snipped the explanation. I guess it was too hard for you.

You probably know what Direct Taxes are. It is when the government directly collects money from economic actors. Income tax, property tax, and sales tax are all obvious examples. So are many fees, such as your vehicle registration fee. It involves money going directly to the treasury.

What you don't get is the concept of an Indirect Tax. That is when value is extracted from the economy by means other than Direct Taxes.

One of the methods is devaluation. If the government prints more money, that devalues all existing money. You have just as much currency as you had before, but it purchases less. That is a transfer of value from you to the government without you doing anything. You didn't send any money to the government, but they still got value from you. MMT advocates are completely incapable of understanding this point, it runs counter to everything they believe.

One of the methods is borrowing. If a person has money they wish to invest, their options include bank deposits, commodities, stocks, corporate bonds, and government bonds, as well as less common investments. By borrowing, the government is diverting funds from those other options towards the government, soaking up the supply of loanable or investible funds and making it harder for those in other areas who might need those funds. Plus even if the debt is never paid back, there are maintenance fees for servicing the debt.

There are other methods as well. Passing the cost burden to others is one, such as when businesses are forced to collect and remit taxes but not paid for the service, such as when a store collects sales taxes or when an employer withholds income taxes. That increased cost is passed on. The customer pays higher prices as a result of the additional cost the store has to pay. The employee is paid less as a result of the additional cost the employer has to pay. The accountants aren't free you know.

All of these are ways value is transmitted from the economy to the government without an actual tax payment to the government.

Adding up the Direct Taxes and the Indirect Taxes is what gets you Total Taxes. As you should hopefully see by now, Total Taxes isn't just Income Taxes, Sales Taxes, etc. Those are the Direct Taxes. Total Taxes also includes Indirect Taxes.

Now, if you are ready to understand "Total Taxes = Direct Taxes + Indirect Taxes" maybe we can move on to the other statement of fact.

 

[bilby]

Only you could think that definitions are simpleton misunderstandings

Sadly, there are quite a few like you who think that their simpleton misunderstandings are definitive.

While you assume that money is something more than mere numbers, and that economics is therefore zero-sum, you will continue to be laughably wrong.

Unfortunately, your ongoing error is not particularly entertaining in tbe longer term, so having had my chuckle, I shall leave you to your wildly erroneous beliefs.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Only you could think that definitions are simpleton misunderstandings

Sadly, there are quite a few like you who think that their simpleton misunderstandings are definitive.

While you assume that money is something more than mere numbers, and that economics is therefore zero-sum, you will continue to be laughably wrong.

You just snipped the whole explanation of Indirect Taxation AGAIN!

It is as if you think by refusing to acknowledge it you think it will go away.

Yet until you understand the concept of Indirect Taxation, you'll never be able to understand the statement about spending. You'll call it "simplistic" to avoid admitting you can't comprehend it. You'll even make up strange new accusations such as "zero sum" to avoid understanding Indirect Taxation.

 

[bilby]

You just snipped the whole explanation of Indirect Taxation AGAIN!

It is as if you think by refusing to acknowledge it you think it will go away.

I snipped it because the last thing we need on this board is more massive blocks of quoted text.

I have read it; I understand it. It doesn't imply any of the things you are inferring, and I have no particular desire to go down that rabbit hole.

Here's a life tip for you: When somebody doesn't agree with your conclusions, it may well not be because he doesn't understand your arguments. It might also be that you don't understand them as well as you think you do; OR that they are not as relevant as you think they are; OR both.

 

[Elixir]

Since you you can't remember anything posted except the most recent post you are replying to, here are items mentioned in other posts in this thread.
1. Government Debts exceed assets.
2. Government Debts exceed entire GDP.
3. The government doesn't own the GDP anyway.
4. Government spending exceeds direct taxation revenue, debts are increasing.

Since you apparently have not read all the preceding posts, I gotta ask - SO WHAT?
All I ever get from 'Pugs or Libbers is a lot of hair on fire, running around and screaming.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

LP isn't a trump supporter, AFAICT. It's just that sometimes LP doesn't want to think DJT is as capable of malarkey as he is.

Some people don't want to believe someone is capable of blithe murder or whistling for the end of (or perhaps just 'russian style') elections.

I think The Felon is mostly just an idiot that's being used by those who want to turn the country into a theocracy. Thus I do not attach a lot of importance to his words.

Same here. He's just their useful tool for the time being. They'll accede to whatever he wants and encourage him to engage in authoritarian conduct. By the time he's gone, they'll have their theocracy set up. Trump's primary goal is to stay out of prison, so his motivations are the same as a roach stuck in Roach Motel. As long as that doesn't happen and as long as he doesn't have to worry about running out of money, he'll just do what is suggested to him.