|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 27 2018 02:23 LennX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 00:48 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 00:31 Broetchenholer wrote:
WIthout any background in economics i can tell you that there are examples a plenty of states having much higher taxes then the US which have a healthy economy. And then, what do you think happens with the money the taxes collect? Do you believe it is burned? Why do you believe your military economy is doing so well, because the public is not taxed and therefore can buy tanks and aircraft carriers? You have a massive military budget because you have taxes and that budget is used to fuel the economy that then pays workers who then buy stuff. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). Our economy is set up much differently than Germany- who relies on exports. See: sectoral balances. As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU (members are more similar to our states) and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). Also see under Components: Aggregate Demand. Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). Ok I will bite. Explain more in detail so that a layman can understand what you are trying to say. LAYMAN terms only and dont quote wikipedia on me. Use your own words. Show nested quote +Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). Show nested quote +We are also not a member of the EMU (members are more similar to our states) and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). What are you trying to say? Show nested quote +Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). What is your "military economy"?
I thought this pretty much all was in layman's terms hehe. I genuinely want people to understand so I'll try.
Federal taxes are literally deleted from the system (when paid digitally) or shredded if paper. All federal spending is newly created dollars and only Congress has that authority. (Through the Central Bank). Commercial banks do not create dollars, only debt, credit, IOU's.
By accounting identity of the sectoral balances (government sector = domestic private sector - external sector) the two sides must be equal to zero.
The EMU members do not create the euro like Uncle Sam creates the dollar. The US national debt is also denominated in the dollar and not a foreign currency. Taxes create the demand (and value) of the dollar and also regulates spending power (aggregate demand).
"Military economy" was a quote from another poster that asked about taxing to fund the budget for it. 
|
On July 26 2018 22:20 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 22:01 Plansix wrote:
Trump is going to end up slowly smothering the economy and hurting the very people who voted for him, while the rest of the world just cuts trade deals with anyone who isn’t the US. Agree with you there, and is another reason why I say it is a bad move for states to blow up their budget with Medicaid expansions right now. I guess Dems just can't let go of the tax and spend ideology and seem determined to make it work. Either that, or there is a more nefarious strategy of undermining progressive planks. So they can turn around and say "pie in the sky, Bernie Bros!". And of course we'll have to deal with the right saying socialism doesn't work and quotes from Maggie Thatcher about other people's money.
By which you mean the Dems want to run a normal government of a nation with some actual access to wealth and labour. The idea that there is an alternative actually being floated by the ruling party is fucking hilarious. And tragic.
|
Trying to simplify unbelievably complex economic mechanisms into shitty little algebraic equations is not only unproductive, it is deceptive and non-real. That isn't how anything actually works. We don't benefit from trying to simplify these kinds of discussions into mathematical approximations. It isn't real. We end up discussing something that straight up isn't even remotely representative of the real world.
I can see the allure of trying to feel like you understand something more than you do, but maybe, just maybe, there is a reason the people actually working on these problems have a 20 ft long résumé. There are many qualities that make economic mechanisms feel approachable and easily understood. That's why people often compare person debt to the debt of the united states. It feels like it kind of works. It doesn't.
|
On July 27 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:02 chocorush wrote:On July 27 2018 01:37 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 01:20 chocorush wrote:On July 27 2018 00:48 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 00:31 Broetchenholer wrote:
WIthout any background in economics i can tell you that there are examples a plenty of states having much higher taxes then the US which have a healthy economy. And then, what do you think happens with the money the taxes collect? Do you believe it is burned? Why do you believe your military economy is doing so well, because the public is not taxed and therefore can buy tanks and aircraft carriers? You have a massive military budget because you have taxes and that budget is used to fuel the economy that then pays workers who then buy stuff. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). Our economy is set up much differently than Germany- who relies on exports. See: sectoral balances. As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). Also see under Components: Aggregate Demand. Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). You should probably do some more thinking about your prior assumptions. 1) What does the budget deficit have to do with the trade deficit? Why does the existence of one necessarily result in the existence of the other. 2) If taxes are solely applied to delete money from the economy, why does this not have an upwards effect on real wealth of consumers? 3) What are the effects of paying for government expenditures solely through printing money? 4) Where does the equation for Aggregate Demand imply that the components are independent variables? Why do you believe that this is a reasonable assumption? 1) (G – T) = (S – I) – NX One the left side of the equation you have government and on the right, the non-government. These MUST net to zero. "All cannot save". A federal deficit is equal, to the penny, a surplus for the non-government. Or, a budget surplus (as in the Clinton years) is equal to the penny, a deficit for the non-government. This is how he was able to fill the spending gap with bank money (private debt expansion). Re-read the sectoral balances link above. 2) Please rephrase the question so I am sure what you are asking here. 3) This depends on circumstances. If we are at full employment, and continue to attempt to spend on resources already employed... inflation. 4) I was simply pointing out that consumption is dependent on disposable income and marginal propensity to consume, which are heavily influenced by the level of taxation. My point is that you are using examples where a certain outcome is true to prove broad general statements. The point of these questions is to actually think about what you're not understanding, and I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what they mean. I will give you some hints though. 1) You are misapplying the identity. The existence of a trade deficit doesn't imply the existence of a government deficit. It implies that S - G < 0. Surely, you can't draw any reasonable conclusion about the sign of S or G without more information. 2) What happens when you remove money from the money supply? Can you really say that this has no effect on financial assets? 4) Again, you are misapplying the identity. A change in T changes the other variables in ways that are indeterminate without more information on the effects on the other variables. The only way you can definitively draw your conclusion that an increase in T is a decrease on Y is if the variables are independent, which they are not. 1) Are you referring to S - I ? (the domestic private sector) The existence of a trade deficit absolutely implies the need for a government deficit- the only other sector that can go into deficit is the private sector (which is how we ran it under Clinton) and it was unsustainable, resulting in the "Bush recession". We did it again, and ended up with the Global Financial Crisis. See: "Minsky Moment"2) I never said it had no effect on financial assets. Pretty much the opposite. 4) You aren't convinced then, that taxes lower disposable income and directly affect spending habits- certainly in cases where large amounts of revenue are taken for programs such as Medicaid?
1) Having the private sector borrow more is not 'bad', and generally would be considered to be more sustainable than having the government borrow more.
|
On July 27 2018 02:32 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:23 LennX wrote:On July 27 2018 00:48 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 00:31 Broetchenholer wrote:
WIthout any background in economics i can tell you that there are examples a plenty of states having much higher taxes then the US which have a healthy economy. And then, what do you think happens with the money the taxes collect? Do you believe it is burned? Why do you believe your military economy is doing so well, because the public is not taxed and therefore can buy tanks and aircraft carriers? You have a massive military budget because you have taxes and that budget is used to fuel the economy that then pays workers who then buy stuff. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). Our economy is set up much differently than Germany- who relies on exports. See: sectoral balances. As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU (members are more similar to our states) and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). Also see under Components: Aggregate Demand. Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). Ok I will bite. Explain more in detail so that a layman can understand what you are trying to say. LAYMAN terms only and dont quote wikipedia on me. Use your own words. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU (members are more similar to our states) and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). What are you trying to say? Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). What is your "military economy"? I thought this pretty much all was in layman's terms hehe. I genuinely want people to understand so I'll try. Federal taxes are literally deleted from the system (when paid digitally) or shredded if paper. All federal spending is newly created dollars and only Congress has that authority. (Through the Central Bank). Commercial banks do not create dollars, only debt, credit, IOU's. By accounting identity of the sectoral balances (government sector = domestic private sector - external sector) the two sides must be equal to zero. The EMU members do not create the euro like Uncle Sam creates the dollar. The US national debt is also denominated in the dollar and not a foreign currency. Taxes create the demand (and value) of the dollar and also regulates spending power (aggregate demand). "Military economy" was a quote from another poster that asked about taxing to fund the budget for it.
Thank you.
Those of us who actually read economies will know why the answers are just not answers at all. Even as a layman answer, you are repeating what you said previously with no extra explanation.
On July 27 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:
Trying to simplify unbelievably complex economic mechanisms into shitty little algebraic equations is not only unproductive, it is deceptive and non-real. That isn't how anything actually works. We don't benefit from trying to simplify these kinds of discussions into mathematical approximations. It isn't real. We end up discussing something that straight up isn't even remotely representative of the real world.
I can see the allure of trying to feel like you understand something more than you do, but maybe, just maybe, there is a reason the people actually working on these problems have a 20 ft long résumé. There are many qualities that make economic mechanisms feel approachable and easily understood. That's why people often compare person debt to the debt of the united states. It feels like it kind of works. It doesn't.
These algebraic equations are taught in "Econs 101" as a foundation. There are a lot of assumptions made to help simplify it. But I'm voicing my doubts over the proper usage of it by a single poster in the past few pages of the thread.
|
On July 27 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:02 chocorush wrote:On July 27 2018 01:37 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 01:20 chocorush wrote:On July 27 2018 00:48 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 00:31 Broetchenholer wrote:
WIthout any background in economics i can tell you that there are examples a plenty of states having much higher taxes then the US which have a healthy economy. And then, what do you think happens with the money the taxes collect? Do you believe it is burned? Why do you believe your military economy is doing so well, because the public is not taxed and therefore can buy tanks and aircraft carriers? You have a massive military budget because you have taxes and that budget is used to fuel the economy that then pays workers who then buy stuff. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). Our economy is set up much differently than Germany- who relies on exports. See: sectoral balances. As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). Also see under Components: Aggregate Demand. Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). You should probably do some more thinking about your prior assumptions. 1) What does the budget deficit have to do with the trade deficit? Why does the existence of one necessarily result in the existence of the other. 2) If taxes are solely applied to delete money from the economy, why does this not have an upwards effect on real wealth of consumers? 3) What are the effects of paying for government expenditures solely through printing money? 4) Where does the equation for Aggregate Demand imply that the components are independent variables? Why do you believe that this is a reasonable assumption? 1) (G – T) = (S – I) – NX One the left side of the equation you have government and on the right, the non-government. These MUST net to zero. "All cannot save". A federal deficit is equal, to the penny, a surplus for the non-government. Or, a budget surplus (as in the Clinton years) is equal to the penny, a deficit for the non-government. This is how he was able to fill the spending gap with bank money (private debt expansion). Re-read the sectoral balances link above. 2) Please rephrase the question so I am sure what you are asking here. 3) This depends on circumstances. If we are at full employment, and continue to attempt to spend on resources already employed... inflation. 4) I was simply pointing out that consumption is dependent on disposable income and marginal propensity to consume, which are heavily influenced by the level of taxation. My point is that you are using examples where a certain outcome is true to prove broad general statements. The point of these questions is to actually think about what you're not understanding, and I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what they mean. I will give you some hints though. 1) You are misapplying the identity. The existence of a trade deficit doesn't imply the existence of a government deficit. It implies that S - G < 0. Surely, you can't draw any reasonable conclusion about the sign of S or G without more information. 2) What happens when you remove money from the money supply? Can you really say that this has no effect on financial assets? 4) Again, you are misapplying the identity. A change in T changes the other variables in ways that are indeterminate without more information on the effects on the other variables. The only way you can definitively draw your conclusion that an increase in T is a decrease on Y is if the variables are independent, which they are not. 4) You aren't convinced then, that taxes lower disposable income and directly affect spending habits- certainly in cases where large amounts of revenue are taken for programs such as Medicaid?
If you stop and think, you will realize that you just used an example where tax revenue taken was offset by a government expenditure that could have large effects on spending habits in the private sector. It's completely unreasonable to then draw a conclusion that aggregate demand can only decrease.
Being convinced that something will happen is the job of politicians. Not economists, and not scientists. If you're trying to approach this question analytically, the only reasonable conclusion is that there are many variables that change when you change one variable, and that you cannot determine the direction or scale of total change just based on a change in one variable.
|
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company.
|
On July 27 2018 02:51 LennX wrote:
These algebraic equations are taught in "Econs 101" as a foundation. There are a lot of assumptions made to help simplify it. But I'm voicing my doubts over the proper usage of it by a single poster in the past few pages of the thread.
The ones I used are NOT taught in economics classes where they still study gold standard garbage and neoclassical econ.
|
On July 27 2018 02:53 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 02:02 chocorush wrote:On July 27 2018 01:37 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 01:20 chocorush wrote:On July 27 2018 00:48 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 00:31 Broetchenholer wrote:
WIthout any background in economics i can tell you that there are examples a plenty of states having much higher taxes then the US which have a healthy economy. And then, what do you think happens with the money the taxes collect? Do you believe it is burned? Why do you believe your military economy is doing so well, because the public is not taxed and therefore can buy tanks and aircraft carriers? You have a massive military budget because you have taxes and that budget is used to fuel the economy that then pays workers who then buy stuff. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). Our economy is set up much differently than Germany- who relies on exports. See: sectoral balances. As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). Also see under Components: Aggregate Demand. Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). You should probably do some more thinking about your prior assumptions. 1) What does the budget deficit have to do with the trade deficit? Why does the existence of one necessarily result in the existence of the other. 2) If taxes are solely applied to delete money from the economy, why does this not have an upwards effect on real wealth of consumers? 3) What are the effects of paying for government expenditures solely through printing money? 4) Where does the equation for Aggregate Demand imply that the components are independent variables? Why do you believe that this is a reasonable assumption? 1) (G – T) = (S – I) – NX One the left side of the equation you have government and on the right, the non-government. These MUST net to zero. "All cannot save". A federal deficit is equal, to the penny, a surplus for the non-government. Or, a budget surplus (as in the Clinton years) is equal to the penny, a deficit for the non-government. This is how he was able to fill the spending gap with bank money (private debt expansion). Re-read the sectoral balances link above. 2) Please rephrase the question so I am sure what you are asking here. 3) This depends on circumstances. If we are at full employment, and continue to attempt to spend on resources already employed... inflation. 4) I was simply pointing out that consumption is dependent on disposable income and marginal propensity to consume, which are heavily influenced by the level of taxation. My point is that you are using examples where a certain outcome is true to prove broad general statements. The point of these questions is to actually think about what you're not understanding, and I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what they mean. I will give you some hints though. 1) You are misapplying the identity. The existence of a trade deficit doesn't imply the existence of a government deficit. It implies that S - G < 0. Surely, you can't draw any reasonable conclusion about the sign of S or G without more information. 2) What happens when you remove money from the money supply? Can you really say that this has no effect on financial assets? 4) Again, you are misapplying the identity. A change in T changes the other variables in ways that are indeterminate without more information on the effects on the other variables. The only way you can definitively draw your conclusion that an increase in T is a decrease on Y is if the variables are independent, which they are not. 4) You aren't convinced then, that taxes lower disposable income and directly affect spending habits- certainly in cases where large amounts of revenue are taken for programs such as Medicaid? If you stop and think, you will realize that you just used an example where tax revenue taken was offset by a government expenditure that could have large effects on spending habits in the private sector. It's completely unreasonable to then draw a conclusion that aggregate demand can only decrease.
No. I am pointing out that while the federal government is slashing the deficit, the state of Oregon is levying a tax for a Medicaid expansion program. There is no offset of federal spending in this scenario.
|
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sound-off-south-florida/fl-reg-stand-your-ground-20180725-story.html
The most disgusting law that allows murderers get away free... This story is blowing up all over the state of FL. I can see racist using this law to instigate a "legal murder" in states where its implemented. The video shows a man pushing another man to floor, the person who pushed was backing away as soon as a gun was pulled out, yet the guy with the gun still decides to fire while the person was backing away. It all started with the man with the gun yelling at a women parked in a handicap spot.
Stand Your Ground cases are often not as clear-cut as they ought to be, but Michael Drejka’s killing of Markeis McGlockton last week is murkier than most, and McGlockton’s family is now calling for the state attorney’s office to file charges against Drejka after Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri refused to arrest the man.
Here’s what we know about the case.
Last Thursday, Britany Jacobs parked her minivan in a handicapped spot outside the Circle A Food Store in Clearwater.
Her boyfriend, Markeis McGlockton, and one of their three children, Markeis McGlockton Jr., went into the store.
While they were in the store, Jacobs was approached by Michael Drejka, who had a history of confronting people who park in handicapped spots without permits, according to the owner of the convenience store.
McGlockton came out of the store and, seeing the heated confrontation, shoved Drejka to the ground, as seen on video from the store’s security camera.
Drejka then pulled out a gun, McGlockton backed away, and then Drejka shot him in the chest.
McGlockton ran into the store clutching his chest, and he died there on the floor of the Circle A.
|
I think folks might have missed the original context for this discussion. But I also feel that it wandered a far away from the original subject matter to a more meta discussion about how the government currency and how said currency holds value.
|
On July 27 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company.
They will survive. It's only a 20% drop in stock prices. I won't be worried until a new social media platform is able to take over FB.
But yea slow moving day. Need more gossip/ news on the attempted impeachment of the deputy AG.
|
On July 27 2018 03:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sound-off-south-florida/fl-reg-stand-your-ground-20180725-story.htmlThe most disgusting law that allows murderers get away free... This story is blowing up all over the state of FL. I can see racist using this law to instigate a "legal murder" in states where its implemented. The video shows a man pushing another man to floor, the person who pushed was backing away as soon as a gun was pulled out, yet the guy with the gun still decides to fire while the person was backing away. It all started with the man with the gun yelling at a women parked in a handicap spot. Show nested quote +
Stand Your Ground cases are often not as clear-cut as they ought to be, but Michael Drejka’s killing of Markeis McGlockton last week is murkier than most, and McGlockton’s family is now calling for the state attorney’s office to file charges against Drejka after Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri refused to arrest the man.
Here’s what we know about the case.
Last Thursday, Britany Jacobs parked her minivan in a handicapped spot outside the Circle A Food Store in Clearwater.
Her boyfriend, Markeis McGlockton, and one of their three children, Markeis McGlockton Jr., went into the store.
While they were in the store, Jacobs was approached by Michael Drejka, who had a history of confronting people who park in handicapped spots without permits, according to the owner of the convenience store.
McGlockton came out of the store and, seeing the heated confrontation, shoved Drejka to the ground, as seen on video from the store’s security camera.
Drejka then pulled out a gun, McGlockton backed away, and then Drejka shot him in the chest.
McGlockton ran into the store clutching his chest, and he died there on the floor of the Circle A.
If you read into that one more, Drejka was a regular at that store and had threatened to shoot people before that day. And there is a pause between when he pulled the fire arm and when he fired.
But this case is a clear example why the Florida law is complete trash. There is no reason for this to have escalated to lethal violence, but Florida allows for it. And if we are going to have laws this stupid, lets just bring back dueling since that had some form and structure to it.
|
On July 27 2018 03:03 LennX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:
On another note, watching Facebook’s stock take it in the teeth today is very enjoyable. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company. They will survive. It's only a 20% drop in stock prices. I won't be worried until a new social media platform is able to take over FB. But yea slow moving day. Need more gossip/ news on the attempted impeachment of the deputy AG.
I know they will live. I just like watching them lose money and value now that they are just a normal, run of the mill tech company run by people that are not as smart as everyone believed.
|
On July 27 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
I think folks might have missed the original context for this discussion. But I also feel that it wandered a far away from the original subject matter to a more meta discussion about how the government currency and how said currency holds value.
Yeah sorry, was having some fun.
Just wanted to note a correction. A federal budget deficit is G - T > 0 (not less than).
I'll yield the floor to other discussions now.
|
This is probably why impeachment of Rosenstein was suggested. This is 100% lights out if the Trump organization was in any way tied to laundering or anything of the like. Weisselberg has been with Trump for 40 years. No one has more knowledge of the financial workings of Trump's dealings than him.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/trump-org-cfo-called-to-grand-jury-to-testify-wsj.html
If they are able to get truthful testimony out of him, I think this is GG.
A federal grand jury investigating President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has subpoenaed the chief financial officer of Trump's company, Allen Weisselberg, to testify, a new report said Thursday.
I think this whole ordeal has done a really good job at showing how proficient our intelligence agencies are. I think a lot of people have been assuming various things are sufficiently hidden. In reality, it was just that no one had bothered to check yet.
|
On July 27 2018 02:32 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 02:23 LennX wrote:On July 27 2018 00:48 screamingpalm wrote:On July 27 2018 00:31 Broetchenholer wrote:
WIthout any background in economics i can tell you that there are examples a plenty of states having much higher taxes then the US which have a healthy economy. And then, what do you think happens with the money the taxes collect? Do you believe it is burned? Why do you believe your military economy is doing so well, because the public is not taxed and therefore can buy tanks and aircraft carriers? You have a massive military budget because you have taxes and that budget is used to fuel the economy that then pays workers who then buy stuff. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). Our economy is set up much differently than Germany- who relies on exports. See: sectoral balances. As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU (members are more similar to our states) and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). Also see under Components: Aggregate Demand. Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). Ok I will bite. Explain more in detail so that a layman can understand what you are trying to say. LAYMAN terms only and dont quote wikipedia on me. Use your own words. Federal taxes are deleted in the US (you can also buy shredded money in DC). As a net importer we need to run federal budget deficits. We are also not a member of the EMU (members are more similar to our states) and are monetarily sovereign- our federal government does not need, nor benefit from revenue and our debt is denominated in our own currency. Federal taxes serve the purpose of driving the currency and regulating inflation/spending power. (And sometimes as a sin tax). What are you trying to say? Speaking of our military economy, note that no taxes were raised to "pay for" the last budget (which Dems meet and beat what Trump asked for). What is your "military economy"? I thought this pretty much all was in layman's terms hehe. I genuinely want people to understand so I'll try. Federal taxes are literally deleted from the system (when paid digitally) or shredded if paper. All federal spending is newly created dollars and only Congress has that authority. (Through the Central Bank). Commercial banks do not create dollars, only debt, credit, IOU's. By accounting identity of the sectoral balances (government sector = domestic private sector - external sector) the two sides must be equal to zero. The EMU members do not create the euro like Uncle Sam creates the dollar. The US national debt is also denominated in the dollar and not a foreign currency. Taxes create the demand (and value) of the dollar and also regulates spending power (aggregate demand). "Military economy" was a quote from another poster that asked about taxing to fund the budget for it.
Look, in theory this might be true. I don't understand why you would do that in the US but if you want to delete money and then reprint it, go ahead. Guess your printing business likes this then. However, for some weird reason, the budget of countries, and the US is not different, is usually quite similar to the amout of taxes they collect. Sure, if the government spends less money on the domestic economy then they take in as taxes, this is effectively taking the money out of the economy and therefore reduce public spending. But the part that the government spends domestically raises pulic spending again. Therefore, most taxes do not reduce but redistribute the ability to spend for the public. Do you agree with that?
|
On July 27 2018 03:18 Mohdoo wrote:This is probably why impeachment of Rosenstein was suggested. This is 100% lights out if the Trump organization was in any way tied to laundering or anything of the like. Weisselberg has been with Trump for 40 years. No one has more knowledge of the financial workings of Trump's dealings than him. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/trump-org-cfo-called-to-grand-jury-to-testify-wsj.htmlIf they are able to get truthful testimony out of him, I think this is GG. Show nested quote +A federal grand jury investigating President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has subpoenaed the chief financial officer of Trump's company, Allen Weisselberg, to testify, a new report said Thursday. I think this whole ordeal has done a really good job at showing how proficient our intelligence agencies are. I think a lot of people have been assuming various things are sufficiently hidden. In reality, it was just that no one had bothered to check yet.
The question is, does anyone trust the intelligence agencies anymore? GH certainly doesn't, and I'm guessing they've taken a bit of a beating in the public perception (at least on the right) thanks to the FBI getting mauled by Faux News, and did anyone like the CIA and NSA anyway?
|
I feel positive that more than 50% of the population would rather trust intelligence agencies. But can see a good 30% actually being against it.
|
On July 27 2018 03:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2018 03:18 Mohdoo wrote:This is probably why impeachment of Rosenstein was suggested. This is 100% lights out if the Trump organization was in any way tied to laundering or anything of the like. Weisselberg has been with Trump for 40 years. No one has more knowledge of the financial workings of Trump's dealings than him. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/trump-org-cfo-called-to-grand-jury-to-testify-wsj.htmlIf they are able to get truthful testimony out of him, I think this is GG. A federal grand jury investigating President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has subpoenaed the chief financial officer of Trump's company, Allen Weisselberg, to testify, a new report said Thursday. I think this whole ordeal has done a really good job at showing how proficient our intelligence agencies are. I think a lot of people have been assuming various things are sufficiently hidden. In reality, it was just that no one had bothered to check yet. The question is, does anyone trust the intelligence agencies anymore? GH certainly doesn't, and I'm guessing they've taken a bit of a beating in the public perception (at least on the right) thanks to the FBI getting mauled by Faux News, and did anyone like the CIA and NSA anyway?
There are polls out there saying that around 60% of folks are willing to trust the government agencies like the FBI, CIA and so on. Trump’s efforts to badmouth them do not seem to have had much staying power.
The recent exception is ICE, which is one of the most disliked and distrusted federal agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
