.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:1327835"]The whole argument against printing more money is that it's too tempting because while it takes no previously existing funds out of the Treasury and SEEMS free and easy, it causes inflation and economic downturns in the long run, downturns and job losses which then reduce taxpayer revenue to the government. That's a great reason to look at "economic downturns" on the deficit chart above and blame the Fed for those losses if you believe that argument, absolutely; it's not a reason to count those losses twice by counting the printed money as coming out of previously existing Treasury bills when it didn't. The only material cost of printing money aside from future inflation/downturns - a serious concern that you make a good point about - is a few bucks of ink and paper already in the budget every year for the Treasury Department. I'll put it more simply: in your example with the record, you're right except one thing, the analogy to creating new money only works if the person created the record (instead of buying it) and expected it to have a certain value being the only copy in existence; the devalued record after over-mass-production {I guess by some third party who somehow manages to copyright all but the original copy, work with me here} would mean the asset (the original copy of the record) was worth that much less, but it wouldn't mean the person should think about their bank balance and deduct what they initially thought selling their copy of the record had been worth, does it? How would that make sense? The only cost in their budget math was the already factored in cost of making the record in the first place (the ink and paper for the printed money in the analogy). While the excessive mass production was clearly bad for the person in the long term as it cost them something in loss of asset value, it still doesn't make sense to deduct the prospective value of an asset from your budget math going forwards, because that's too speculative to even function (since markets in real time will also affect the value of assets/currency at any given moment). Your case is one you can only even begin to make comparing time periods (and subsequent inflation rates) retroactively and from a considerable distance; deducting newly printed currency as hard numbers in a prospective budget analysis is impossible out of the gate. But, hey let's say for the sake of argument we do it your way anyway and add quantitative easing to the easy budget arithmetic I posted above despite all of that: The Federal Reserve under Bush spent $800B on QE1. The Federal Reserve under Obama spent $600B on QE1 and $600B on QE2, let's speculate QE3 is the same. Updated spending totals: $833B + $42B + $25B + $70B + $1B + $1.8T= [B]$2.77T Obama policies[/B] $4T + $2.9T + $1.25T + $800B = [B]$8.95T Bush policies[/B] Of course, that's not including one other multitrillion Bush item: defense spending hikes other than the wars, which consists of items like the missing $2.6T from the Pentagon you correctly pointed out - to which there is no comparable large Obama figure missing from the equation; the health care law [URL='http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/11/american-commitment/tv-ad-says-health-laws-cost-2-trillion-double-what/']cost[/URL] of $1.7B barely changes the overall totals to Obama policies [B]$2.79T[/B], Bush policies [B]$8.95T[/B]. (That's giving no credit - zero - in those figures for any of the Obama deficit reduction policies - health care/defense/sequester - which had they been included cut the cost of his policies $1.5T to [B]$1.29T[/B]) Am I leaving anything out? I want to be absolutely fair here. If there's a giant Obama policy spending item or Bush deficit reduction success we're somehow overlooking, let's add it in. So far, counting quantitative easing and if we ignore Obama deficit reduction as well as the trillions you mentioned Rumsfeld lost at the Pentagon, we're still at $2.79T Obama policies v. $8.95T Bush policies.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][