Noooo….you still don’t like Biden. You still think self serving narcissistic Trump was a leader, but a lifelong frugal public servant isn’t. Nooooo! (I know there’s no breaking through your fantasy, bob. You are a lost cause, totally divorced from reality and totally uninterested in honesty).

No bob, I mean the Union…as in the United States of America. As in the Union vs the Confederacy. Trump nearly dissolved the Union, so much that Republican platforms now include secession as their goal. Derp. Another “L” for your column. Another dunce cap for your collection.
Republicans want to erase America out of infantile spite, but have no idea what to do afterwards. Better learn Chinese or Russian, red states can’t afford to defend themselves, you are all welfare queen states with the highest murder and crime rates.

Side note: But, this means you are anti union, so 100% anti worker? Really? What favors has Biden handed unions? Most unions (all you oppose) lobby for workers, blue collar employees. You would limit lobbiests to to those lobbying for billionaires and huge corporations (including religious corporations) that actively lobby against workers rights, pay, safety, ecological responsibility, hours, etc. Think about that.

You fucking moron, it went from 3.08% (higher than Trump ever reached) in 2015 under Obama to -3.5% in 2020 (the lowest ever in history). Who the fuck told you .2%? Who told you Trump left it at 2.5%? Overall Obama’s growth rate was actually 50% higher than Trump’s, and Obama inherited a deep recession, Trump inherited a boom. They outright lied to you, and you just lapped it up without ever looking. They’re feeding you poo pie bob, not chocolate. I really wish I didn’t have to spend so much time correcting your obviously fabricated statistics, especially since you only spout them to force a correction, getting you attention, not because you believe or even understand them. So you understand, printing 50% more money while your economy is in the worst contraction ever causes inflation, and that’s what Trump did in 2020 while focusing on the election he lost in a landslide and ignoring the pandemic and economy.

Jobs?!? Obama job growth was near 8% adding 12.5 million jobs, Trump was the only president ever to lose jobs, losing 3.2 million. Another 100% break from reality, buddy. I’m telling you, you need professional help.

Yes, Trump did turn us around, from a massive recovery and booming economy to massive economic losses, job losses, absolutely insane deficits and trying to double the debt, huge money printing in 2020 (magic wand waiving) that creates massive inflation (that he now blames Biden for), undreamed of losses of life, and teetering on the brink of depression and pandemic. He made us madder. For libs that means angry, for cons that means totally bat shit crazy with no ties to reality at all.

Far from it, lots of positive, but so much negative left from the previous one we are still in the red.

They have made policies that help the American pocketbook, Trump robbed it blind to hand to billionaires (and fake billionaires).

Who told you that lie. The Democrats have done everything they legally can to force oil companies to increase production and stop price gouging, Republicans all voted against doing anything, then claim “Biden’s fault”. No fossil fuel production has been cut. You’ve been lied to, and you aren’t intellectually honest enough to investigate for yourself…you don’t want to hear the truth.

Republicans are to blame for high fuel prices, Democrats are responsible for the recent lowering. Democrats are making efforts to lower them further, Republicans are 100% opposed to any actions.

Trump benefited on fuel costs thanks to the economic collapse he caused by denying and ignoring Covid for months, dropping the demand for fuel to nothing…not a good policy overall, or do you suggest killing another million and shutting down another year to lower gas prices?


Lol. You are claiming reports say the average American spends $500 more on fuel and goods per month than under Trump? What reports? Glen Beck, AON, or Rush Limbaugh’s ghost? Only if you are a trucker using hundreds of gallons of gas a month. Even in California, fuel cost has gone up less than 1/5 of what you say.

Trump cost you SO much more than $6k per year, over $60k per taxpayer on the official debt alone…and these extra expenses (probably $100-$200 per month tops) are thanks to Trump printing 1/3 of every dollar in circulation (inflation) and fuel supply and demand being out of hand intentionally because oil companies make more money by producing less, and aren’t nationalized so the government can’t force them to stop gouging.

Such nonsense bob. Your facts are all wrong, and since you won’t investigate you are just going to continue to believe the lies you were fed. The people you listen to are making money off your beliefs, bob, and they see you as a huge sucker they can convince of anything and get your money or support for their America destroying “get me richer quick” schemes.

🤦‍♂️

Summary, since I don’t think you can read that much.
Union = United States Union, not unions
Gdp- Obama 1.59% rising consistently during his presidency Trump 1% falling precipitously to the worst ever in history. Also never beat Obama’s high.
Jobs- Obama added 12.5 million, Trump lost 3.2 million
Debt- Obama added $9 trillion, ending a recession and creating a boom over 8 years. Trump added $8 trillion on the books (and trillions more off the books) in 4 years ending a boom and creating a recession
Deficit- 2020 was the biggest budget deficit ever by >200% at $3.13 trillion and added well over $4.2 trillion to the debt that year, way more than 2021 at a still horrific $2.7 budget deficit but ending adding only $1.5 to the debt.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Oil/gas price - all cost cutting measures opposed by Cons.

8:18 – "Germany is very financially responsible".

The clip makes a few good points, twists others and omits some central issues. But I want to comment on the quote above most of all, because it forms the basis for all kinds of arguments and recommendations.

The claim that Germany is financially responsible stems from what has been paraded around domestically as the "schwarze Null" (black zero), meaning a balanced budget. Given how focused most economic debates are around the national debt or the current budget deficit, it shouldn't come as a surprise that not running a deficit evokes positive responses in the public. If there has ever been an easy sell, politically, it's this.

However, it's not that simple.

For instance, the sectoral balance rule dictates, by pure accounting identity, that the sum of public balance, private balance and external balance is 0 at all times. In case of Germany, this means that the balanced public budget (no surplus, just a fat zero) requires a current account surplus of the same size as private savings – or an accumulation of private debt. For someone to run a surplus, someone else has to run a deficit. In this case, foreign economies have to run a deficit vis-á-vis Germany, so that neither the German government nor the German private sector have to run a deficit.

The composition of each sector is another topic entirely, but the point remains: no surplus in Germany without a deficit in the periphery. If everyone is to be like Germany, Klingons have to run the respective deficit.

My question: is it financially responsible to depend on other economies' deficits to keep your own house in order? Is it responsible to engage in this kind of behaviour after having locked yourself into a monetary union with less competitive economies who have no way of defending themselves through currency devaluation?

Second point: capital accounts and current accounts are two sides of the same coin. If Germany runs a current account surplus of X%, it also runs a capital account deficit of X%. Doesn't explain anything, but it's the same for the countries at the other side of these trade imbalances. Spain's current account deficit with Germany meant a capital inflow of the same size.

Let's look at EuroStat's dataset for current accounts. Germany had run a minor current account deficit during the late '90s and a small surplus up to 2003. From then on, it went up, up, up. Given the size of Germany's economy within Europe, that jump from 2% to 7.5% is enormous. Pre-GFC, the majority of this surplus went to... yap, PIIGS. Their deficits multiplied.

Subsequently, capital of equals size flowed into these countries, looking for investments. No nation, none, can absorb this amount of capital without it resulting in a massive misallocation, be it stock bubbles, housing bubbles, highways to nowhere or lavish consumption. Michael Pettis wrote a magnificent account (Syriza and the French indemnity of 1871-73) of this and explains how Germany handled a similar inflow of capital after the Franco-Prussian war: it crashed their economy.

As Pettis correctly points out, the question of causality remains. Was the capital flow a pull or a push?

The dataset linked above says it all happened at just about the same time, in all countries. It also happened at the same time as Germany's parliament signed of on "Agenda 2010", which is the cause of massive wage suppression in Germany. Germany intentionally lowered its unit labour costs and undercut the agreed upon inflation target (2%). German employees and retirees were forced to live below their means, so the export sector could gain competitiveness against all the other nations, including those in the same currency union. Beggar-thy-neighbour on steroids.

Greece overshot the inflation target. They lived beyond their means. But due to their size, it's economically negligable. France stayed on point the entire time, has higher productivity than Germany and still gets defamed as the lame duck of Europe. Yet Germany, after more than a decade of financial warfare against its fellow members of the EU/EZ, is hailed as the beacon of financial responsibility.

Mercantilism always comes at the cost of others. And the EU is living proof.

@radx

I think the problem with say a 20 year time frame for Greece, is that same lack of trust and political inability to essentially prop up these governments with cash, year on year, for a period of that kind of time frame. I don't see Merkel being able to support this and not get pushed out of government. Functionally money has a time value so in essence, a long time frame is just more money. Rumour is Merkel is considering extending time frames on Greek loans (because most people don't understand that last point) but that will only come with a greater commitment to reform.

As far as collective punishment, it's more an issue that none of the other EU countries are responsible. I wouldn't characterise anything as being forced upon Greece, although I'm sure many feel that way. If they were to leave and reject aid they would be far worse though. The majority of Greece rightly wants to stay in. The Syriza win was about 'dignity' and basically getting better terms. But they won't get it because it would lead to parties in Portugal/Spain emerging and demanding the same thing. Morality doesn't really come in to it, I'm just looking at what's likely and/or possible.

As you mentioned, Germany went through its own period of austerity. It certainly constrained wage growth (which contributed to making its exports particularly competitive and put it in a good position to weather a downturn in the eurozone, when it can export to foreign markets) but I don't believe its inflation rate was vastly off. It was 1-2%, not vastly different to France for example. Either way politically, I don't see the German people being willing to pay these countries out of their troubles in effect.

I certainly agree though that eurozone rules were broken before the euro crisis, e.g. both Germany & France ran budget deficits in excess of agreed terms. Really it came down to the structural weakness of the eurozone's design. You can't have a monetary union (shared currency and central bank policy) without a fiscal union. What they had at best were fiscal guidelines and those weren't followed.

I don't see the eurozone collapsing though. Parties that want to leave are generally still fringe parties (excluding in the UK but it is the least integrated). France doesn't need bailouts, it just lacks growth (due to lack of the reforms Germany went through). The ECB's QE and the loose banking union for bailing out banks that they've developed will mean if Greece collapses these is unlikely to be any serious bank collapses or Lehman moments (or so the theory goes).

I don't really agree at the end with your characterization of a high German savings rate being culpability for inflating bubbles. That fault falls on the lack of domestic bank regulation within the respective countries, the lack of regulation to curb bad lending. In the same way I wouldn't blame China's saving rate for encouraging sub-prime US loans. Cash/liquidity is globally mobile and fungible. It's the responsible of the borrowers and their regulators to ensure they don't dig themselves into a hole. The lenders already stand to lose their investment if the loan goes bad.

http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-the-National-Debt-and-Budget-Deficit

Quit complaining about debt ffs.

Debt is not bad. Debt you can't pay back/afford is.

Income taxes started in the 1860s. Not sure about capital gains. I don't buy your point that poor immigrants got wealthier when there were no taxes. Wealthy individuals have most often gotten rich on the labor of poorer people (think slavery).
Diverting from productive to unproductive is a matter of opinion on what is productive. I think we waste so much money on the military, but politicians are afraid to say that. Only a small percent is spent on welfare and I would argue that does improve our chances in the future.
Not sure if you've seen this... http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-the-National-Debt-and-Budget-Deficit I am concerned about the debt, but I also believe it's being used to score political points and is part of the fear agenda.
It's class envy (or wealth redistribution) when you talk about raising taxes on the rich, but what was it called when the tax rates were decreased and the loopholes were created.
>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.
The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden...And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.
...The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored...

Congratulations! Your video, Understanding the National Debt and Budget Deficit, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 7 Badge!

>> ^renatojj:

@Payback so I wouldn't have to deal with ignorant and offensive retorts. Judging by @Xaielao's comment, it didn't work.


I gotta say, as ignorant, offensive retorts go, @Xaielao's seems pretty tame...

>> ^renatojj:

Just so viewers know, the economic theories behind this guy's convoluted explanations are not accepted by all economists. Sadly, this kind of video will likely turn many people off to the subject entirely.


You're right, in the same way that not all biologists agree on evolution as the origin of species.

>> ^renatojj:

Just so viewers know, the economic theories behind this guy's convoluted explanations are not accepted by all economists. Sadly, this kind of video will likely turn many people off to the subject entirely.


I note you haven't said he's wrong...

Your video, Understanding the National Debt and Budget Deficit, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you don't believe money exists, then you should have no problem giving me all of your money. I will give you 1000 angels and an invisible unicorn in return. Deal of a lifetime. PM me for my paypal address.

(In all seriousness, you should read up on economics. It sounds like Ron Paul has warped your understanding of economics.) >> ^vaire2ube:

im not watching because as i understand it, the debt only exists if you believe money really exists, and i dont think money as we are told exists really exists... they can put you in debtors prison but cant get blood from a stone... and as i understand it, the fiat currency we accept is totally unbacked by anything other than faith... and thats only good for making "bubbles"
yea i still pay my bills my cabin in the woods isnt built yet, whats your plan!

So... protesting against government's excessive spending and taxes, and wanting to reduce the national debt, and budget deficit with a constitutionally limited government = Taliban


Yeah... makes sense.


Let's gather the most abhorrent quotes from people never involved with the foundation of the movement, and make loose associations that have little to do with its expressed agenda, and voilà... TALIBAN!

Now we can hate them without critical thinking, THANK YOU NEWSROOM!

Dude, seriously?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despicable as this was, the left is more eager to bury JFK's views on taxation.
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
More JFK tax quotes here.

Despicable as this was, the left is more eager to bury JFK's views on taxation.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

More JFK tax quotes here.

THIS IS IT IN A NUTSHELL.

Buffett Blames Congress for Romney's 15% Rate


Warren Buffett, the billionaire calling for more taxes on the rich, said Mitt Romney's U.S. tax rate of about 15 percent reflects poor laws rather than failings by the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

"It's the wrong policy to have," Buffett told Bloomberg Television's Betty Liu in an interview today. "He's not going to pay more than the law requires, and I don't fault him for that in the least. But I do fault a law that allows him and me earning enormous sums to pay overall federal taxes at a rate that's about half what the average person in my office pays."

Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) , supports Democratic President Barack Obama and said Congress needs to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to close the budget deficit. Romney has agreed to release his 2010 tax return tomorrow, under pressure from Republican opponents, after saying he pays about 15 percent. Romney co- founded Boston-based private-equity firm Bain Capital LLC.

"He makes his money the same way I make my money," Buffett said. "He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money."

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Kraut at dkraut2@bloomberg.net