They spelled out the main qualifier explicitly, you just didn't like being shown to be wrong so you started raging incoherently and trying to move the goalposts. You increase deficits in bad times, you decrease deficits in good times. There is nothing about the absolute number in debt because anyone who knows what they are talking about wouldn't use such a dumb metric.
No, I'm sorry, they haven't. Literally none of the times I've listened/watched these shows that the average Joe would watch has that
ever been explicitily stated. It has
alwaysd boiled down to "Spend during the bad times, pay back in the good times". It's why the discussion of tax rates being raised in the good times and disgust why that never happens even comes up. Maybe in your super smart economic circles you all understand what you all are talking about, and some small % of the population understands, but Average Joe, the one actually on the long term hook for paying off your ideology, does not. Even
if what you say here is accurate, your ideological marketers have
absolutely sucked at getting your ideology
with the main qualifiers explained to the general public. And now I see you're talking about reducing deficits in the good times. Deficits, another way to mask Spending. We can have a Gov spend of $2 with $1.8T in income (meaning: They should be held to $1.8T, not $2T, in spending), the Policitians in theory will actually hold themselves to blowing $2.5T in 4 years, Gov income comes up to $2.5T, and shazzam, "We decreased the deficit!". Politicians and Spenders crow what a feat they just accomplished. Back in Reality, they grew spending by $.7T. Congrats though, they've "decreased" in the good times.
It has never been that, although I do appreciate your willingness to lie in order to avoid admitting you're wrong.
It's
always been that. That is how it's pushed to average joe. Average Joe is willing to take a short term hit to take a chance on spurring the economy (it
really helps when you do an "infrastructure" project that their union is going to benefit from) if he knows the Politicians are going to get that deficit back to even with income and pay back down that debt we've racked up. That is literally how every person I know who even knows what GDP, deficit, and debt means understands Spender ideology to be. If you don't believe that, maybe you should leave your sheltered super smart halls of ideology and get out with the common man and run a check on the information they're exposed to and understand to be.
There is no qualifier for payback
I'm glad you are understanding this, that your ideological marketing dept has failed so badly here.
, you just don't understand what you're talking about.
Doh! You were making progress...
What's bizarre is that your ignorance here is so basic that I have a hard time believing it's genuine.
Nick Naylor, is that you??
I will attempt to help you understand basic economics one last time: In 1920 median income was somewhere around $1,000 per year (depending on your source). If you were to buy a car for $3,000 you just took out 300% of your yearly income in debt. That's a big problem! Now in 2013 that $3,000 equals about $35,000 in inflation adjusted terms. The median household income today is around $50,000. Therefore despite owing more than twelve times as much money your ability to repay that debt is vastly greater.
If we were to use your limited understanding of economics we would be focusing on the fact that debt had increased to $35,000 from $3,000. In real economics we focus on the fact that your debts went from 300% of your income to 70% of your income. Attempting to characterize debt in absolute amounts not only ignores inflation but it ignores what that debt actually means to those in society. You are in much worse financial shape with $100 in debt and $1/year in income than you are with $100,000 in debt and $1,000,000 a year in income. That's why we use debt/GDP ratio and I'm quite certain this has been explained to you before.
In short, you're either stupid or a liar. This will be the last time I explain basic economics to you.
Yes, I understand that. Let me explain this to you, since I don't think you understand:
When you tell the general public you're going to blow fantastical amounts of money that doesn't exist, that this same general public is going to be on the hook for, and your spin/sell that with you are going to get that paid back when times are good,
that's what you do. Unless you're a liar. We can see now what we've suspected all along: There was
never an intention of getting those Trillions deficit spent paid back.
Ever. Instead, you will use a nations normally growing GDP to instead pretend the debt load has been lessened simply because the nation is making more. And, that may in fact be true. But. Never will Spenders actually cut back the spend past income and
actually pay back what was deficit spent. That is, it's what we knew you were going to do all along.
In spite of all this, I'm still onboard with your, now our, plan. When exactly do the $5k tax free checks start getting mailed to the net taxpayers? That is really all I want out of this deal, so I'm asking you, when do I get mine?
Chuck
Facebook
Twitter