Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Obamacare is bad for the same reason all leftist nonsense is bad: it is an issue of consent, and no such consent is allowed to the people.

If one were to approach a woman and ask her, "Ma'am, will you agree to buy this product?", that would be an example of seeking consent. If one approaches a woman and says "You will do as I say, or else.", that foregoes consent and forces your will upon her. Does it start to make sense why people do not see this "Obamacare" silliness as a solution to anything?

Forcing people to buy health insurance and saying it solves the problem is more or less the same as forcing people to buy auto insurance and saying that they all have cars as a result. It's a load of ridiculous nonsense, and everyone knows it.

Moreover, the one thing that would actually cover poor people has been stricken from the law by the Supreme Court decision that upheld "Obamacare". States cannot be forced to expand the Medicaid rolls to cover the working poor, leaving that same gap that existed before. So now all that Obamacare does is create a huge payoff to insurance companies, and surreptitiously raise taxes on all the working poor who cannot afford the crazy prices of health insurance. Nice job Democrats, you found a way to support corporatism AND screw over poor people directly this time.

That's why Obamacare needs to go to hell in a handbasket, in short. And by the way "Playwrite", if you keep calling everyone else stupid, you will look so very, very smart. Good tactic, everyone knows a winner when they see one.

Wrong; the mandate brings down the cost for everyone, because everyone contributes. It works for car insurance in my state too. The insurance companies are regulated from charging too much; we've seen that effect already, because people have been refunded through this provision. If the governors of some red states don't want to participate, that is the fault of the idiots in the red states who elect these stupid governors. They deserve what they (don't) get. The reality is though, some of them won't be in office when the decision is made; they might be voted out this November. Others will take the money despite their objections, because people need the coverage, and since Obamacare will work (just as Romneycare works), people in red states will stop their silly squealing and ask their governors for the coverage, sooner or later. That is, if the people are smart enough to retain Obama in office this November.

Does anyone need any more proof that we have become a Banana Republic?

United Nations to monitor conservative groups at polling places

Expect hysterical rantings about UN black helicopters in 3, 2, 1...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...it ... is not income until you SELL something, goods or services, to someone else for something...

As I figured, the deluded side of MMT comes only through the use of idiosyncratic, shifting, alternate definitions for well-established concepts.

IMO, clarity of speech supports clarity of thought, and clarity of thought is a good thing, axiomatically.

Yes, taxes allow the govt to buy goods and services but indirectly in that the taxes reduce money in the economy, and thereby purchasing power or demand in the economy, which then allows the govt to buy without putting pressure on taxes.

But it is beyond silly to believe the feds have to wait for their imagined piggy bank to fill up with revenue before they can spend.

Of course, it prints its own paper to spend whenever it feels like -- no need to wait. This is, again, you treading ground the austrians, among others, broke decades ago. If it makes you feel good to call yourself a pioneer... more power to you, I guess..

It is a little weird, though, for you to be restating other people's points back to them not only as if you are teaching them something new, but as if they are somehow opposed to what amounts to their very own insights. Boomers are weird; we all get it. It still bears pointing out sometimes.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Aww now, don't sell yourself so short. They bought your team too.

You say that as if the team wasn't created by them in the first place. You can't buy what you made for yourself and never gave up.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

As I figured, the deluded side of MMT comes only through the use of idiosyncratic, shifting, alternate definitions for well-established concepts.

IMO, clarity of speech supports clarity of thought, and clarity of thought is a good thing, axiomatically.

Then perhaps you could start using some of the clarity rather than projecting your "obfuscation of a fairly simple thing" onto me.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course, it prints its own paper to spend whenever it feels like -- no need to wait. This is, again, you treading ground the austrians, among others, broke decades ago. If it makes you feel good to call yourself a pioneer... more power to you, I guess..

It is a little weird, though, for you to be restating other people's points back to them not only as if you are teaching them something new, but as if they are somehow opposed to what amounts to their very own insights. Boomers are weird; we all get it. It still bears pointing out sometimes.

If all I was doing was treading old ground, then why your response?

That is why I said this -

I'm not sure if you're getting some things right or wrong here, but on the whole its pretty screwy.

- your posting implied that you believed something was amiss. The only foothold I could find was your implying that govt issuing money (i.e. spending) always results in "flooding" the economy with too much dollars. I then pointed out that a growing economy (one with a currency and not your magic pony barter system or subsidence farming) needs a growing money supply. And, by the way, that can be accomplished soley by metering the issusing of money; central govt taxes are not necessary for that purpose (taxing is, however, an absolute necessity in a modern economy; I'll assume you know what that primary reason is so that I don't again put you in your illogical double bind of both telling me I'm only treading your old ground but that I'm wrong. Some Xers are weird; we all get it. It still bears pointing out sometimes.)

Originally Posted by playwrite

...a growing economy ... needs a growing money supply. And, by the way, that can be accomplished soley by metering the issusing of money

Another error of the MMT school (if we are to assume that you are representative of it). Even commodity-money supplies grow. Even metal-standard money-supplies grow. In fact, the rapid growth of the supply of silver in particular into the Spanish economy back in the days of opening Argentina is one of the textbook examples of non-fiat inflation. I realize MMT relies on the belief that all the experience of history is inapplicable to the Magical New Conditions in which the United States finds itself today -- but still... isn't it worth being aware of at least the major swings of things in the past, at least for the sake of a good story?

Oh, and the response is not to the old ground you are treading, but to the obfuscatory way in which you are doing it.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Apparently, I can(and am by your implication). No biggie, really; I'm actually used to it at this point.



Future taxpayers, you silly goose.



OK, I'll play along. So what?



Again. So what?



Let me see if I can decipher what you mean here.

The reason why("the economy is muddling-along at best") is because of the ignorance(of not supporting an increase in Govt. Spending/Investment!) by millions of your fellow numbskulls
(AKA "The Anti-"Non-Contractionistas Uber Alles!"^TM"). How's that, PW?


Prince

PS:


Heh. No wonder you appear so confused with how Markets operate.

Future taxpayers Paying federal taxes is not spending in the sense of giving anyone income. Again, federal taxes only destroy money that is in the economy. By doing so, it reduces demand in the economy which is a pretty brilliant thing to do WHEN the economy is overheating. And a pretty stupid thing to do when the economy is far below capacity (made obvious by high unemployment and under-employment.) I'm not a fan of higher taxes right now, however, I am ambivalent about higher taxes for the top 5% because they are not going to SPEND whatever savings they get from lower taxes. In today's economy, lowering taxes on the top 5% is a meaningless canard. Why would anyone have so much faith that tomorrow's economy is going to be any different than the demand-starved economy of today - most structural (e.g. automation) trends indicate otherwise.

So what's Millions unemployed, under-employed, in poverty, destroying the nation's future with lack of investment in education, R&D and infrastructure. Duh.

Cause - ignorance over federal deficit spending Yep

confused Hardly

Originally Posted by playwrite

Paying federal taxes is not spending in the sense of giving anyone income.

Except that paying federal taxes is necessary for the federal government to be able to continue to exchange it's scrip for goods of value (this, we have already identified as a basic insight of several schools of economic thought, including your own). Meaning, to pay for the stuff it takes. And in paying for the stuff it takes, it is indeed providing income. So paying federal taxes very much is spending in precisely the sense of giving income. It's just that the path it takes is concealed under a layer of churning, allowing each individual concrete actor to plausibly argue a disconnect in his case.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Obamacare is bad for the same reason all leftist nonsense is bad: it is an issue of consent, and no such consent is allowed to the people.

If one were to approach a woman and ask her, "Ma'am, will you agree to buy this product?", that would be an example of seeking consent. If one approaches a woman and says "You will do as I say, or else.", that foregoes consent and forces your will upon her. Does it start to make sense why people do not see this "Obamacare" silliness as a solution to anything?

Forcing people to buy health insurance and saying it solves the problem is more or less the same as forcing people to buy auto insurance and saying that they all have cars as a result. It's a load of ridiculous nonsense, and everyone knows it.

Moreover, the one thing that would actually cover poor people has been stricken from the law by the Supreme Court decision that upheld "Obamacare". States cannot be forced to expand the Medicaid rolls to cover the working poor, leaving that same gap that existed before. So now all that Obamacare does is create a huge payoff to insurance companies, and surreptitiously raise taxes on all the working poor who cannot afford the crazy prices of health insurance. Nice job Democrats, you found a way to support corporatism AND screw over poor people directly this time.

That's why Obamacare needs to go to hell in a handbasket, in short. And by the way "Playwrite", if you keep calling everyone else stupid, you will look so very, very smart. Good tactic, everyone knows a winner when they see one.

You aren't forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you might pay a tax penalty but only if you have federal tax withholding. And the amount you pay is far less than the amount it cost if you show up at an emergency room for an injury/illness and the rest of us have to pay for your freeloading.

Obamacare is bringing subsidized insurance to millions for the first time. If that comes with the possibility that some freeloaders making over 80K per year having a few hundred bucks come out of their tax return, then I'm way okay with that.

Gad, I’m sick of you self-centered perpetual adolescents. Grow up.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

My my... So many pom-poms in this thread. I can almost feel the excitement building for the big vote! Go on and improve that country boys and girls.

Oh, you nihilist are just so cool!

Now back to fiddling with your Prince Albert

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Moreover, the one thing that would actually cover poor people has been stricken from the law by the Supreme Court decision that upheld "Obamacare". States cannot be forced to expand the Medicaid rolls to cover the working poor, leaving that same gap that existed before. So now all that Obamacare does is create a huge payoff to insurance companies, and surreptitiously raise taxes on all the working poor who cannot afford the crazy prices of health insurance. Nice job Democrats, you found a way to support corporatism AND screw over poor people directly this time.

The judges who voted against mandating Medicaid expansions were Roberts, Kagan, Breyer, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy. Most of these justices were appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. If my memory serves me correctly, they were all Republican presidents.

Plus, the Medicaid expansion was not ruled out. It was left to the States. Most States will go along with the expansion. The ones who won't are those controlled by Republican legislators and Governors.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Another error

So, am I treading your old ground or making a mistake??? If you believe you are wrong about something, then be a man and tell us.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Even commodity-money supplies grow. Even metal-standard money-supplies grow.

Ah, duh, did I ever say that it doesn't?

What I will say is that it is pretty stupid to have your economy dependent on how much of something that can be dug out of one hole (a mine) and put in another hole (a vault). Most nations have figued that out in the real world, but those in magic pony land still insist - I think it's because their magic ponies poop gold nuggets.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Except that paying federal taxes is necessary for the federal government to be able to continue to exchange it's scrip for goods of value (this, we have already identified as a basic insight of several schools of economic thought, including your own). Meaning, to pay for the stuff it takes. And in paying for the stuff it takes, it is indeed providing income. So paying federal taxes very much is spending in precisely the sense of giving income. It's just that the path it takes is concealed under a layer of churning, allowing each individual concrete actor to plausibly argue a disconnect in his case.

There is a big difference between saying that (a) taxes provide the revenue "to pay for the stuff it takes" and (b) saying that taxes destroy purchasing power in the private sector so the govt can issue money without causing demand-pull inflation.

The former gets you into idiocy of the Social Security Administration having to call the IRS to see if they can afford to send the checks out. It gets you into the idiocy that Social Security is going to run out of money. It gets you into the idiocy of debt ceilings, S&P downgrades, federal bankruptcy, hyperinflation, and insufficient federal deficit spending. It gets you into the idiocy of having only mostly-ineffectual monetary policies when we're already at ZIRP.

The latter provides the foundation for beginning a near-technocratic means for solving the bulk of most of our socioeconomic problems in a relative short period of time.

I think most people would see the difference - once they take the "Red Pill."

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is a big difference between saying that (a) taxes provide the revenue "to pay for the stuff it takes" and (b) saying that taxes destroy purchasing power in the private sector so the govt can issue money without causing demand-pull inflation.

The former gets you into idiocy of the Social Security Administration having to call the IRS to see if they can afford to send the checks out. It gets you into the idiocy that Social Security is going to run out of money. It gets you into the idiocy of debt ceilings, S&P downgrades, federal bankruptcy, hyperinflation, and insufficient federal deficit spending. It gets you into the idiocy of having only mostly-ineffectual monetary policies when we're already at ZIRP.

The latter provides the foundation for beginning a near-technocratic means for solving the bulk of most of our socioeconomic problems in a relative short period of time.

I think most people would see the difference - once they take the "Red Pill."

H-m-m-m. Valid, but not sufficient, as they tend to say these days. First, you need to increase the number of Red Pill takers. After all, Zion was about 250,000 people, and the pods had 10s if not 100s of millions.

... and remember, you should never give a Red Pill to anyone over a certain age [Morpheus]

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, duh, did I ever say that it doesn't?

Um.. Yes. Today, even. Allow me to recap.

You said right here:

Originally Posted by playwrite

I then pointed out that a growing economy (one with a currency and not your magic pony barter system or subsidence farming) needs a growing money supply. And, by the way, that can be accomplished solely by metering the issuing of money.

So yes, that second sentence is precisely you doing exactly what you seem to be claiming you never did. Maybe you need to be a little more deliberate in your writings? That clarity-of-communication and clarity-of-thought thing I mentioned above comes a bit to mind...

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is a big difference between saying that (a) taxes provide the revenue "to pay for the stuff it takes" and (b) saying that taxes destroy purchasing power in the private sector so the govt can issue money without causing demand-pull inflation.

Indeed. The first mis-states via an error in what is 'revenue'. The other simply hides behind big words. But to those who are impressed merely by the bigness of words, and who are inclined to faith in the large, complicated, and distant, that second most certainly would comfort any worries as to the capacity of a centralized organ to effectively manage a dispersed system.

If, on the other hand, we're interested in looking at things as they are and understanding them as well as we can, then neither phrase is particularly helpful.

PW, you would come across better if you did not insult Justin for bringing up valid points.

Originally Posted by Odin

PW, you would come across better if you did not insult Justin for bringing up valid points.

Dude, it is so much easier to refute someone else's argument if you get to state it for them first!

Path for Romney:

If he is ahead in the popular vote by 1% or more, then Romney needs to run the table on the toss-up states currently indicated on the Huffington Post map, which would be possible in that case. He is now even with Obama (Huffington) or has about a .06% lead nationally (RCP).

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...-electoral-map

Then his path lies through Ohio, where he is now about 2 points behind. If he wins Ohio, he could afford to lose Colorado or NH. But if he can't win Ohio, then he must win Iowa (edit: now listed as toss-up), where is now 2 points behind, and also Nevada, where he is now at least 3 points behind.

Obama's best hope is to run the table through the east and north, racking up NH, OH, WI and IA. If he loses NH or IA, he can still win with NV.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Dude, it is so much easier to refute someone else's argument if you get to state it for them first!

Why didn't I think of that??

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why didn't I think of that??

Justin, didn't you know who is the Prince of Cats? You are intruding on his territory! Growl!

Originally Posted by Odin

PW, you would come across better if you did not insult Justin for bringing up valid points.

Actually, PW is working in one language and Justin in another. It makes for interesting exchanges.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Valid, but not sufficient, as they tend to say these days. First, you need to increase the number of Red Pill takers. After all, Zion was about 250,000 people, and the pods had 10s if not 100s of millions.

... and remember, you should never give a Red Pill to anyone over a certain age [Morpheus]

Well, I took it and I'm older than shXt!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Justin, didn't you know who is the Prince of Cats? You are intruding on his territory! Growl!

Well aren't you a little defensive, but I guess such is warranted for a friend. I guess it's my turn to protect my rights to post puppy pictures before Justin does.

Must pounce before the opportunity is missed.



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Um.. Yes. Today, even. Allow me to recap.

You said right here:

So yes, that second sentence is precisely you doing exactly what you seem to be claiming you never did. Maybe you need to be a little more deliberate in your writings? That clarity-of-communication and clarity-of-thought thing I mentioned above comes a bit to mind...

Here's a 1928 silver certificate -



- backed by silver and limited by silver held by the US govt. There sure was a hell of a lot more of these issued in 1928 than issued in 1828 to account for a larger economy - and sure, periods of inflation but also periods of severe deflation.

Or, are you one of those guys that believe money can only be chunks of metal you have to lug around? One might suggest that would make you truly a throw-back to ancient times before paper was used as money, but the most recent evidence is that "tally sticks" served in economic transactions long before anybody got the idea to make metal coins. Medival "tally sticks" were mostly made of wood and that's a lot closer to paper than it is to metal. Tally sticks made of bone date back to 20,000 BC; weird to thing that cavemen would be more at ease in a modern economy than yourself.