Recommended Book on GDP and Government Debt for dummies

[Anonymous]

I'm all for OP wanting to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot add to the national debt by tax cuts.

Reducing income creates a deficit. If you don't understand that, you are unqualified to even be speaking on the subject.

Oy. See this kind of talk is above my head. -OP

Is this parody?

Say your household makes $150k and you have expenses of $120k a year. Now you accept a pay cut that takes your household income down to $60k a year. For federal government, that is what a tax cut represents. And somehow you don't think that isn't going to put you in debt? You don't even need to understand complex economic theory, it's basic addition and subtraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we leave things to the experts? You aren’t an economist. I’m tired of d*psh!ts “doing their own research” and pontificating half understood ideas and conspiracy theories.

Hey, yourself. I can’t follow the conversation if I don’t know the terms mean, and I ca t just nod in agreement or disagree if I don’t understand.

And experts?? There is so much cult of personality and politics at play, it is hard to know who is reliable if you don’t even know the basics.

You seem like someone who wants people to follow experts with an agenda without question. It is this attitude that led to “my team’s” lost in November. Don’t question, just do as your told.

I don’t subscribe to political interpretations of the economy. I work with some of the country’s top economists. They don’t have a political agenda. What they do want is a functioning and healthy economy that serves all Americans. The only cult of personality right now is centered around one particular individual who is hellbent on implementing ancient and outdated 19th century economic policy. Sadly your team has grossly maligned experts as all having a nefarious agenda, which is destroying our economy and country. Obviously you can read the more well known names in economic theory, ie Keynes, Friedman, Heckman, Duflo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we leave things to the experts? You aren’t an economist. I’m tired of d*psh!ts “doing their own research” and pontificating half understood ideas and conspiracy theories.

Hey, yourself. I can’t follow the conversation if I don’t know the terms mean, and I ca t just nod in agreement or disagree if I don’t understand.

And experts?? There is so much cult of personality and politics at play, it is hard to know who is reliable if you don’t even know the basics.

You seem like someone who wants people to follow experts with an agenda without question. It is this attitude that led to “my team’s” lost in November. Don’t question, just do as your told.

I don’t subscribe to political interpretations of the economy. I work with some of the country’s top economists. They don’t have a political agenda. What they do want is a functioning and healthy economy that serves all Americans. The only cult of personality right now is centered around one particular individual who is hellbent on implementing ancient and outdated 19th century economic policy. Sadly your team has grossly maligned experts as all having a nefarious agenda, which is destroying our economy and country. Obviously you can read the more well known names in economic theory, ie Keynes, Friedman, Heckman, Duflo.

DP. The bold text is where the PP exposed a partisan bend (not that the rest of the reply didn't) and seems to indicate the PP only works with economists who DO have a political agenda. Economists should point out where the economic system is failing or where it needs more support. It is up to our elected leaders to consider this advice and take action. Even assuming PP is correct, the PP makes an interesting point about "serving all Americans," which would imply that illegal immigrants should not be supported by the American economy (as they are not Americans).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot add to the national debt by tax cuts.

Taxes are not the government's to begin with. People and organizations EARN income and then give some of it to the government to sustain it. But that money is not the government's to begin with.

70+% of federal spending are transfer payments (mandatory spending). So no, Iraq and Afghanistan weren't the biggest drivers. The biggest drivers of debt has been the welfare state.

BTW, go look at the national debt clock (all government supplied numbers) to see where the money is going.

We're spending more on interest on the national debt than defense.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/

Ahh you must be one of those "taxation is theft" people. You should refresh yourself on the US Constitution. Some of you dopes pride yourselves on carrying around a "Pocket Constitution" yet never seem to have actually read it. The Federal Government's power to collect those taxes is granted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. If you hate the US Constitution and taxes so much then I suggest you go move to Somalia where they don't have any meaningful taxation (and as a result no functional government).

And, I will reiterate some facts - of the $36 trillion in current debt, close to $13 trillion of that is due to Bush and Trump tax cuts and the Iraq war. They were SIGNIFICANT drivers and this will continue to be a problem while Trump continues to pursue tax cuts. Anyone with common sense should know that you can't reduce debt by cutting income.

The "entitlement" problems driving deficits are also self-inflicted wounds being driven by Republicans, given they cling to our current overpriced for-profit healthcare model, and refused to enact common-sense things like raising the contribution cap on Social Security which would have kept it solvent for the next 75 years.

Great analysis. But until we start cutting we will never solve the problem. Every gov program thinks they are indespensable.

And yet look at this one, that democrats refuse to eliminate . 2.5 billion is lost along with countless jobs.

The Optional Practical Training (OPT) for foreign students who have graduated from American universities allows all foreign graduates to receive a 12-month work permit, but STEM graduates are eligible for an additional 24-month work permit.  Businesses are using this program to circumvent H-1B visa caps and American and legal immigrant graduates are losing out:

OPT has grown more than 400% in recent years and is bigger than the H-1B program.
275,000 foreign workers were employed in 2017 under the OPT program.
From 2007 to 2017, employers hired 2.5 million OPT and CPT workers.

Employers don't have to pay payroll taxes on OPT employees, making them 15.3% cheaper to hire.  The FICA fund loses out on $2.5 billion each year due to this.
OPT visas are not merit-based and have no restrictions or limitations.

Fewer than 50% of U.S. STEM graduates are finding jobs in STEM fields, which is a direct result of the OPT program.

The OPT program is harming American STEM grads by giving companies a financial incentive to hire temporary foreign workers, even though the government is actively encouraging American students to study for STEM degrees.

To make matters worse, a federal court has decided that the government does have the power to exempt OPT workers from Social Security and Medicare taxes, making it even cheaper for employers to hire them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about we leave things to the experts? You aren’t an economist. I’m tired of d*psh!ts “doing their own research” and pontificating half understood ideas and conspiracy theories.

Doing your own research and using critical thought is not only admirable but critical for the self-governed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we leave things to the experts? You aren’t an economist. I’m tired of d*psh!ts “doing their own research” and pontificating half understood ideas and conspiracy theories.

Hey, yourself. I can’t follow the conversation if I don’t know the terms mean, and I ca t just nod in agreement or disagree if I don’t understand.

And experts?? There is so much cult of personality and politics at play, it is hard to know who is reliable if you don’t even know the basics.

You seem like someone who wants people to follow experts with an agenda without question. It is this attitude that led to “my team’s” lost in November. Don’t question, just do as your told.

I don’t subscribe to political interpretations of the economy. I work with some of the country’s top economists. They don’t have a political agenda. What they do want is a functioning and healthy economy that serves all Americans. The only cult of personality right now is centered around one particular individual who is hellbent on implementing ancient and outdated 19th century economic policy. Sadly your team has grossly maligned experts as all having a nefarious agenda, which is destroying our economy and country. Obviously you can read the more well known names in economic theory, ie Keynes, Friedman, Heckman, Duflo.

I’ll repeat: my team lost in November. Teammates did us in by shutting down reasonable discussion and ignoring people. It was that simple, because the party leadership and organizers no longer tolerate anyone who doesn’t do as they are told. They want us to remain uneducated (see FCPS), so that we will blindly follow. Similar things are happening / have happened on the other side. To say otherwise, speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot add to the national debt by tax cuts.

Taxes are not the government's to begin with. People and organizations EARN income and then give some of it to the government to sustain it. But that money is not the government's to begin with.

70+% of federal spending are transfer payments (mandatory spending). So no, Iraq and Afghanistan weren't the biggest drivers. The biggest drivers of debt has been the welfare state.

BTW, go look at the national debt clock (all government supplied numbers) to see where the money is going.

We're spending more on interest on the national debt than defense.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/

Ahh you must be one of those "taxation is theft" people. You should refresh yourself on the US Constitution. Some of you dopes pride yourselves on carrying around a "Pocket Constitution" yet never seem to have actually read it. The Federal Government's power to collect those taxes is granted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. If you hate the US Constitution and taxes so much then I suggest you go move to Somalia where they don't have any meaningful taxation (and as a result no functional government).

And, I will reiterate some facts - of the $36 trillion in current debt, close to $13 trillion of that is due to Bush and Trump tax cuts and the Iraq war. They were SIGNIFICANT drivers and this will continue to be a problem while Trump continues to pursue tax cuts. Anyone with common sense should know that you can't reduce debt by cutting income.

The "entitlement" problems driving deficits are also self-inflicted wounds being driven by Republicans, given they cling to our current overpriced for-profit healthcare model, and refused to enact common-sense things like raising the contribution cap on Social Security which would have kept it solvent for the next 75 years.

Great analysis. But until we start cutting we will never solve the problem. Every gov program thinks they are indespensable.

And yet look at this one, that democrats refuse to eliminate . 2.5 billion is lost along with countless jobs.

The Optional Practical Training (OPT) for foreign students who have graduated from American universities allows all foreign graduates to receive a 12-month work permit, but STEM graduates are eligible for an additional 24-month work permit.  Businesses are using this program to circumvent H-1B visa caps and American and legal immigrant graduates are losing out:

OPT has grown more than 400% in recent years and is bigger than the H-1B program.
275,000 foreign workers were employed in 2017 under the OPT program.
From 2007 to 2017, employers hired 2.5 million OPT and CPT workers.

Employers don't have to pay payroll taxes on OPT employees, making them 15.3% cheaper to hire.  The FICA fund loses out on $2.5 billion each year due to this.
OPT visas are not merit-based and have no restrictions or limitations.

Fewer than 50% of U.S. STEM graduates are finding jobs in STEM fields, which is a direct result of the OPT program.

The OPT program is harming American STEM grads by giving companies a financial incentive to hire temporary foreign workers, even though the government is actively encouraging American students to study for STEM degrees.

To make matters worse, a federal court has decided that the government does have the power to exempt OPT workers from Social Security and Medicare taxes, making it even cheaper for employers to hire them.

How has this helped our country? Does it strengthen ties with the visa holders’ home countries? Does their work increase US GDP substantially later?

[Anonymous]

Why should foreign workers be less expensive than native workers? I'm all for allowing them to have jobs in the country but not to be subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should foreign workers be less expensive than native workers? I'm all for allowing them to have jobs in the country but not to be subsidized.

+100

It is unfair to those workers and the rest of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we leave things to the experts? You aren’t an economist. I’m tired of d*psh!ts “doing their own research” and pontificating half understood ideas and conspiracy theories.

Hey, yourself. I can’t follow the conversation if I don’t know the terms mean, and I ca t just nod in agreement or disagree if I don’t understand.

And experts?? There is so much cult of personality and politics at play, it is hard to know who is reliable if you don’t even know the basics.

You seem like someone who wants people to follow experts with an agenda without question. It is this attitude that led to “my team’s” lost in November. Don’t question, just do as your told.

I don’t subscribe to political interpretations of the economy. I work with some of the country’s top economists. They don’t have a political agenda. What they do want is a functioning and healthy economy that serves all Americans. The only cult of personality right now is centered around one particular individual who is hellbent on implementing ancient and outdated 19th century economic policy. Sadly your team has grossly maligned experts as all having a nefarious agenda, which is destroying our economy and country. Obviously you can read the more well known names in economic theory, ie Keynes, Friedman, Heckman, Duflo.

DP. The bold text is where the PP exposed a partisan bend (not that the rest of the reply didn't) and seems to indicate the PP only works with economists who DO have a political agenda. Economists should point out where the economic system is failing or where it needs more support. It is up to our elected leaders to consider this advice and take action. Even assuming PP is correct, the PP makes an interesting point about "serving all Americans," which would imply that illegal immigrants should not be supported by the American economy (as they are not Americans).

Yes, nothing controversial here. Federal workers work for all Americans. 🙄 Your post is such a troll post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot add to the national debt by tax cuts.

Reducing income creates a deficit. If you don't understand that, you are unqualified to even be speaking on the subject.

Government misspending creates the deficit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot add to the national debt by tax cuts.

Reducing income creates a deficit. If you don't understand that, you are unqualified to even be speaking on the subject.

Oy. See this kind of talk is above my head. -OP

Is this parody?

Say your household makes $150k and you have expenses of $120k a year. Now you accept a pay cut that takes your household income down to $60k a year. For federal government, that is what a tax cut represents. And somehow you don't think that isn't going to put you in debt? You don't even need to understand complex economic theory, it's basic addition and subtraction.

Say liberals and progressives decide the government is going to do a bunch of things it is not chartered to do....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a book, The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson will give some useful historical perspective on money and, most importanly, debt.

https://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/0143116177/ref=asc_df_0143116177?mcid=fa9adb0ecf7733a8851da6d1db025c2e&hvocijid=17272779159894940858-0143116177-&hvexpln=73&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=721245378154&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17272779159894940858&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9053018&hvtargid=pla-2281435177138&psc=1

Thanks you. Is this a good unbiased / apolitical look at how tbings work? I’m not looking to be told this way is good or bad.

Basically, it is the history of money and how it works. Goes back 2000 years. So no, it is not ideological in the sense that it is Keynesian or not. Which is basically what it boils down to these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a book, The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson will give some useful historical perspective on money and, most importanly, debt.

https://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/0143116177/ref=asc_df_0143116177?mcid=fa9adb0ecf7733a8851da6d1db025c2e&hvocijid=17272779159894940858-0143116177-&hvexpln=73&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=721245378154&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17272779159894940858&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9053018&hvtargid=pla-2281435177138&psc=1

Thanks you. Is this a good unbiased / apolitical look at how tbings work? I’m not looking to be told this way is good or bad.

Basically, it is the history of money and how it works. Goes back 2000 years. So no, it is not ideological in the sense that it is Keynesian or not. Which is basically what it boils down to these days.

The federal reserve system and reserve currency (AKA "Money is Debt") we have today does not compare to the systems of the last 2000 years. It doesn't even compare to the currency system we had when it was backed with precious metals.