I am reminded of my question to Bruce Curry, “Whose money is it FIRST?” Put another way, “Who has the first claim on the money in my wallet”? Curry was an uber-progressive who frequented GraniteGrok for many years, but that was a question he would never answer. He was clear that what funding the Government needed (or, from my perspective, wanted), it should get. I finally kicked him out after he transitioned from being reasonable to being a troll.
Sometime later, I found some words he wrote in the Concord Monitor (“Pravada on the Merrimack” – go read the whole thing with emphasis mine):
The federal government does not run like a household. It can never go broke – contrary to the claims of deficit hawks – from whom we hear most often when Democrats are in charge. Congress can authorize spending as much money as it wants or needs – effectively creating money from thin air. Skeptical? As Alan Greenspan told Paul Ryan in a congressional hearing back in 2005: “There’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.”
“…But wait, there’s more. A corollary to the fact that all money first comes from the government…“
My addendum to his foolishness at the time:
The problem is that countries CAN go broke and it generally happens very slowly – and then all at once. Ask the Weimar Republic and Venezuela for just two examples. Countries can go broke when those buying the debt no longer believe that the “full faith and credit” is no longer a valid supposition. In other words, that FFaC phrase fails to instill any faith at all. After all, with the Federal Reserve now cranking up interest rates, just Interest PAYMENTS on the National Debt will be the third largest item in our national budget – almost more than what we spend on our national defense.
…Translation: spend like drunken sailors all the time because there will NEVER be any bad outcomes to bad politics, bad policies, and bad legislation that “their” money really isn’t there and that others “get a financial vote” on this behavior later all. That is Currie’s always undiscussed philosophy of Progressivism – that actual outcomes are irrelevant both in achieving the purpose/outcome for legislation and that those putting them into action are to be held blameless.
In other words, there can never be any responsibility or accountability. And we are expected to believe this 2+2=5 nonsense as it refutes reality and human nature…
Well, of course – stupidity does come around – and this time, as has been said, with farce. I’ve been visiting another site, for years, called Gizmodo which used to truck with techie issues, gizmos, and reviews. Sadly, it has become victim to O’Sullivan’s Law which states:
Organizations tend to drift leftward politically unless deliberate efforts are made to maintain a conservative orientation.
Or, in this case, “maintain a techie orientation.” Well, so much for that, but I still read their techie stuff. However, thinking that Lloyd Alter would throw me out forever, I figured I’d dive into Gizmodo’s Leftist comments and start responding. After all, I LIKE debating – why not bring it back here? And I knew I was going to have a bit of fun when I saw this post headline:
Trump’s Dismantling of NASA Has Officially Begun
Newly announced layoffs highlight the troubling impact of DOGE on the space agency and federal workers as a whole.
Any mention of DOGE brings the raving lunatics out that are out to insure that not a single penny be removed from Government in any shape or form – or purpose. So I decided to set that fire from the get-go (emphasis mine all the way down):
Margaret Thatcher, former UK Prime Minister, once remarked about Socialism: “At some point, you run out of other peoples’ money”.
At a $36 Trillion National Debt, with a running $1.5-$2 Trillion yearly deficit, I’d say that a country doesn’t have to be communist/socialist, just extremely being profligate Republic. Our elected CongressCritters (both chambers) have Cloward-Piven’d us financially.
While the other commenters here are decrying the layoffs at NASA (and other parts of the Fed), I’ve been saying for YEARS (when the debt was only $4 Trillion) that we’d run out of $$.
Now that day has arrived.
When a business starts running out of money, it goes bankrupt. When a family spends more than it takes in, it goes broke. History is replete with countries to whom the same fate has fallen.
So to the commenters here that are ripping Trump and Musk for the layoffs, after only being in Power for 6 weeks, what are your alternatives to the bankrupt state we find ourselves in if NOT to start in on layoffs to start saving money? Any positive solutions other than name calling or “IT” happening?
There are a lot of name-calling and skanky responses that go on there. One of the things I wanted to try is “be normal” (as much as is possible for me, that is) no matter what was said or trying to get trapped. While a number did respond the way I thought would happen (imagine, I only got 3 upvotes to the above and 35 downvotes – illustrating either how Left the commenters have gone or how little they really understand).
So, I’ll get to the “Bruce Currie” moment in just a few lines here. I did have a quick tangent that Currie and I used to have all the time:
GraniteGrok
Let me cut to the chase - Whose money is it first? The people that earned it, or the Government? The answer to that simple question (but with rather complex answers if you really think things through) gives rise to a good starting point.Sarcastro7
The people who spent it.GraniteGrok
First try really doesn't count...but you do have the actual point. You lived up to your "Sarcast"-ic name by revealing the truth of the matter. That aside, who owns that money first?Sarcastro7
Asked and answered - the problem is that you posed a chicken-and-egg problem as far as "who earned it" is concerned. Unless your goal is to agree that it is indeed the government which issued the money who owned it first.GraniteGrok
Restate: Does GOVERNMENT own it first? Or do the individuals that earn it first? And no, just because Govt issued it doesn't fit my definition of "earned" it first. Either of those, or close variations, speak to the heart of "Can Government take the private property ($$) just because elected officials/bureaucrats have better ways to spend money? Who has first claim?
At least he answered honestly instead of snarkily. However, no answer in the end but it set the stage for “Si Senor” who held himself out as an Economics Guy that posited that Countries cannot go broke – but refused to say why.
dinovelvet
You might want to ask a brit what the general feeling is of Thatcher these days. You won't like it.GraniteGrok
Frankly, it doesn't matter to me who came up with that line as it is still true. She said it in Britain - we're living it now in the US. The Weimar Republic died because of it. Soviet Union fell. Several African nations got torched by it. Venezuela and Cuba suffer from it as well.
I dryly note that austerity seems to be working in Argentina - finally turned a surplus after years of running deficits. They are expecting a 7.5% (or so) uptick now in GDP.Si Senor
The quote is nonsense, because spending deficits aren't unique to socialists. The British Conservative party, when last on government, ran a deficit, and Trump's tax cuts are completely unfunded. So talking about socialism is a total 'whataboutism' when we should be talking about the Republican party right here and now GraniteGrok
No, it is NOT nonsense as it holds for any form of Govt that overspends its citizens' wallets. At the time, Britain was more socialist than not as the Fabian Socialists, while keeping the democratic form after WW II, instituted socialism in much of its institutions and nationalized much of its industrial base and other policy areas as well. They continue to this day, primarily from within the Labour Party.Si Senor
You know countries can't go bankrupt, right?
Also, if you actually believed what you are stating, you'd have made this comment on an article about tax cuts for very rich people.That line told me EXACTLY where he stands on the ideological spectrum (not that there was much mystery from the get-go). So I responded with history:
Countries can certainly go bankrupt but the term most often used is "in default".
"tax cuts for very rich people"
There are several pillars to our Republic: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religious belief/Conscience, The Rule of Law, The Right to Private Property.
That last one speaks to your line as money IS private property. So does my earlier question: Whose money is it FIRST?
The Declaration of Independence states:
"by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Originally, "Happiness" was "Property" (it was changed because it sounded nicer) but it was generally accepted, back then, that Property brought Happiness (as it was a sign of success and a successful life).
But I digress (a necessary one but a digression nonetheless).
"Tax cuts for the very rich" is not Govt just giving them money. At its basic, taxes are taken by Govt from those that first earned it. It's not a handout or a bribe or anything else.
Every time I turn around, it seems, people think the rich are getting money that they didn't have before. They aren't. It's just that they get to keep more, in absolute terms, of their own money. If you look at the percentages with our highly progressive income tax system, the top incomes are paying more in the aggregate (see IRS #s)GraniteGrok
If you have a problem with the tax code by which the rich pay their taxes, don't blame them but DO blame your CongressCritters - they made the rules (and it seems that they are the ones that profit from them when you look as some of the "just voted in" and "leaving Congress" wealth differences.).
Even as said CongressCritters rail that the rich don't pay their fair share. Sorry but the former made the rules for the latter.Si Senor
So yes, they can't go bankrupt. A default isn't the same as going bankrupt.
I don't know that point you are trying to make with your Chat GPT (Grok?) response, it doesn't matter. You've still failed to address the fundamental problem with your own comment: if you really care about the national debt, you should be criticising the things that are going to contribute to the national debt increasing, like collecting less tax from rich people (yes, I understand how tax works) even if it means having to speak ill of daddy Trump.GraniteGrok
1) Bankrupt, default - at the end of the day, the semantics collide - no one will lend anything to said government and it can't pay its bills of ANY type.
2) While I, at times, may use AI to look up facts, opinions are purely mine.
3) As I've already pointed out, its not that we don't have enough revenue; it is that govt keeps spending even faster.
if you really care about the national debt, you should be criticising the things that are going
to contribute to the national debt increasing, like collecting less tax from rich people
Since 2004 I have said that expenditures MUST come back into line with revenues. They haven't.
And with your words, are you stating that the only solution is to raise taxes? Remember, rich people can move to other jurisdictions to avoid such taxes (France and the UK have proved this to be true with "millionaire taxes"). Then what do you do?
No, raising taxes is only temporary because like taxes and death, the other sure thing in life for most of history is that spending goes up.
Until that fails - slowly at first, then all of a sudden.And here is where most people will agree that Si Senor went off the rails:
1 - no they aren't the same. You are arguing with a person with a background in international finance and an economic degree. The US will never default on its loans and will not go bankrupt, so you are right in that sense. But otherwise, totally wrong about the fact that a default isn't bankruptcy.
2 - most generative AI output is awful, so saying you used Grok to write your comment wasn't a compliment, lolz that you took it that way
3 - still not seeing any criticism of daddy/king Trump, which undermines every opinion you've posted on this topic. He's part of the problem, not the solution.So Si Senor needed no small amount of correction – I do not suffer fools that try to put words into my mouth that I never said. That’s a rookie debater that tries to do so.
And I chased him like I use to chase Bruce Currie:
The US will never default on its loans and will not go bankrupt, so you are right in that sense
I said no such thing. You also have not provided any proof that the US will NEVER default and NEVER go bankrupt.
OK, economics guy, what is the total US indebtedness, not just the current national debt, but all future debts ("unfunded mandates") of the US? I was just a lowly engineer but I bet I'm in the ballpark.
That's Part one. So Part Two: can either just the National Debt or the total unfunded liabilities (or both) be mathematically paid back by the US? Remember, just paying the interest on the former is now the 4th largest item in the budget and is now $130 odd Billion more than for Defense.
most generative AI output is awful, so saying you used Grok to write your comment
wasn't a compliment
I used AI (usually Perplexity but just started to try Grok) to gather facts. I don't ask it to write anything.
Being someone that holds an economic degree, why won't you answer my question: Whose money is it FIRST? Is it MY money that I have earned? Or does Govt always have first dibs on it (and as much as it wants) which means it really isn't mine?
Because in this thread, it's about the National Debt REGARDLESS of the holder of the Presidency. Sorry, Trump is not topmost in my mind.Continuing on
So, Economic Guy, are my two questions, first micro and philosophical and the second being macro and mathematical, too difficult to answer?And I waited a day. And then, yes, I taunted him a bit
So the lowly engineer has outreasoned the high Economics Guy?
I'll take the W.
Just because I'm a bit curious about what your reasoning is on this and that you've already made it know that economics is your schtick...
You know countries can't go bankrupt, right?
Why? And how? And does it have anything to do with that a country can print as much money as it wants? Or some offshoot of MMT with which I'm not familiar?MMT = Modern Monetary Theory. The silliest example of this was from AOC (via Perplexity in part, my phrasing):
- Have the Treasury create two platinum coins and stamp them as worth $1 Trillion each
- Deposit them with the Federal Reserve.
- Treasury now is credited with $2 Trillion.
- Govt can then spend it on whatever.
- No additional debt is created.
So, while Si Senor held that I was wrong, he never said HOW or WHY? Yet, he boasted that he was “in international finance” and had an economics degree. So I now think of him at the same level as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“AOC”), who has degrees in International Relations and Economics (how far has my alma mater, BU, fallen) as she seemingly can’t answer much either.
So there’s more at that Gizmodo post that I thought was “interesting”. But this is enough for now
