On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:19:39 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 3:10:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 04:46:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 6:25:48 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:46:55 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 12:58:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 06:44:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 3:15:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:40:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 12:02:18 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/13/2021 05:04 AM, wrote:
You are ill-informed about what the vaccine does. It makes the disease
less severe for the person who has had the vaccine. It makes the
vaccine recipient _less_ contagious.
That's not a great selling point -- you'll still get sick but there is
an 80% chance you won't get as sick. But since you're still susceptible
you'll need to wear one or two masks and keep you distance.

What am I missing?

Nothing, you're just too stupid to comprehend.
What did he say that was stupid?

Keep thinking, maybe you'll figure it out. Probably not though, because you've
posted similar.

If it is a vaccine that doesn't end the masks and lockdowns, what is
it good for?

As usual, now you're trying to move the goal posts. This is what was stated:

Do you read your quotes or do you just pop off insults blindly like
Rod?
Read the 2 quotes above and below this that you cited and tell me
where the goal posts moved?

I suggest you read them again and try to focus this time. Maybe you can
figure it out.


OK here was the original statement
"You are ill-informed about what the vaccine does. It makes the
disease less severe for the person who has had the vaccine. It makes
the vaccine recipient _less_ contagious.
That's not a great selling point -- you'll still get sick but there is
an 80% chance you won't get as sick. But since you're still
susceptible
you'll need to wear one or two masks and keep you distance.




Before the vaccine we needed to distance and wear a mask, After the
vaccine we need to distance and wear a mask.

A key fallacy there is that it's not "after the vaccine" now. Even most adults
have not been vaccinated.
He was talking about AFTER the vaccine.

BS. He's obviously talking about NOW, this point in time, because we''re nowhere
near the point where most Americans have been vaccinated. And bingo, again,
that's just one part why it's stupid and wrong.




If we are still locked down in 2020 the democrats will pay for it.
That is all I said. I don't think Biden can print enough money to
change that and some day we are going to pay the price for that too.

No, that isn't all you;ve said, not by a long shot. You've been a reliable Covid
denier since the beginning.

I haven't denied Covid is a thing. I only question the hysteria and
ever changing advice from political hacks like Fauci.

You advocated last spring that it wasn't a big deal and that we should just
let her rip. You're here now spreading FUD about the vaccines and masks.
You've made plenty of posts complaining that the death numbers must be
significantly inflated because hospitals are lying about the deaths to make
money.

Let'r rip was your characterization. I just said the draconian path
wasn't warranted and we are seeing that here now.
I won't be surprised if we see more infections after spring break but
we won't have that hospital overload everyone was predicting. In fact
there were very few remote areas that even saw anything close to that.
Even in the worst hot spot in the country, NJ/NJ they never ran out of
ventilators and they sent the hospital ship home because it wasn't
being used. By the summer ventilators were a glut on the market. I
told you before, one of my former IBM buddies sells medical equipment
and he said there were warehouses full of them they couldn't sell. It
was just another irrational response to a problem.






Trump added $6 trillion in 4 years,

Funny you weren't complaining about that when he cut the tax rates, significantly
increased spending, in his first year. The deficits doubled to $1 trillion. Nor did we
see you complaining as it continued to pile up under Trump. But now suddenly under
Biden, well, now the deficits are something for you to bring up. No surprise there.

You just weren't paying attention or you consciously ignored what I
said. All I ever said was the Trump tax cut benefitted the working
class and that is undeniable. I never said it was a good idea.

Thanks for admitting it, right in the above. Like I said, you didn't complain about
the Trump tax cut and increased spending on the deficits, but now you're complaing
about it under Biden.

Again you are not reading. I have always complained about these
omnibus spending bills. That includes Trump's give away that was a
christmas tree for every left wing cause Chuck and Nancy could come up
with.

Your main problem is that I don't hate Trump enough for you.



Biden has already added a third of
that in 2 months with promises of much more. It is not a good trend.

At least Biden has an arguable reason for much of it. Trump had no reason, none at all,
for most of it, starting in year one. Trump didn't come into a Covid disaster, a Covid
economy. Trump came into a Goldylocks economy. Steady economic growth since 2009,
low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates.

There is no "reason" for a $2 Trillion give away package.

According to you. Funny, we didn't see you here saying there was no reason for
Trump's tax cut and increased spending.

You weren't listening.




That lousy $1400 will be gone in a few weeks and nothing will have
changed. That was just a fraction of the spending anyway. Most had
nothing to do with the Covid thing..

I haven't seen a detailed analysis of what all is in it. I know there has been
complaining because some of the money is going to projects like a bridge
in NY. But infrastructure spending is stimulative to the economy. A lot
of it is aid to cities, like NYC, that has been hit hard by Covid. The economy
has taken a big hit, so have cities. That's why I said at least Biden's deficit
increase is arguably justified. Trump did his deficit blowout with a Goldylocks
economy, steadily growing since 2009, low unemployment, low inflation,
low interest rates. There was no justification, just a pack of lies about a
terrible economy while he was running and then suddenly the same growth,
the same continuation under Trump was a great achievement. Is the new
Covid package too big? Not all going to where it should? Probably. You
can put the blame for that on yourself and the other Trumpets, who defended
every horrible, stupid thing he did while he gutted the GOP. Now the WH,
House and Senate are lost and this is the result. I predicted it 5 years ago.


I understand you and Rod think we can just keep borrowing and printing
money forever but history is a cruel teacher and it teaches us that
leads to a financial disaster.

That's a lie. I spoke out against Trump's tax cuts and increased spending,
I said it would greatly increase the deficits, that were already at $500 bil.
But at least they were steadily declining, until Trump came along.

Your ONLY complaint about the tax cut was rich people got a taste.


In a way this is very much like 2007. Everyone said the housing market
could never fail and real estate was always a safe investment, until
the first house lost money. Then it was an avalanche.
We think people will always be lined up to buy our debt but as soon as
that is not true, it will be the same type of avalanche.

I've said the same thing many times. I said it when Trump was cutting taxes
and increasing spending. You didn't.

Yes I did. I have said we should cut the DoD budget for years but you
still think we have that red menace and no amount is too much.
That is the elephant in the room. It is second only to the
entitlements and more than interest on the debt.

You could really say it started in 2009 anyway when the Fed had to buy
$4.5T of our debt with money they printed out of thin air because the
market couldn't absorb it.

That's not true either. There was no US debt that had to be bought from
the US treasury. The FED bought the debt in the open markets, from people
already holding it, exactly as it has always done when it needs to provide liquidity,
to stimulate the economy, to lower interest rates. The US didn't suddenly
issue $4.5T of new debt.

Bull****, Nobody was holding that $4.5T they bought. It went straight
from the treasury to the fed. (or vice versa depending on how you look
at the phony bookkeeping).
If Bernie Maydolf could have just printed the money to cover his debts
he would still be in Palm Beach sipping Pina Coladas.



I haven't seen how they paid for this latest give away since it hasn't
showed up on the deficit yet. (according to the treasury web site)

They will pay for it the same way that all US spending in excess of revenue
is paid for, by issuing new debt.

At a certain point who is buying it? We are reaching the point that
there is not that much liquidity in the world economy. That is why the
fed needs to print more money. At what point will people start to
realize the money supply far outweighs the value of goods and
services, then the central bank's thumb on the inflation scale will
not be enough to hold it down.
We don't even have to go back a half century to see that happen.

Bernie Madoff went to prison for that kind of bookkeeping.

That's wrong too. What the US is doing is on the books, available for all to see.
Banks, institutions, world banks, all see it, they know exactly what the US govt
is doing. Bernie was a lying crook who issued totally made up financial statements.


All can see but if you really look, what you see looks a lot like what
Bernie did. We have trillions that we say is a trust fund but it is
really just debt. The fed prints money to cover debt the treasury
can't sell on the market. Most people just believe that because the
government says this is OK, that it is. You are one of them.
Google up Weimar Republic and see what happens when debts overwhelm a
country's ability to pay.

At a certain point we are going to have to start paying an interest
rate that more correctly reflects the market and that will blow out
the deficit.
If we have to pay Carter era interest it is almost all of our current
revenue without spending another dime on SS/MC, federal pensions or
any of the "discretionary" spending.
Carter isn't ancient history either. It was 45 years ago.

On that point, you're correct, that interest rates will rise at some point.
Hopefully Treasury has the vast majority of debt in 20+ maturities, in which
case the immediate impact won't be severe.

They don't
There are about $5T in bills that expire in weeks or months
There is $11T in Notes that may only last 2 years, 10 max
$2.9T is in T bonds.
Most of the T bonds are held by SS/MC.
$6.4T is in "Series" bonds. (the kind regular folks buy)
The rest is a mix of other paper.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...cipal_debt.htm