On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 10:47:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:

You weren't listening.

Sure, it's my listening, even after you pretty much confirmed it here again yesterday,
by saying that you only pointed out that Trump's tax cut benefitted Joe Six pack too.

Maybe I am just not as big a whiner as you and you can't talk about
anything without whining about Trump.

If you want to talk about whiners, the biggest whiner has been Trump. It's always
someone else that's to blame, always someone else to demonize and complain
about. That's what he did for 4 years, instead of doing his job.


In 10 years Trump will just be another unpopular president, along with
some of the others like GW Bush who we don't hear much about today. I
remember when he was the worst president ever too.

Please, don't try to normalize Trump by trying to equate him to Bush or any other
former president. In ten years, Trump will be starting to earn his place in the
history books for the despicable, un-American POS that he is.




That;s yet another lie. I spoke out against the tax cut as being irresponsible
when we already had a $500 bil deficit and the economy was doing OK.
YOU responded again and again, justifying it, saying it was going to many
Americans, not just the rich, never saying it was a bad idea. And the rich
not only got a taste, they got an order of magnitude more benefit than
Joe Sixpack.

Listen I said ANY ****ING TAX CUT was a bad idea. Is that clear
enough?

You sure weren't saying that when you defended Trump's tax cut that helped
double the deficits. Like you confirm now, you just said that it benefitted
Joe Six pack in addition to rich people. And you never said it while Trump
was in office. But now you're concerned about deficits, with Biden in office.


I am the only guy here who seems to think the debt is important.

That's a lie, I spoke out against Trump's tax cut, while you were defending it.
I've spoken out here about the national debt, in many threads directly with you
for years. I spoke out about it again this week.


Your complaint about the cut wasn't that it was a bad idea, only that
you thought the people who pay the most taxes were getting a break.

That's another lie. I spoke about both.






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.

Show us a single post where I advocated for spending more on defense.
Or where I said anything at all about the defense budget.

Show me where you complained about it. That seems to be the bar.

I spoke out against Trump's irresponsible tax cut and increased spending.
I told you it would greatly increase the deficits, while Trump and the Republicans
lied and claimed it would not. That was enough. We need to address the
overall problem. Trump addressed it alright. He made it twice as bad.



You
are also the first one to talk about how we need to protect ourselves
from the evil russians. You were in favor of every war we have had in
the last 30 years. It certainly sounds like you support ther DoD
budget to me.

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).

That's wrong too. You clearly don't understand how the FED works. The
US govt did not issue $4.5T in new debt. If they did, where did that cash go?
The deficit circa 2009 was $1.4T. That is all the new debt the govt had to issue.
The rest, the bulk of the money creation was the FED buying securities in the open
market, as they have done since day one to control the money supply. It's the
FED's Open Market Operations. And they didn't just buy US govt securites in 2009,
they bought mortgage backed securities too. Further, the FED NEVER buys
securities directly from the Treasury.

If the fed is buying US debt they are buying it from the treasury ...
period.

Attempt to move goal posts and obfuscate, noted. This is what you posted:

"It went straight from the treasury to the fed. "



Calling it the open market is just more smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps to you. Fact is the open markets are trading US treasuries around the
world among buyers and sellers of all kinds, institutions, govts, central banks,
not just the FED.


The
debt came from the bailout. There was no way "the market" was going to
absorb an extra $4.5T so the fed bought the debt.

There was no $4.5T in debt from the bailout in 2009. Can't you do simple math?
The budget deficit was ~$1.4 tril, not $4.5 tril. If the US govt issued $4.5T in
new debt, where did the other $3.4 tril go? Again, you're confusing FED
Open Market Operations with govt borrowing. They are totally different.
And of that $1.4 tril deficit, maybe $500 bil was TARP, which was REPAID
by the recipients to the govt in later years.




You can generate all the phony paperwork you want but the bottom line
was the government borrowed $4.5T more than the market was able to
lend so the fed printed the money.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're just like Trump. Get it all wrong, then just keep
doubling and tripling down.


They called it "quantitive easing"
a euphemism for monetizing debt.

That is when the FED buys existing securities in the OPEN MARKET. It's not
the issuance of NEW DEBT. It's the FED acquiring securities that already
exist, buying them in the US financial market where they are tradeed. And while
previously the FED only bought US treasury securities, in 2009 the bought
a lot of mortgage backed securities, that was a large part. Following your
claims of how the process works, the US govt would have had to issue new
mortgages and the FED would have bought them directly from the US govt.
It doesn't work that way.


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.

Oh please. The world economy is as liquid as it's ever been.

Exactly and that is not liquid enough to absorb huge debts like that
so the fed creates money out of thin air to buy the debt.

Wrong, as always and previously explained.



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.

Again, that is simply wrong. The FED never buys securities directly from the
Treasury and they are not buying them because no one else wants them.
The FED buys securities in the markets to increase or decrease the available
money supply.

Yummy Kool Ade you got there scooter.

Fine, remain ignorant, your choice.




Most people just believe that because the
government says this is OK, that it is. You are one of them.

That's a lie. I've spoken out against deficits and the national debt,
constantly, including when Trump irresponsibly cut taxes and increased
spending.


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

You're right about that. I guess the morons are doing the ARM mortgage deal.
Take on huge risk of interest rates rising in order to keep today's payments
low. So if rates rise, there will be an immediate impact, I see about 25%
is in Tbills, 50% in 2 to 10 year maturities.
The question is how old are those notes? When do they have to be
rolled over? It is clear we have no way to redeem them without just
printing the money.

They get redeemed just like they have mostly been redeemed forever. Treasury
issues new ones.

It would be helpful if you could trim posts.