This One Thing Shows How Deeply Washington Is Broken

The voters can stop the overspending by how they vote. The voters are greedy apparently.

 

So you’re saying something that cost $5 prior to COVID that now costs $10 is not because a company raised the price but because my $5 bill is worth less? So it just appears that the price increased to $10?
How have corporate profits increased so much?

 

It seems trivial to me. Cut all federal spending for health and education. Instant surplus and improvements to both sectors. It is despicable that the federal government got involved in those two sectors. They are actively destroying those sectors while pumping money from useful workers to useless bureaucrats who are married to the Democrat Party.

 

Both are true. The problem is that the currency falls in value all the time by government pumping more dollars into the economy in order to pay its bills. Every dollar the government creates dilutes the value of all the existing dollars. A less valuable dollar requires more dollars to buy anything. The manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers and everybody have to spend more dollars for the same things. At the end of the line are the retailers who raise the prices in order to get what they need to operate. Since they need more dollars to buy the products they sell, they have to earn more dollars from you to operate. So they raise prices. So the prices can go up or down from supply and demand or go up steadily and permanently through expansion of the money supply.

I have been an e-merchant since 1997. Most of the products I buy today that were available back then are twice the price, or more accurately, require twice the dollars to buy. If I didn't raise the prices on those products I would be selling at cost, losing money and be out of business. The products aren't more valuable. They are the same. The money is less valuable.

This devaluation of the currency has been going on since the Coolidge administration. The reason it is headlines today is that it has accelerated in recent years from government overspending and money supply expansion. Groceries, for instance, are nearly 20% higher over the past 4 or 5 years. People notice it because it is so severe. Government tries to keep this money inflation below 2% so as not to bring attention to it but they haven't done this in recent years because of accelerated overspending. Money supply expansion is something like a tax. Government has had this silent tax for a long time but they overdid it recently and it is no longer silent. We all pay for government spending and we pay even more due to higher prices because of it.

I hope this helps.

 

The Washington politicians point their fingers at the "greedy corporations", meanwhile the greedy politicians are borrowing and spending billions to stay in power.

 

The constitution charged the federal government with defense, international relations, establishment of a national currency, the ability to resolve inter state disputes and the establishment of a postal system. Everything else, as required in the 10th amendment, belongs in the states. Health and education are obvious but they are the tip of the iceberg.

 

And the greedy voters elect them to do that.

 

You realize that what is listed as "health" in your graph is Medicare? So, you want to cut Medicare for people who have paid into it for their whole lives? Notice that this also falls under non-discretionary spending.

This is what we get when people can't do the math, and then they proclaim that balaning the budget is "easy". Nothing could be further from the truth.

BTW: When you hero gets back into the WH in Januray, watch the deficit explode again, and all talk about fiscal responsibility by the right will be forgotten.

 

Yes it is.

 

That's the natural result of letting people who don't pay taxes vote. If these programs came out of their pocket the would change their mind.

 

#3 is the only thing that is likely to happen, regardless of who is in office. For different reasons, neither party actually tries to do 1 or 2. If the Republicans made all three of these the focus of their platform, reduced the amount of control they let corporations have over them*, and completely ignored the "culture war" bullshit, they would probably gain and maintain control for decades.

*I'm well aware dems are controlled by corporations, too.

 

You can't just reduce the money supply unless everything is reduced by the same proportion including wages including yours. The dollar is just a token, you can just as easily use the weight of gold as a currency

 

I can’t believe people aren’t taught anything about supply and demand or debt based currency. No wonder our country is in debt. The citizens don’t know anything about basic economics.

 

I know graphs are difficult so let me help you out. The part marked Medicare is for Medicare. The part marked as Health is not for Medicare. I hope this helps. Would like to serve up your next argument since that one got nuked from orbit?

PROTIP: All the freeloaders looting out the system via "Health" didn't pay **** for anything. I am paying for myself, for them and for my own retirement.

 

My bad, I meant Medicaid.



As to the "freeloaders", don't be too high on your own horse, just one bad accident that leaves you unable to work, or a cancer diagnosis, could throw you into the category of the "freeloaders".

 

You can reduce it in the same manner you increase it. You just decide to do it. Gold is not something you can create out of thin air like the U.S. dollar. We used to have a gold standard if you recall. The only thing that happens when the M2 is decreased is that the dollar becomes more valuable. Our debtor government wouldn't do that since it would make it necessary to pay debt and interest with more valuable dollars. So there is no need to worry about it. It won't happen. There would be some sincere value in government living within its means and stopping the money expansion.

 

Greed is a natural characteristic of human nature for people of all financial circumstances.

 

You can't do that. Government took the money and is responsible for paying the benefit. But it could stop collecting taxes for it and eventually cut it out.

 

1) Hopefully the House will be under Democrat control so border measures can be negotiated AND passed.
2) Paying down the debt sailed when Reagan took debt growth exponential. The world has entered a new era, where the Central Banks have to come up with a new way of thinking about debt because, they have put every country so far in debt it's meaningless. On the upside for U.S., the dollar is still the strongest currency in the world ... BY FAR.
3) Inflation IS getting more reasonable by the day, it is essentially under control, where have you been.

 

Greed is common, but I don't believe it's endemic in humanity. Certainly there are ... too many greedy bastards that just can't get enough wealth, if it's at the expense of the rest of humanity they couldn't care less. But most humans just want to live comfortably, raise a family and enjoy their time on earth with loved ones. Which is a big order I admit and takes a lot of money and work, but you don't have to be "greedy" to accomplish it.

 

That is not how it works. The dollar is just a token that is used to compare the cost of different commodities. Most of the "dollar "is electronic. The total amount of "dollars" gives the worth of a country. Removing some of those dollars does not mean the worth of a country has changed. Any commodity can be used as a token eg suppose the cost of a TV is $100. A TV can be used as a currency. Bit more complicated as TVs are not all the same but it's analogous to having different currencies around the world.

Do you really think that by removing a percentage of the amount of currency will not effect number of tokens you receive as a salary? You are effectively suggesting the opposite of what Germany did in the early 20th century which resulted in people getting their salary on wheelbarrows. But in your case the salary would reduce making the buying power no different to what it was.

 

You are only agreeing with my assessment but I feel like you think you are adding something new.

 

I guess my English is failing me. I disagree with you.

 

Different issue. I said reducing the money supply would increase the value of the dollar. I'm not sure why you went where you went.

 

What would $5 be worth if you reduced the money supply (whatever that means) by half?