Meadows apparently pleading guilty
- Thread starter St. Louis Hawk
- Start date
Can they do that? I certainly hope so.
As long as they don't start with me, of course.
That's IF the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional. I'm not sure they are willing to push America and the world over the cliff.
If they do, you declare the Supreme Court wrong and keep paying the bills.
Constitutional crisis? Sure. But we are 95% there already, as I'm sure you've noticed. Going the remaining 5% is better than a world-wide depression.
Yes. They’ll just shift all the money cut to the back end. If they don’t get it, they’re no worse off. If they do, they can fully implement the original plan.
And the problem with that is it’s all about selling treasuries. To get buys, the payoff for investors will have to be higher than normal. A LOT higher. Buyers will look at those bonds - generally considered the safest investment on the planet - as risky which is the exact opposite of what the govt wants.
Go the coin route and that stops being a problem.
Because . . . you're basically printing money.
OH NO! YOU CAN'T PRINT MONEY! EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!
What's the difference between printing money and borrowing money?
The most important difference is that when you print it, you don't have to pay interest.
With interest on the national debt heading toward a $trillion per year with no slowing in sight, that's a huge advantage because money that goes to pay off interest on the debt is money that isn't going for bridges, schools and health care.
Not sure if you're being facetious but equating printing money or a coin to borrowing is dumb.
I disagree, but if you believe that, perhaps you can explain it to me.
Should be easy if it's dumb.
??? What makes you think it should be easy to explain to you that your dumb statement is dumb?
Maybe I'm naive but I think if you claim something is dumb you ought to be able to explain why.
I mean this is the internet era when people make clueless attacks because they can, but I hadn't pegged you as someone who did that.
I can explain it but not necessarily to you given you were the one to make the dumb post.
Creating money is far different than using existing money.
There, I tried.
So . . . banks take your $10K deposit, and then lend out $90K, backed by your $10K, (or whatever the current regs permit). It's how they make money. That's creating money.
What's the difference?
Chuck has some thoughts on the indictment.
Wait, he doesn’t. At all.
Wait, he doesn’t. At all.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Banks don’t have the power to create money out of thin air. To lend $90K they have to have the whole $90K first, plus enough in reserve to meet banking regulations. They do not need to keep enough to cover 100% of your deposits…maybe that is your confusion.
OK, I've had enough of your childish responses. Sorry you're incapable of anything else. It could have been an interesting discussion.
If you want to improve your understanding, I recommend this book
Can you quote the section that says borrowing money is the same as printing money?OK, I've had enough of your childish responses. Sorry you're incapable of anything else. It could have been an interesting discussion.
If you want to improve your understanding, I recommend this book
Use your brain and think it through. And maybe try not to misrepresent what I said in your efforts to wriggle out of looking bad.
"What's the difference between printing money and borrowing money?"
GFY about misrepresenting what you said.
What part of that is meaningfully different from what I said? They get to multiply the money they take in and lend it out.
We start with $10K, but lend multiples of that. That's more than we started with. That's creating money. It's not rocket science. It's the way things work.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. When the Fed increases the original supply of money, they do so under the assumption that a large percentage will be lent out as debt over time. As such they have a formula for how much money will actually end up in circulation and they use this to (very accurately) predict money supply. The banks themselves are agents of that mechanism, but the supply is governed by regulatory requirements on what the bank can lend, amount of deposits it must hold, etc. So every dollar issued by the fed is assumed as the time of issue to be more than $1. This accommodates the expected debt load.
So for the amount of money to expand beyond current assumptions under your scenario, you have to change some fundamental regulatory requirements on how much a bank holds, who they can lend to, etc. So yes, if we want to deregulate such that every bank is like Silicon Valley Bank then the central bank could relax regulation changing the money multiplier thereby allowing supply to increase. This would be a very bad idea. Like a 1929 bad idea.
The point remains the banks themselves cannot arbitrarily do this. It requires federal action.
He never said that. He said he wanted to find votes, at no point did Trump ask anyone to find votes.
So, it's your position, stated in about a dozen threads so far, that Trump himself, one of the laziest people on earth, was going to do the work to "find votes"? The mental gymnastics you go through to protect an unrepentant, amoral, extreme narcissist, convicted felon, rapist says volumes about you.
No. You are championing the person I described in my previous post.
If you feel like making sure correct words are used is "championing" for someone that's on you sir.
The most important difference is that when you borrow money you don’t inflate the money supply. You can only borrow what has been previously produced.
Borrowing money denies the lender the purchasing power (the borrower has it) until it is paid back.
Printing money just robs purchasing power from everyone that holds money, and never pays them back.
So this is one of the few times we're supposed to hang on every word Trump says, unlike all the other times he said something dumb and his PR people had to go out and clean it up with "that's what he said but it isn't what he meant".
I guess "there's fine people on both sides" without context is really really not a good look for your boy.
Or "grab em by the pu$$y", saying its ok because he's a celeb is just silly locker talk that can't be taken seriously.
Funny how you're playing both sides of this and your brain doesn't even stop and consider the irony of it all.
Another example of flexible principles based on personal politics. Sad.
Your focus on the words seems blatantly disingenuous. You keep acting likethose words don't mean what we say they mean.
You know better. It's not rocket science. Or are you saying you aren't that smart?
Let me ask you this. If I go to a restaurant and tell the wait staff "I want to find" the best steak in the city, is there any implication that someone other than the chef is going to cook it? Should they expect me to go to the kitchen and fix it myself?
