Secret Service advertised as hot 'new amenity' at Trump Tower

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51489527]Sorry?
That is absolutely not how the US's federal government works.
Yes they print the money, but if they just printed money to pay for stuff - that would inflate the dollar so much we'd be a third world country.
The federal government functions off tax dollars just like the states do.[/QUOTE]

It is absolutely how the US federal government works.

They do 'print' the money to pay for stuff. As long as they don't outspend the productive capacity of the nation (like with Zimbabwe) you won't cause too much inflation.

The federal government doesn't function off tax dollars just like the state. The state needs tax dollars and federal funding because it doesn't issue currency, so if it doesn't have any dollars it can't spend. The federal government does issue currency, so it doesn't NEED tax dollars to spend.

The fed doesn't function off tax dollars like states. It functions off taxes in the sense that the economy wouldn't work as well without them.

[Amber902]

If that was the case then why can I rather trivially look up exactly what my federal income tax is spent on?

[Flak]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51489614]It is absolutely how the US federal government works.

They do 'print' the money to pay for stuff. As long as they don't outspend the productive capacity of the nation (like with Zimbabwe) you won't cause too much inflation.

The federal government doesn't function off tax dollars just like the state. The state needs tax dollars and federal funding because it doesn't issue currency, so if it doesn't have any dollars it can't spend. The federal government does issue currency, so it doesn't NEED tax dollars to spend.

The fed doesn't function off tax dollars like states. It functions off taxes in the sense that the economy wouldn't work as well without them.[/QUOTE]

[quote]The federal government raises trillions of dollars in tax revenue each year, though a variety of taxes and fees. Some taxes fund specific government programs, while other taxes fund the government in general. When all taxes for a given year are insufficient to cover all of the government's expenses - which has been the case in 45 out of the last 50 years1 - the U.S. Treasury borrows money to make up the difference.[/quote]

[quote]
Income taxes paid by individuals: $1.48 trillion, or 47% of all tax revenues.
Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: $1.07 trillion, 34% of all tax revenues.
Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: $341.7 billion, or 11% of all tax revenues.
[/quote]
[url=https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/revenues/]Source[/url]

[Amber902]

What you're saying only applies to paper currency and that only makes sense because of course the federal government prints paper currency on the occassion that it needs to use it, but thats because no one pays taxes in paper money. That money is still essentially tax money though

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489563]Your either trolling or terribly, terribly misinformed. You should look at Zimbabwe so you can see how utterly wrong you are.

Thats because the US government doesnt doesnt insert massive amounts of freshly printed money into the economy like you're insinuating.

Why dont you cite something to backup the nonsense you're saying.

[editline]6th December 2016[/editline]

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go[/url]

Youre wrong.[/QUOTE]

What does the US government have to do with Zimbabwe? Did you guys destroy a large majority of your productive capacity then start pissing money around like some sort of a joke?

The US government does insert a deficit into the economy. So I don't get your point here?

Nonsense? The fed issues currency. Do you think the US dollar grows on trees or something?

Yep, the US government collects taxes, but it collects less than it spends. This is no way invalidates the point that the fed spends US dollars. When it borrows $438 billion, where does it come from?

[Amber902]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51489654]What does the US government have to do with Zimbabwe? Did you guys destroy a large majority of your productive capacity then start pissing money around like some sort of a joke?

The US government does insert a deficit into the economy. So I don't get your point here?

Nonsense? The fed issues currency. Do you think the US dollar grows on trees or something?

Yep, the US government collects taxes, but it collects less than it spends. This is no way invalidates the point that the fed spends US dollars. When it borrows $438 billion, where does it come from?[/QUOTE]
Youre arguing semantics. Paper money printed by the government is still tax money or from borrowing. Printing money that didnt exist in some form before will devalue the currency, hence the zimbabwe analogy

The US government borrows money from banks or other countries.

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489628]If that was the case then why can I rather trivially look up exactly what my federal income tax is spent on?[/QUOTE]

Because it's not politically sound to make people pay taxes and not let them know what you're spending it on.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51489652][url=https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/revenues/]Source[/url][/QUOTE]

Yes, the federal government collects taxes. This has nothing to do with the fact that the federal government does NOT need taxes to spend the currency that it issues.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489653]What you're saying only applies to paper currency and that only makes sense because of course the federal government prints paper currency on the occassion that it needs to use it, but thats because no one pays taxes in paper money. That money is still essentially tax money though[/QUOTE]

No, it applies to money in general. The federal government prints hard currency for the convenience of the populace. It might be tax money in the sense that if it taxes $10 dollars somewhere you could say that it printed $10 dollars with that tax money, but it could just as easily print $10 dollars without taxing it (that's not a good idea but that is not relevant to the point of how the fed spends)

[Flak]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51489697]Because it's not politically sound to make people pay taxes and not let them know what you're spending it on.

Yes, the federal government collects taxes. This has nothing to do with the fact that the federal government does NOT need taxes to spend the currency that it issues.

No, it applies to money in general. The federal government prints hard currency for the convenience of the populace. It might be tax money in the sense that if it taxes $10 dollars somewhere you could say that it printed $10 dollars with that tax money, but it could just as easily print $10 dollars without taxing it (that's not a good idea but that is not relevant to the point of how the fed spends)[/QUOTE]

This part in particular counters almost everything you have said.
[quote] Some taxes fund specific government programs, while other taxes fund the government in general.[/quote]

[Amber902]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51489697]Because it's not politically sound to make people pay taxes and not let them know what you're spending it on.[/quote]
But you just said the US government doesnt need taxes to pay for stuff.

[Quote]
Yes, the federal government collects taxes. This has nothing to do with the fact that the federal government does NOT need taxes to spend the currency that it issues.[/quote]
Yeah but if it just continues to create money that didnt exist in some form before it devalues the currency. Yeah i get that the IS government prints money to replaced money destroyed and to put money into the expanding economy, but you're vastly overstating how much they do that. Throughout the thread you've insinuated that the government could exist without taxes, which is asinine.

No, it applies to money in general. The federal government prints hard currency for the convenience of the populace. It might be tax money in the sense that if it taxes $10 dollars somewhere you could say that it printed $10 dollars with that tax money, but it could just as easily print $10 dollars without taxing it (that's not a good idea but that is not relevant to the point of how the fed spends)[/QUOTE]

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489682]Youre arguing semantics. Paper money printed by the government is still tax money or from borrowing. Printing money that didnt exist in some form before will devalue the currency, hence the zimbabwe analogy

The US government borrows money from banks or other countries.[/QUOTE]

It's not really semantics. You're pushing the narrative that federal spending HAS to come from taxes or borrowing. I'm not.

So spending devalues the currency. Where'd you get the currency in the first place if you didn't spend? If your economy is growing, and you aren't adding more currency, how exactly do you propose avoiding deflation?

And printing money that didn't exist in some form won't necessarily devalue the currency. That's not how inflation works. It devalues the currency if there's no increase in productive output to match. Money isn't pegged to gold, money is pegged to whatever you can exchange the money for.

And how exactly is the US government borrowing US dollars from banks or other countries if the US government is the only entity that can decide that US dollars exist? Where did the banks and the other countries get ahold of US dollars if they do have some?

[Amber902]

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51489714]This part in particular counters almost everything you have said.[/QUOTE]
I think i know what he's saying but hes explaining it horribly. Essentially hes saying thay the federal government prints and spends money to meep up with economic growth. Think about it like this, we obviously have a lot more currency in circulation then we did 100 years ago

[Flak]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51489774]It's not really semantics. You're pushing the narrative that federal spending HAS to come from taxes or borrowing. I'm not.

So spending devalues the currency. Where'd you get the currency in the first place if you didn't spend? If your economy is growing, and you aren't adding more currency, how exactly do you propose avoiding deflation?

And printing money that didn't exist in some form won't necessarily devalue the currency. That's not how inflation works. It devalues the currency if there's no increase in productive output to match. Money isn't pegged to gold, money is pegged to whatever you can exchange the money for.

And how exactly is the US government borrowing US dollars from banks or other countries if the US government is the only entity that can decide that US dollars exist? Where did the banks and the other countries get ahold of US dollars if they do have some?[/QUOTE]

Spending doesn't devalue currency.
Printing additional currency devalues currency.

The US can borrow money from other countries because you can think of it as an IOU.
"Hey we need $1 billion, can we borrow some of your money in equivalence with ours?"

[Amber902]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51489774]It's not really semantics. You're pushing the narrative that federal spending HAS to come from taxes or borrowing. I'm not.

So spending devalues the currency. Where'd you get the currency in the first place if you didn't spend? If your economy is growing, and you aren't adding more currency, how exactly do you propose avoiding deflation?

And printing money that didn't exist in some form won't necessarily devalue the currency. That's not how inflation works. It devalues the currency if there's no increase in productive output to match. Money isn't pegged to gold, money is pegged to whatever you can exchange the money for.

And how exactly is the US government borrowing US dollars from banks or other countries if the US government is the only entity that can decide that US dollars exist? Where did the banks and the other countries get ahold of US dollars if they do have some?[/QUOTE]
I understand what you're saying now, but you explained it horribly and in a way that insinuates that you think the government prints enough money to cause massive hyperinflation.

[gk99]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51486920]Again, Trump was seen as the less corrupt candidate[/QUOTE]

Not by the majority of the public, he wasn't.

Hillary won the popular vote by millions.

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51489714]This part in particular counters almost everything you have said.[/QUOTE]

Great. I'll address this while addressing the next point from Kyle902:

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489773]But you just said the US government doesnt need taxes to pay for stuff.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't NEED taxes. It could transfer all its taxes to a theoretical Mr Poopy McButtsface and it could still fund everything in FlakTheMighty's post. That would just look dumb and make it harder to keep track of how to adjust your taxes to tamper aggregate demand and what-not.

[QUOTE]Yeah but if it just continues to create money that didnt exist in some form before it devalues the currency. Yeah i get that the IS government prints money to replaced money destroyed and to put money into the expanding economy, but you're vastly overstating how much they do that. Throughout the thread you've insinuated that the government could exist without taxes, which is asinine.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't necessarily devalue the currency. It depends on what the currency is doing. I don't see how I'm overstating anything.

Although I'm not insinuating that the fed could survive without taxes. It probably could for some time, but taxes are extremely useful for the economy and it would be dumb to get rid of them.

They're just not necessary for federal spending, which is the only point I'm trying to make here.

[Amber902]

Yeah i inderstand what you're saying now, all of us misinterpreted you because you explained to rather horribly.

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489802]I think i know what he's saying but hes explaining it horribly. Essentially hes saying thay the federal government prints and spends money to meep up with economic growth. Think about it like this, we obviously have a lot more currency in circulation then we did 100 years ago[/QUOTE]

That's part of what I'm saying, if I understand you correctly.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51489803]Spending doesn't devalue currency.
Printing additional currency devalues currency.

The US can borrow money from other countries because you can think of it as an IOU.
"Hey we need $1 billion, can we borrow some of your money in equivalence with ours?"[/QUOTE]

Deficit spending is essentially printing additional currency. And if your economy is growing, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to have deficit spending (in a country like the US with a sovereign currency that isn't pegged to anything.) Theoretically you could balance deficit spending to the point of 0% inflation but people prefer 2% inflation.

The US will borrow pounds from the UK or what not if it needs to service something in pounds, because it cannot issue pounds. So perhaps it will exchange US dollars for pounds. But the idea of the US government borrowing US dollars from a foreign government to pay for US dollar domestic expenditure is absurd.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489818]I understand what you're saying now, but you explained it horribly and in a way that insinuates that you think the government prints enough money to cause massive hyperinflation.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm sorry if my explanation seems horrible, but I'm reacting to lots of different points. The main point I was trying to get across in the first place is that the fed doesn't need taxes to spend. It taxes for other reasons, no matter what they might say to sound politically convenient (like telling you it taxes you so it can pay for hospitals and roads)

[Amber902]

Well they do tax you to pay for that, at least partially.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=space1;51489498]keywords here, FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:

which is in fact more than he has recieved ($1.6 million, also in your own source.)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The difference with Trump is that one of his companies, TAG Air, Inc., owns the plane, so the government is effectively paying him.

The Clinton campaign, by contrast, mostly has been chartering planes from a private company called Executive Fliteways in which the Clintons do not have any ownership interest.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]A POLITICO analysis of FEC records found that, through the end of August, Trump’s campaign has spent at least $8.2 million at Trump's own businesses, including to hold events at his hotels, buy food from his restaurants and rent office space for its headquarters in his Manhattan office tower.

But the biggest chunk of the expenses, almost $6 million, were to TAG Air, Inc.[/QUOTE]

See the difference there?

edit: sorry about your automerge

[Amber902]

And you are explaining it horribly, at least three separate people read your post and construed unintended meaning from it.

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489916]Well they do tax you to pay for that, at least partially.[/QUOTE]

Well yes, in the sense that if they didn't tax you, they might not be able to pay for that because people might not be willing to accept the currency in exchange for making the hospitals and roads work, because the economy would be broken because you're not using taxes.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51489927]And you are explaining it horribly, at least three separate people read your post and construed unintended meaning from it.[/QUOTE]

Federal spending not requiring federal taxes goes against the grain of what a person or a business has to live with (either we earn money or we get a loan, unlike the fed) and naturally opens a can of worms, so I'm not surprised if it causes people to construe unintended meaning from it, or if it leads to a bunch of other related topics (inflation, borrowing, what's the point of taxes, etc.)

[Amber902]

Now you're being obtuse.

[mechanical433]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51489844]Great. I'll address this while addressing the next point from Kyle902:

It doesn't NEED taxes. It could transfer all its taxes to a theoretical Mr Poopy McButtsface and it could still fund everything in FlakTheMighty's post. That would just look dumb and make it harder to keep track of how to adjust your taxes to tamper aggregate demand and what-not.

It doesn't necessarily devalue the currency. It depends on what the currency is doing. I don't see how I'm overstating anything.

Although I'm not insinuating that the fed could survive without taxes. It probably could for some time, but taxes are extremely useful for the economy and it would be dumb to get rid of them.

They're just not necessary for federal spending, which is the only point I'm trying to make here.[/QUOTE]

your point is [B]only[/B] true if you define your federal spending as ''issuing money but not using it''.

because yes, if they print money for any and all spendings, they'll end up increasing the mass of the money supply which will, again and like everybody is telling you, devalue the money and tank the economy.

they could theoretically issue money and try to spend it on material goods before the dollar value plummets, but yet again, you just tanked the economy.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but you're wrong.

You talk like you just watched that Zeitgeist documentary.

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51490058]Now you're being obtuse.[/QUOTE]

I'm not being obtuse. I'm just arguing against things that I haven't claimed.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51490153]your point is [B]only[/B] true if you define your federal spending as ''issuing money but not using it''.[/QUOTE]

Nope. The fed can issue money and can use that money if people want that money. Don't have to define it so narrowly.

[QUOTE]because yes, if they print money for any and all spendings, they'll end up increasing the mass of the money supply which will, again and like everybody is telling you, devalue the money and tank the economy.[/QUOTE]

Wow, amazing. Completely common knowledge everybody should know, and yet it is irrelevant to the point that the fed doesn't need taxes to spend, so I don't see why everybody is telling me this when I never said otherwise.

[QUOTE]they could theoretically issue money and try to spend it on material goods before the dollar value plummets, but yet again, you just tanked the economy.[/QUOTE]

Yeah if you can't raise productive output to match currency then you get inflation. Nowhere have I claimed that doesn't happen, and yet again, is completely irrelevant to the point that the fed doesn't need taxes to spend.

[QUOTE]I don't know what point you're trying to make, but you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

Nope. The fed can spend without taxes. That's the point I'm trying to make, and it isn't wrong.

[QUOTE]You talk like you just watched that Zeitgeist documentary.[/QUOTE]

Yeah nah. Never watched it, but from a quick google I don't see how the basic fact that money comes from somewhere has much to do with their documentaries

[Geel]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51490237]I'm not being obtuse. I'm just arguing against things that I haven't claimed.

Nope. The fed can issue money and can use that money if people want that money. Don't have to define it so narrowly.

Wow, amazing. Completely common knowledge everybody should know, and yet it is irrelevant to the point that the fed doesn't need taxes to spend, so I don't see why everybody is telling me this when I never said otherwise.

Yeah if you can't raise productive output to match currency then you get inflation. Nowhere have I claimed that doesn't happen, and yet again, is completely irrelevant to the point that the fed doesn't need taxes to spend.

Nope. The fed can spend without taxes. That's the point I'm trying to make, and it isn't wrong.

Yeah nah. Never watched it, but from a quick google I don't see how the basic fact that money comes from somewhere has much to do with their documentaries[/QUOTE]

Basically what you're doing is coming into the thread going "well AKSHULLY the federal government doesn't need to raise taxes to spend money!" and everyone is saying "well yeah fucking of course but it can't do that without also [b]destroying the economy[/b] so it's not really worth talking about unless you're a pedantic asshole"

[Goberfish]

[QUOTE=geel9;51490243]Basically what you're doing is coming into the thread going "well AKSHULLY the federal government doesn't need to raise taxes to spend money!" and everyone is saying "well yeah fucking of course but it can't do that without also [B]destroying the economy[/B] so it's not really worth talking about unless you're a pedantic asshole"[/QUOTE]

No basically what I'm doing is saying that calling a waste of money as a waste of taxpayer's money is a dumb way to frame things. But feel free to ignore the macroeconomic consequences that result from the widespread assumption that the fed has to match absolutely all its spending with some form of earning, if you wish

Edit:
I mean really if you're fine with the idiotic debt and deficit hysteria and the clamouring for the ass backwards austerity ideal then go ahead and call me a pedantic asshole, but in the meantime I won't refrain from stating how central banking in countries like the USA actually works

[DaCool]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51487023]Sarcastic. But Trump's gonna be a one term president.[/QUOTE]

With any luck it will only be two years of full republican control;
The House flipped 2 years into Obama and the Senate followed going red, too, after another 2 years.
It has always been this way that the [URL=https://youtu.be/15WhOT_lQiA]current president's party looses influence[/URL] in Congress and States-level-goverment and seeing that
people are already fed up with Trump I see no reason why the Democrats shouldn't be able to gain some ground.
(Hopefully, they regroup and refocus and stop shooting themselves in the foot.)

Obama was one of the most successful presidents in recent decades and still lost Congress in his presidency I don't see how Republicans could hinder that, once the trumpet is in office and they pass horrible legislation
(given the Republicans track-record and nutcase-cabinet and full responsibility because of full republican control)
that they can't blame on Democrats they gonna lose Congress really fast leaving to a full deadlock again,
only with Dem's on the blocking side of the door this time.

([t]https://facepunch.com/fp/ratings/rainbow.png[/t][t]https://facepunch.com/fp/ratings/rainbow.png[/t]I know this is one hell of an optimistic post with many assumptions and many asterisks[t]https://facepunch.com/fp/ratings/rainbow.png[/t][t]https://facepunch.com/fp/ratings/rainbow.png[/t]
Have to keep going forward somehow)