Thread for responding to lies spread by JazzyFresh

[One Brow]

None of them and all of them. It wasn't the result of the programs themselves. It was the aggregate price tag so far above the level of tax revenue.

If I were to ask you to look at how the federal deficit changed over the period of, say, 1960 to 1990, do you think you'd see a big jump in 1965 (the actual start of the Great Society programs) and following, or in years following the programs being cut back, dismantled, or re-routed? I looked it up, but I wanted to check to see if you had.

Here is the graph you refer to in your linked piece with the 10 year period pointed out. The meat of the spending really started in 1968-1969. By 1980 Volker had broken the spiral. Notice the blue housing price curve between '68/'69 and '78/79. Now look at the red income curve during the same period. That is why I hope everyone owns their house because this is in the pipeline but on steroids.

I think narrowing this down to a ten-year window is a great way to hide the overall trends.

Yes, there's a jump in 1970 to 1980 (although the main GS spending is 1968-1972) while wages are rising, but there is also a similar-sloped increase during 1990-2008, coming during and after some of our best years in terms of deficits. Then housing costs fall despite the massive spending in the Obama administration. It's almost as if the relationship to housing costs and federal deficits is very loose, if it exists at all.

But yeah, if you look only at your preferred 10-year window, your interpretation fits.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

there's a jump in 1970 to 1980 (although the main GS spending is 1968-1972) while wages are rising, but there is also a similar-sloped increase during 1990-2008

In both cases the rise in prices is caused by expansion of the money supply. With the way the fractional reserve system works, a creation of a single dollar of US government debt if that debt is purchased domestically, lead to an expansion of the money supply by $11. You can avoid that if selling the debt off to foreign countries like Japan and China, but the Great Society debt was primarily absorbed domestically.

The great rise of the early 2000’s was also expansion of the money supply but it wasn’t driven by government spending. It was due to stripping away some significant pieces of financial regulation that let banks create money out of thin air by over-leveraging worthless assets. There is a great movie called ‘The Big Short’ that detailed how that fiasco happened.

The resolution to both of these bubbles was different. With the over-spending by the government, at least the money was real. Once they reined in the spending and spiked the interest rates to arrest the inflation, there wasn’t a huge crash (but there still was a recession). With the 2000’s bubble, the assets weren’t real and there was a massive readjustment with a number of big players being technically insolvent. The current spending is more like the Great Society spending and the economy is likely to look more like ’68-’78.

 

[JazzyFresh]

@Red I notice you can post more propaganda about Trump yet can't provide a single quote where Trump incited the Jan 6th riot. Liar...

 

[One Brow]

@Red I notice you can post more propaganda about Trump yet can't provide a single quote where Trump incited the Jan 6th riot. Liar...

Since you would not acknowledge any sort of quote as inciting the riot, this is a tautology.

 

[JazzyFresh]

Since you would not acknowledge any sort of quote as inciting the riot, this is a tautology.

What a cowardly answer.

 

[One Brow]

What a cowardly answer.

Not at all. Tell you what: You offer three statements of a type you would see as supporting the riot, and if they are realistic enough that Trump might have said them, I'll go take a look.

My guess is that they will be of a type you'd never hear from any US politician.

 

[JazzyFresh]

"Inflation is good"

"You don't understand moderate because 1917"

“Americans should brace themselves for several years of higher inflation than they’ve seen in decades, according to economists who expect the robust post-pandemic economic recovery to fuel brisk price increases for a while,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “The respondents on average now expect a widely followed measure of inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy components, to be up 3.2% in the fourth quarter of 2021 from a year before. They forecast the annual rise to recede to slightly less than 2.3% a year in 2022 and 2023. That would mean an average annual increase of 2.58% from 2021 through 2023, putting inflation at levels last seen in 1993.”

 

[JazzyFresh]

Moderate

adjective
/ˈmäd(ə)rət/
average in amount, intensity, quality, or degree.

 

[One Brow]

"Inflation is good"

Too much of any good thing is bad.

"You don't understand moderate because 1917"

You offered the definition, I just used it.

“Americans should brace themselves for several years of higher inflation than they’ve seen in decades, according to economists who expect the robust post-pandemic economic recovery to fuel brisk price increases for a while,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “The respondents on average now expect a widely followed measure of inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy components, to be up 3.2% in the fourth quarter of 2021 from a year before. They forecast the annual rise to recede to slightly less than 2.3% a year in 2022 and 2023. That would mean an average annual increase of 2.58% from 2021 through 2023, putting inflation at levels last seen in 1993.”

I don't recall 1993 as being a year everyone was worried about inflation.

 

[One Brow]

Moderate

adjective
/ˈmäd(ə)rət/
average in amount, intensity, quality, or degree.

Exactly. Nice to see you agree.

 

[One Brow]

How do you guys suppose Fauci knew and guaranteed this epidemic would happen under Trump?

He said it would happen eventually, not specifically under Trump.

The same guy who funded the covid research at Wuhan then lied under oath that he didn't.

He said under oath that there was funding, right there in the exchange with Paul.

The same guy who hid the very fact that the lab leak was a possibility...

You can't hide something that doesn't exist.

I'll expect a well thought out response from Ron, 2pc., and Wes any time now.

This nonsense doesn't deserve it.

 

[One Brow]

Biden

Senior intelligence officials, not scientists.

WHO

“There was a premature push to, you know, especially reduce one of the options, like the lab theory,” Tedros said last week. “If we get full information, we can exclude that. So one of the challenges, again, is, you know, a challenge of access and also transparency with regard to the hypothesis that are put.”

So, not "just as plausible", but rather, with the full expectation there was no lab leak.

Scientists

He said "plausible" (meaning it is not impossible), not anything remotely like "just as plausible".

You're the one who said there are 28 pandemics in 10 years lol. Name 4.

I linked to 38. This is why I rarely offer you links.

"Before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH."

By God dude.

So, you agree Fauci was telling the truth (which is what "before the pause" would mean).

It is truly impressive knowing years in
advance that a virus from a market 200 meters from the Wuhan lab studying bat/mice to human covid transmission would pop up.

That would be, if it happened.

Now why did he lie under oath about gain of function

You just provided evidence he did not lie. Again, do you read what you post?

and the lab leak theory he insisted be squashed in early 2020?

Again, no lie there.

Sadly we can't ask that because he gets shakingly angry and loses his temper.

I'm sure he's tired of people claiming he's a mass murderer. You seem to get upset about being called a member of the KKK.