Eight Programs That Have Already Faced Devastating Budget Cuts

I say let the cuts happen, once they start effecting people in a meaningful way, they'll be willing to elect people that will fix it right. Once people don't have these simple services any more (because they don't want to pay for them), they'll see what a mistake they are making. There's no better way to let someone know the are being foolish, then to let them stumb their toe a few times until they get the hint. 

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Do you have any idea how disastrous that would be?jimkabrhel

When you give these responsibilities to the government, then in addition to giving up money for them to spend however they will, you also give them the power to control how your children are raised, how they are educated, and what foods everyone eats.

This is clearly not working, since the US government is using the public schools to indoctrinate children with collectivist beliefs (for example I was forced to perform community service as part of my curriculum in grade school), and the government is poisoning the entire country by dumping fluoride (a confirmed neurotoxin that is proven to degenerate the brain) into our water.

The government is poisoning us to reduce our intellect, to reduce our capability to think, reason, question, and dissent. Then the government uses the reduced mental capabilities of the masses to more easily brainwash them in the public education system.

I'll put it in terms of your posting style: Please give me proof that the US government is doing any of the things you mention. Hard evidence, not your opinion. 

The concentraions of fluoride used in drinking water to prevent tooth decay is nowhere near the levels needed to interact with calcium in the rest of the body. There are greater concerns in the water, like pharma drugs and BPA, but those are in the water from private citizens and from large corporations, not eh government.

Then, tell me a country where the government doesn't fund education, where the score score highly in math and science.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] It would not be disastrous. If people value education, then they will pay for it - freely. If people value childcare, then they will pay for it - freely. If people value food safety, then they will pay for it - freely.

When you give these responsibilities to the government, then in addition to giving up money for them to spend however they will, you also give them the power to control how your children are raised, how they are educated, and what foods everyone eats.

This is clearly not working, since the US government is using the public schools to indoctrinate children with collectivist beliefs (for example I was forced to perform community service as part of my curriculum in grade school), and the government is poisoning the entire country by dumping fluoride (a confirmed neurotoxin that is proven to degenerate the brain) into our water.

The government is poisoning us to reduce our intellect, to reduce our capability to think, reason, question, and dissent. Then the government uses the reduced mental capabilities of the masses to more easily brainwash them in the public education system.

achilles614

I'll put it in terms of your posting style: Please give me proof that the US government is doing any of the things you mention. Hard evidence, not your opinion. 

The concentraions of fluoride used in drinking water to prevent tooth decay is nowhere near the levels needed to interact with calcium in the rest of the body. There are greater concerns in the water, like pharma drugs and BPA, but those are in the water from private citizens and from large corporations, not eh government.

Then, tell me a country where the government doesn't fund education, where the score score highly in math and science.

The teacher in me can't resist, especially when Lai starts talking about my subject, chemistry.

[QUOTE="achilles614"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I'll put it in terms of your posting style: Please give me proof that the US government is doing any of the things you mention. Hard evidence, not your opinion. 

The concentraions of fluoride used in drinking water to prevent tooth decay is nowhere near the levels needed to interact with calcium in the rest of the body. There are greater concerns in the water, like pharma drugs and BPA, but those are in the water from private citizens and from large corporations, not eh government.

Then, tell me a country where the government doesn't fund education, where the score score highly in math and science.

jimkabrhel

The teacher in me can't resist, especially when Lai starts talking about my subject, chemistry.

  ^  It is common knowledge that the federal government subsidizes corn, which is a known poision, that should never go into us.  also on Flouride, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-p-connelly-dds/mouth-health-fluoridated_b_641767.html.  It is common knowledge that public schools fail, they failed me, I always wondered why I struggled with that system, I felt like it was dumbing me down.  But once I went to community college, I definately got smarter, by doing it on my own.  Spending 40+ hours is not healthy, there is no reason to spend that much time.  I definately will have my kids home schooled.  For the reason that you dont work out 40 hours a weak, you dont sit and just listen for that long.  All public school does is bore the hell out of you.  They have PE classes, but you have been sitting for a lot of hours, which is bad for you in itself.  
 

   What makes no sense is you go to college and it is more like 12 hours a week, which is more healthy, your attentioin span can only last for so long.  It is still a lot of the same thing, where they are trying to teach you liberal ideas, and screw conservatives.  Even college is somewhat bs, you basically have to get into debt to get an higher payying job, what is the point?  My brother makes more than a lot of jobs that require college, and he didnt spend a penny.  Of course colleges will argue that people who go to college are smarter, etc...  Of course they are going to say that, because they are biased.  I honestly think college should only be for specific people, not the whole population.  

     Furthermore there is a reason that young people tend to be more liberal, but as people stop going to college, they are more likely to be conservative.  Probably because experience trumps idealogy, once you work in the real world you can see the flaws of liberalism.  I think government should not try to run our lives, but to protect us from unfair treatment.  I would not say going to a community college was a complete waste of time and money, but for the most part, it really was.  All that money spent on driving to campus, buying books, going to classes, most of this stuff I will never think about again.  

     I think we can apply the same thing to the military, I notice liberals willl usually point out "such budget cut is irrelevant because defense spending is way larger," everything needs to me more moderate.  Not just the military.  Just look at California, that is the result of liberalism let loose.  Liberals do not seem to believe in moderate spending, why is that?  The point of this post is not to create arguements but to help people think, I honestly think battling an individual who does not even want to analyze what I say is pointless.

     Hell government got into gender issues, look at how that all turned out!  I remember in college the subject came up about marriage declines, the professor tried to simplify the issue by sayying "well its just that those people were not right for eachother."  Could it be that government interference in people's personal lives has caused people to marry people knowing they can just get some money out of it if it fails, hmm?  It should be a hint that something is wrong with the way we interact with each other.  I noticed how hard it is to form bonds between people, so many people are egocentric and only care about themselves.  

     If you think I am wrong about any paragraph or point, please feel free to point out if you notice something I do not.  But if you are just going to leave an irrational and emotion retort, do not expect a reply.  So address my points, not me.

But once I went to community college, I definately got smarter, They have PE classes, but you have been sitting for a lot of hours, which is bad for you in itself. What makes no sense is you go to college and it is more like 12 hours a week, which is more healthy, your attentioin span can only last for so long. Of course colleges will argue that people who go to college are smarter, etc... Of course they are going to say that, because they are biased. I honestly think college should only be for specific people, not the whole population.Furthermore there is a reason that young people tend to be more liberal, but as people stop going to college, they are more likely to be conservative. Probably because experience trumps idealogy, once you work in the real world you can see the flaws of liberalism. I think government should not try to run our lives, but to protect us from unfair treatment. I would not say going to a community college was a complete waste of time and money, but for the most part, it really was. All that money spent on driving to campus, buying books, going to classes, most of this stuff I will never think about again. So address my points, not me.mahlasor

  ^  It is common knowledge that the federal government subsidizes corn, which is a known poision, that should never go into us.  also on Flouride, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-p-connelly-dds/mouth-health-fluoridated_b_641767.html.  It is common knowledge that public schools fail, they failed me, I always wondered why I struggled with that system, I felt like it was dumbing me down.  But once I went to community college, I definately got smarter, by doing it on my own.  Spending 40+ hours is not healthy, there is no reason to spend that much time.  I definately will have my kids home schooled.  For the reason that you dont work out 40 hours a weak, you dont sit and just listen for that long.  All public school does is bore the hell out of you.  They have PE classes, but you have been sitting for a lot of hours, which is bad for you in itself.  
 

   What makes no sense is you go to college and it is more like 12 hours a week, which is more healthy, your attentioin span can only last for so long.  It is still a lot of the same thing, where they are trying to teach you liberal ideas, and screw conservatives.  Even college is somewhat bs, you basically have to get into debt to get an higher payying job, what is the point?  My brother makes more than a lot of jobs that require college, and he didnt spend a penny.  Of course colleges will argue that people who go to college are smarter, etc...  Of course they are going to say that, because they are biased.  I honestly think college should only be for specific people, not the whole population.  

     Furthermore there is a reason that young people tend to be more liberal, but as people stop going to college, they are more likely to be conservative.  Probably because experience trumps idealogy, once you work in the real world you can see the flaws of liberalism.  I think government should not try to run our lives, but to protect us from unfair treatment.  I would not say going to a community college was a complete waste of time and money, but for the most part, it really was.  All that money spent on driving to campus, buying books, going to classes, most of this stuff I will never think about again.  

     I think we can apply the same thing to the military, I notice liberals willl usually point out "such budget cut is irrelevant because defense spending is way larger," everything needs to me more moderate.  Not just the military.  Just look at California, that is the result of liberalism let loose.  Liberals do not seem to believe in moderate spending, why is that?  The point of this post is not to create arguements but to help people think, I honestly think battling an individual who does not even want to analyze what I say is pointless.

     Hell government got into gender issues, look at how that all turned out!  I remember in college the subject came up about marriage declines, the professor tried to simplify the issue by sayying "well its just that those people were not right for eachother."  Could it be that government interference in people's personal lives has caused people to marry people knowing they can just get some money out of it if it fails, hmm?  It should be a hint that something is wrong with the way we interact with each other.  I noticed how hard it is to form bonds between people, so many people are egocentric and only care about themselves.  

     If you think I am wrong about any paragraph or point, please feel free to point out if you notice something I do not.  But if you are just going to leave an irrational and emotion retort, do not expect a reply.  So address my points, not me.

Time to keep cutting across the board. Simply can't afford it anymore. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Time to keep cutting across the board. Simply can't afford it anymore. -Sun_Tzu-

That's money being sucked out of the economy right there.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Time to keep cutting across the board. Simply can't afford it anymore. KC_Hokie

That's money being sucked out of the economy right there.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Hokie you still haven't answered my question. Through what mechanism is the US public debt hurting the economy? -Sun_Tzu-

That's money being sucked out of the economy right there.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] You mean like 5% of your spending just paying interest on debt. That's not even paying back that debt.

That's money being sucked out of the economy right there.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Now perhaps you can give me a more technical explanation, instead of just parroting vapid statements. 

-Sun_Tzu-

The principle of paying interest of existing debt with another credit card is self-explanatory.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

It's not that complex to point out 5% of all federal spending is simply paying down the INTEREST on the debt (not even paying the debt itself). And that obviously hurts the economy. KC_Hokie

The principle of paying interest of existing debt with another credit card is self-explanatory.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Perfect, that means you can obviously explain the mechanism in which it's hurting the economy right now.

The principle of paying interest of existing debt with another credit card is self-explanatory.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It's not that complex to point out 5% of all federal spending is simply paying down the INTEREST on the debt (not even paying the debt itself). And that obviously hurts the economy. KC_Hokie

The principle of paying interest of existing debt with another credit card is self-explanatory.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Perfect, that means you can obviously explain the mechanism in which it's hurting the economy right now.

-Sun_Tzu-

The principle of paying interest of existing debt with another credit card is self-explanatory.

Even the Keynesian model isn't supposed to start with so much debt to start and with so much spending on interest of the existing debt.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You don't have to be an economist to see how 5% of all federal government is simply paying interest on past debt and how that hurts the economy.

The principle of paying interest of existing debt with another credit card is self-explanatory.

KC_Hokie

Even the Keynesian model isn't supposed to start with so much debt to start and with so much spending on interest of the existing debt.

Nice try though. 

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Saying it is self-explanatory is not an explanation. -Sun_Tzu-

Even the Keynesian model isn't supposed to start with so much debt to start and with so much spending on interest of the existing debt.

Nice try though. 

The Keynesian model was meant to be temporary during economic hardships while cutting back and paying back the debt during upturns.

However, our debt went from $6 trillion to $16 trillion under Obama. We now spend 5% simply on the INTEREST of existing debt.

Even Keynes would have acknowledged Obama is misusing his economic theory.

  ^  It is common knowledge that the federal government subsidizes corn, which is a known poision, that should never go into us.  also on Flouride, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-p-connelly-dds/mouth-health-fluoridated_b_641767.html.  It is common knowledge that public schools fail, they failed me, I always wondered why I struggled with that system, I felt like it was dumbing me down.  But once I went to community college, I definately got smarter, by doing it on my own.  Spending 40+ hours is not healthy, there is no reason to spend that much time.  I definately will have my kids home schooled.  For the reason that you dont work out 40 hours a weak, you dont sit and just listen for that long.  All public school does is bore the hell out of you.  They have PE classes, but you have been sitting for a lot of hours, which is bad for you in itself.  
 

   What makes no sense is you go to college and it is more like 12 hours a week, which is more healthy, your attentioin span can only last for so long.  It is still a lot of the same thing, where they are trying to teach you liberal ideas, and screw conservatives.  Even college is somewhat bs, you basically have to get into debt to get an higher payying job, what is the point?  My brother makes more than a lot of jobs that require college, and he didnt spend a penny.  Of course colleges will argue that people who go to college are smarter, etc...  Of course they are going to say that, because they are biased.  I honestly think college should only be for specific people, not the whole population.  

     Furthermore there is a reason that young people tend to be more liberal, but as people stop going to college, they are more likely to be conservative.  Probably because experience trumps idealogy, once you work in the real world you can see the flaws of liberalism.  I think government should not try to run our lives, but to protect us from unfair treatment.  I would not say going to a community college was a complete waste of time and money, but for the most part, it really was.  All that money spent on driving to campus, buying books, going to classes, most of this stuff I will never think about again.  

     I think we can apply the same thing to the military, I notice liberals willl usually point out "such budget cut is irrelevant because defense spending is way larger," everything needs to me more moderate.  Not just the military.  Just look at California, that is the result of liberalism let loose.  Liberals do not seem to believe in moderate spending, why is that?  The point of this post is not to create arguements but to help people think, I honestly think battling an individual who does not even want to analyze what I say is pointless.

     Hell government got into gender issues, look at how that all turned out!  I remember in college the subject came up about marriage declines, the professor tried to simplify the issue by sayying "well its just that those people were not right for eachother."  Could it be that government interference in people's personal lives has caused people to marry people knowing they can just get some money out of it if it fails, hmm?  It should be a hint that something is wrong with the way we interact with each other.  I noticed how hard it is to form bonds between people, so many people are egocentric and only care about themselves.  

     If you think I am wrong about any paragraph or point, please feel free to point out if you notice something I do not.  But if you are just going to leave an irrational and emotion retort, do not expect a reply.  So address my points, not me.

mahlasor

So what is it about the community college that failed you? As I teach at one, I want to make sure we can improve. Should we try to turn ourselves into conservative indoctrination centers? How do we change to make our subjects, math, science, grammar, psychology interesting enough for you to enjoy it?

 

jimkabrhel

Jim, you've changed.

Water is wet.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

 

kingkong0124

Jim, you've changed.

Your sarcasm detector didn't go off?

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

 

jimkabrhel

Jim, you've changed.

Your sarcasm detector didn't go off?

Well for this specific case it didn't. But I think my point still holds true. You've started to move from casual/normal leftism to a more militant strain

     Furthermore there is a reason that young people tend to be more liberal, but as people stop going to college, they are more likely to be conservative.  Probably because experience trumps idealogy, once you work in the real world you can see the flaws of liberalism. 

mahlasor

Social conservativsm is an ideology, too.

Just saying. 

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Jim, you've changed.

kingkong0124

Your sarcasm detector didn't go off?

Well for this specific case it didn't. But I think my point still holds true. You've started to move from casual/normal leftism to a more militant strain

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Jim, you've changed.

kingkong0124

Your sarcasm detector didn't go off?

Well for this specific case it didn't. But I think my point still holds true. You've started to move from casual/normal leftism to a more militant strain

Um, no I haven't. As much as the current incarnation of the GOp forced me to the right, my dissatisfaction with many liberals has left me in no-persons land right now. 

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yes it is. Water is wet. 5% of all spending being interest on existing debt and putting it on another credit card is self explanatory.

Even the Keynesian model isn't supposed to start with so much debt to start and with so much spending on interest of the existing debt.

KC_Hokie

Nice try though. 

The Keynesian model was meant to be temporary during economic hardships while cutting back and paying back the debt during upturns.

However, our debt went from $6 trillion to $16 trillion under Obama. We now spend 5% simply on the INTEREST of existing debt.

Even Keynes would have acknowledged Obama is misusing his economic theory.

You still haven't answered the question. All you are doing is throwing around numbers and saying "THIS IS BAD" without providing the mechanism in which these big bad numbers actually go about actually hurting the economy. 

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Your sarcasm detector didn't go off?

ghoklebutter

Well for this specific case it didn't. But I think my point still holds true. You've started to move from casual/normal leftism to a more militant strain

Wording might have been bad, I agree. But I have seen a transition...analagous to..let's say, a Chessmaster to a Sun Tzu. Do you see the difference I'm talking about?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] lolno

Nice try though. 

-Sun_Tzu-

The Keynesian model was meant to be temporary during economic hardships while cutting back and paying back the debt during upturns.

However, our debt went from $6 trillion to $16 trillion under Obama. We now spend 5% simply on the INTEREST of existing debt.

Even Keynes would have acknowledged Obama is misusing his economic theory.

You still haven't answered the question. All you are doing is throwing around numbers and saying "THIS IS BAD" without providing the mechanism in which these big bad numbers actually go about actually hurting the economy. 

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Jim, you've changed.

kingkong0124

Your sarcasm detector didn't go off?

Well for this specific case it didn't. But I think my point still holds true. You've started to move from casual/normal leftism to a more militant strain

Wording might have been bad, I agree. But I have seen a transition...analagous to..let's say, a Chessmaster to a Sun Tzu. Do you see the difference I'm talking about?

kingkong0124

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Your sarcasm detector didn't go off?

Aljosa23

Well for this specific case it didn't. But I think my point still holds true. You've started to move from casual/normal leftism to a more militant strain

I'm calling things as I see it man...militant may have been a bad name for it I agree. He has become more of a vocal leftist (better word) in my opinion...that's all. Nothing to be ashamed about, nothing insulting about it.....in fact it's good he's expressing his views more.

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Wording might have been bad, I agree. But I have seen a transition...analagous to..let's say, a Chessmaster to a Sun Tzu. Do you see the difference I'm talking about?

Aljosa23

Chess is a leftist libertarian, not a Libertarian. Sun, along with theone86/kuraimen, are the two most radical leftwing posters on OT

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Well for this specific case it didn't. But I think my point still holds true. You've started to move from casual/normal leftism to a more militant strain

kingkong0124

I'm calling things as I see it man...militant may have been a bad name for it I agree. He has become more of a vocal leftist (better word) in my opinion...that's all. Nothing to be ashamed about, nothing insulting about it.....in fact it's good he's expressing his views more.

Militant? Hardly. Can't see where you are getting it from. Just more annoyed with anything political today. Almost everything I read has to do with arguments and obstruction. From both sides.

But only one side is anti-intellectual, and I get the most fired up about education, so you do the math.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It's called a Keynesian endpoint or liquidity trap. Liquidity trap is part of the Keynesian economic theory.

The Keynesian model was meant to be temporary during economic hardships while cutting back and paying back the debt during upturns.

However, our debt went from $6 trillion to $16 trillion under Obama. We now spend 5% simply on the INTEREST of existing debt.

Even Keynes would have acknowledged Obama is misusing his economic theory.

KC_Hokie

You still haven't answered the question. All you are doing is throwing around numbers and saying "THIS IS BAD" without providing the mechanism in which these big bad numbers actually go about actually hurting the economy. 

That is a liquidity trap, and as can be seen in the graph, when expansionary monetary policy is undertaken interest rates don't lower and there is no change in output. At the same time expansionary fiscal policy does increase output without raising interest rates, which brings us back to my question; if not through rising interest rates, through what mechanism is the national debt and deficit hurting the economy? The implications of a liquidity trap are that it won't, so saying that a liquidity trap explains why you are right is laughable. 

Where the hell did you learn economics from? 

Maybe instead of cutting programs, they just stop giving out lifetime pensions after 8 years of work?

I'm calling things as I see it man...militant may have been a bad name for it I agree. He has become more of a vocal leftist (better word) in my opinion...that's all. Nothing to be ashamed about, nothing insulting about it.....in fact it's good he's expressing his views more.

kingkong0124

Jim seems anything but vocal to me. If anything he's become more frustrated with politics in the country, rightfully so.

Aljosa23

frustration and vocality don't have to be seperate..maybe his frustation caused him to become more vocal

Militant? Hardly. Can't see where you are getting it from. Just more annoyed with anything political today. Almost everything I read has to do with arguments and obstruction. From both sides.

But only one side is anti-intellectual, and I get the most fired up about education, so you do the math.

jimkabrhel

Okay, fair enough. Also liked your unintended pun at the end.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That is not what a liquidity trap is. A liquidity trap has nothing to do with the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus. It is the situation where expansionary monetary policy is no longer effective; i.e. interest rates are at the zero-bound while economic growth remains stagnant, which is one of the primary reasons why Keynes supported fiscal stimulus.  

You still haven't answered the question. All you are doing is throwing around numbers and saying "THIS IS BAD" without providing the mechanism in which these big bad numbers actually go about actually hurting the economy. 

-Sun_Tzu-

That is a liquidity trap, and as can be seen in the graph, when expansionary monetary policy is undertaken interest rates don't lower and there is no change in output. At the same time expansionary fiscal policy does increase output without raising interest rates, which brings us back to my question; if not through rising interest rates, through what mechanism is the national debt and deficit hurting the economy? The implications of a liquidity trap are that it won't, so saying that a liquidity trap explains why you are right is laughable. 

Where the hell did you learn economics from? 

That's the text book definition of liquidity trap and it was caused by the Keynesian effect.

Okay, fair enough. Also liked your unintended pun at the end.

kingkong0124

Intended. :P

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yes it does. When the Keynes effect stalls it turns into a liquidity trap. That's what we're in now. That's how government has hurt the economy.KC_Hokie

That is a liquidity trap, and as can be seen in the graph, when expansionary monetary policy is undertaken interest rates don't lower and there is no change in output. At the same time expansionary fiscal policy does increase output without raising interest rates, which brings us back to my question; if not through rising interest rates, through what mechanism is the national debt and deficit hurting the economy? The implications of a liquidity trap are that it won't, so saying that a liquidity trap explains why you are right is laughable. 

Where the hell did you learn economics from? 

That's the text book definition of liquidity trap and it was caused by the Keynesian effect.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You really, really don't know what you're talking about.

That is a liquidity trap, and as can be seen in the graph, when expansionary monetary policy is undertaken interest rates don't lower and there is no change in output. At the same time expansionary fiscal policy does increase output without raising interest rates, which brings us back to my question; if not through rising interest rates, through what mechanism is the national debt and deficit hurting the economy? The implications of a liquidity trap are that it won't, so saying that a liquidity trap explains why you are right is laughable. 

Where the hell did you learn economics from? 

-Sun_Tzu-

That's the text book definition of liquidity trap and it was caused by the Keynesian effect.

Liquidity trap - a situation in which prevailing interest rates are low and savings rates are high, making monetary policy ineffective. In a liquidity trap, consumers choose to avoid bonds and keep their funds in savings because of the prevailing belief that interest rates will soon rise. Because bonds have an inverse relationship to interest rates, many consumers do not want to hold an asset with a price that is expected to decline.

When you have extremely low interest rates and high savings...you can enter into a liquidity trap which makes all monetary policy ineffective. It's what's happening right now.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

When you have extremely low interest rates and high savings...you can enter into a liquidity trap which makes all monetary policy ineffective. It's what's happening right now.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

When you have extremely low interest rates and high savings...you can enter into a liquidity trap which makes all monetary policy ineffective. It's what's happening right now.

KC_Hokie

>fed

>fiscal stimulus

ruseriousbro

Savings is down and spending is up... hmmm.... doesn't sound like consumers are hoarding cash, does it?

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/us-saving-down-spending-up-322342.html

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Correct, which is why fiscal stimulus is particularly effective right now, as shown in the graph I provided. -Sun_Tzu-

>fed

>fiscal stimulus

ruseriousbro

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/