[Local Localist]

Governor Carter has shown a stunning lack of competence on handling the government in this debate. President Ford clearly won. I mean, how does Carter think he's gonna balance the budget and increase spending for welfare and job programs at the same time? Frankly, this is socialist nonsense. The President has managed the economy as well as he could've, given the circumstances, and his tax cuts for working Americans are gonna balance the budget and bring us up to full employment. I sure hope we can do that, because I for one look forward to an America in which we can rehash this debate over and over again for many years to come.

[Steve_American]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlPjW_2_LXI

Governor Carter has shown a stunning lack of competence on handling the government in this debate. President Ford clearly won. I mean, how does Carter think he's gonna balance the budget and increase spending for welfare and job programs at the same time? Frankly, this is socialist nonsense. The President [sir, do you mean pres. Trmp here?] has managed the economy as well as he could've, given the circumstances, and his tax cuts for working Americans are gonna balance the budget and bring us up to full employment. I sure hope we can do that, because I for one look forward to an America in which we can rehash this debate over and over again for many years to come.

Carter and Ford lived after Nixon took the US and the world off the gold standard.

This means that all old economic thinking is just wrong, even for them.

It means the US dollar is a full fiat currency. this means the US has access to a magic money tree.
It means that there is on longer a reason to try the balance the US budget, and in fact balancing the budget is bad for the economy because when people and corps. save (insurance comp.) and we import stuff that the GDP is reduced. If the savings and other leakage is not replaced by so-called deficit spending the the economy slows as GDP falls.

The US national debt is also assets of Americans. Back under the gold standard it made some sense to worry about the debt. Today, why do you worry that the American people and insurance comps. have too many assets? How is this a problem? Why can't the nation roll those bonds over forever? The US can just refuse to roll them over at too high an interest rate and pay the old bond off with "magic money tree dollars".

So-called deficit spending and a huge debt is not a problem until inflation starts and then the inflation can be stopped easily.

Oh, I know, your too old to learn new stuff, so you keep thinking the old way.
Prove you are smart enough to learn or to prove me wrong. It is cheating to just resort to authority, which is not proof when I reject all mainstream economic authority. I can quote economic authorities too. You can not reject my economic authorities, but base your whole argument on your economic authorities.
.

[Local Localist]

Carter and Ford lived after Nixon took the US and the world off the gold standard.

This means that all old economic thinking is just wrong, even for them.

It means the US dollar is a full fiat currency. this means the US has access to a magic money tree.
It means that there is on longer a reason to try the balance the US budget, and in fact balancing the budget is bad for the economy because when people and corps. save (insurance comp.) and we import stuff that the GDP is reduced. If the savings and other leakage is not replaced by so-called deficit spending the the economy slows as GDP falls.

The US national debt is also assets of Americans. Back under the gold standard it made some sense to worry about the debt. Today, why do you worry that the American people and insurance comps. have too many assets? How is this a problem? Why can't the nation roll those bonds over forever? The US can just refuse to roll them over at too high an interest rate and pay the old bond off with "magic money tree dollars".

So-called deficit spending and a huge debt is not a problem until inflation starts and then the inflation can be stopped easily.

Oh, I know, your too old to learn new stuff, so you keep thinking the old way.
Prove you are smart enough to learn or to prove me wrong. It is cheating to just resort to authority, which is not proof when I reject all mainstream economic authority. I can quote economic authorities too. You can not reject my economic authorities, but base your whole argument on your economic authorities.
.

This is an interesting response. First, I'll say that I'm actually quite young, and I'm very much not 'too old' to learn anything. The second point which needs to be made is that I entirely agree that "there is no longer a reason to try and balance the US budget". I am what some might describe as 'irony-poisoned', in that I have grown up in an entirely postmodern age devoid of any reasonable sense of historicity or cultural contextualisation, in which neoliberalism seizes and redirects libidinal energies of progression for its own purposes, and a façade of cynicism and layered irony necessarily shrouds all that is said and done. My post was actually intended as a direct critique of the worldview you have rightly criticised here.

[Steve_American]

This is an interesting response. First, I'll say that I'm actually quite young, and I'm very much not 'too old' to learn anything. The second point which needs to be made is that I entirely agree that "there is no longer a reason to try and balance the US budget". I am what some might describe as 'irony-poisoned', in that I have grown up in an entirely postmodern age devoid of any reasonable sense of historicity or cultural contextualisation, in which neoliberalism seizes and redirects libidinal energies of progression for its own purposes, and a façade of cynicism and layered irony necessarily shrouds all that is said and done. My post was actually intended as a direct critique of the worldview you have rightly criticised here.

Well, now that you tell me what you were trying to say, I'm disappointed.

Well, disappointed is not the right word, but I don't know what is the right word. Confused?

Fine, you say you agree with every word I wrote in my reply.
Then all I can tell you is your OP was a classic example of,
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
You spoke about a long ago debate between a President and the man who replaced him as President.
Then the next sentence you wrote, The President *has* handled ...". Note the use of the present tense. If you meant Pres. Carter then you should have written 'had', not has.
Maybe you need to try again and write what you meant to write, because I, frankly, have no idea what you meant in the OP.

If you agree with my economic positions then you can read my many posts on economics.
.