The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Then you need a better slogan than "tax and spend." Something like: "Borrowing from future generations so we can give money to the rich and Abramoff's pals." Although that's not very catchy.

Ty,

What exactly are we borrowing from future generations?

Are you suggesting there will come a day when we will have to raise taxes again? If so, I say "why?" Why can't we make the govt more efficient and keep tax rates at a minimum? Why must we spend later instead of continuing to starve the beast (for real, when a real fiscal conservative takes office) and developing a leaner govt that provides better core services?

Oh, thats right... because you want a govt that engages in social engineering.

Sorry, we can't afford it anymore,
SD

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we spend on good stuff that helps. You guys piss it away. Watch the PBS Reagan special where they prove he spent a ton to destroy the USSR and at the same time it rebuilt the economy Carter had ruined. Ty- are there duck and cover drills at your kids schools now? why not?

Good stuff that helps is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the first question ought to be what do we have to spend, and the second should be what good stuff do we spend it on.

While I'm perfectly willing to do some borrowing to spend, I would limit the borrowing as much as possible to spending on things with prolonged useful lives. I'd like to see a hard limit on government borrowing not secured by specific non-tax revenue streams, perhaps based on a percentage of the total economy or the like.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty,

What exactly are we borrowing from future generations?

Are you suggesting there will come a day when we will have to raise taxes again? If so, I say "why?" Why can't we make the govt more efficient and keep tax rates at a minimum? Why must we spend later instead of continuing to starve the beast (for real, when a real fiscal conservative takes office) and developing a leaner govt that provides better core services?

Oh, thats right... because you want a govt that engages in social engineering.

Sorry, we can't afford it anymore,
SD

I am suspicious of "starving the beast" because the beast keeps eating until we hit the seed corn. If there is not political will to limit spending, it is irresponsible to borrow rather than tax. Easy, but irresponsible.

In this world, social engineering is a fact of life. Everyone cracked the champagne yesterday when the fed indicated that interest rate increases were nearing the end; the fed has no choice but to socially engineer. Sitting on the sidelines will please neither Milton Friedman nor John Kenneth Galbraith (both of whom I have chosen in the death pool, signifying the death of 20th century economics).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How many years of borrow-and-spend Republicans will we have to ensure before this "tax-and-spend" thing no longer has any meaning? I think we're about halfway there.

So we only have to wait another 25 years? Pathetic.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I used to think the hatred of Hillary by the arch consevatives was bad for her, but now I am not so sure. I have noticed that the more the left hates Bush the more the right loves him. It is like the Cindy Sheehans help him solidify his base. With Hillary, as long as the far right hates her it does not matter how far she moves to the center to court the moderates, the left will stick with her purely because the Right complain about her so much. And these arch conservatives were never going to vote for her anyway. Just like the ultra liberals were never going to like Bush.

And she is moving pretty far to the center now.

2. And then there's the question that is probably making Dem strategists ooze -- how many women who would otherwise lean R, or otherwise would not vote, will vote Dem to see a woman President? (My bet: A lot fewer than they think.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we spend on good stuff that helps. You guys piss it away.

Ted Stevens.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Watch the PBS Reagan special where they prove he spent a ton to destroy the USSR and at the same time it rebuilt the economy Carter had ruined.

So, Nixon and Ford never existed?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty- are there duck and cover drills at your kids schools now? why not?

Perhaps because they were always useless?

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you suggesting there will come a day when we will have to raise taxes again? If so, I say "why?" Why can't we make the govt more efficient and keep tax rates at a minimum? Why must we spend later instead of continuing to starve the beast (for real, when a real fiscal conservative takes office) and developing a leaner govt that provides better core services?

While we're at it, let's all ask for a pony too. (And maybe for our soldiers to be greeted with flowers and sweets.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ted Stevens.

Yes, but that is really not the problem. The problem is Bush, combined with a GOP Congress, who want to give away goodies through both tax cuts and spending increases.

Bush's spending puts every Dem president but one to shame. That one was LBJ, but at least he chose to pay for the stuff he spent money on. Bush's faith-based governing creates the fantasy that we don't have to choose between taxing more or spending less.

Perhaps because they [duck-and-cover drills] were always useless?

Hank is either a whole lot older than me (I doubt it), or from a very odd part of the country. Growing up in the burbs of NYC in the early 70s, the only thing we heard about duck-and-cover drills was our teachers joking about how they used to do them, in the 50s. The revised drill involved bending over and "kissing your ass goodbye".

On the other hand, the Reagan Admin did advance the notion that, "with enough shovels," we could all get through a nuclear war just fine and dandy. So maybe Hank has a point, but it's under his hat.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I really need you to know, for your own good, that it is "reined in" not "reigned in." Like pulling a horse to a stop with reins. It has nothing to do with kings and queens and emperors and stuff.

Give it up. He's breigndead.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Captain
I am suspicious of "starving the beast" because the beast keeps eating until we hit the seed corn. If there is not political will to limit spending, it is irresponsible to borrow rather than tax. Easy, but irresponsible.

Yes, but those who holler "tax and spend" while voting for borrow and spend can't get their arms around this idea. Instead, they claim that the Dems are forcing the spending on them. Or they take Hank's tack, and claim that the stuff they are borrowing to pay for is "good stuff" -- which begs the obvious question of, if it's all good stuff, why aren't they willing to raise taxes to pay for it?

In this world, social engineering is a fact of life. Everyone cracked the champagne yesterday when the fed indicated that interest rate increases were nearing the end; the fed has no choice but to socially engineer. Sitting on the sidelines will please neither Milton Friedman nor John Kenneth Galbraith (both of whom I have chosen in the death pool, signifying the death of 20th century economics).

This should be obvious to anyone who did not die before 1928, but sadly it isn't. The number of people who claim to be "anti-government" on this board, and even make goofy claims like "government doesn't help me make a living", is sometimes laughable, sometimes shocking, always absurd. Particularly given that this is a board of lawyers, none of whom would have jobs if their pseudo-libertarian fantasies were to become real.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty,

What exactly are we borrowing from future generations?

The "borrowing from future generations" is just political hotair. It is a way to dramatize a situation and make it personal to get votes but has no basis in reality.

As long as the econony grows todays deficits will be chump change for the next generation. The deficits from 1985 are puny compared to todays deficits and todays deficits will seem puny twenty years from now, let alone forty or sixty years from now.

The reasons why deficits are bad is because they crowd out investment for private use. This in turn reduces growth. So deficits reduce growth. But if you just balance the budget for twenty years running any national debt will become insignificant for "future generations".

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
The "borrowing from future generations" is just political hotair. It is a way to dramatize a situation and make it personal to get votes but has no basis in reality.

As long as the econony grows todays deficits will be chump change for the next generation. The deficits from 1985 are puny compared to todays deficits and todays deficits will seem puny twenty years from now, let alone forty or sixty years from now.

The reasons why deficits are bad is because they crowd out investment for private use. This in turn reduces growth. So deficits reduce growth. But if you just balance the budget for twenty years running any national debt will become insignificant for "future generations".

Are you looking at growth or inflation? Even with growth, if we enter a deflationary cycle (such as the one that last about 40 years at the end of the 19th century), deficits can be devastating. I believe you are assuming both growth and inflation.

And in terms of "just balancing the budget" - how likely is that to happen?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain


And in terms of "just balancing the budget" - how likely is that to happen?

Exactly. We've had a surplus, what, for a couple years of the last 40? And that's because of an overheated stock market bubble.

It's nice to say in theory that we can grow our way out of deficits, but Congress's habit has been to spend on that assumption, and then some. Sebby's wife keeps asking for bigger diamonds, because, hell, in a few years he'll get a partnership draw. If she took a look at Hank, she'd realize that plan isn't so good.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

This should be obvious to anyone who did not die before 1928, but sadly it isn't. The number of people who claim to be "anti-government" on this board, and even make goofy claims like "government doesn't help me make a living", is sometimes laughable, sometimes shocking, always absurd. Particularly given that this is a board of lawyers, none of whom would have jobs if their pseudo-libertarian fantasies were to become real.

Having a free economy, in no way implies no government involvement just as a free society (or political freedom) does not imply no government. Without government we would have no political freedom just as without government we would have no economic freedom.

In a country were the government is oppressing peoples political freedoms you could be "anti-government" without believing in anarchy.

I can think our government is too large, or involves itself too much in our economic life, or even believe that free markets are preferrable without being an anarchist.

I believe that our government interfers too much in our economic life and our government has grown to large, but that does not mean I want to end government, or even come close to ending government.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The "borrowing from future generations" is just political hotair. It is a way to dramatize a situation and make it personal to get votes but has no basis in reality.

As long as the econony grows todays deficits will be chump change for the next generation. The deficits from 1985 are puny compared to todays deficits and todays deficits will seem puny twenty years from now, let alone forty or sixty years from now.

This is such bullshit. Interest on the debt is one of the biggest line items in the budget. Clinton would have balanced the federal budget much more quickly, had the gov't not still needed to pay so much interest on the Reagan debt.

The deficit in 1985 was $221 billion. In 1985 dollars. That is hardly insignificant, and while it is dwarfed (in nominal dollars only) by the Bush II deficits, that is not a good thing.

Moreover, we are not just paying interest on the 1985 deficit. Year after year (under Rep presidents), those 9-figure deficits mount up. The interest on my credit card debt from last January may not be killing me, but if I ran up an even higher unpaid balance every month after that, it starts to get pretty punishing. Just as the interest on the current federal debt is punishing.

And if the debt is not a problem, then just what was Bush crowing about on Social Security? No trust, no fund? Just a bunch of IOUs?

The reasons why deficits are bad is because they crowd out investment for private use. This in turn reduces growth. So deficits reduce growth.

That is one reason, but the reality is more complicated. Deficit spending reduces growth. But raising taxes to prevent deficits also reduces growth. And cutting spending, too, can reduce growth (look how various industries and various parts of the country panicked when the USSR fell and the military budget was potentially to be cut). So, the issue is finding the right balance. Everyone (well, Republicans) claimed that the tax increases under Clinton would destroy growth. But they didn't, at least in part because they helped eliminate the deficit.

But if you just balance the budget for twenty years running any national debt will become insignificant for "future generations".

True. And if it starts raining $100 bills tomorrow (without any inflationary effect), that will solve the problem too. And if only the Iraqis really had greeted us with sweets and flowers, we wouldn't have spend $300 billion there, either. Also, I'd like a pony.