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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I Guess I thought you were confusing your position with Tys. Ty seems to think that since the government is necessary to allow free markets, then there is really no such thing as a free market. Which is similar to saying that since governments are necessary to create political freedom, there really is not such thing as political freedom.

No, I think you were confusing my position with your idea of Ty's position.

If I set up a law that says you can not scream fire in a crowded theater, that law does not eradicate the right of free speech, just as requiring disclosures when you list a stock on the NYSE makes does not make the New York stock Exchange not a free market.

Yes, thank you. Similarly, "Don't Walk" signals do not mean that I have no legal freedom of movement.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow, you really are a Bush Republican, aren't you?

You cannot be unfamiliar with the notion that a dollar in 1985 is worth more than a dollar today. And yet, you compare the 1985 deficit in nominal dollars to today's government revenues to make a "point".

So, where do I start? First, as I pointed out (and you gleefully ignored), 221 billion in 1985 dollars is about $388 billion today.

Second, 2004 revenues weren't two trillion. You're only off by six percent -- it was 1.88 trillion -- but 120 billion is a pretty big error, no? Between that error and ignoring inflation, you reduce the problem by two-thirds. Faith-based budgeting, indeed.

Third, even using your (false) numbers, you are talking about 11% of revenues. Using the real numbers, it's 21% of revenues. In my book, that hardly qualifies as "chump change".

As for your other points -- yes, if somehow we miraculously balance the budget for the next 20 years, all will be well. Now, how exactly is that going to happen -- particularly when people like you are spouting the "it just doesn't matter" garbage?

And, by the way, some of us see those "future generations", that you consider as a distant hypothesis, every day. They are our children, and for many of us on this board they will be adults in a decade or so, or even less. How much will interest on the national debt be then?

My solution to prevent the problem from being passed to future generations is this: set the estate tax based on the outstanding national debt. So if Bill Gates dies and his estate includes 2% of the total national wealth, his estate would owe a tax equal to 2% of the total national debt.

We would have to determine on an annual basis total wealth in the country and total debt, but that is not difficult to do.

I suspect we would see many more Republicans become true fiscal conservatives under this approach, and stop pouring our money into Iraq.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, I think you were confusing my position with your idea of Ty's position.

Yes.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So, where do I start? First, as I pointed out (and you gleefully ignored), 221 billion in 1985 dollars is about $388 billion today.

You need to look at this in context. Even $388 billion can't buy you a half-way decent war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So, where do I start? First, as I pointed out (and you gleefully ignored), 221 billion in 1985 dollars is about $388 billion today.

1985 dollars? 221 Billion dollars today may not buy as much as it did in 1985 but it still pays off a debt of 221 Billion even if it was incurred in 1985. You have to pay the 221 Billion plus interest. Is that what you mean by 1985 dollars?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Captain
You need to look at this in context. Even $388 billion can't buy you a half-way decent war.

You can if you leverage your allies' contributions and commit the needed forces at the outset. Otherwise, you're stuck hoping your invading forces are spontaneously greeted with flowers.

This I learned from numerous games of "Risk" when I was a lad.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So, where do I start? First, as I pointed out (and you gleefully ignored), 221 billion in 1985 dollars is about $388 billion today.

1985 dollars? 221 Billion dollars today may not buy as much as it did in 1985 but it still pays off a debt of 221 Billion even if it was incurred in 1985. You have to pay the 221 Billion plus interest. Is that what you mean by 1985 dollars?

How hard is this?

Look at Table 2

1985: Deficit, 5.1% of GDP, Debt 36.3%
2004: Deficit, 3.6% of GDP, Debt 37.2%

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have to pay the 221 Billion plus interest. Is that what you mean by 1985 dollars?

That would be another way of looking at the issue -- look at the principal plus the debt service costs. If you do that, though, then number is far higher than the simple inflation-adjusted number.

Either way, comparing the nominal deficit 20 years ago to today's total revenues and claiming that the former is "chump change" is silly.

Hell, even if your apples-to-oranges comparison had any validity, your conclusion would be wrong -- if you think $221 billion is chump change, would you be willing to have the government spend that on housing subsidies for the poor?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, thank you. Similarly, "Don't Walk" signals do not mean that I have no legal freedom of movement.

No, but the signals are an unnecessary intrusion by the Nanny State and a waste of tax dollars. They will be cut to balance the budget.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That would be another way of looking at the issue -- look at the principal plus the debt service costs. If you do that, though, then number is far higher than the simple inflation-adjusted number.

How hard is this?

Budget (large pdf) check table 6.1, which has interest payments. They've been going down of late, primarily because the interest rate is lower.

That said, you ought to look at the actual outlay and the interest (or interest on interest). It's sobering when one takes out a mortgage adn realizes that the $500k mortgage will cost you $1.5m in payments over 30 years (or thereabouts).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
No, but the signals are an unnecessary intrusion by the Nanny State and a waste of tax dollars. They will be cut to balance the budget.

No, they solve a collective-action problem. That's legitimate government. Nothing else is.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, they solve a collective-action problem. That's legitimate government. Nothing else is.

Bullshit. It's needless government interference. If people really needed help crossing the street, they could hire crossing guards supplied by the private sector. If people don't value their safety enough to pay for assistance, they don't deserve to cross the street safely. Let the Market work.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How hard is this?

Budget (large pdf) check table 6.1, which has interest payments. They've been going down of late, primarily because the interest rate is lower.

That said, you ought to look at the actual outlay and the interest (or interest on interest). It's sobering when one takes out a mortgage adn realizes that the $500k mortgage will cost you $1.5m in payments over 30 years (or thereabouts).

And looked at that way, how much did the $221 billion in deficits in 1985 really amount to?

And is that number "chump change"?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Bullshit. It's needless government interference. If people really needed help crossing the street, they could hire crossing guards supplied by the private sector. If people don't value their safety enough to pay for assistance, they don't deserve to cross the street safely. Let the Market work.

If they hire crossing guards, I just have to run more people over to get through the light. Still a collective action problem. After you, Alphonse?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If they hire crossing guards, I just have to run more people over to get through the light. Still a collective action problem. After you, Alphonse?

As long as they or their heirs are compensated fairly for any injury, who cares?