And more than 90% of that interest comes from abandoning Keynesian policies and adopting Reaganolics in its place.
For the record - Obama and Taxing
- Thread starter Chiteng
- Start date
And more than 90% of that interest comes from abandoning Keynesian policies and adopting Reaganolics in its place.
Sure we get a benefit. We are getting money at great interest rates and as we pay out that interest the American bondholders trickle it down to the rest of us and the foreign bondholders perhaps end up buying some of our goods and services or prop up their own local markets so that those economies can buy or goods and services. To the extent we undrertax so that we borrow instead, you libertarian blowhards assure me that those that are undertaxed will trickle the payments down to the rest of the economy, thus boosting it.
If you get a mortgage, surely you see the benefit of making interest payments for 30 years rather than witing 30 years to get a house (while paying rent in the meantime). Of course, we could tax more and pay down the debt if the interest payments bother you that much.
Verbose
Deity
Well... You shouldn't borrow of course... But now you have...
So the question really isn't just how to pay off on that debt, but how to slash 10-15% of the US GDP in one go, and not have the place descend into chaos I guess?
The US for decades was consuming today the projected GDP growth in the coming 5-10 years, and making up for the shortfall by borrowing.
Now you're in the same nasty place of a number of the indebted EU nations, where it has proven that cutting 1% government spending equates to a reduction of the national GDP by -1,5-1,7%.
So how large a reduction of the US GDP do you think the place can handle at this point? The cure might be worse than the ailment after all. You may be paying throigh your nose on those loans, but that is likely to pale compared to what you may end up paying in you slam the US national economy in reverse gear...
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, Reagan did do well by slashing the tax rates, but he didn't cut spending nearly enough so, I'm not really a Reagan guy. Its worth mentioning that Ron Paul endorsed him for his two terms and later regretted it. Its not hard to understand why
I don't disagree with you that we need to pay for what we get. I just think they should privatize a lot of stuff. You'd rather raise taxes, its an ideological difference.
Well... You shouldn't borrow of course... But now you have...
So the question really isn't just how to pay off on that debt, but how to slash 10-15% of the US GDP in one go, and not have the place descend into chaos I guess?
The US for decades was consuming today the projected GDP growth in the coming 5-10 years, and making up for the shortfall by borrowing.
Now you're in the same nasty place of a number of the indebted EU nations, where it has proven that cutting 1% government spending equates to a reduction of the national GDP by -1,5-1,7%.
So how large a reduction of the US GDP do you think the place can handle at this point? The cure might be worse than the ailment after all. You may be paying throigh your nose on those loans, but that is likely to pale compared to what you may end up paying in you slam the US national economy in reverse gear...
I have no idea, hence why I am not an economist or a politician. I know what ultimately needs to get done, but how to get from here to there is, admittedly, challenging. Someone is going to get screwed, and figuring out how to screw over the smallest number of people the least severely needs to be a priority. We've got to do something though, or we're ALL getting screwed.
Ron Paul makes a decent attempt here.
Well, Reagan did do well by slashing the tax rates, but he didn't cut spending nearly enough so, I'm not really a Reagan guy. Its worth mentioning that Ron Paul endorsed him for his two terms and later regretted it. Its not hard to understand why
I don't disagree with you that we need to pay for what we get. I just think they should privatize a lot of stuff. You'd rather raise taxes, its an ideological difference.
Reagan didn't cut spending at all. He just redirected it and increased it. Typical conservative stuff.
GhostWriter16
Deity
OK, so that's your contention. Fair enough. And yes, it is indeed a conservative thing. Some conservative hate the welfare state, but many of them love the warfare state, and that is incompatible with either cutting spending or liberty.
Just curious, but what would you think of a hypothetical policy that cut taxes AND cut spending? I mean, I'm sure you'd disagree with it, but would you consider such a policy more responsible than the currrent policy of "Don't tax, but still spend"? Is your objection that you necessarily want high spending, or merely that you want sufficient taxes to pay for whatever spending we do have?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Unfortunately, facts and actual economics disagrees with you. Although Keynes was not right on everything and his ideas have been subject to substantial modification, he is still fundamentaly right. At least, more accurate than whatever kool-aid drinking hack you currently are infatuated with.
I dunno. Law and order, people not dieing in the streets, functioning civil society, public works, all seem like pretty nice benefit. The deficit-apocalypse is an issue, that fortunately is completely solvable if half of the House of Representatives took off the blinders.
I would challenge that. I've been doing some reading on Sweden in the '60s and one of the authors came to an interesting conclusion: that Swedish society enjoyed the greatest liberty in the world. Why is that? Because a Swedish citizen enjoyed the four freedoms: Freedom of thought, freedom of action, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. If you were living in Sweden and wanted to improve your situation, you could. Because you were assured a basic standard of living, there was no reason not to work to improve your situation. Even if your gamble completely failed, you would not be left destitute.
Please, don't act like your definition of 'liberty' or 'freedom' are the correct ones. If, by some hellish chance those are the actual definitions of 'liberty' and 'freedom', then I am perfectly content in saying I find that conception of 'liberty' and 'freedom' a repulsive and spiteful state of affairs.
The level of spending should be what the country and the people need. Cutting spending just for the sake of cutting spending is flat out moronic.
A) What spending makes sense?
B) Pay for it.
This is the definition of fiscally responsible spending.
Seriously, who the flying frak cares if the spending is 2% of GDP or 50%. That is not a question that any person who isn't an utter fool would even consider asking. It is a question with no relevance to the human species. The correct question is: what spending makes sense? That is the only question that matters. We get services from the government. Those services benefit the country and the populace. Decide what we should be receiving, and then pay for it. Problem over.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I dunno. Law and order, people not dieing in the streets, functioning civil society, public works, all seem like pretty nice benefit. The deficit-apocalypse is an issue, that fortunately is completely solvable if half of the House of Representatives took off the blinders.
Its odd you would challenge it, since I was addressing war, not welfare, in that post.
The problem with "Freedom Froms" is that it requires someone else to give up their hard earned resources, by force, to provide them to you.
Who defines "What makes sense"? For who? If its "The majority" than why not just place 100% taxes on the top 49% of earners and no taxes on anyone else?
I consider any government redistribution to, by definition, screw someone over. There are a handful of cases where I am persuaded to accept this, but you have to have a darn good reason.
2% of GDP would be great, but I'll settle for 5% You can even have 5% more directly to pay down the debt, for now
Its odd you would challenge it, since I was addressing war, not welfare, in that post.
The problem with "Freedom Froms" is that it requires someone else to give up their hard earned resources, by force, to provide them to you.
Who defines "What makes sense"? For who? If its "The majority" than why not just place 100% taxes on the top 49% of earners and no taxes on anyone else?
I consider any government redistribution to, by definition, screw someone over. There are a handful of cases where I am persuaded to accept this, but you have to have a darn good reason.
2% of GDP would be great, but I'll settle for 5% You can even have 5% more directly to pay down the debt, for now
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Tell me, are you currently or have been during your life under fear for your continued existance? You have grown up in a society that has dedicated itself to ensuring that you experiance a high standard of living and that if your parents lose their job you will be assured a base level of existance. That is what the freedom from want and fear is all about. You have spent your entire life, and your parents have spent their entire lives, benefiting from the Four Freedoms. It seems an act of monumental selfishness and short-sightedness to destroy the benefits you currently enjoy because taking needed actions to protect the Four Freedoms would compromise your arbitrary ideological framework.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Unqualified opinions on economics from a teenage libertarian! Man, this site has everything.
Siderealex
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 99
The idea that some detail-less cry of "Tax the rich!" has been nothing more than a conservative fable. A transparent strawman that I can't even believe gets brought up by some.(I don't simply mean here).
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No man, as a leftist I hate the rich. I cackle with joy every month when I pay my taxes because I know the rich pay more. I also would hate it if I lived in a society where people are emphatic enough to be motivated to care for the unfortunate, the poor and the disenfranchised because that would rob me of the single thing that keeps me going in my modal income existence. The knowledge that the private jet and yacht owning rich pay a bigger percentage.
This is why it's so easy to dislike me and marginalize any opinion I might have about taxes or rather the economy in general. My take on stuff can be ignored since it is fueled by dislike rather than the careful analysis of the economy and the resulting superior understanding those who figured me out, also known as libertarians, display.
This is why it's so easy to dislike me and marginalize any opinion I might have about taxes or rather the economy in general. My take on stuff can be ignored since it is fueled by dislike rather than the careful analysis of the economy and the resulting superior understanding those who figured me out, also known as libertarians, display.
Verbose
Deity
Well, here's rule nr 1:
NEVER reduce government spending during an economic downturn. It will just make your economy fall harder, faster. (And the EU currently is getting it patently wrong in pretty much every case except, perhaps, the Greek one.) Wait until you're out of the slump. When the good times are rolling again, break out the chainsaw and do as much pruning as you think the patient can handle. Except a lot of mooing, which is fine as long as you're not hurting the amount of milk produced too badly. The long game is the objective.
If you have politics that doesn't allow that kind of first patience, and then decisiveness, then you're screwed.
The nasty suspiscion about the US currently is of course that it lack might the political ability to make this happen. But then again, the re-election of Obama might signify differently, as might the Californians concluding they've been idiots about taxation.
Or rather, the US has real problems, but seem intent on adressing a bunch of weirdly ideological hang-ups before fixing the real mess.
The real risk is to hold onto a specific moral ideal - not because having moral ideals is wrong, but just that sometimes they cannot be (reasonably) held onto (philosophically). It may broadly make sense and be a perfectly fine rule-of-thumb, but eventually it becomes a square peg in a round hole.
Taxes can be theft, but until someone's lifestyle is perfectly free of negative externalities and is perfectly free of inherited blood-wealth, one's wealth is never truly completely theirs - there are legitimate moral claims upon it that will never erode. This means that there are actually types of taxes that are not theft. Cutlass is correct, it doesn't matter if the spending by government is 2% or 50%, it entirely matters what is being spent upon.
After that, it's all just haggling; the haggling is fine and even necessary, but it doesn't come from a position that can be argued as a moral absolute. I absolutely believe in objective morality, but "taxes are theft" isn't one of them.
Taxes can be theft, but until someone's lifestyle is perfectly free of negative externalities and is perfectly free of inherited blood-wealth, one's wealth is never truly completely theirs - there are legitimate moral claims upon it that will never erode. This means that there are actually types of taxes that are not theft. Cutlass is correct, it doesn't matter if the spending by government is 2% or 50%, it entirely matters what is being spent upon.
After that, it's all just haggling; the haggling is fine and even necessary, but it doesn't come from a position that can be argued as a moral absolute. I absolutely believe in objective morality, but "taxes are theft" isn't one of them.
It's called democracy. And that is a fundamental right of all people. But you would know that if you didn't hate liberty so much.
Because that would be stupid. And no one wants it. It's a strawman argument.
That's because you don't understand what is going on and want to crush all liberty.
2% of GDP would be great, but I'll settle for 5% You can even have 5% more directly to pay down the debt, for now
And so you have a country with no liberty and no wealth. How is that in anyone's best interest?
That is because there has been many $billions spent over many decades of time to convince people of the argument. It is the nation's biggest advertising campaign. And the Big Lie works, as has been demonstrated in this thread.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Because that doesn't make sense for the majority. Duh ... and such.
Uh oh!Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
BENJAIMIN FRANKLIN!
Siderealex
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 99
Oh I am aware, though it is a damn good thing to keep pointing out. So I thank you for that. I suppose i just wish it was at tiring to the wackaloos who keep repeating it as it was to keep hearing it.
Oh I am aware, though it is a damn good thing to keep pointing out. So I thank you for that. I suppose i just wish it was at tiring to the wackaloos who keep repeating it as it was to keep hearing it.
Well, the people who lead in saying that are paid great sums of money to say it. That's their motivation. Below that, you simply have ideologues and people who are the natural followers of ideologues.
Similar threads
