March 14, 2008
America's Dysfunctional Politics
Here’s a list of dysfunctions just from this week. Then we will take a gander at what we must do to end all this political dysfunction.
Josh White of the Wash. Post informs us:
When Justice Department lawyers proposed adding a new rule that would require U.S. contractors to report waste, fraud or abuse they encounter while doing work for the government, they intended it to apply to all of the $350 billion in government contracts each year.
But in a twist that has evolved into a Capitol Hill mystery, the proposed rule that the White House's Office of Management and Budget published late last year includes language that would exempt from such reporting all U.S. contractors who do work overseas. There have been more than $100 billion in such contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past five years.
Al Kamen of the Wash. Post tells of an ignoramous Republican who never heard of the concept of valid sources. How convenient since it leaves him free to seek out lies, extremists, and boneheads to report as his sources for Misinformation. Take a gander:
"This is a national security problem," [Rep. Paul] Broun [R-Ga.] told the lawmakers. "I'm told by people who are involved in helping just monitor the border that roughly 40 percent of the people that are intercepted crossing our border are not Mexicans."
(Actually, the official stats for FY 2007 show slightly less than 7 percent are OTMs, or "Other than Mexicans." The ASICs, or "Aliens from Special Interest Countries" -- most anywhere in the Middle East and a chunk of South Asia -- totaled 297.
Another ignoramous, this time a Democratic fund raiser for the Clinton campaign, perplexed by the criticism of her public remark regarding Obama, now claims reverse discrimination. Roger Simon of Politico informs us Geraldine Ferraro now says: “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?” The Clinton campaign has to be quietly breathing a sigh of relief that Ferraro has quit volunteering for Hillary.
It started as an industry induced lobby to protect American Catfish farmers and consumers from tainted and unhealthy foreign catfish imports. It turned into an upside down whale of a political conundrum, and exemplifies why American's want basic general principles applied and not all this special interest wrangling and counter intuitive subterfuge, as consumer representatives oppose fish inspections by the US Dept. of Agriculture. Very good article by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum of the Washington Post.
How is this for political nonsense? Let's say in 2001 your employer cut your salary by 20%. In 2008, you and your worker friends get together and tell your employer "Look, we understand the company was in the hole in 2001, but, profits this year are great, and we would like to have our 20% pay cut back in our paychecks." The employer replies, but, that is ridiculous. That would be the largest pay increase in the history of this company and that is just not going to happen."
Well, this is exactly the argument Republicans are about to make over the Democrat's proposal to allow the 2001 Republican tax cuts to lapse in 2010 as was proposed in the law in 2001. Martin Kady II at Politico reports that the GOP is rehearsing their chorus line, "Democrats are in favor of the largest tax increase in American history".
They are of course, referring to Democrats carrying out the law Republicans passed in 2001 calling for the tax cuts to end in 2010. The rhetoric simply does not get more twisted and distorted beyond all truth than this line being rehearsed by the GOP talking puppets. Will you buy into it, and vote for John McCain out of fear that Clinton or Obama would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and therefore, foster 'the largest tax increase in history'? Consider this a political IQ test.
The Republican White House repeats again and again the now well rehearsed refrain: "Screw the American people". But, it is a non-verbal refrain for obvious political reasons. The Hill reports on Congress' efforts at oversight of the Executive Branch of government and the White House's rejection of Congress' Constitutionally defined oversight role as a co-equal branch of government.
Congress asks for documents. White House says, 'we will get back to you'. Congress, months later says, 'you haven't gotten back to us'. White House says, 'we will get back to you'. Congress issues subpoenas to previous White House staff, the White House tells the Attorney General not to honor them. The Congress files suit in federal court to get compliance. White House says, 'we will see you in our hand picked Supreme Court'.
At issue here is the fact that the Congress is the American People's branch of government, comprised of the politicians and government staff in closest communication with the American people. When the White House non-verbally tells Congress to go screw itself and its Constitutional powers, that White House is saying the same to the American people and voters. The Congress and Supreme Court are the only thing standing between an American authoritarian dictator and that dictator's contempt for the people. Some say this President already has the Supreme Court in his pocket. If the Congress is rendered irrelevant by the President and White House staff, the people risk having lost their Republic and democracy, entirely.
There are two items common to all these and many other government dysfunctions. The first is the political division between the only two parties in government to represent we citizens. When their fighting supercedes our, and our nation's needs, the American people and nation are in real trouble. And this is clearly the case as I will illustrate in a moment.
The second commonality in these dysfunctions is voter ignorance and apathy; understandable as it may be. How many Americans are aware that the drastic and unprecedented measures taken by the Federal Reserve in the last week are an attempt to forestall bank and financial institution failures, the likes of which, led to the Great Depression of the 1930's? Very few, save those who keep tabs on the Wall Street buzz on a daily basis.
How many American voters are aware that our government's unwillingness to respond appropriately to this crisis for political reasons dating back to the warnings issued forth in 2006, is primarily responsible for the current sub-prime mortgage industry led economic contraction we are now experiencing? Very few.
And therein lies the problem. A democratic republic requires the voters to maintain an informed vigilance over their elected representative's actions and results, and vote accordingly. Clearly, that is not the basis on which a majority of voters in America vote. Voters in America vote for a team (Red or Blue) or a candidate and walk away believing their job is done for the next 2 years. Welcome to the age of specialization. But, in this case, specialization in this fashion is the enemy of a responsible government.
Above nearly all else, if America's best days are not to be behind her, America must invest in civics education and participation with all the sense of necessity and urgency as math and science. And voters must stop tolerating the political in-fighting that prevents our government from solving more problems than it creates. One does not need to vote for the other party to vote for a new face as their representative when the old face has become two faced. The Primaries and Caucuses are the place to elect new faces from your own party and send both the old faces and your party the message that prior performance is NOT what it should have been.
The vote is such a powerful thing. Which explains why so many obstacles are placed between the people and their casting an informed vote of accountability by BOTH the major parties. For an easy uncomplicated example of such obstacles, just listen to both parties' political advertisements. Do they appeal to reason and are they factually informative, or, are they contradictory and designed to appeal to your emotional center and quiet your analytical mind, whatever its level of expertise?
Government isn't going to change until the voters change the criteria they use to vote. And that change will require voters taking a genuine interest in what their representatives accomplish and fail to accomplish. The place to learn that is not the slick newsletter your representative sends to your mailbox. You will only get a sales job in those newsletters, not a fair and critical evaluation.
My Representative is telling me all about how he is working to regulate the mortgage industry and stimulate the economy. Four years ago, he wrote me to tell me how hard he was working to reduce and eliminate government regulation. He thinks I forgot what he said 4 years ago and has done these last 4 years. I haven't.
Hopefully you haven't either and you will use that information in deciding whether your representative is solving problems, or creating them.
good post i agree with everything i read…
Posted by: napajohn at March 14, 2008 08:35 AM…’When the White House non-verbally tells Congress to go screw itself and its Constitutional powers, that White House is saying the same to the American people and voters. The Congress and Supreme Court are the only thing standing between an American authoritarian dictator and that dictator’s contempt for the people. …’
‘…Government isn’t going to change until the voters change the criteria they use to vote. And that change will require voters taking a genuine interest in what their representatives accomplish and fail to accomplish. The place to learn that is not the slick newsletter your representative sends to your mailbox. You will only get a sales job in those newsletters, not a fair and critical evaluation. …’
How do you relate this to the candidates running for president? In other words, do you see any of these people running the WH in the same manner, and why?
Bush can be a jerk, but a dictator?
Have you ever seen this movie? ‘The Wave’
David
This current executive branch is probably as close to a dictatorship as our country has ever seen. It seems as though they have increasingly with each passing year furthered their attempts to distance themselves from accountability. I find it preposterous that our congressional committees have to resort to lawsuits to force them to come forward. It is time that the conveniently vague definition of executive privilege be more clearly defined in terms of boundaries and application. I find it preposterous and telling of the current state of divide between government and the people that and executive branch can somehow consider themselves a separate entity free of accountability.
Posted by: RickIL at March 14, 2008 09:35 AMDavid
I just saw on CNN discussion of banking problems and it bought to mind your mention here of the possibility of sinking banks. That notion has been floating around in my head for a few months now. Not being particularly well versed on economy issues I have mostly abstained from comment. I am now beginning to believe in that notion. I am wondering how many infusions of funds will it take to stave off the possibility of a banking disaster. It seems to me that we are not being given the entire economic picture. Either that or the fed has been incredibly naive in the reading of the true state of our economy. At any rate it seems a sort of economic reckoning is approaching.
Posted by: RickIL at March 14, 2008 10:15 AMI don’t know David, sometimes I completely disagree with ya. And other times, like now, I 100% agree.
Getting the voters educated and keeping them informed is the first priority in getting our government back to representing ‘We the People’, and not ‘We the Special Interest That Has Just Contributed $100,000,000 to Your Campaign’.
I hold little to no hope for getting most voters over 40 years old educated and interested in keeping tabs on their elected folks though. And I’m very skeptical of doing it with the 30 to 40 year old voters. The 18 to 30 year old voters might be able to be educated but it’ll take some doing. The best bet on getting voters educated is to teach them their responsibilities as a voter while they’re still in school. This is the 5 to 18 year old voters. These are voters of the future, and the future of this country.
The only and big question is can this country hold out long enough for these kids to take their places informed and responsible voters?
BTW, The vote to release the money was close but passed. Now we’re taking bids to replace the high school roof, put a new heating and air conditioning unit in one of the elementary school, and for a couple of buses. And we won’t won’t have to raise taxes to do it.
But I failed in blocking a pay raise for us.
We need to get voters educated in local politics as well.
RickIL,
Yesterday while driving home, I was surprised when a local conservative talk radio host started slamming Bush for violating the Constitution, especially for signing statements, and her conservative guest agreed. She’s been a steady supporter all these years. Better late than never, I guess.
As for the economy, the markets are in bad shape, and people are just starting to realize that the Federal Reserve loaning banks $200 billion might not necessarily be a good sign…
Clarencec,
I have a great way to reduce the number of US deaths in Iraq to zero. Figure it out.
David R. Remer wrote: There are two items common to all these and many other government dysfunctions. The first is the political division between the only two parties in government to represent we citizens. When their fighting supercedes our, and our nation’s needs, the American people and nation are in real trouble. And this is clearly the case as I will illustrate in a moment. The second commonality in these dysfunctions is voter ignorance and apathy; understandable as it may be. How many Americans are aware that the drastic and unprecedented measures taken by the Federal Reserve in the last week are an attempt to forestall bank and financial institution failures, the likes of which, led to the Great Depression of the 1930’s? Very few, save those who keep tabs on the Wall Street buzz on a daily basis.
True; on both counts.
(1) Few voters will argue the irresponsibility and dysfunction of Do-Nothing Congress, with dismally low approval ratings (11% - to - 18% ; www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1844140220070919).
After all, no one for years has been able to name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, much less 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are not irresponsible, and/or FOR-SALE, and/or pork-happy, and/or spend-happy, etc., etc., etc. (while giving themselves a raise almost every year, such as the 9 raises between 1997 and 2007).
(2) Yet, too many voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
Why? Yes, for the reasons you stated above (apathy, complacency, ignorance).
But also, the two-party duopoly has capitalized on a very clever mechanism designed to trick voters.
Here is how the voters are tricked, over and over:
- (a) Even though many voters often don’t like THEIR incumbent, they will NEVER vote for a challenger from the OTHER party.
- (b) Therefore, the incumbent politicians continue to enjoy their cu$hy 93%-to-99% re-election rates (indefinitely, with out term limits; becoming career politicians).
- (c) The incumbent politicians can therefore do almost anything they want and be repeatedly rewarded for it. Even when some are under investigation for felonies; for which some might get a presidential pardon, putting politicians above the law).
- (d) Therefore, the voters’ loyalty is continually abused (based on the dismal approval ratings, but high re-election rates). Therefore, the voters’ loyalty to THEIR party is actually misplaced. And repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians for so many abuses will ensure that the abuses continue to make the majority of voters lives more uncomfortable.
- (e) Some politicians love to fuel the partisan warfare to distract the voters, and it is powerfully effective. Some voters are all too happy to wallow in it, because it is easy to blame the OTHER party, rather than admit neither is much better than the other.
- (f) It’s about control; controlling others, rooted in greed, laziness, and exacerbated by apathy, ignorance, complacency, irrational fear, hate mongering and partisan warfare, delusion, and blind partisan loyalties.
David R. Remer wrote:Fortunately, there is a built-in self-correction mechanism.
Government isn’t going to change until the voters change the criteria they use to vote. And that change will require voters taking a genuine interest in what their representatives accomplish and fail to accomplish.
It’s has happened in the past.
Two of some of the highest anti-incumbent voting level was during two of the most painful periods in tne United States history:
- the Civil War
- the Great Depression
The point is, there is a probable self-correction mechanism: pain and misery
And the consequences of the these abuses are almost certain to provide sufficient pain and misery to create the motivation necessary for voters to eventually understand that repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates is not working.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 14, 2008 02:46 PMDavid, I agree with you in general about our “dysfunctional politics.”
But I find it downright strange that after surveying everything that’s gone on politically over the last week, your attention would be grabbed by what is either an error (on one side or the other) or a disagreement about the percentage of illegal immigrants entering the US who are Mexican.
The fact is that we do NOT have reliable information about who is entering the country illegally. We do not greet them at the border and ask them to fill out forms on which they check a box for their nationality, so there is no such thing as a “reliable source” for this kind of information. Since we don’t regulate our borders, it’s anybody’s guess who these people are that are pouring in.
And whatever the actual percentage are that are Mexican—as determined either by either the guesswork of so-called “official” numbers or the guesswork of agents monitoring the borders—Representative Broun is 100% correct that this is a national security problem. And if he’s wrong about the exact percentage, the political scandal here is the lack of border security. Not a disagreement about numbers.
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 14, 2008 03:10 PM“Let’s say in 2001 your employer cut your salary by 20%. In 2008, you and your worker friends get together and tell your employer “Look, we understand the company was in the hole in 2001, but, profits this year are great, and we would like to have our 20% pay cut back in our paychecks.”
Profits this year are great? I thought we were heading for a recession, not to mention the price of gas and food. This is not a good time to give the government back its “pay cut”. They’ve done nothing to earn it. If anything we should take more of their money away and leave it in the hands of the American people. Oh, and before you say “it’s just for the rich”, I already looked it up, and letting the tax cuts expire will raise my family’s taxes by $1,300, and I made $32,000 last year.
Posted by: Duane-o at March 14, 2008 03:45 PMWhile we are now seeing headlines about big numbers lost, bank failures, stock market dips, bond market closures and sinking real estate prices, it is my hope, that those who do not follow markets do not panic. It’s going to be a rough couple of years for certain.
We’ve been here before with the bank failures of the eighties, and the Savings and Loan collapse along with a housing market collapse. The RTC managed the market successfully.
.
As horrible as the Fed is portrayed, they are reacting (some say too slowly) and we will come out the other side.
Ron Paul advocated for abolition of the Fed and a commodity based dollar. Good thing in good times, not so good in bad times. We need to bring down spending over time within the means of our GDP (how much we produce). Responsible spending is needed, but overreacting is the wrong thing to do in a credit crunch. Raising tariffs or taxes is equally bad. The Hoover administration taught us that lesson.
While I liked Ron Paul’s willingness to discuss economic and foreign policy issues rather than the terrorist, or just plain hope, his actual ideas became the same sort of trivial nonsense when he said let’s abolish the IRS and do away with the Fed while he knew full well that if he hadn’t been so fringe, or worse actually president, a panic would have ensued simply on the upheaval of sudden economic shifts.
Posted by: googlumpus at March 14, 2008 04:01 PM“Government isn’t going to change until the voters change the criteria they use to vote. And that change will require voters taking a genuine interest in what their representatives accomplish and fail to accomplish.”
Very nice post and I whole heartedly agree. For myself, I have decided to vote against my congressman during his next election. As a Democrat, he panders for my vote. As an American, I don’t think he does enough.
Posted by: Cube at March 14, 2008 04:22 PMgooglumpugus wrote: It’s going to be a rough couple of years for certain.Yes … In fact, I think the end of the world is here! Just kidding. : )
Seriously though … what do you think would happen if:
- (1) the Federal Reserve had not previously pumped $180 Billion into the banking system earlier this year (14-Jan-2008, 28-Jan, 11-Feb, 25-Feb, 11-Mar)?
- (2) AND the Federal Reserve had not announced (11-Mar-2008) their plans to pump in another $200 Billion into the banking system?
- (3) AND the Federal Reserve and Federal Government had not created the $150 Billion economic stimulous package (to arrive in mid May-2008)?
googlumpugus wrote: As horrible as the Fed is portrayed, they are reacting (some say too slowly) and we will come out the other side.
- Do you think the 9-to-1 fractional banking system is a good system, where new money is created as debt at a ratio as high as 9-to-1 (one-simple-idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Pyramid), in which total nation-wide debt grow exponentially (now $48 Trillion).?
- Do you think perhaps the best medicine now is to endure the recession, rather than making things worse later by pumping $530 Billion of new money into the banking system, when nation-wide debt is already $48 Trillion?
- Do you think it is possible that trying to avoid a recession is actually creating a much larger problem later?
- Who will really be helped the most by the $530 Billion of new money pumped into the banking system? How much of it will most people see, and who will most likely get the bill later?
googlumpugus wrote: Responsible spending is needed, …Definitely. Not just consumers, but that should also apply to the severely, pork-happy, tax-happy, severely over-bloated, irresponsible, arrogant, and wasteful Congress.
googlumpugus wrote:Raising tariffs or taxes is equally bad.Yes and no. Raising taxes across the board is a very bad idea. As for foreign trade, we should not allow other nations impose tarrifs on our products, while imposing none on their products. We need fairer trade. What should happen with the tax system is to make it fair, because the current tax system is regressive (as evidenced by Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., pays a lower tax rate (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006), than his secretary (who made $60,000 and paid a 30.0% income tax rate).
googlumpugus wrote: … he [Ron Paul] said let’s abolish the IRS and do away with the Fed while he knew full well that if he hadn’t been so fringe, or worse actually president, a panic would have ensued simply on the upheaval of sudden economic shifts.I agree, because he had no real plan.
All that is needed with the tax system (at least, short-term) is a major simplification.
His idea of competing currencies is a bad idea (since the world is already full of competing currencies).
As for the monetary system, which is severely abused (e.g. usury, predatory lending, essentially a pyramid scheme), that will be extremely difficult to change, because very rich bankers will oppose it.
But how is it that most people that work, invent, create, build, service, and produce are in debt to the banks that create money out of thin air?
It is like playing the game of Monopoly, and one player (the bank) can create all the money they want out of thin air, and before too long, the bank owns all the money and property, and everyone else is broke or deep in debt. That is what is happening now. $48 Trillion nation-wide debt is almost half of nation-wide net worth, but 80% of all Americans only own 17% of all wealth (which has been decreasing for several years). The time to really start getting worried is when the debt is so large that Americans are selling off and liquidating their assets to foreign entities.
Phx8
Re- Yesterday while driving home, I was surprised when a local conservative talk radio host started slamming Bush for violating the Constitution, especially for signing statements, and her conservative guest agreed. She’s been a steady supporter all these years. Better late than never, I guess.
Agreed. It makes one wonder just how dark times have to get before reality sets in. But then it is my belief that all these years of republican denial have been more a tool of convenience than belief.
Posted by: RickIL at March 14, 2008 06:50 PMLoyal Opp said: “The fact is that we do NOT have reliable information about who is entering the country illegally.”
Thank you for pointing out how that Republican was full of crap quoting a 40% figure.
What data can be acquired refutes his lie entirely.
Loyal Opp, let me give you an elemental lesson in statistics. Our Border Patrol apprehends and ejects x number of illegal immigrants per year at or near the border as well as from various interior regions. When they apprehend, they determine country of origin.
ERGO, based on those apprehended and deported, we can statistically estimate how many are Mexican and S. American and how many are from the Middle East and Asian countries.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but, if you had researched at all before giving your uninformed opinion, I wouldn’t have had to provide this elementary lesson in how our government ascertains estimates of illegal immigrants per country of origin.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2008 08:07 PMCube, thanks for your comment. If we can get just a few million more voters to consider their vote the same way, we can drop the reelection rate from 92% to 85%. And that would be a very good down payment on a more hopeful American future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2008 08:10 PMgooglumpus, by the time all this works out, we will be adding unfunded and expanded Medicare deficits to the national debt, and as our national debt approaches 12 to 13 trillion dollars, our ability to borrow is going to get crimped, severely.
In other words, our ability to borrow our way out of future economic downturns, natural disasters, or other calamities is getting ever more limited.
Everyone in Washington KNOWS spending and debt are out of control and taxation is too low to compensate. What is frightening is that despite their knowing, they are unable to respond appropriately. That does not bode well for America’s future.
So, I would disagree with you, those who don’t understand how or why we are in this financial mess SHOULD be very Alarmed, and increasingly panicked. For they themselves are out of control of their own representatives, and there is nothing more anxiety producing than to be out of control when negative outcomes are racing forward.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2008 08:18 PMnapajohn and RickIl, thanks for your comments.
Ron Brown, thanks and good to hear about the vote on your School Board’s allocations of funds for what is genuinely needed and owed to the students and their taxpaying parents.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2008 08:21 PMDuane-O said: “Profits this year are great? I thought we were heading for a recession,”
Leave it to a Republican voter to completely fail to recognize the relevant aspects of the analogy. Way to go, Duane-O. To help you out, a company is for profit, the government is non-profit. Totally different kinds of enterprises. And that difference is not what was relevant in the analogy at all.
But, of course, you did not get the analogy. No surprise there, most Republican voters I know are highly trained to not get what is relevant. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2008 08:25 PMD.a.n, quite right! Americans will deliberately change course and improve the future, or they will stupidly allow great adversity to overcome them, and leave it to subsequent generations to pick up the pieces and start over again.
One way or another, there is a future for Americans.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2008 08:29 PMLoyal Opp, let me give you an elemental lesson in statistics. Our Border Patrol apprehends and ejects x number of illegal immigrants per year at or near the border as well as from various interior regions. When they apprehend, they determine country of origin.ERGO, based on those apprehended and deported, we can statistically estimate how many are Mexican and S. American and how many are from the Middle East and Asian countries.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but, if you had researched at all before giving your uninformed opinion, I wouldn’t have had to provide this elementary lesson in how our government ascertains estimates of illegal immigrants per country of origin.
Wow, condescend much? While I’m sure that you’ve personally done a thorough study of the methodology which border control agents use to gather data and an exhaustive statistical analysis of how this data can be used to project definitive numbers on the nationality of everybody entering the country illegaly, your application of this data and your characterization of what Broun said is flat wrong.
To digress momentarily, I’m glad to hear that you believe that when government agencies present us with statistics that these statistics are the authoritative truth. I’ll be sure to remind you of that the next time Bush’s underlings issue an economic report or statistics on the progress of the war in Iraq.
Broun’s point is that uncontrolled borders is a national security risk. Do you disagree? He has offered numbers which contradict “offical” Bush-administration approved numbers. And rather than inventing this number himself, he fully disclosed that this is what border authorities have told him to be the case. So who do you believe? The guys manning the borders or the officials who have a long history of doing everything in their power to avoid securing our borders?
And what if you’re right? That 93% of those caught and deported are Mexicans? That tells us nothing at all about the people who ARE NOT caught.
Perhaps it tells us that Mexicans are easier to catch and deport than others because the Mexicans who come here aren’t national security risks and take fewer precautions against getting caught.
What’s more important is this: even if 100% of those caught and deported were Mexicans, that would be no argument at all for having uncontrolled borders. With totally uncontrolled borders, it’s the people who DON’T get caught that we should worry about. Broun is completely right.
If Al Qaida wants to come into this country, they can easily do so over the border with Mexico. And once they’re in, they’re not going to get rounded up in an immigration raid in some cabbage patch or canning plant and be reflected in those Bush-administration issued statistics that you have such complete faith in. And which you call the authoritative truth which only an “ignoramus” would ever question.
David,
The vast majority of the INCREASE in tax receipts that has been experienced since the last tax rate REDUCTIONS has been due to THE RICH being willing to make trades in taxable securities at the lower rates. When the rates go up THE RICH will simply stop making these more heavily taxed trades, exacly as they did before. Receipts will fall and the burden of paying the freight of the Federal government will return to the middle class as it always does when politicians promise us they are going to SOAK THE RICH.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 15, 2008 12:23 AMLee, your view of the rich is not realistic nor born out by investment psychology. The Rich will chase whatever returns on investment are available - they hire people to do this for them, and their job is to make money earn money within acceptable risk parameters. The tax rate has little to do with the number of volume of trades.
Research investment psychology and chasing the marginal advantages as a strategy of risk takers. It is very illuminating. America’s greatest concern over the rich investing is not taxes, but, whether our markets and economy can provide comparable returns with comparable risks. To date, the low risk in American markets is what has kept American investors and foreign investing here. But, that locus for return/risk optimization is changing in the process of changing in the world.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 12:52 AMLoyal Opp, its bad enough when you contradict yourself. But, to contradict the person who points out your contradiction, well, what can I say.
As for an argument against border security, man, do you ever assume a lot. I have been an ardent promoter in this column since the issue became a WB topic for absolutely securing our borders.
It is illogical to jump from a comment about having reasonable abilities to ascertain statistical countries of origin for illegal immigrants to the Gratuitous ASSumption that the commenter opposes securing our borders.
If you wish, I can recommend a beginner’s book in logic?
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 12:57 AMIf you wish, I can recommend a beginner’s book in logic?
Please do recommend one! I’d love to see it, if only to gain further insights into the logical basis of this argument you’re making. Let me guess. Alice in Wonderland? Should I follow the white rabbit?
There’s no “contradiction” whatsoever in anything I’ve said, and you don’t even bother to mention one. You said someone is an “ignoramus” because he based an argument for stronger border control on a statistic provided to him by border authorities which don’t line up with Bush-administration numbers. If you don’t trust the Bush administration, and if you favor stronger border control, then who is contradicting themselves? Forgive me if I can’t keep up with your dizzying display of “logic” here.
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 15, 2008 01:30 AMDavid,
I know of no situations where being panicked is a good thing. Rationally and effectively responding works for me.
Posted by: googlumpus at March 15, 2008 01:47 AMd.a.n.,
As to the Fed adding liquidity? Yes, I do think the contraction could easily spin out of control, without additional liquidity. It’s fairly straight forward Macroeconomics.
Posted by: googlumpus at March 15, 2008 01:53 AMgoog;umpus wrote: d.a.n.,As to the Fed adding liquidity? Yes, I do think the contraction could easily spin out of control, without additional liquidity. It’s fairly straight forward Macroeconomics.
googlumpus,
Thanks. So there is a fragilness?
What long-term changes would you recommend?
What do you mean by “contraction”?
A recession, or something more severe? Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2008 05:46 AM
d.a.n.,
Any economy has some “fragility” to it, even so called “robust” ones.
Your ideas for long term changes are good ones.
A contraction means a reduction in money supply, and is usually associated with negative GDP.
We are likely in a recession. Any recession in which the political structure does things that further contracts the money supply can turn into something more.
We are likely in a recession. Any recession in which the political structure does things that further contracts the money supply can turn into something more.And it may be that some of the things the federal government are already doing (such as these abuses), could “turn into something more” (i.e. worse than a recession).
It may be better to weather the recession, rather than trying to avoid it.
A strong argument could be made that trying to avoid a recession will make future recessions worse, by creating more debt and inflation.
Already, we have tried to avoid (or soften) past recessions with more debt and spending.
Doesn’t it appear to be making the problem bigger and bigger?
The debt is certainly getting bigger and bigger (e.g. $48 Trillion nation-wide, the largest ever, including as a percentage (346%) of the $13.86 Trillion GDP).
Federal Government spending must be reduced soon and significantly.
We need a MUCH smaller government (perhaps ONLY do things the federal government should do, such as national defense, enforce laws, uphold the constitution, and manage trade, and manage foreign affairs)?
There ought to be something in this long, long, long list that can be cut?
For year 2005:
- Department of Agriculture, Budget: $19.1 billion, Employees: 109,832
- Department of Commerce, Budget: $5.8 billion, Employees: 40,000
- Department of Defense, Budget: $371 billion, Employees: 2,036,000
- Department of Education, Budget: $57.3 billion, Employees: 4,487
- Department of Energy, Budget: $24.3 billion (gross), Employees: 16,100 federal, 100,000 contract
- Department of Health and Human Services, Budget: $66.8 billion, Employees: 67,000
- Department of Homeland Security, Budget: $40 billion, Employees: 180,000
- Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget: $31.3 billion, Employees: 10,600
- Department of the Interior, Budget: $10.8 billion, Employees: 71,436
- Department of Justice, Budget: $22 billion, Employees: 109,000
- Department of Labor, Budget: $11.9 billion, Employees: 17,347
- Department of State, Budget: $10.3 billion, Employees: 30,266
- Department of Transportation, Budget: $61.6 billion, Employees: 60,000
- Department of the Treasury, Budget: $10.8 billion, Employees: 115,897
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Budget: $51 billion, Employees: 219,000
- Total of Budgets=$794 Billion; Total Employees/Contractors=3,186,965
- 342 economic development programs;
- 130 programs serving the disabled;
- 130 programs serving at-risk youth;
- 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
- 50 homeless assistance programs;
- 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations.
… with redundancy upon redunancy:
Drastic federal spending cuts and the elimination of all pork-barrel, waste, subsidies, corporate welfare, and the size of government needs to be done soon, and then that discipline must continue for several years.
How could anyone seriously argue that Congress is NOT dysfunctional?
So, perhaps voters should keep that in mind when they go vote 4-NOV-2008.
Regardless of your choice for Presidente, don’t forget about your Congress persons, that already have dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%-to-18% ; www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1844140220070919).
QUESTION: Do you think Congress will have the discipline to significantly cut the pork-barrel, corporate welfare, corporate subsidies, and waste?
- [_] YES
- [X] NO
David,
If I’m so ignorant and everything gets by me, why don’t you go ahead and explain your analogy and why it doesn’t apply to what I posted, O great and wise virtuous one.
“How is this for political nonsense? Let’s say in 2001 your employer cut your salary by 20%.(might this be referring to the Bush tax cuts? So the government is the employee? That’s what got cut, the money going into Washington.) In 2008, you and your worker friends get together and tell your employer “Look, we understand the company was in the hole in 2001, but, profits this year are great(Ask the middle class about that one. Right now would be the absolute worst time to wrest more money from the hands of hard working Americans.), and we would like to have our 20% pay cut back in our paychecks.” The employer replies, but, that is ridiculous. That would be the largest pay increase in the history of this company and that is just not going to happen.””
If I’m just not getting it, explain it to me in the kindergarten terms I need to be able to understand your “big people stuff”.
I never said the government was for profit, I was saying the economy, i.e. the American People, are the moneymakers here. The government are the employees. The analogy is either really deceptive or just really pathetic, the only two flavors of liberal kool-aid.
Posted by: Duane-o at March 15, 2008 05:30 PMAnyone ever consider why a recession might be good for us?
Posted by: Dawn at March 15, 2008 05:58 PMDuane-O, I refuse to engage in your comment’s pedantic misconstructions of what was communicated. The analogy was plain enough, using 8th grade words and concepts. However, in a spirit of wishing to inform rather than obfuscate, thus demonstrating superior motives to yours, I shall put the matter in more elementary form in the hopes that you may now grasp the full intent and meaning of the analogy previously offered.
A temporary measure cannot equate, logically, with a permanent measure. A temporary tax cut with a scheduled ending date passed by a Republican Congress, cannot result in the largest increase in taxes ever, passed by Democrats. It was Republicans who made it law that the cuts would expire, NOT the Democrats. It is illogical and sophistry for Republicans to now try to assign responsibility to Democrats for the law Republicans passed, JUST because Democrats intend to observe that Republican law which called for an expiration in the tax cuts.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 06:04 PMDawn, by ‘us’, do you you mean those fortunate enough not lose their job, home, or child’s college savings as a result of the recession? Do we consider those not so fortunate as just more Republican collateral damage?
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 06:06 PMGoo said: “I know of no situations where being panicked is a good thing. Rationally and effectively responding works for me.”
Ducking in panic at the first sound of an explosion can be both rational and effective as ascertained after ducking. Swerving in panic at the recognition of an impending head on collision on the highway has saved countless lives over the decades.
What you don’t know is proof only of what you don’t know. Offering the statement: “I know of nothing…” is evidence of nothing, except perhaps, ignorance. As my reply points out, what you don’t know neither provides evidence of your assumption, nor proof of your opinion. At best, it is an honest statement that one does not know.
Point taken.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 06:13 PMA temporary measure cannot equate, logically, with a permanent measure. A temporary tax cut with a scheduled ending date passed by a Republican Congress, cannot result in the largest increase in taxes ever, passed by Democrats. It was Republicans who made it law that the cuts would expire, NOT the Democrats. It is illogical and sophistry for Republicans to now try to assign responsibility to Democrats for the law Republicans passed, JUST because Democrats intend to observe that Republican law which called for an expiration in the tax cuts.
David,
Fair enough, but your analogy was way off if this was the point you were trying to make. Maybe you should have said the boss promised his employees their pay would return to its original rate after x amount of years. Besides all this, how is taking an extra $1,000-$2,000 from my already strapped $32,000 a year income going to help me during a recession?
Loyal Opp yet again errs in saying: “There’s no “contradiction” whatsoever in anything I’ve said, …”
Loyal Opposition is the author of these two CONTRADICTORY statements:
1) “The fact is that we do NOT have reliable information about who is entering the country illegally. “
2) “He [Broun] has offered numbers which contradict “offical” Bush-administration approved numbers. And rather than inventing this number himself, he fully disclosed that this is what border authorities have told him to be the case. So who do you believe? The guys manning the borders or the officials who have a long history of doing everything in their power to avoid securing our borders?”
Obviously, Loyal Opp, you buy into Broun’s numbers, at the same time you say such numbers are not valid. Then you go on to argue after saying there is no way to know, that one set of numbers is more trustworthy than another.
Your comments are full of contradictions, Loyal Opp, and now, I have demonstrated this with your own quotations. Feel better?
Amazing how folks won’t research critique before foolishly defending their own errors, and in public no less. It’s on par with the Emperor who thought he was wearing new clothes, when in fact, he was wearing none at all in the public square.
Never ceases to amaze me.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 06:22 PMDuane-O said: “Fair enough, but your analogy was way off if this was the point you were trying to make.”
No, the analogy was spot on. You apparently just didn’t want to get it. But, you accept the point the analogy was intended to make, and so communication and agreement have taken place, and therefore time and effort to communicate not wasted. And that is a good thing for a public debate forum, where, in my opinion, it should be the goal of all, myself included, to learn while debating, from each other and ourselves as we explore the rationale and lack thereof, inherent in public policy and governance.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 06:31 PMLoyal Opp, here is the title and URL to order the book of logic you asked me to recommend. An Introduction to Critical Thinking: A Beginner’s Text in Logic.
I look forward to better arguments from you if you purchase and study it. It is less than $30 and free shipping, and the best $29 you will ever spend in my opinion. My life certainly improved dramatically after learning formal critical thinking skills in college.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 06:39 PMDavid,
I’m not afraid to admit when someone makes a good point, even if I happen to disagree with their reason for making it. So the Republicans passed the law that the tax cuts would expire. This was a compromise in order to get enough Dems on board to get it through. Maybe ut won’t actually be the “biggest tax increase in history by Democrats”, but I’ll still be happy to chant this mantra as much as I can. I’m a partisan. So sue me. Now getting back to my original question: How is taking an extra $1,000-$2,000 from my already strapped $32,000 a year income going to help me and my family during a recession?
By ‘us’… I mean as a nation, as a society.
I don’t want to see people living on the streets anymore than you do.
Maybe it’s time for a hard lesson. Do you really believe the way we are, as a ‘people’, is the way we should be?
I like to have nice things but I don’t have to go into debt to get them. I save up or I don’t buy them.
- a younger friend(30ish) has a kid,a cell phone, drives a brand new car. She only works when she feels like it. She lives with mom & dad and they pay for everything for her and her kid. She breaks up with BF’s if they don’t pay her bar tab and buy her jewelry.
I mention her because, when I asked her how much it costs to use texting she said …’I don’t know. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter.’
I know a number of people with this attitude who work and pay their own bills. I don’t feel a bit sorry for them when they get into financial trouble.
- another guy I know works at GM. He has a nice house, nice vehicles, put his kids through college, great health insurance, and a $500 dog!! He has worked there over 30 yrs, would get full retirement and says he can’t afford to retire. He has the nerve to say that GM never gives them anything and it’s GM’s fault he can’t afford to retire.
My dad retired from GM without a bit of financial trouble and was fairly happy with his retirement package. Could it be because my parents didn’t live beyond their means?
I did not mention republicans.
Just how do you think what the democrats want to do will make the situation better? Better for us as a society.
Dawn said: “I don’t want to see people living on the streets anymore than you do.”
Sure you do. That is why you argue a recession may be good for us. Which is another way of saying it would be punitive to those people you dislike and disrespect so much for participating in the marketed and advertised American Dream hammered into their psyche’s by every printed, electronic, and commercial medium in every location in the United States. Even our T-Shirts have become billboards for the buy, buy, buy American Dream. We go to war, and our President says go shopping, its the patriotic thing to do for our soldiers over there.
A recession would indeed punish those you dislike and disrespect so much, but, it would also punish many of those you like and respect, the hard workers of two jobs and working seniors who make it on limited but sufficient savings and part time job earnings, but, for whom the loss of that part-time job, or full time job would result in the loss of their mortgage, car, children’s college savings through absolutely no fault of their own. Just because of the recession, which you suggest might be good for “us”.
Do not include me in your “us”, nor any of my hard working but modest incomed family or friends, following the rules, paying their taxes, abiding the laws, and buying into the American Dream of freedom and liberty to buy, buy, buy.
Recessions are horrible things, they actually cut years off American’s lifespans when they are protracted for more than several months. They increase violence and crime, especially domestic violence and crimes of theft and embezzlement and robbery. Recessions are horrible, and most of them, are entirely avoidable through conscientious oversight and regulation, something the Republicans abdicated the day GW Bush was elected.
Ergo, we are in the second recession of the Bush administration, the first having been a byproduct of lack of oversight by those in government during the Clinton administration and split Republican, Democratic Congress.
Dawn said: “I didn’t mention Republicans.”
How very astute. I DID! And your point is? Am I prohibited from mentioning them unless you do first? HaHa!
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2008 07:16 PMDawn wrote:Anyone ever consider why a recession might be good for us?Good question!
Yes, I have (above).
That might be just the medicine that is needed to stave of the eventual collapse of the Federal Reserve’s dishonest, usurious, and mathematically challenged 9-to-1 fractional banking pyramid scheme, and buy us a little more time to figure out how we are going to get out of this monopoly game where only one player (the banks) can print all the money they want, while everyone else gets deeper and deeper in debt.
Americans should seriously give some thought to how is it that most people that work, invent, create, build, service, and produce are in debt ($48 Trillion nation-wide) to the banks that create money out of thin air?
Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2008 07:18 PMDavid,
How is taking an extra $1,000-$2,000 from my already strapped $32,000 a year income going to help me and my family during a recession?
Posted by: Duane-o at March 15, 2008 07:21 PM‘How very astute. I DID! And your point is? Am I prohibited from mentioning them unless you do first? HaHa!’
David,
I don’t consider the problems of our society to be the fault of the republicans or the democrats. Our government, both sides, only exacerbates
the problem.
BTW. You did not answer my question.
Posted by: Dawn at March 15, 2008 08:44 PMDavid,
I still don’t know that panicking is a good thing.
Ducking is probably good at the sound of an explosion. Hand grenades blow upward. Getting low is a good defense. Swerving to avoid a collision is a good thing, if done in a way that doesn’t overcorrect and create further havoc. The adrenaline rush that is associated with these situations, along with the realization of near calamity, will be associated with an emotional reaction that could be described as panic.
Panic is a confused emotional state. It often produces helplessness and imobility. In the movies, they slap you and tell you to snap out of it. Understanding danger is not the same as being panicked.
Posted by: googlumpugus at March 15, 2008 09:04 PMIn that a ressession exposes flaws in the economy, I suppose one could say there is value in the pain of a recession.
I think it is unwise to wish for one, however.
Believing that a macroeconomic contraction is cured by spending cuts and tax increases is as foolish as the legislators of the 1930’s.
The economy must grow out of debt. Exacerbating a contraction by cutting spending immediately and raising taxes will deepen a recession. Lengthening the time needed for the GDP to grow us out of debt.
Fiscal responibility IS necessary to stabilize the value of money and reduce the burden of borrowing costs. Being a debtor Nation is bad news.
We are where we are. Asking for punishment will not absolve our sins and wash them away.
The seeming contradiction is not a contradiction, however. It is the reality of a macroeconomic system. There is a balance between inflation and unemploytment that must be struck. A balance between inflation and growth. A free unfettered market will vary wildly between these. We saw that in the 1700’s and 1800’s in this country. That was part of the reason for the genesis of the Fed.
Recessions are like quick wars. They have a habit of not being so quick and simple. Sometimes they can hang on for years. Iraq wasn’t as easy as the Neocons predicted. Don’t let equally foolish talk you into a deepened recession.
Posted by: googlumpugus at March 15, 2008 09:23 PMNot wishing for one.
Wishing things would straighten out without any pain.
We - Us - Our family have been in ‘pain’ since the fuel prices began to rise so quickly.
That pain has finally made it into everyone else’s lives by way of higher costs for goods.
If our economy tumbles, the domino effect will be great.
Cost of oil should lower significantly and we can start all over!! woohoo
We did this to ourselves. We helped other nations and their economies grow and grow quickly. We had to have cheaper goods from elsewhere so we could buy more stuff. Job loss. Lower quality.
Consequences. These consequences were not brought on solely by the republicans.
What’s Walmart’s new slogan?
‘Buy More. Be Happy.’
PERFECT
Sorry David. I think Dawn is right.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2008 07:19 PM
Thanks d.a.n. but why be sorry?
Posted by: Dawn at March 15, 2008 11:32 PMSome people don’t seem to know the difference between a recession and the apocalypse.
They’re a natural and normal part of the economic cycle. We’ve had 32 of them since 1854 and the longest we’ve ever gone without one is ten years—and even that is debated.
There are some serious reasons for long-term concern about the US economy, but neither a lack of a recession or the occurrence of one should cause us to either ignore these problems or take hasty radical measures that could upset the whole apple cart and make future recessions deeper.
The possibility of a recession after seven years of growth doesn’t exactly mean that doomsday is upon us. Both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty over the years of using the word “recession” to stoke fear among the economically illiterate. And it’s no surprise how this tends to happen around election season.
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2008 12:05 AMgooglumpus, there is no growing out of 10 trillion dollars in debt, not in this global economic environment of cheap labor and advancing innovation in foreign lands. There is no growing the economy out of the SS and Medicare unfunded mandates.
Anyone who says we can grow our way out of this is a lying politician or lacking in awareness of what leading economists and economic watchdogs with positions of public responsibility have to say on this topic. David Walker, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan to name just a few who have said forthrightly or indirectly, that there is no growing the economy out from under our current debt plus unfunded mandates. Not even in the realm of possibility.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2008 12:23 AMgooglumpus said: “Swerving to avoid a collision is a good thing, if done in a way that doesn’t overcorrect and create further havoc.”
There is no greater havoc than a head on collision. If the speeds exceed 70 mph, even the airbags, (if you have them) can be lethal via the breaking of the neck.
Swerving is a panic reaction, and a good one to have in one’s reportoire if faced head on with a semi-truck.
Sorry, but, even your point of distraction from the debate is not validly made. Best to return to the topics of the article.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2008 12:27 AMDavid, an “unfunded mandate” has a pretty specific meaning when talking about economic matters. It’s a law or regulation which the government puts in place but doesn’t pay for. So please explain how “unfunded mandates” contribute to our national debt? Your misunderstanding of such a basic economic principle—that debt is incurred by spending money—doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the rest of your analysis.
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2008 12:47 AMDawn, I did answer your question. You must have missed it.
And, I DO consider the current economic downturn the responsibility of the Republicans and their abstinence of oversight and regulation, which they have been ideologically opposed to since Bush the Dumb, was elected.
Republicans ran on ending regulation of marketers like sub-prime lenders, hedge fund managers, etc. Things got so bad on Wall St., New Yorkers elected Spitzer governor in the hopes of cleaning the corruption up on Wall St., since, Republicans in D.C. obviously weren’t going to.
Democrats have their own foibles, but, turning their backs on regulation of greed by corporate types is NOT one of them. That moniker belongs to Republicans along with this whole sub-prime mortgage spilled over into credit and liquidity crunch mess. Foreign investors are now thinking America may not be as safe or low risk as they once thought. And they’d have a point if Republicans continued in power.
Greenspan, Bush, and the Republican Congress are all complicit in fostering this meltdown. The warning signs of a mortgage melt-down were known and published back in the summer/fall of 2006. They went unheeded by Republicans. And though Republicans lost control of Congress, Pres. Bush extolled the virtues and strength of his economy. What a sham and lie that has been this last year as deterioration became ever more evident.
Yesterday, Bush still insisted that our economy is strong. Just needs a little tweak here and there. What bullcrap. The measures being taken by the FED and Paulson are unprecedented, and not very Republican. All of a sudden, they are acting like Democrats, bail outs, stimulus packages, deficit spending, assistance and cooperation with foreign central banks. All of a sudden, things are so bad they start acting like Democrats to salvage the situation.
It is like watching keystone cops, except that reading of the 100’s of billions of dollars lost, and foreclosures on poorer families, and bailouts of high risk investors who took out more debt than they could afford on the hope they could flip the second or third investment home for a tidy profit, just isn’t very funny.
Since late 2006, 238 major U.S. lending operations have “imploded”. Bush and Bernanke were hell bent on fulfilling Bush’s promise to be the Homeowner’s President, putting more Americans in homes than any other president.
Sadly, the result was the same as his War On Terror, he accomplished the exact opposite of what was intended, with the help of his supportive Republicans in Congress and loyal supporters who can find no wrong in anything the man has ever said or done.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2008 12:59 AMLoyal Opp made the ignorant comment: “David, an “unfunded mandate” has a pretty specific meaning when talking about economic matters. It’s a law or regulation which the government puts in place but doesn’t pay for. So please explain how “unfunded mandates” contribute to our national debt?”
Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it? An unfunded mandate is a law or regulation that commits to spending but for which the revenues to fund it have not yet been received. Hence, unfunded mandates require either raising taxes, cutting other spending while maintaining the same level of spending, a combination of both, deficit borrowing to fund the legal mandates, or reversing the mandate.
If deficit borrowing will be required, then the mandates result in increasing the national debt. $44 trillion dollars. Do you have any comprehension of what amount that is, in raised taxes or spending cuts from other programs, over the next 50 years?
It is nearly a trillion dollars a year. Raising taxes by an additional 900 billion dollars a year for 50 years is not in the cards, nor is cutting 900 billion a year for 50 years, and some combination will only partly address the mandates, at the expense of the military, foreign relations and strategic power, or domestic programs like education, infrastructure, policing, immigration control, or any of a host of other domestic priorities for the future.
Try thinking the situation through a bit before knee jerking such an ignorant comment in response. If you have $44 trillion dollars you are willing to give the U.S. government for the unfunded mandates, I will concede this debate. If not, then your reply is ignorant of the scope of the unfunded mandates and how they must of necessity, add to the national debt as we go forward, for political reasons alone.
The only other political options are to end the entitlement programs, a guaranteed reelection killer for politicians, or, raise taxes by double their current amount incrementally over the next 10 to 15 years, also a reelection killer. Or, a combination of both in lesser amounts, which will still be a reelection killer.
I think if you absorb the import of what is said here, you will recognize that there are no positive solutions to the unfunded mandates. All options end with great sacrifice and suffering, some far more than others, but, none can escape the negative political consequences of either ignoring or solving the unfunded mandate dilemma. Though ignoring it politically is guaranteed economic devastation or, civil unrest not seen since at least the 1960’s, and perhaps not seen since the Civil War.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2008 01:16 AMgooglumpugus wrote: I still don’t know that panicking is a good thing.Seems like creating $530 Billion of new money out of thin air is panicking:
- (1) the Federal Reserve had not previously pumped $180 Billion into the banking system earlier this year (14-Jan-2008, 28-Jan, 11-Feb, 25-Feb, 11-Mar; www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/2008monetary.htm)
- (2) the Federal Reserve had not announced (11-Mar-2008) their plans to pump in another $200 Billion into the banking system.
- (3) the Federal Reserve and Federal Government had not created the $150 Billion economic stimulous package (to arrive in mid May-2008)
We can only repeatedly do that as long as the nation has more capcity to carry more debt, and we already have $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (revised: adjusted for inflation in 2007 dollars), about half the nation’s net worth.
We are getting closer and closer to the limit, since only 80% of all Americans own only 17% of all wealth.
When the capacity for more debt is finally exceeded, this 9-to-1 fractional lending pyramid-scheme banking-system will finally collapse.
We then will not be able to:
- grow enough,
- and/or create enough new money out of thin air,
- and/or immigrate enough,
- and/or tax enough,
Thus, growing the debt larger and larger is a bad idea, when $53 Trillion nation-wide debt is 382% of the $13.86 Trillion GDP (of 2007).
By the way, about $12 Trillion of the nation-wide debt is not owed by us alone; it is foreign held debt.
We’ve already been on this trend of growing debt, wealth disparity, debt/income disparity, and other abuses for 30 years.
We may be able to do it for a few more decades, but at what cost?
What will it do to the standard of living for most Americans?
The nation-wide debt has only gotten bigger and bigger since year 1956 (with positive inflation every year since year 1956).
Things may not seem so bad now, but the consequences will arrive eventually, and creating more and more debt will probably hasten it.
Things may not look so bad now, but they will look much worse if we stay on the same path for another decade (or more) of creating more and more debt.
And the longer negative abuses are allowed to exist, the harder and longer it takes to undo them.
Thus, now is the time to sound some alarms, because positive changes will not come about quickly, when the plutocracy will resist changes.
Recessions are like corrections in the stock market.
Are corrections in the stock market manually adjusted by the Federal Reserve by throwing money at every correction (i.e. drop) in stock prices? No.
So why not weather the recession instead of simply delaying it, and making it worse in the future?
Especailly if the …
googlumpugus wrote:
- Our democracy is tough. Our people are tough.
- I still don’t know that panicking is a good thing.
- Fiscal responibility IS necessary to stabilize the value of money and reduce the burden of borrowing costs.
- Being a debtor Nation is bad news.
- Any recession in which the political structure does things that further contracts the money supply can turn into something more.
If the government wants to do something to help all Americans, they should stop these abuses (e.g. fix regressive taxation; enforce existing laws; fix the monetary system to reduce inflation, usury, and predatory lending; focus on education to compete in a global economy; stop illegal immigration costing tax payers hundreds of billions of net losses; stop growing the national debt ever larger; reduce the size of the severely over-bloated government; stop the corruption, pork-barrel, earmarks, graft, and waste; bring troops home ASAP; fix election problems; etc.).
Yet, our elected officials refuse to stop those many abuses, year after year, decade after decade, despite Congress’ dismally low approval ratings (www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm, www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1844140220070919).
Why don’t approval ratings and re-election rates even come remotely close to agreeing with each other?
Perhaps because of “America’s Dysfunctional Politics”; not only irresponsible incumbent politicians, but the voters that repeatedly incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates?
It is definitely dysfunctional.
And still, I’d like some to please tell me where the money to pay the INTEREST on $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (which is 3.82 times the nation’s $13.86 Trillion GDP) will come from, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, when that money does not yet exist? ! ?
That is current debt. Not future liabilities. That is total federal government debt, personal naton-wide debt, state and local government debt, and business debt.
The INTEREST alone on only the $9.4 Trillion federal National Debt is $1.306 Billion per day (or $54 Million per hour = $39.7 Billion per month = $477 Billion per year).
HMMMmmmmmmmm … maybe it’s just me, but the math doesn’t seem consistent with some of the anti-anything-not-rosy rhetoric ?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters deserve.
David,
There is no other way to pay it except growing out of it. That doesn’t mean that fiscal responsibitity isn’t a part of that.
Shrinking the economy by over taxing or irresponsible cuts is repeating the mistakes of history that should have been learned in the 30’s.
No doubt slower growth will result from paying down debt, but growth is the only way to rebuilding the economy, short of a military coup.
Posted by: googlumpus at March 16, 2008 02:13 PMgooglumpugus, Why the fixation on the need for exponential growth?
You realize that 3% growth this year is more than 3% growth of last year, which is more than 3% growth the previous year, etc., etc., etc.
That’s exponential growth.
That’s accelerating growth.
What ever happened to sustainability?
What ever happened to sustainability?
What ever happened to ZERO growth?
What ever happened to ZERO population growth?
Is perpetual exponential growth realistic?
What is wrong with a stable syatem that does not require the GDP to grow and grow to keep the debt and inflation inherent pyramid-scheme 9-to-1 fractional banking system from collapsing?
How is it possible that most people that work, invent, design, build, create, service, and produce are all in debt to the banks that create money out of thin air?
Perpetual accelerating growth and sustainability are not compatible, nor sustainable.
No one can tell us WHERE the money to pay the INTEREST on the current $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (which is 3.82 times the nation’s $13.86 Trillion GDP) will come from, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, when that money does not yet exist ? ! ?
The interest only in the $9.4 Trillion National Debt is $1.306 Billion per day (or $54 Million per hour = $39.7 Billion per month = $477 Billion per year).
There’s a problem.
It’s a crazy vicious circle.
It’s mathematically flawed.
Perpetual exponential growth is not possible.
That is why we see more National Debt, more nation-wide personal debt, more corporate debt, more borrowing, more spending, more money created out of thin air, pressures to increase productivity, pressure to increase illegal imigration (cheap labor), more H-1B Visa abuse, pressures to lower interest rates to make credit easier to get for people already in debt up to their eyeballs, more pressures to plunder pensions (e.g. PBGC $450 Billion in the hole) and Social Security Surpluses ($12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security), and other consequences of these abuses.
Do you believe that the U.S. economy is so troubled and so fragile that it can’t ride out a recession?
If not, then perhaps the U.S. economy is in more trouble than some believe?
d.a.n.
googlumpugus, Why the fixation on the need for exponential growth?
ummm, I realize I’m just a pawn in your desire to expound upon your positions…but, really, have I ever said anything about exponential growth?
Just tell the voices to go away.:)
My only point is that if the economy doesn’t grow there is no hope of paying off anything. Economies aren’t static things. First you have to stop the tailspin, then you fly out of the dive. I may seem crazy for a pilot to push the nose down in a spin, but it is how you recover.
Foolishly pushing the economy further into recession through inaction, or “laissez faire”, or worse, excessively restrictive laws and taxes, may seem like “the right things to do”, but they aren’t
Posted by: googlumpugus at March 16, 2008 05:51 PMerr… It may seem crazy…..
I may seem crazy, too, but that’s another story.
Posted by: googlumpugus at March 16, 2008 06:07 PMgooglumpugus wrote: ummm, I realize I’m just a pawn in your desire to expound upon your positionsLike you or no one else expounds their own position?
I asked some questions about “growth”. That’s all.
And if others ask me a question, I try to answer them.
What’s so bad about that?
Do you feel special that I would ask you a question? : )
At any rate, this blog wouldn’t be worth much if everyone here already knew everything and everyone agreed on everything.
googlumpugus wrote: . . . have I ever said anything about exponential growth?Yes, even though you don’t realize it, when you wrote …
googlumpugus wrote: There is no other way to pay it except growing out of it.… and …
googlumpugus wrote: No doubt slower growth will result from paying down debt,…Since it would take many years to pay down debt, surely you did not mean we should have ZERO GDP growth did you?
Unless GDP growth is ZERO every year, there is growth.
Even 1% of GDP grow per year is exponential growth, because 1% this year is more than 1% the year before, which is more than 1% of the previous year, etc., etc., etc.
Again, I just asked a few questions and the question about growth was quite valid based on your position.
googlumpugus wrote: Just tell the voices to go away. :)What voices? Who wrote ? …
googlumpugus wrote: I may seem crazy, too, but that’s another story.
So, don’t you see an inherent mathematical flaw in the system that grows the debt ever larger and creates incessant inflation inflation (positive since year 1956) ?
Don’t you ever get the feeling that we are a slave to a flawed system that could be easily improved with only a few small changes?
Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2008 06:42 PMGoo, simply growing the economy and relying on current tax rates to produce the revenues from a target 3% growth rate, does not meet future unfunded mandate needs. And if the entitlement needs aren’t met, in the mix of politicians attempting to provide for a whole mix of priorities, many other priorities will not be fulfilled for future generations either.
Also, there is nothing in the laws of the universe that say that a zero population and zero GDP growth cannot be sustained over the long run and provide a quality life for all. So, strictly speaking, GDP growth is NOT necessary to meet future needs, if ever growing demands are halted and needs are redefined and resources reallocated.
Some make a very reasoned case for our having far more military than is necessary if we were to simply innovate from within and pull our military back within our own territories. The enormous savings from such a measure over the next 50 years would very nearly meet the entitlement needs for the same period. This is real change.
People don’t want real change. Change is unknown, and not 100% predictable. The past ways of doing things may have failed, but, at least we don’t live in fear of how they will fail. America needs to think outside the box of the past, and create answers that meet future needs without GROWING future demands, which of course, will always outstrip supply in the long run and result in ever greater dependencies upon foreign political interests instead of our own.
Oil should have taught us this in the 1970’s, but, Americans and their politicians are an incredibly STUPID lot on the whole for even today, they have not accepted the lesson of foreign dependency, and work to expand it as some panacea for peace. It is an absurd concept on its face, for dependency unavoidably breeds contempt and hate, and contempt and hate are no basis for peace.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2008 07:14 PMDavid,
Ah, predictions, predictions.
Raising the retirement age and revamping healthcare to restructure things like medicare and medicaid could have miraculous effects on longterm outcomes. I’m not predicting these, but when one’s back is to the wall, things sometimes magically, that seem impossible become possible.
Nothing is ever static. Making profound predictions is best left to Nostradamos.
d.a.n.,
So, If I say the word growth, I MUST mean zero or exponential growth? Which linguistic rule is that?
Is there some form of mathematics that excludes numbers in between those two extrema?
Creative. Twisted, but creative.
Posted by: googlumpugus at March 17, 2008 04:21 AMgooglumpus, all of man’s knowledge and science is based on predictions, and then testing them voluntarily or involuntarily. Predictions are essential to human living. Just ask a xenophobe.
Your arguments still lack validity and forethought before putting words to comments. I try nearly always to critique my own comments from the adversary’s point of view, before hitting the enter button. I find this self-critique extremely beneficial in the rest of my life as well, as it fosters independence of others to do so for me. I find I learn more from my adversaries this way than waiting for them to become effective teachers (a rare event).
Perhaps this activity might be useful to others here.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2008 05:31 AMgooglumpugus wrote: Nothing is ever static. Making profound predictions is best left to Nostradamos.Hmmmmm … like this …
googlumpugus wrote:Raising the retirement age and revamping healthcare to restructure things like medicare and medicaid could have miraculous effects on longterm outcomes.
googlumpugus wrote:d.a.n., So, If I say the word growth, I MUST mean zero or exponential growth? Which linguistic rule is that? Is there some form of mathematics that excludes numbers in between those two extrema?The issue is actually:
- ANY positive (non-ZERO) growth rate percentage.
- And the constant pressures to increase (or maintain) growth.
- YEAR NNNN+0: 1.00% Growth of previous years $14.000 Trillion GDP yields new GDP of = $14.140000 Trillion
- YEAR NNNN+1: 0.95% Growth of previous years $14.140 Trillion GDP yields new GDP of = $14.274330 Trillion
- YEAR NNNN+2: 0.85% Growth of previous years $14.000 Trillion GDP yields new GDP of = $14.395662 Trillion
- YEAR NNNN+3: 0.70% Growth of previous years $14.000 Trillion GDP yields new GDP of = $14.496431 Trillion
- YEAR NNNN+4: 0.50% Growth of previous years $14.000 Trillion GDP yields new GDP of = $14.568914 Trillion
- YEAR NNNN+5: 0.25% Growth of previous years $14.000 Trillion GDP yields new GDP of = $14.605336 Trillion
googlumpugus wrote: Creative. Twisted, but creative.Not twisted or creative.
Only simple math, and the issue of sustainable stability and ZERO growth, instead of perpetual and unsustainable growth, bubbles, and economic instability (e.g. growing pains).
What is up with those that want to grow and grow the U.S. Population (which has already been growing faster than most nations; by 5 million per year; 4 million illegally), and GDP, etc.?
What is driving that, and who is profiting most from it, and what bubbles, cycles, and problems is it repeatedly causing ?
Do you think perhaps that one reason for the pressure to grow GDP and population ever larger is to prevent the debt and inflation inherent within the pyramid-scheme 9-to-1 fractional banking system from collapsing?
And how is it possible that most people that work, invent, design, build, create, service, and produce are all in debt to the banks that create money out of thin air?
That sort of perpetual growth is not only unrealistic, and comes at a price; a price that may even eventually be disastrous?
Even small and decreasing growth can be disastrous, when the size of something is ALREADY too big.
The $48 Trillion nation-wide debt is a good example of that.
China’s 1.3 Billion population is a good example of that.
The world’s total 6.7 Billion human population may be a good example of that?
Perpetual growth and sustainable stability are not compatible, and we need to seriously look abuses and America’s Dysfunction in Politics”, government corruption and waste, voting issues, monetary policies, taxation, population, environment, and energy policies, before the consequences and abuses become too apparent and painful.
P.S. Guess you’ve probably already heard about Bear Stearns?
The Federal Reserve announced that it would provide another $30 Billion for the failing Bear Stearns (www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080316a.htm), which sold for a mere $236.2 Million to JP Morgan in a fire-sale (when Bear Stearns (5th largest U.S. Investment Bank) was valued at $20 Billion on Jan-2007, then only $3.5 Billion on 14-Mar-2008).
And who is that liquidity really helping?
And who is it hurting?
Who is picking up the final BILL?
And there is still no bottom in sight?
Yet, the monetary system is OKey DOkey?
But don’t worry.
No problem.
Just print some more money. Cha-Ching!
Get ready for more inflation.
At any rate, the voters have the government tha the voters deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2008 08:53 AMDavid,
How is taking an extra $1,000-$2,000 from my already strapped $32,000 a year income going to help me and my family during a recession?
Posted by: duane-o at March 17, 2008 09:03 AMDid that book on critical thinking teach being condescending as a debate tactic?
Why do we have the separation of powers between branches of government?
Duane-O, it won’t.
What is needed is a simplification of the tax ststem to make it fair.
The problem with the current tax system is that it is regressive (that is, as your income decreases, your tax rate and taxes increase).
The evidence of that is Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., paid a lower tax rate (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006), than his secretary (who made $60,000 and paid a 30.0% income tax rate).
Congress knows this, and has known it for a long time. Your tax rate is probably higher than the 15% tax rate on capital gains, and that is how the wealthy pay lower taxes than you. And to make the tax system more regressive, there are myriad of tax loop-holes and deductions for the wealthy too.
And if that weren’t enough, the wealthy (and there corporations) get massive subsidies and tax breaks.
EXXON, which made record profits in 2007, receives government subsidies (our tax dollars); pork-barrel, corprate welfare, subsidies, graft, and waste, while most Americans are struggling.
Why? Plutocracy, paving the way for a variety of abuses.
However, most Americans allow it by repeatedly rewarding sall of these irresponsible incumbent politicians for all of that irrepsonsibility with 93%-to-99% re-election rates. Thus, at any rate, the voters have the government tha the voters deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2008 09:18 AMDawn
I’m not so sure that a recession would be all that good for us as a society in general. But they do have a way of correcting some markets. May we if can get the oil market corrected it’ll be helpful. But a lot of good folks will suffer in the meantime.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed how much everything else has gone up with the recent increase in fuel prices or not. Having owned a convenient store I tend to notice this a little quicker than some folks. But every time fuel prices go up so does the price of everything else.
The folks I sold the store to told me the other day that their cost on almost everything in the store has gone up anywhere from $.10 to $.20 sense this last fuel price jump. In a couple of case they had a $1.00 increase in cost.
And it’s always the working folks that are making average pay or less that gets hit the hardest.
Of course a major recession just might wake a lot of folks up to whats really happening up there in DC and we just might get a whole heap of new uncorrupted faces up there. That right there would be a major benefit to society in general.
David,
Are you sure my arguments lack validity?
I still don’t think panic is anything more than an emotional response, based on fear, not a good thing in markets or life in general. Fear is a good thing, but panic is not.
I was only arguing that point with you.
The other point I was arguing is the difficulty with making long range economic predictions. I think both my statements are quite sound. You choose to be pessimistic about it, I don’t. We’ve had 80 years of relatively stable economics in this country,albeit, not without hiccups. I think there is a good basis to assume that will continue, even in the light of long term problems.Hopefully some of the lessons of the thirties are still with us. We are a fairly educated, productive, and moral people. That’s what economies are about and should measure. Money is a measure of those things. Sometimes people get caught up in nonsense and forget that.
The easy argument here, that everyone will agree with, is that the economic headlines are scary. Just maybe they are too scary. Overblown. That is what I am saying.
I know that I’m a thorn in your arguments, but sometimes thorns make us aware when we’ve gone too far.
d.a.n.,
When a population grows or a business becomes more efficient, the economy, in theory should grow. Whenever we gain productive advantage over someone else, it will grow.
In my grade shcool we studied english and math. I learned that words not said are not always implied and there are growth rates between zero and exponential.
I know that my words didn’t fit what you wanted to say, but did you have to put words in my mouth and make up nonexistant mathematical rules to say them?
All, I’ve been saying is calm down, the world isn’t ending. Yes, let’s talk about remedying our long term economic problems…something you both discuss quite well, but we don’t have to overdramatize it, do we?
Posted by: googlumpus at March 17, 2008 03:38 PMBTW,
I am eagerly anticipating some good buying opportunities in the stock market in the coming months. That makes me smile while I smoke a cigar and sip some scotch….aaaah.!!! Life IS good.
Posted by: googlumpus at March 17, 2008 03:41 PMd.a.n, The actual federal tax rate on 60k is under 20%. Warren needs to define his numbers. There are numerous inclusions and disclusions that had to be made to arrive at his agenda based numbers for both himself and the employee. (the simple term is fuzzy math)
David,
A full republic with one branch of government ends up in a bloodbath between warring factions. That is why we established an executive branch in our government. The law makers and law enforcers need to be separate. The French revolution is an example of a republic without an executive. It was a bloodbath followed by a dictatorship.
The attorney general and all the president’s appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. For congress to meddle would render the executive branch functionless. It is just as important that there be a wall of separation between the legislative and executive branch as it is between church and state.
Of course checks and balances are in place in case unqualified people are asked to be appointed. This is all the further oversight extends. To meddle in executive hirings and firings for agenda and election purposes as the dems are obviously doing is reprehensible. I guess giving the finger would be appropriate.
Posted by: Kruser at March 17, 2008 05:16 PM
Good point. However, even if it is only 20%, it is less than 17.7%. That is still regressive.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2008 06:56 PMgoo said: “The other point I was arguing is the difficulty with making long range economic predictions. I think both my statements are quite sound.”
goo, you are not even aware of the argument you made, or you are now trying to change it, having lost the last one. Nowhere in your quotation do you reference “long range” predictions, nor do you now define what is long range.
Ah, predictions, predictions.
Raising the retirement age and revamping healthcare to restructure things like medicare and medicaid could have miraculous effects on longterm outcomes. I’m not predicting these, but when one’s back is to the wall, things sometimes magically, that seem impossible become possible.
Nothing is ever static. Making profound predictions is best left to Nostradamos.
Second, you did not get an argument from me that predictions are either easy or fool-proof. My argument was that predictions are absolutely essential to daily living and life long survival, and that human knowledge and science are built on predictions as valid tools of inquiry and research.
The entire reason for studying history is to apply its lessons toward a more predictable future. The fact that our founders were able to draw upon history and fashion a government construct without using the rule monarchy, dictator, or elites, but of consensus of divergent representatives, and have that government last more than 2 centuries, is a testament to the power of predictability. They would not have wasted the time nor energy, nor blood and sacrifice, if they did not believe that could create an enduring independence in America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2008 07:17 PMKruser said: “The attorney general and all the president’s appointees serve at the pleasure of the president.”
And the reason we don’t have a lifelong president, is precisely because of the power of the courts and Congress over the Executive, to quite literally deny the Executive any and all funds for executive purposes. This check and balance has prevented president’s temptations to become self-appointed dictators for life. This Constitutional power and others, of the Congress and Courts over the Executive are indispensable to our democratic republic, and you are mistaken to think the Executive’s authority to enforce is without limits or intrusive checks and balances established in the minds of the founder’s and our Constitution.
Very mistaken indeed, Kruser.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2008 07:24 PMgoo said: “I think there is a good basis to assume that [stable economy] will continue, even in the light of long term problems.”
And if our economy fails, that failure will be directly traceable back to people like yourself who resisted the changes necessary to insure it doesn’t fail, due to their belief that failure was not in the cards. Believing failure is not just possible but, potential is the belief that will foster the measures and sacrifices to insure it does not fail.
Youth are high risk takers. Reason: they don’t yet believe in their mortality. Seniors are very low risk takers. Reason: they believe in their mortality. What one believes shapes one’s actions and subsequently, one’s future.
If we don’t believe our economy can fail, we are unlikely to prevent it from failing. Economies are not natural things, they are artificial, and thus require enormous maintenance, balancing, and good judgment to maintain. Always in conflict with that maintenance, balance, and good judgment are self-centered thought, greed, and the ever present desire for monopoly in one form or another, in addition to far more widespread bad judgment than good.
All it takes for an economy to fail is for bad judgment to delay good judgment from enaction at a critical point of time. We have witnessed this with the sub-prime mortgage industry debacle which has destroyed the hopes and dreams of 100’s of thousands of Americans already, erased 1 trillion dollars of wealth from the accounts of some, bankrupted more than 238 financial institutions, and is now throwing thousands upon thousands out of work, as well as their homes.
Those with good judgment railed about the looming bubble beginning in the latter half of 2006, but, those with bad judgment delayed action until it was too late to prevent the losses and suffering. The role of our economy is to provide for all who participate and contribute to it. The economy is failing millions of Americans as I type, and the reason is because we have failed to properly tend our economy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2008 07:42 PMd.a.n, The actual federal tax rate on 60k is under 20%. Warren needs to define his numbers. There are numerous inclusions and disclusions that had to be made to arrive at his agenda based numbers for both himself and the employee. (the simple term is fuzzy math)It may be the 15.3% (7.65% x 2) for Social Security and Medicare (with a cap at $97,500. That would explain a difference in overall federal taxes. Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2008 09:28 PM
David,
I agree I am not aware of the argument you say I made, because I didn’t make it.
David said:
Nowhere in your quotation do you reference “long range” predictions, nor do you now define what is long range.
Goo said:
Raising the retirement age and revamping healthcare to restructure things like medicare and medicaid could have miraculous effects on longterm outcomes. I’m not predicting these, but when one’s back is to the wall, things sometimes magically, that seem impossible become possible.
I don’t know what you think I said, but I know what I said.
Well, you know what assumptions make us, I’m sure.
I’m 50 years old. Youthful(he wished), but not that youthful.
If we don’t believe our economy can fail, we are unlikely to prevent it from failing
I do believe our economy can fail, which is why I’m saying let’s not panic and do the wrong things here that further constrict money supply, nor be “laissez faire” about it.
Since I am to blame if our economy fails, by your account, may I have permission to blame you for overreacting if it doesn’t in, say, the next 2 years?
No fair using a recession as evidence of failure, or the “looming bubble” (or bursting bubble, as I think you meant to say). I mean economic depression.
googlumpugus wrote: The easy argument here, that everyone