[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

I largely agree with you here; I do think, though, that the presidents of, say, the 70's could and should have done better than increase the debt by "only" 140% or so.

The percentage reduction as compared to GDP is better than the alternative, and it's better than transpired in the 80's, granted.

I think it's disappointing that Lloyd Bentsen was remembered for "You're no Jack Kennedy." His truly great line in those debates with Quayle was, "I could create the illusion of prosperity too, if I could write 200 billion dollars' worth of hot checks every year." (or whatever the exact quote was)

And I agree with you about the Bentsen quote, although I remember the clauses in that quote in reverse order.

During the 60s, the US sent people to the moon on the taxpayers' dime, and I approved of that. During the late 60s and early 70s, quite a lot of money went to the Vietnam War, and I did not approve of that. Nevertheless, the debt went down as a percentage of the GDP administration after administration, even though up in absolute dollars more often than not.

During the final Clinton years the debt was cut in absolute dollars, and I remember how relieved I was then.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

We're at what, $12.5 trillion?  I tend to think that's a number that should get smaller, not just get bigger more slowly as compared to GDP.  But if you think that shrinking the debt as an actual number is not particuarly important, I'll defer to you on that issue; I'm not an economist.

I do have experience in areas that strongly suggest to me that it could be done if it were deemed important.

Eliminating the debt is trivial...

If we wanted to, we could default on the debt or inflate away the debt or do whatever we damn well pleased to the debt, easy as pie.

The issue at hand is how is whether or not it is possible to start paying off the debt in a meaningful way without cratering the economy. To date, I don't think that any serious economists have come up with a way to do so; hence the emphasis on trying to decrease the debt as a percentage of the real GNP. (This is, essentially, a kinder/gentler way of inflating away the debt)

Most presidents have done a damn fine job managing this effort. The primary counter examples have been Reagan, Bush II, and Obama. I think that there is a very significant difference between Reagan / Bush and Obama.

The increase in the debt load under Obama (is primarily) a function of

1. Inheritiing the largest economic downturn since the great depression (and subsequent drops in tax revenues)
2. Move the cost of the war and the prescription drug plan onto the books
3. Increases in the cost of servicing the debt
4. Half hearted stimulus efforts

In contrast, Reagan and Bush both engineered their increases in the debt with massively irresponsible tax cuts which anyne with half a brain knew would crater tax revenues)

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 5 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

Now we have another president who takes fiscal responsibility seriously, and his health care reforms are vital to cleaning up the mess created under Bush the second.

you'll have to explain this to me

Without health care reform, the deficit created under the fiscally irresponsible Bush (the second) administration cannot be brought back under control.

but you just said the same thing... i don't see how spending more can do what you're saying... i'm really not arguing with you, i truly don't understand

[gwnn]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

mike777, on Mar 5 2010, 03:17 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 5 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Um, the protests were not about taxes, they were about cuts in education spending...

no

When you have to make stuff up to buttress your views, perhaps it's time to reexamine your views.

College students speak out against education cuts

Quote

Students staged raucous rallies on college campuses in California and around the country Thursday in protests against deep education cuts.

Dozens of campuses were hit with marches, strikes, teach-ins and walkouts in what was billed as the March 4th National Day of Action for Public Education. Organizers said hundreds of thousands of students, teachers and parents were expected to participate in the demonstrations.

UCSC reopens Friday after protests

Quote

SANTA CRUZ -- UC Santa Cruz reopened this morning and traffic is flowing into both campus entrances.

Students protesting cuts to education funding brought business at the campus to a halt Thursday, but traffic is moving and Metro buses and the campus shuttles are operating on their regular schedules and routes, according to UCSC.

No one wants tax money wasted, but our taxes do pay for many things important to the future of our country. Education is high on that list.

The students want taxpayers to invest in higher education, and they are right.

no

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 5 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 5 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

Now we have another president who takes fiscal responsibility seriously, and his health care reforms are vital to cleaning up the mess created under Bush the second.

you'll have to explain this to me

Without health care reform, the deficit created under the fiscally irresponsible Bush (the second) administration cannot be brought back under control.

but you just said the same thing... i don't see how spending more can do what you're saying... i'm really not arguing with you, i truly don't understand

Agree with it or not, there is much more to any health care reform effort (at least any with even a chance of passing) than simply more spending. In fact, the idea in any effort involves reducing spending in many areas (again whether you believe it would work or not). And I would assume you know that. Your comment "i don't see how spending more can do what you're saying" seems intentionally misleading. It would be like me saying "if we remove all guns then fewer people will be killed" and you replying "I don't see how taking away the right to defend yourself would save your life".

[kenberg]

A. I do not particularly object to paying taxes. I have been doing it for a very long time and it hasn't killed me yet.

B. I very much object to being in substantial debt. At a personal level, it's visceral. When I finished school I had some modest student loans, when I first bought a house I had a mortgage. That's it. Well, my first tv was bought on credit. I was brought up with the idea that nothing good comes from being in debt and I pretty much accept that view without doubts. What gets lost is flexibility. And saying that we could get out of debt by defaulting is about as comforting as saying I shouldn't worry about a mortgage because I can always let them foreclose.

C. I don't like being conned. There are things that we would like to do as a nation. They cost money. We have resources. They are finite. If we spend money on X and Y, we do not have money to spend on Z. If we do not have the money to do even X and Y, but we do it anyway, we buy ourselves problems for the future. As it happens, an illustration appeared the other day in the Washington Post, with an editorial about Jim Bunning and Black Liquor, neither of which I had ever heard of a week ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0030303479.html
Of course Rep. Bunning was engaging in theater, who isn't, but let's look anyway. Apparently there is about $2.5 Billion given away to the Black Liquor folks every year. Mr. Bunning wants to stop giving the money away and use it to partially fund unemployment benefits. Mr. Obama wants to stop giving the money away and use it to help fund some of his latest additions to health care. My point here is that it's a bit of a con job to claim the health care expenses are paid for. It wouold be more homest to say: Health Care is important, Unemployment checks are important, a number of other things that we are doing are important, we lack the money to pay for them all but we will do them anyway. Whether the 2.5 Billion is listed as going into Unemployment to make that appear more fully paid for, or whether it goes into Health Care to make that appear more fully paid for, is not so important. Coming up short is coming up short.

The above should not be taken as any sort of endorsement of Mr. Bunning. Playing theater with unemployment checks is... well, what can one say.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 5 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 5 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

Now we have another president who takes fiscal responsibility seriously, and his health care reforms are vital to cleaning up the mess created under Bush the second.

you'll have to explain this to me

Without health care reform, the deficit created under the fiscally irresponsible Bush (the second) administration cannot be brought back under control.

but you just said the same thing... i don't see how spending more can do what you're saying... i'm really not arguing with you, i truly don't understand

In fact, the idea in any effort involves reducing spending in many areas (again whether you believe it would work or not). And I would assume you know that. Your comment "i don't see how spending more can do what you're saying" seems intentionally misleading.

i don't mean for it to be misleading, certainly not intentionally so... i do know that the claim is made that health care reform will save money in the long run, but i don't believe it - especially not if the plans put forth so far are likely to pass... now i could design one that would work, but i'd have to be dictator to do so... the first thing i'd do is go to work with the philosophy that we fix what's wrong at home before we even glance outside the borders

Quote

It would be like me saying "if we remove all guns then fewer people will be killed" and you replying "I don't see how taking away the right to defend yourself would save your life".

if your aim is to have fewer people killed by guns, then certainly removing all guns would accomplish this... but i don't see how that's the same as saying that if your aim is to cut costs, spending more is the way to go

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 5 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

Quote

It would be like me saying "if we remove all guns then fewer people will be killed" and you replying "I don't see how taking away the right to defend yourself would save your life".

if your aim is to have fewer people killed by guns, then certainly removing all guns would accomplish this... but i don't see how that's the same as saying that if your aim is to cut costs, spending more is the way to go

The point is that no one said that, you twisted the claim that was made. PassedOut said "health care reform" is necessary to bring the deficit under control and you replied you don't see how "spending more" can do that. Do you see why that is misleading? Even if it's true that "spending more" is a part of "health care reform" (which I'm not saying is or isn't true) they are not synonymous.

[PassedOut]

Much as I enjoy the lukewarm posts, and I truly do, this exchange has started down a familiar road I no longer wish to travel.

[Winstonm]

You misused the word "familiar".

[jdonn]

It's like with any problem. If you let it fester it slowly gets worse. Calling it out is unpleasant but necessary for it to have any chance of correcting. Of course ignoring is another option and I often choose that as well. I suppose it depends on mood.

But sorry if I helped scare Passedout off, he consistently makes the best posts on this topic.

[PassedOut]

Not going to stop posting about this topic, nor stop exchanging posts with lukewarm, who has experience in the subject. It's just the continuation of this last particular exchange that I'm dropping out of.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on Mar 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

Out here the students save their rioting for truly important matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0030405060.html

It's a little hard to imagine students rioting over income taxes. Don't you, like, have to have an income before this is important to you?

Heh.

Quote

Prince George's police spokeswoman Misty Mints ...

Misty Mints? You gotta be kidding me.

[kenberg]

I read that to my wife and she asked if she was a stripper!

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 07:09 PM, said:

Not going to stop posting about this topic, nor stop exchanging posts with lukewarm, who has experience in the subject. It's just the continuation of this last particular exchange that I'm dropping out of.

my apologies, but i am honestly confused by many of the claims made by both sides... in any case, it's a massively complicated issue

[mike777]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/ts_nm/...fornia_protests

amazing spin...


Did no one actually watch the news.

Again my point was only that many many young people came out against what are basically tax hikes.....aimed at students.....nothing more......

Students were out protesting these tax hikes in mass numbers. Tax hikes aimed at them,,,students.

Of course they also did not like that less money was budgeted at them less than they demand.


My main post remains......young people across the country protested the hikes..in some cases more than 33% or more.....


http://www.universityworldnews.com/article...8823&mode=print


http://www.universityworldnews.com/article...8823&mode=print

[mike777]

As for other comments that students want citizens to invest in higher education...I agree...I just hope they will, at least to some degree........


I hope that taxpayers will not stop investing in higher education....but who is for zero spending on education.

I also understand the students demand a bigger slice of the pie...they want more resources spent on them.

More spent on them even in difficult economic times for all of us.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Mar 8 2010, 05:54 AM, said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/ts_nm/...fornia_protests

amazing spin...


Did no one actually watch the news.

Again my point was only that many many young people came out against what are basically tax hikes.....aimed at students.....nothing more......

Students were out protesting these tax hikes in mass numbers. Tax hikes aimed at them,,,students.

Of course they also did not like that less money was budgeted at them less than they demand.


My main post remains......young people across the country protested the hikes..in some cases more than 33% or more.....


http://www.universityworldnews.com/article...8823&mode=print


http://www.universityworldnews.com/article...8823&mode=print

Wow...

So now, charging fees for service is taxation....

I'm trying to figure out where this is all leading.

1. Mike believes that all taxes are bad
2. Mike believes that charging fees for services is bad
3. Presumably, Universities should be giving away education for free
4. presumably funded by.... The magic sky fairy!

[kenberg]

To summarize the progress so far:
The original post discusses student protests at tax hikes.
Various responses point out that the protests were against cuts in educational funding and/or tuition hikes.
The original poster defines tuition increases as tax hikes, thus showing us how right he is and how stupid we are.
I happily concede the game.

[mike777]

Yes.....tuition hikes are basically are form of tax hikes...yes.....of course.....that is a main point the only main point...sigh........


Young people are protesting against what are tax hikes.....yes.......across the country.....tax hikes aimed at them.....students......