Question for the libs on this board.

Gary Allan · Aug 16, 2004

quote:

I ask the same question of people who don't seem to worry about defecits.

They are telling their kids and grandkids how their money will be spent, long, long before they've earned a cent.

Ah ..someone else that sees the light. Why is this regarded as "Monopoly money" by everyone else?

I keep wondering if there is some "perception of time" that is at work in these matters. Some appear to look at "now" as though the economy isn't some type of continuous thing.

My old boss was one such individual. We had open lagoons that got rain water in them. We had to evoporate 6 gpm average to account for it and near the end of the impoundment's life ..were always pressed for room. Without going into lengthy detail, I would set up the system to establish a J.I.T. balance of plant inventory of waste to be processed and the appropriate amount of lagoon waste processing. If the plant inventory was low on Monday morning (effectively a capacity "surplus") he would get "greedy" and process all lagoon waste (much more expensive to do) ..and back up the plant inventory (effectively deficeit spending) just to lower the lagoon 10,000 gallons ON THAT DAY, ignoring that we would be so backed up that we would have to discharge MORE waste that would net an increase in lagoon level.

When we went laugerheads on it ..he blurted out something like "This is today!!! and here's where we're at!!" as though it didn't matter how much you had to pay for it "later" ..the profit of the day was what counted. This followed the Reagan "throw a party" era philosophy.

This could be viewed as short sightedness ..but I think it may have something else to it...like the future being somewhat "imaginary" in the basic philosophical mindset of the people who actually endorse this monitary technique. That is, "I grab what I can TODAY!! Let the future take care of itself".

carrera79 · Aug 16, 2004

The notion that all defecit spending is bad or wrong is unfounded in ecnomic priciple. Now, please realize that I am not a proponent of Bush's excessive spending. It's disgusting. I simply feel that Kerry would be worse. Raising taxes is not the solution and, in my opinion, would only exacerbate the situation. Kerry has proposed substantial increases in spending and has stated that he will pay for these increases by rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1% of wage earners. Come on. Show me how this will work. To clarify myself I will state something that has been said many times before. I see the current Republican party as a group far to liberal in fiscal policy. I see the democrats as neo socialists. I absolutely feel that there can be no freedom in our world without economic freedom, and I see the current contender for the president as an elitist who believes that he knows what the best for my money is, and that is not what America is about in my eyes.

BTW-nothing personal here either, just enjoying the discussion.

VeeDubb · Aug 16, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by carrera79:
The notion that all defecit spending is bad or wrong is unfounded in ecnomic priciple.

This is true. Not all deficit spending is bad but some types of deficit spending certainly are. The principles that apply to the aggregate economy are not much different from the principles that apply to average joe on the street.

For example, if I go into debt to buy a new Ferrari that offers little long term investment potential, that is bad debt. Too much debt along these lines and I can kiss my financial future goodbye.

On the other hand, debt used to finance education, real estate, and other investments that offer real long term returns is "good" debt.

The question before us is are the Bush deficits "good" debt or "bad" debt?

carrera79 · Aug 16, 2004

VeeDub,
Some of the Bush deficit is bad, some is good and the consequence of Iraq is yet to be seen. I will agree with you all day that Bush is spending in a manner that is inconsistent with proper fiscal policy, but you will have an extremely hard time convincing me that Kerry will do better. Actually, you will have a hard time telling me that Kerry won't be any worse.

carrera79 · Aug 16, 2004

Gary, I have integrated it. Kerry will raise taxes and spend even more than his raised taxes will, supposedly, bring in, so we will have higher taxes and a higher deficit. How can that be good?

mnztr · Aug 16, 2004

I don't see how anything he has mentioned will result in more spending, this is a myth. The GOP likes to maintain the myth of the free spending Democrat when much of the HUGE US national Debt has been incurred under Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Junior. The ONLY administration in the last 30 years to exhibit ANY spending disciplne has been the Clinton admin. For those of you that think the Bush Deficit has any "positives" note the following - Remember a few months ago when the admin was pressuring China to raise the Yuan/Dollar peg? Now that pressure has dissappered. Why? Because China is financing a substantial portion of the US deficit (along with Saudi Arabia).

Gary Allan · Aug 16, 2004

79,

Did you see the scrambling that occured when there was allegedly going to be a surplus in revenues during the Clinton admin?? You can debate whether it was fairlytale or not ..but the reaction from the hill was an immediate "grab". No one wanted to reduce the debt. Even MSNBC started a "info-campain" to discourage it. They put forth a bunch of "what ifs" with NO DEBT ..never mentioning that the debt could by no means be eliminated ..just reduced. I'm sure that it was tied in with the bond market and the subsequent ripple effects that such an action would create.

Meanwhile the Rubmypalmagians were all warmed up in the bullpen to reduce taxes (while continue spending) ..the Dems were all warmed up to spend more (albeit funded).

Face it, the "fix" is in...

carrera79 · Aug 17, 2004

mnztr-the dollar needs to drop even more than it has, in my opinion.

Gary,
lowering taxes doesn't necessarily mean less revenue and raising not necessarily more, so how is the increase in dem spending being funded? I want them all the h*ll out of my life.

mnztr · Aug 17, 2004

There are structural effects in the world economy that prevent the dollar from falling too much, the fact that every commodity is priced in US$ is one example. Issuing more debt also has the net effect of raising the dollar, ofsetting the trade defict. (think about it, what currency do you need to buy US T-bills). Also, the Bank of Japan tends to intervene to buy US$ to prevent the Yen/Dollar ratio from rising too much. One of the reasons Japanese Airlines buy a lot of Boeing product is to boost the US currency. (of course Japan and the US also have very strong ties). The dollar falling will be good for the US, but like I said, China and Japan will resist it. There is always pressure to spend money, but you cannot blame the dems when the Presidency AND both houses are GOP controlled.

It took a huge amount of disciplne to control the deficit in the first place, I think a Democrat president could have resisted spending some of it, and would not have wasted 200 billion fighting a pointless war in Iraq, the tax cuts would also have been more targeted, giving greater stimulous while costing less.

carrera79 · Aug 17, 2004

Explain how those tax cuts could have been more targeted? Cutting what groups taxes would stimulate the economy most?
True, the Asians have held the dollar high, who knows how long that will occur.
Finally, calling the war in Iraq pointless is a little bit of an issue. It cannot be considered a pointless war. The outcome of it will change the global political climate for a long time. Furthermore, Kerry has stated repeatedly that he would have gone to war, only to then say that he wouldn't have, then wait, he will, then he won't, then he will... Seriously now...

Gary Allan · Aug 17, 2004

quote:

but you will have an extremely hard time convincing me that Kerry will do better. Actually, you will have a hard time telling me that Kerry won't be any worse.

That's the part that no one appears to see. There IS NO BETTER!!!! You've got your choice of poison!!! Debt service or taxes ..which both mean MORE TAXES!!!

Like I keep saying to you all....KNOW NEW TAXES!! There's no way around it.

The whole debate revolves around who deserves to pay for it ...that's it.

Gosh how hard is this to integrate???

Shannow · Aug 17, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by carrera79:
The notion that all defecit spending is bad or wrong is unfounded in ecnomic priciple. Now, please realize that I am not a proponent of Bush's excessive spending. It's disgusting.
.
.
.
.
BTW-nothing personal here either, just enjoying the discussion.

carrera,
my point isn't that deficit spending is bad, nor that social programmes are good.

It's that you can't mount an argument "I want to decide how I spend my own money", and then spend someone else's money.

[generalisation]
libs want to spend your money today, on the social programmes that they think are good today.

conservatives want to spend someone else's money tomorrow (someone who may not even have been born yet), on the programmes that they feel worthy today [/generalisation]

The validity of the programmes doesn't make spending someone elses money the right thing to do.

Either that, or the validity of the programme justifies spending someone else's money, both today AND tomorrow.

Gary Allan · Aug 17, 2004

quote:

It's that you can't mount an argument "I want to decide how I spend my own money", and then spend someone else's money.

Ah ...another, and perhaps even more, enlightened fellow here.

carrera79 · Aug 17, 2004

I agree with both of you. Come on guys, I'm enlightened too. Right?

Anyway, I still feel that Kerry will spend even more than Bush. In my eyes its a one is bad and the other is worse situation, and I know what Bush is going to do. Also, beyond spending, I agree with Bush on far more items than I do with Kerry. You guys are responding as if I am some sort of frothing at the mouth Bush supporter. I am not. Tell me what John Kerry will do that is better than what George Bush is and will do. Allow me to join the club of the enlightened ones. Points to think about-the waffling on everything (changing one's mind isn't bad, chaning it frequently around different groups in a drastic manner is) and his Senate voting record, attendance record etc... He is the lesser known quantity here, and with the evidence I do have he is far less desirable in my mind as a leader for this nation.

Gary Allan · Aug 17, 2004

79,

It's not that I dislike Bush. Nor that I want our socialists to advance (although I think that they will anyway). It's the smoke and mirrors delusion of success that the runaway debt gives in "apparent" results that is the insidious killer in our future. With the libs it's all semi above board. You only have to figure the flip side of the coin in the program (like the teaching of "tollerance" turns into "it's okay to be gay!!" type stuff)..the paying for it is totally transparent - YOU and ME, baby!!

With the Rubmypalmagains, as opposed to the Dummiecrats, you get a snake oil hustler you tells you he's got a great deal for you...makes you want to "join the winners! I'll give you RESULTS!!!" never telling you that the bill will come due somewhere down the road (when they are well out of office and have reaped the benefits of their actions TODAY).

The first rule of action when you find yourself in a hole ...stop digging.

That is, for me. I'd rather "pay as I go" ..and NOT live an artificially elevated life of mobility when I'm going to end up in a worse situation because of it. If this policy was adopted by both camps ...heck Bush would have my fullest support. Right now he's doing a poor immitation of the "Reagan Party" that was thrown the last round of "borrow and spend" administration.

Again ..this is basically a demographic campain. Although we have an ever increasing "lowering" middle class ....a good percentage of our voting population is at or very near retirement ..and will reap more benefits without the likelyhood of ever having to pay for them. Their future is NOW. The nations??? That's in lahlah land for most of them.

keith · Aug 17, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by carrera79:
Explain how those tax cuts could have been more targeted? Cutting what groups taxes would stimulate the economy most?

Bush didn't do enough to increase spending on beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets

Those evil rich folks are likely to waste their money on other stuff. The kind of stuff that has made them successful.

Gary Allan · Aug 18, 2004

quote:

Those evil rich folks are likely to waste their money on other stuff. The kind of stuff that has made them successful.

Let me spin that one up for you.

I'm an elitist ..and am going to manipulate the system to assure that I can remain one ..and get someone else to actually pay for it. They won't know ...it's all in debt that they won't have to pay for until it's too late to do anything about it.

What I think many interpret as "opportunity" is actually stategically placed "exits" for few ..at the expense of the many (albeit later), allowing further insulation from the "effects". If enough envision themselves as "these few" ..they'll 'pull it off" and get away with it. What the con is ..that there's not enough "exits" for all of those that think that they are .."part of the few who deserve to have them".

In a warped vision ...I kinda see some like the "ghetto police" in Warsaw. As the jews were being lead to the train stations, some of them never realized that they too, eventually would be put on the same trains.

Yes, a warped vision ..but I tend to see Blade Runner or 1984 instead of Star Trek as our future.

[ August 18, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

brianl703 · Aug 18, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by keith:
Those evil rich folks are likely to waste their money on other stuff. The kind of stuff that has made them successful.

Several years ago, I heard a radio commercial (on a local "urban" station) advertising rims, tires, jewelry and electronics for people with bad credit.

That's indicative of something....

keith · Aug 18, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by brianl703:
Several years ago, I heard a radio commercial (on a local "urban" station) advertising rims, tires, jewelry and electronics for people with bad credit.

That's indicative of something....

Bling Bling! Those spinning rims are so coooool. Nothing says "pimp my ride" better than spinning rims and gold teeth.

I am sure there is a way to blame the rich. Others can provide the spin, er, details

Question for the libs on this board.

Similar threads