I'm saying there were folks *here in the U.S.* who didn't notice the stock market crash of 1929.

I'm sure some dirt farmer or hobo in the USA just read about it the next day, if he could read, and went back to being a dirt farmer or hobo.

You are obviously have an agenda, as you keep saying "the stock market crash of 1929" and are unable to utter "the Great Depression."

---

I'm saying there were folks *here in the U.S.* who didn't notice the stock market crash of 1929.

I'm sure some dirt farmer or hobo in the USA just read about it the next day, if he could read, and went back to being a dirt farmer or hobo.

You are obviously have an agenda, as you keep saying "the stock market crash of 1929" and are unable to utter "the Great Depression."

Gary,

You could be a little less... disparaging in your rhetoric...

Leaving out your comments on hobos, your implication that so-called 'dirt farmers' were mostly illiterate is without support. Remember, the US population at the time was still approximately half rural (44% rural in 1930), with the great majority of the rural population being (as you term it) dirt farmers.

In 1930, the illiteracy rate in the USA was 4.3% (per the US government census data for 1930), which even if you assume (and there is no basis to do so) that ALL the illiterates were rural still meant that over 9 out of 10 rural people in the USA in 1930 could read.

Case in point, my father's family. While both of my parents were born prior to the Great Depression (dad in 1924, mom in 1926), my dad remembers life before it hit. My dad's dad was a high school graduate, and my dad's mother was a college-educated teacher before she started having children. While I am not sure exactly when they got a radio (I know they had one by Dec. 1941 because my Grandpa and my Dad both told me about listening to news of the Pearl Harbor attack on it), they took a newspaper from well before my dad was born until my grandpa passed away in the mid-1960's. My grandma did not continue to take one since she had lost her sight in the late 1930's due to a case of scarlet fever, but she still enjoyed me reading the newspaper to her until she passed away in the early 1980's. And yes, they lived their most of their lives in a rural area, only moving from their house on their farm to a house in a nearby small town a couple of years before I was born when they 'retired'.

The statement that 'there were folks in the US who didn't notice the Stock Market crash of 1929' is somewhat true. The stock market crash, by and large, initially affected only those invested in the stock market (a rather small percentage of the population). Only later did the snowball effect that the stock market crash started (the Great Depression) affect the bulk of the population. The crash happened in late 1929, and the Depression was not noticeable at all in my grandparent's area for about a year, and it did not start getting really bad until mid to late 1931 (almost 2 years after the crash). So, at least in that part of the nation, they read about it in the newspaper, then went on with their daily lives.

My dad's family's main 'job' was farming. They grew cotton, tomatoes, and sorghum on their farm as cash crops. Grandpa also had a couple of seasonal jobs to bring in extra cash. During the winter, Grandpa did blacksmithing work, mostly repairing plow points for people in the community. Also, grandpa worked at a cotton gin during the cotton season. Other than some reduction in crop prices, and a 2/3'rds pay cut at the cotton gin (from about $6/day during about half the year down to about $2/day, but at least he still had an outside job), they really didn't notice the depression for quite some time. It likely also helped that Grandpa didn't trust banks and kept his savings buried in a fruit-jar in his secret place on his farm. No matter how bad it got, they always had a little money. Also, they did more than their fair share in helping keep some of their neighbors from starving. Even after FDR's New Deal started, there was sizable reluctance in that area to going 'on the dole' and accepting Government 'relief'. My grandparents were never what could possibly be termed 'rich', but they had enough left over to help several nearby families to keep them from starving to death during the lean years. The urbanized people in the cities were not so fortunate, being dependent on food they didn't grow for themselves and on income from city factory jobs (many of which went poof in the aftermath of the 1929 crash).

So, yes. There were a LOT of people in the US that were not affected by the Stock Market crash of 1929. By about 2 years later, however, this was not the case with the Great Depression that the crash spawned. The Great Depression at its height hurt dang near everyone, and the pain lasted until the Defense industry boom just prior to WWII created a labor shortage, made worse by the draft after we entered the war. Now, FDR's New Deal might have kept some city people from starving to death, but it was WWII that ended the Depression.

Now, as to your 'hobo' remark... Today, we would, by and large, call them migrant workers - drifting from place to place in search of short-term employment. The term 'hobo' has tons of negative connotations.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

John Steinbeck...
born Feb. 27, 1902, Salinas, Calif., U.S.—died Dec. 20, 1968, New York, N.Y.) American novelist, best known for The Grapes of Wrath (1939), which summed up the bitterness of the Great Depression decade and aroused widespread sympathy for the plight of migratory farmworkers. He received the Nobel Prize for Literature for 1962.

I'm darn sure that when Steinbeck died God said to Shakespeare, " Shift over
William - make some room for John"

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Gary Charpentier wrote:

...
What about here and now? Is the USA Bankrupt? Is the gridlock so much that the House and Senate will watch DC burn?

To get back to the subject of the thread...

Is the USA Bankrupt?

Depending on the measurement you look at, right now at this time, the answer is either 'yes' or 'not yet, but it is getting close'.

These measures include:
1. National debt > 100% of GDP. (indicates at least 'close').
2. Total Personal debt > 100% of GDP. (indicates at least 'close').
3. National debt > M2 money supply. (close)
4. Total Personal debt > M2 money supply. (close)
5. The big killer reason: If the US Govt. was a publicly traded corporation, it would be required by law to list unfunded liabilities on its corporate balance sheet. Listing these (primarily pension and health benefits for retirees) on their balance sheet is the main reason why GM went bankrupt. The big three of these, on the part of the Federal Govt., exceeds the total amount of assets in the US by over $40 trillion (and FYI, social security is the SMALLEST of the three). If ALL the wealth of the US was confiscated and its value applied to these three unfunded liabilities, every citizen (man, woman, and child) of the USA would STILL owe over $127,000.00 towards these three liabilities (not to mention the over $180,500.00 they would each owe as a combination of personal debt, government debt (federal, state, and local), and financial debt). (indicates a definite yes... the proverbial 'fat lady' has not only finished singing but she has gone home and the opera theater has turned out its lights).


Yep, how does it feel to owe, on average, > $300,000.00? Yep, we as a nation are bankrupt. The only question remaining is will it be a 'Chapter 11' style where spending is reorganized to match revenue and a payment plan devised to pay off the debts, or will it be a 'Chapter 7' style where the Governments in the USA are liquidated and we come up with something else (revolution!, anarchy now!, etc...). Personally, I prefer the 'ch. 11 reorganization of spending + payment plan to pay off the debts' solution.

The US Federal Government has committed itself to promises it has absolutely no way to pay. We can not afford it unless there are, at the very least, monster sized actual cuts (not smoke & mirrors 'cuts' that are only reductions in the rate of growth, but actual huge CUTS) in all government programs across the board (on the order of 2/3rds cut to everything but debt service which can not be cut).

There are four economic/political philosophies applicable to this situtation.

1. The Liberal position: unrestrained government spending to solve all of society's problems, combined with heavy taxation to partly (but not totally) fund it. Thus, we have government deficits. This position is held by the bulk of the Democrat party. This led to our current situation. Think of a train at full throttle, headed towards a chasm where the railroad bridge has collapsed. There is going to be a train wreck... soon. This is not a valid position.

2. The 'moderate' position: some level of compromise with the liberal position leading to a small amount of restraint in spending. This position is held by mainstream Republicans and conservative Democrats. This slows down the train somewhat, but it still headed towards the bridge that is out. There will still be a train wreck, it will just take longer to happen. Again, this is not a valid position.

3. The position that can be probably best be labeled as 'fiscal conservative': eliminate the deficit by (mostly/only) reducing spending ASAP, leaving some/most/all of the problem programs in place at reduced levels. This position is advocated by some in the Republican party (think some of its 'tea party wing'). The train has stopped and is no longer approaching the wreck. However, it is still pointing that way, and only a small bump on the throttle will start it up again. This position has a small amount of merit, but is not really a permanent solution. But it isn't the majority position, and its lack of popularity makes it unlikely to be implemented.

4. The 'Libertarian' position: return the federal government to its constitutional limits and employ the libertarian ideal of small government. The train gets switched onto an entirely new route that does not approach the chasm. This position has a lot of merit, and would be somewhat permanent. But it is even less popular than position #3. Barring a massive shift in politics in the USA with a break in the monopoly of the two major parties, it is not going to happen.

The mainstream positions of the two 'major' political parties (Republicans and Democrats) do not avoid the train wreck, and the two positions that avoid the wreck are either a distinct minority position or somewhat of a fringe position (thus not likely to get implemented). In short, (again barring an unlikely major shift in politics in the USA), as a nation we are screwed.

Forget re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic... The dance bands are playing 'Nearer my God to Thee'. The Ship of State is sinking into the Ocean of Debt, and there is no rescue in sight/range.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I suspect you may have over simplified and perhaps revised the position here.

That is, there is something of a continuum regarding the level of spending restraint involved (along with the level of increased revenue sought.

To me, the 'moderate' position envisions significant cuts or freezes on the spending side (particularly in medicare, social security and defense -- the big ticket items if you will), with real revenue improvements -- at least to the pre-Bush tax cut levels.

Given the level of urgency, I'd submit that while we clearly (in my view) need major tax reform, I suspect that might take a change in the medications consumed by Congress, so simply letting the Bushcuts lapse at the end of the year might be the best short term approach on revenue.

Much of what the Democrats seem willing to consider regarding Medicare and Social Security is in fact simply trimming around the edges. Far more work needs to be done there.

Similarly, it seems in terms of budget cuts, the Republicans are unwilling to deal with the military budget (notwithstanding the rhetoric about budget slashing that we hear from them).

I'd look at this as a more effective but still 'moderate' position to advocate. It also perhaps has a slightly better chance of getting done.

One thing to consider, if the economy were somehow to expand (ie a true recovery including an employment recovery), then much of the immediate gloom about the deficit might abate -- but that 'moderate' position as I've suggested above would STILL be a reasonable approach. True budget balancing work is definitely urgent.

2. The 'moderate' position: some level of compromise with the liberal position leading to a small amount of restraint in spending. This position is held by mainstream Republicans and conservative Democrats. This slows down the train somewhat, but it still headed towards the bridge that is out. There will still be a train wreck, it will just take longer to happen. Again, this is not a valid position.

I'm saying there were folks *here in the U.S.* who didn't notice the stock market crash of 1929.

I'm sure some dirt farmer or hobo in the USA just read about it the next day, if he could read, and went back to being a dirt farmer or hobo.

You are obviously have an agenda, as you keep saying "the stock market crash of 1929" and are unable to utter "the Great Depression."

Gary,

You could be a little less... disparaging in your rhetoric...

I could, but I suspect he is trying to get me to declare something, perhaps which economic theory I might endorse so that he can put a label on me and then attack the label. One economic theory has the stock market crash starting the depression, another has it as a symptom of the depression. I'll just point him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

He may have been trying to make some point a few posts ago about the Great Depression not causing exactly the same things for everyone, that is rather obvious. Or perhaps he wanted to trot out the name of some well known person and have a exception proves the rule event.

I see him as wanting to put words in other people mouths or go strawman. I don't respond to that well. Those are tactics that seek to divide and we need to unite.


Major, I'm glad your granddad owned land. That made life livable. Much better than the itinerant dirt farmer. As to the word hobo, back then that was the word that was used.

I could write much the same about my father's father. The difference would be the occupation. Are you sitting? My grandfather was a stock broker. While he had some small trust in banks, the real family money wasn't in cash.

---

There were 'hobos' and migrant workers (with a distinction between them) in the 30's. While there was a fair amount of overlap, there was a distinct difference as well (migrant workers then (as now) frequently traveled as family units, whilst hobos rarely did - as an example). Seasonal farm labor was not a 50's creation, it existed much earlier than that (as Steinbeck noted in the 30's).

Now, as to your 'hobo' remark... Today, we would, by and large, call them migrant workers - drifting from place to place in search of short-term employment. The term 'hobo' has tons of negative connotations.

Very good analogy on the train.

Taxes are the fuel it burns. Spending is the position of the throttle.

The no taxes crowd is trying to get the train to run out of fuel before it gets to the chasm. The stop spending crowd is trying to slow it down before it gets to the chasm. The more taxes crowd is trying to build a bridge, but no one knows if it is a cliff or a chasm.

The Great Society is going to have to stop. Then we pay down the debt to zero. If someone can figure out how to pay for the Great Society, then it can resume.

The only other way out of this kind of mess is war. Total war. Where if a hollywood type speaks out against it, they are answering questions in front of the Un-American Activities committee.

---

A significant piece of the Johnson Great Society legislation was Medicare -- are you advocating the elimination of it? Modification of it -- sure, elimination?

The Great Society is going to have to stop. Then we pay down the debt to zero. If someone can figure out how to pay for the Great Society, then it can resume.

---

Gary, I still think there is a legitimate alternative to Paul-ing out spending. That alternative includes both spending cuts (as distinct from eliminating what I see as a social contract regarding the poor and elderly) along with revenue increases.

I suspect that the idea of a social contract as part of government is where you and I might well differ. I see the vastly increased compensation ratio between the wealthy (as well as the vastly increased asset ratio) as something of an indictment on how the current iteration of American capitalism is failing in meeting that social contract.

I think it is a fair point to wonder whether the government can address the vast and growing chasm between the wealthy and the poor, but it seems to me that the private sector has no inclination at all to cope with this.

Taxes are the fuel it burns. Spending is the position of the throttle.

The no taxes crowd is trying to get the train to run out of fuel before it gets to the chasm. The stop spending crowd is trying to slow it down before it gets to the chasm. The more taxes crowd is trying to build a bridge, but no one knows if it is a cliff or a chasm.

I think it is a fair point to wonder whether the government can address the vast and growing chasm between the wealthy and the poor, but it seems to me that the private sector has no inclination at all to cope with this.

The private sector does not control education. Education in the USA is under control of a collective, er trade union, that has a core belief that everyone from the genius to the moron is equal and belongs in the same classroom. It fails to educate each to the best of their own abilities because it refuses to see that each is different. It has taught this to nearly everyone to the point that if little Johnny isn't in the same class his ego will be crushed. Never mind that by putting Johnny in that class the other 39 students won't advance their learning. How does the private sector fight this social BS?

I see a generation coming up that thinks a twitter update is more important than work. Do you think the employer does? It may be that is all he (the wealthy one) can find for workers. Those workers are going to get minimum wage and rightly so. You don't get wealthy working at minimum wage.

The problem is the child hasn't been taught the value of work or a work ethic. When disruptive kids whose ego would be crushed are in the classroom how can a teacher instill these most important ideas? How can the private sector, remember its only tool is wage. Oh wait, it does.

Your premise that there should not be a chasm is false. The USA is not a collective.

---

Good point Gary.

It is actually the 10% of disruptive children in each classroom that the system won't allow you to remove that is destroying public education. 40% of a teacher's time can be wasted by trying do deal with these miscreants. It's nearly impossible to maintain a learning environment under these conditions.

I suspect you may have over simplified and perhaps revised the position here.

That is, there is something of a continuum regarding the level of spending restraint involved (along with the level of increased revenue sought.

To me, the 'moderate' position envisions significant cuts or freezes on the spending side (particularly in medicare, social security and defense -- the big ticket items if you will), with real revenue improvements -- at least to the pre-Bush tax cut levels.

Given the level of urgency, I'd submit that while we clearly (in my view) need major tax reform, I suspect that might take a change in the medications consumed by Congress, so simply letting the Bushcuts lapse at the end of the year might be the best short term approach on revenue.

Much of what the Democrats seem willing to consider regarding Medicare and Social Security is in fact simply trimming around the edges. Far more work needs to be done there.

Similarly, it seems in terms of budget cuts, the Republicans are unwilling to deal with the military budget (notwithstanding the rhetoric about budget slashing that we hear from them).

I'd look at this as a more effective but still 'moderate' position to advocate. It also perhaps has a slightly better chance of getting done.

One thing to consider, if the economy were somehow to expand (ie a true recovery including an employment recovery), then much of the immediate gloom about the deficit might abate -- but that 'moderate' position as I've suggested above would STILL be a reasonable approach. True budget balancing work is definitely urgent.

2. The 'moderate' position: some level of compromise with the liberal position leading to a small amount of restraint in spending. This position is held by mainstream Republicans and conservative Democrats. This slows down the train somewhat, but it still headed towards the bridge that is out. There will still be a train wreck, it will just take longer to happen. Again, this is not a valid position.

Yes, BarryAZ, I did simplify the positions a little. Yes, there is, for instance, a continuum on the moderate position on various levels of spending restraint. But, I have yet to see a moderate willing to make *enough* cuts in spending to stop the train, much less reroute it. Most moderates even call slowing down the rate of growth in spending a cut... Arrgh! Even the most conservative-leaning moderate there is in the Washington D.C. government still lets enough of the liberal agenda through to guarantee the train keeps going towards the collapsed bridge. In fact, I can only think of three elected politicians in Washington D.C. that might, maybe, understand the problem and be willing to do what is necessary to avoid the train wreck. Three... Out of 537.. Not good odds...

Furthermore, you seem to be fixated on 'revenue increases' as a way out, especially repealing the so-called 'Bush tax cuts'. As I understand it, you are against the Bush tax cuts to income taxes because they favored the wealthy. OF COURSE they did! It is mostly the wealthy that pays income tax to begin with. Sorted according to income, the top 1% pays 30%-40% of the inccme tax, the top half pays all of it, and the bottom half of taxpayers in the USA owe no income tax, and get what might have been withheld back as a refund (or in many cases MORE than what was withheld -- EITC anyone???). I repeat, cuts to income tax automatically favor the high-income wealthy over the low-income poor because the low-income poor do NOT PAY any income tax.

What did the Bush tax cuts do that you almost never hear about? Lowered the tax rate on the lowest income bracket from 15% to 10%... Thats a 1/3 cut! But, since that does not fit with the liberal's class warfare rhetoric, you never hear about that...

If the problem was just the 'federal deficit/national debt', revenue enhancements (tax increases) might have a place in solving things. However, the national debt (accumulated budget deficits) is only the smallest of the four big problems. Your arguments to include them in the mix indicate that you wish to somehow 'save' part of the unrestrained spending mess in Washington from being cut... These programs MUST be cut, either drastically and permanently or outright eliminated. They cannot be saved in anything approaching their current form. After we have averted the disaster through the required massive, draconian spending cuts that are necessary, THEN we can discuss the possibility of revenue enhancements to pay ourselves out of the debt hole faster.

The four big problems, smallest to largest:
1. National debt: $15.2 trillion.
2. FDR's Social Security's unfunded liabilities: $15.4 trillion.
3. Dubya's Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage) unfunded liabilities: $20.5 trillion.
and finally the monster (bigger than the other 3 combined):
4. LBJ's Medicare's unfunded liabilities: $81.4 trillion.

Again, if the problem was *just* the budget deficit, some modest spending cuts and a few modest revenue enhancements would fix the problem nicely. Your responses indicate to me that you believe that this is the ONLY problem. It isn't.

Considering the national debt: There is a line in the budget called 'interest on the debt'. It is pretty large, likely going to be around $500 billion this year. Even without any more budget deficits adding to the mess, it still leaves us VERY vulnerable fiscally. Remember, interest rates are at or very near historic lows (about 1/3 of the modern average) right now. What happens if they return to an average? What happens if they keep going up to their historic highs and remain at or near that level (> 2x the modern average)??

Even remaining at or near their historic average, these interest rates would, over time, increase the interest on the national debt from around $500 billion / year up to $1.5 trillion / year. If instead they settle at or near their historic highs, that is over $3 trillion / year.

If this happens, either we would have to have additional cuts to maintain a zero budget deficit, or we would return to the train wreck scenario. Willing to risk it? We need to run a sizable surplus and use it to pay down the debt.

But wait! There's more!

So far, I have only discussed the 'on-budget' items (deficits & the national debt). We have the off-budget items to consider next. The so-called 'unfunded liabilities'. These 'unfunded liabilities' are the difference, over the next several decades, between the projected spending on these programs, and the projected tax revenue dedicated to support them. This difference will have to come out of general revenue. Even doing the impossible and having a 100% tax rate on income won't be enough to pay for them. Not even confiscating ALL wealth in this nation will be enough to pay for them.

Total Wealth in the US: about $77.3 trillion.
Total unfunded liabilities: about $117.2 trillion and rising.
Total unfunded liabilities + national debt: about $132.4 trillion and rising.

The obligations that the US Government placed on the taxpayers in the USA are undergoing exponential growth, and our ability to pay for them isn't.

I don't claim to be a Republican. I am not. I drifted away from the Republican party starting during the Reagan presidency, as I saw him (and the rest of the Republicans) repeatedly compromise with the tax and spend liberals.

The only 2 times I have voted Republican for President has been Reagan in 1980, and Dole in 1996 (under the ABC philosophy -- Anybody but Cousin Bill -- he couldn't keep his zipper up...), and have never voted for a Democrat for president. In the Congressional and State races, I have usually voted Libertarian, as have I for President (about half the time) except for a couple of cycles when I voted US Constitution party for President ( until they kinda of dried up and blew away... they were a kind of fusion of Libertarian fiscal policy with the social conservative policy I favor in non-economic areas).

That said, I have never voted for a Bush for President. Not Bush the Elder (a friend of my dad's from way back), nor for Bush the Younger. Furthermore, I never voted for Bush the Younger for Texas Governor (nor for Dubya's heir-designate in Texas, Perry).

I did not vote for Dubya for Texas Governor because I was unimpressed with him when I met him a few times at Ellington AFB, and I remember too many stories of Dubya's antics at Ellington AFB (147th FIG, TxANG) my dad told me about.

I did not vote for Dubya for President because he had already revealed himself as a tax and spend liberal during his time as Texas Governor by the programs he supported. The one thing that saved Texas from getting a bad case of Dubyaitis (like the US Federal Govt. did later) was that our Texas State Constitution does not allow deficit spending.

Ranking US presidents during my lifetime on their fiscal policy:

Obama - liberal.
Bush the Younger - liberal.
Clinton - liberal leaning moderate.
Bush the Elder - moderate.
Reagan - conservative leaning moderate.
Carter - liberal leaning moderate.
Ford - liberal leaning moderate (with a nasty authoritarian streak - tried to cure stagflation with wage and price controls, seig heil! *spit*)
Nixon - liberal leaning moderate.
LBJ - liberal.
JFK - conservative leaning moderate.

As far as military/defense cuts go, I agree. While I support a *strong* national defense, I think there is plenty room for cuts in the military budget (perhaps more than 50%) that could be made. At the very least cut out foreign bases and involvement, and concentrate maybe a bit more on infantry and maybe a bit less on the latest-and-greatest expensive war toys. Our military needs to be geared more towards defending our nation and less towards defending other nations and even less towards the form of military adventurism we have had from the last several presidents (especially the current one, he took the 2 he inherited from Dubya, got us into 5 more, and took over 3 years to end the first one of the two he promised during his election campaign to immediately end upon taking office).

If we just *have* to go whack on another country, let us obey the Constitution. Let the Congress declare war FIRST. THEN, the President can send our military over to kill people and break things in the other nation until we win. Then, after we have won, immediately pull our troops and resources back home. Screw 'nation building'. Let them rebuild their own selves... Its their fault, they shouldn't have cheesed us off that much to begin with. I am not saying we shouldn't have done ANY of it, but I am saying we have done TOO MUCH of it, and spent untold hundreds of billions of dollars doing so, and also more hundreds of billions nation-building afterwards and even more hundreds of billions paying for at least a good chunk of their national defense.

And as far as getting stuff done... The only solution to these problems must be done totally, completely, and as immediately as possible. It can not be eased into or compromised over. If we can not fix things, it is better to have total gridlock with consequent total shutdown of the Government... The reset button, if you will.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

As I noted, I felt that we'd disagree regarding a social contract. In as much as we do, our views regarding the solving of this conundrum (USA bankrupt) are not likely to coincide. Given that our disagreement seems largely matched in the views of our elected officials, who are likely less inclined to compromise over an ideological chasm, then the result might well be to the detriment of us all (ie bankruptcy).

Your premise that there should not be a chasm is false. The USA is not a collective.

Fair enough, those with an education and the 'will to work' are all wealthy, and those who are unemployed, poor, sick, etc. are purely those without education and a will to work. Since this destruction of the education system and the will to work is relatively recent (as a wide spread condition), there should be no poor who are over the age of 50 or so.

While I agree that our education system has become flawed, I'd suggest that perhaps that meets the goals of the wealthy -- to have an extensive underclass which can't or won't compete -- thus leaving the wealth of the nation to the deserving few.

I also note that your views are at least in line with the rhetoric of Obama when he notes that education is REALLY critical.

The problem is the child hasn't been taught the value of work or a work ethic. When disruptive kids whose ego would be crushed are in the classroom how can a teacher instill these most important ideas? How can the private sector, remember its only tool is wage. Oh wait, it does.

Major, I'll not quote back your post, as it was more than rather long and had (intentionally I suspect) a bit of ginzu knife sales flavor to it.

Unlike 'liberals' -- I would favor letting the entire Bush tax cut scheme lapse (short term revenue fix) until real tax reform was passed.

Unlike some here, I think that bringing revenues up to historic levels (ie 1960 to 2000) as a proportion of GDP is a reasonable goal.

I agree with you that many 'moderates' tread too lightly regarding budget cuts. Then again, I view myself (you'd likely disagree) as something of a moderate.

I believe that the chasm between the very wealthy and the poor (and middle class) which has grown significantly over the past 30 years is not a good thing for the country or for the US budget. Several people here disagree. Fair enough. I suspect polling data which suggests I have a lot of company, may be viewed by folks here as biased -- fair enough there as well.

Often enough, people stake out ideological positions the same way that people stake out religious views -- they are based on faith or belief. Faith and belief tend to be quite difficult to modify.

Major, I'll not quote back your post, as it was more than rather long and had (intentionally I suspect) a bit of ginzu knife sales flavor to it.

Unlike 'liberals' -- I would favor letting the entire Bush tax cut scheme lapse (short term revenue fix) until real tax reform was passed.

Unlike some here, I think that bringing revenues up to historic levels (ie 1960 to 2000) as a proportion of GDP is a reasonable goal.

I agree with you that many 'moderates' tread too lightly regarding budget cuts. Then again, I view myself (you'd likely disagree) as something of a moderate.

I believe that the chasm between the very wealthy and the poor (and middle class) which has grown significantly over the past 30 years is not a good thing for the country or for the US budget. Several people here disagree. Fair enough. I suspect polling data which suggests I have a lot of company, may be viewed by folks here as biased -- fair enough there as well.

Often enough, people stake out ideological positions the same way that people stake out religious views -- they are based on faith or belief. Faith and belief tend to be quite difficult to modify.

BarryAZ wrote:

Often enough, people stake out ideological positions the same way that people stake out religious views -- they are based on faith or belief. Faith and belief tend to be quite difficult to modify.

Fair enough. It certainly seems to be the so in your case.

BarryAZ wrote:

Then again, I view myself (you'd likely disagree) as something of a moderate.

Umm.. No, I would agree with your statement. You are something of a moderate. While you don't hold to all of the liberal party line, you insist on enough of it (particularly the class warfare rhetoric). You acknowledge the need for cuts on 'social spending', yet cling to the notion of tax hikes with the tenacity of a rabid pit-bull. Nope, you are a moderate.

Here in Texas (perhaps in your neck of the woods too) we have a saying:

There is nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

With a liberal, a conservative, or a libertarian, you kinda know where they stand on a wide range of issues. You can't really trust a moderate in politics. You never really know which way they will flip-flop next.

But, back to revenue. You keep mentioning GDP ratios. You are aware that not all of the $15.1 Trillion of GDP is 'available' as income? Things like corporations and businesses needing to hold on to some earnings in order to continue in business. What is termed 'retained earnings'. Things like that.

Now then, the best estimate I can find for the part of GDP that *is* available as income is $9.8 Trillion. That is to say that the US economy generates about $9.8 Trillion per year of income.

The people in this country are taxed by more than just the Federal Government. You have the various State Governments and a myriad of local Governments (county, city, school district, the list goes on). Many State and Local Governments, just like the Federal Government, have been spending in excess of their tax revenue for YEARS.

If the Federal Government AND the State & Local Government's today all balanced their budgets, it would require about $7.1 Trillion in total taxes... this year to match the about $7.1 Trillion in total spending... this year. That just leaves about $2.7 Trillion to, essentially, run the economy for the year. That is seriously not all that much left over after Government chews up our paychecks. Currently, with all the deficit spending going on at all levels of Government, we have about $5 Trillion left after taxes and you can see the effects it has on the economy (very sluggish job creation, for instance).

While we *could* just hike taxes and kinda-sorta put a band-aid on things by balancing all Government budgets in the nation, doing so would SERIOUSLY cripple our already injured economy. And even then we would still be very vulnerable to an interest rate spike with its resultant explosion in debt-service spending. Remember, interest rates are currently at or very near historic lows (around 2%) with the historic average rates being about 3x higher (about 6%).

And then, even IF we were very lucky, and interest rates stayed permanently low, it wouldn't do much good. Every year, the revenue required to support the welfare state grows faster than income. Every year, the fraction of income left over after the tax man takes his bite is going to get smaller and smaller. In not too many more years, the fraction left will get to 0, but before that the economy will collapse.

This is why we must fix things with spending cuts, *then* decide on an appropriate level of revenue. This is why the only valid decision now is between either cutting *all* Government spending (except, of course, for the constitutionally mandated debt service) by an equal percentage, massive and draconian... or eliminating all Government spending for programs not explicitly mentioned in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, shrinking the remaining spending to some degree or another, and re-balancing the percentages on what is left. In other words, between a position that could be termed (though it is a stretch) as fiscally conservative and the libertarian position.

The liberal position of government spending will solve all our problems and taxation will keep us out of trouble will not hold water. It is invalid.

The moderate position of 'now then... boys... play nice and compromise... 'Conservatives and Libertarians, you let the Liberals have this, and then you guys can have that' won't hold water. It is invalid, for it is what has enabled us to get into this mess in the first place.

The only remaining positions that have some validity are what I outlined above as the Libertarian and the 'fiscal conservative' ones. That is where national debate needs to be focused, and where compromise needs to take place. We need to decide which social programs we absolutely positively must have as a nation, and which can be discarded. Run through the numbers, get a balanced budget, then fix the funding on them permanently for all time at those levels (expressed as a % of total income would be an idea on how to fix them). No new social programs ever, and when a year's funding for a program is out, it shuts down til the next fiscal year.

Now, some might say that this is cruel and/or heartless. I understand the feeling. But, the reality is that we can NOT afford government spending increasing without end, and government run social programs have a nasty way of turning into unrestrained spending.

This nation has willy-nilly spent itself into near oblivion like a drunk drinking on a bender. Well, boys... It is time to go on the wagon. We can not afford to do otherwise.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

OK -- and I do realize accounting rules have changed in the past 30 years, so that 'available revenue' is a smaller proportion than it was, say in 1970 or even 2000. If the rules of the game have changed (in favor of corporations in terms of providing 'safe houses' for revenue outside of accessible GDP -- so be it.

Regarding state and local taxes -- yes, you have that right, these have certainly increased, they could be reduced by a few expedients I suppose:

1) Elimination of Medicaid

2) State pensions get sliced

3) Make education a private matter rather than a public matter

That would be the 'conservative' or perhaps 'libertarian' solution -- and you are right, I find it quite problematic.


Regarding spent into oblivion -- it could be noted that in fiscal 2000 and 2001 the fed budget was in surplus. So this spend into oblivion has some more recent aspects. Perhaps we should revert the budget to that of 2000, with yes (you knew this was coming, year 2000 tax structure), along with year 2000 defense spending, and year 2000 social security and medicare spending. Getting to the year 2000 social security and medicare spending requires a degree of triage -- don't fund medicare for seriously ill or terminally ill patients -- that might do much of the trick. Don't fund prescription medications -- that would do the rest. Between those two changes, you not only cut Medicare costs, but you also shorten life span, so that the masses don't suck on the Social Security (and Medicare) teat as long. Again, that might well be the libertarian and/or fiscal conservative approach. As you might suspect, I'd look at other approaches to reducing Medicare and Social Security outlays short of this, but heck, I'm a class warfare sort of guy. Once could means test Medicare and Social Security -- after all, the wealthy shouldn't have to receive socialist support, right?

And yes, I tend to hold fast to centrist positions, just as you cling fast to what you characterize and fiscal conservative positions. For you, in Texas, your positions, in the political environment there might well be centrist, for me, in Arizona, I migrated out here over 30 years ago as a Javits/Rockafeller east coast Republican -- found out that makes me a socialist here.

Not that it matters much, but this is the second time I've seen it spelled Rockafeller. The other time was a few weeks ago on a local TV news broadcast. WTH? Is it going to be -Rock-a-fella next? (I envision John swaying his hips along with Elvis in a video. "Moves Like Rock-a-Fella", a la Maroon Five, anyone? LOL!) Last time i double-checked (only to be extra sure tt was not me in error), the family name (and the buildings in the NYC area named after them), it's Rockefeller.

Regarding spent into oblivion -- it could be noted that in fiscal 2000 and 2001 the fed budget was in surplus.

Maybe on a cash basis, but not on an accrual one. I'm actually curious if anyone has a table on an accrual basis. Wonder if post WWII we got ahead or if we have to go back before FDR.

The numbers being pointed out are very startling. If starting today no one who wasn't already getting entitlements was allowed to, there still isn't enough wealth in the USA to pay for it if everything was taken. I think that is the very definition of bankrupt.

Dumping the Bush tax cuts would only be a tiny fraction of seizing everything. How is a tiny fraction going to help when all of it isn't enough?

It isn't a matter of not wanting the entitlement programs or thinking that they do good. It is the necessity of stopping them before we are so bankrupt the only option is revolution or being taken over by a foreign country. If at some point in the future when we are on solid fiscal ground and a method is put in place to pay for them, restart them.

I think we all agree we need a zero debt limit. This means catastrophic cuts in funding. Right now in the middle of a nasty recession that may not be smart, but we should kill long term obligations today, which doesn't effect how much $ the government puts out the door on a cash basis.

I believe that once effective spending cuts are constitutionally in place you will find even hardcore teapublicans willing to talk tax increases. But not until effective cuts are in place as they refuse to add fuel to the fire. And they are right on that point. Get that amendment passed!

BTW anyone remember what I said about tax increases?

---