don't you mean the 1850's Mississippi

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Well those were certainly simpler 0/1 times, but no, I have no doubt that Guy as well as Major accept and approve of the 13th amendment (and possibly the 14th and 15th as well).

don't you mean the 1850's Mississippi

Of course there is another simpler argument one could make. As long as we are targeting the poor and elderly as either currently not, or no longer productive members of society, and thus subject to a 'balance the budget' uber alles approach, we should also consider targeting children -- after all, they too are not currently productive members of society, and betting on their future productivity is just so complicated.

As, in order to balance the books, we are seeking to eliminate affordable health care for the poor (which includes children) and elderly, we could further balance the books by eliminating affordable education for the poor.

The long term plan would be a utopia of balanced budgets, where the poor and elderly no longer exist to mar a beautiful landscape. I'm not sure who would take care of the remaining population, but after all, the central idea is to eliminate budget deficits.

So why isn't the Government using its vote to stop those $7K checks and insisting the money be paid as a dividend to them to help retire the debt owed?

Oh, what 103 year history? Old GM went away. New GM was born. New GM isn't going to pay the debts of old GM. Different company, just a two year history.

---

The 10th Amendment does NOT compel the states to pay for public education. It allows them to do so. And, in a simpler world, only compulsion counts.

As long as we are targeting the poor and elderly...

I'm not targeting them. I'm admitting/accepting/trying to work within natural law.[/quote]

Indeed, and so 'natural law' doesn't require that children be educated or taken care of by anyone -- parents can do as they choose under natural law. So you agree that, for simplicity sake, zeroing out education and health for children is appropriate.

But Gary, two years is so much simpler than 100 years, right. Remember, advocate simplicity. <smile>

So why isn't the Government using its vote to stop those $7K checks and insisting the money be paid as a dividend to them to help retire the debt owed?

Oh, what 103 year history? Old GM went away. New GM was born. New GM isn't going to pay the debts of old GM. Different company, just a two year history.

In an absolutely simple world, there is no community, it is each soul to take care of themselves by whatever means possible.

No comments from anybody about our dear president's quote from back when he was a senator?

<edit>better source for picture.

---

And you see, that is an essential part of the difference in world views we have. I see much of what you advocate as leading to anarchy. You don't. It is that, as you might say, simple.

Regarding Obama's words back then -- oh dear, a politician changing his stripes -- who knew. I mean Paul seemingly advocated some pretty serious racist stuff back in the day -- he certainly doesn't now.

The other collection of Teapublicans certainly have enough history of all over the mappedness.

Now you're just being silly. I don't see how you can interpret what I'm saying as advocating anarchy.

No comments from anybody about our dear president's quote from back when he was a senator?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-scary-debt-facts-for-2012.html

---

Why the silence? Were the facts so scary? Did you just realize that you can't tax this away?

1. The U.S. national debt on Jan. 1, 1791, was just $75 million dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt rises by that amount about once an hour.

2. Our nation began its existence in debt after borrowing money to finance the Revolutionary War. President Andrew Jackson nearly eliminated the debt, calling it a "national curse." Jackson railed against borrowing, spending and even banks, for that matter, and he tried to eliminate all federal debt. By Jan. 1, 1835, under Jackson, the debt was just $33,733.

3. When World War II ended, the debt equaled 122 percent of GDP (GDP is a measure of the entire economy). In the 1950s and 1960s, the economy grew at an average rate of 4.3 percent a year and the debt gradually declined to 38 percent of GDP in 1970. This year, the Office of Budget and Management expects that the debt will equal nearly 100 percent of GDP.

4. Since 1938, the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5 percent. The only exceptions to the constant annual increase over the last 62 years were during the administrations of Clinton and Johnson. (Note that this is the rate of growth; the national debt still existed under both presidents.) During the Clinton presidency, debt growth was almost zero. Johnson averaged 3 percent growth of debt for the six years he served (1963-69).

5. When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was just under $1 trillion. When he left office, it was $2.6 trillion. During the eight Regan years, the US moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

6. The U.S. national debt has more than doubled since the year 2000.

Under President Bush: At the end of calendar year 2000, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Eight years later, the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion.

Under President Obama: The debt started at $9.986 trillion and escalated to $15.3 trillion, a 53 percent increase over three years.


7. FY 2013 budget projects a deficit of $901 billion in 2013, representing 5.5 percent of GDP, down from a deficit of $1.33 trillion in FY 2012, which was the fourth consecutive year of more than $1 trillion dollar deficits.

8. The U.S. national debt rises at an average of approximately $3.8 billion per day.

9. The US government now borrows approximately $5 billion every business day.

10. A trillion $10 bills, if they were taped end to end, would wrap around the globe more than 380 times. That amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.

11. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount of debt that Congress allows for the government. The current debt ceiling is $16.394 trillion effective Jan. 30, 2012.

12. The U.S. government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar that it currently spends, four times the rate in 1980.

---

Why the silence? Were the facts so scary? Did you just realize that you can't tax this away?

Has anybody said (implicitly or explicitly) it could be taxed away?

I think I have seen comments that it can only be cut away, from what I can tell, those that have made a case for increasing taxes have acknowledged that it is not a complete solution.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

the debt to GDP ratio in 1791 was around 38% so it was actually insanely high. However coming out as a nation does take money do they had to borrow and spend

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Gary, I was away over the weekend, but as you well know, I've never advocated taxing the debt away, and am a tad taken aback that you would choose that form of misrepresentation.

So, I guess I'd ask, was that the Bad Gary posting?

I don't think you believe one could budget cut the deficit away (though Guy or Major *might* think it possible).

Gary, I was away over the weekend, but as you well know, I've never advocated taxing the debt away, and am a tad taken aback that you would choose that form of misrepresentation.

So, I guess I'd ask, was that the Bad Gary posting?

"You," plural, addressed to all who read the thread, no specific person was indicated. Perhaps I should have used the archaic "Ye."

I don't think you believe one could budget cut the deficit away (though Guy or Major *might* think it possible).

That is a very scary thought, even if cuts were to zero, the debt would still continue to grow. That would mean we are passed the tipping point and bankruptcy or default is the only option.

I have heard pundits, not here, who advocate that it is possible to tax our way out of the debt. I wonder about their arithmetic skills however.

What worries me most is the rate of growth. It has gone exponential. If Obama continues it through a second term the debt will have tripled while he was in office. We will be much worse off than Greece. Unthinkable cuts will just be the first of several rounds imposed by the IMF.

---

Gary, to my way of looking at things, the 'exponentiality' has at least four components - taken in the sequence of their 'creation'.


1) Entitlements -- including the Bush Part D Medicare piece by the way.

2) The Bush Tax Cut

3) The war on terror

4) The Great Recession

On entitlements I think you and I agree that major lifting needs to be done -- more a question of how best to get there.

On the Bush Tax cut -- as a 'quick fix' I'd like to see it go away (in total, not just the top end). I think what our tax code needs to get is a lot of simplification yielding revenues around 20% of GDP (Boles-Simpson level numbers).

The War on Terror -- a few things here -- one it cost a LOT, and their was no sense of needing to pay for it. I believe that Bush *could* have done much to pay for it in the fall of 2011 -- there was a sense of need for the action and a willingness to 'sacrifice' for it as well. Didn't happen.

The Great Recession, I *think* we may actually be coming out of this -- if so, it *should* both reduce government expenditures (the Obama political document called a budget notwithstanding) and increase revenues.

In 2000 we were not seeing an exponential debt problem -- although in terms of Medicare and to a lesser degree Social Security, there were certainly issues (particularly with health care expenses in general (certainly not just Medicare) on a severe upward trend. So let's also not lose focus on the post 2001 actions that have taken place.

On health care -- here is something to consider on a personal note, back in 2000, our health care insurance (and for us it was not an HSA at that time), was less than $7K a year. In 2012, it is over $17K and a high deductible HSA. That is not *Medicare* there, that is Health Insurance (plus ratings based on medical costs skyrocketing).

I guess that's why I get all reactive when I hear things that sound like 'it is all Medicare's fault'. Clearly there are other factors and they very much need control -- and soon.