Re: Excellent News - Bush Approval Slumps

ZnU wrote: 
In article <Qtg5f.23$Wk4.2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


ZnU wrote:

In article <cDQ4f.21522$MG.8859@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



ZnU wrote:


In article <MrS3f.2282$6l.1272@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




Lloyd Parsons wrote:



In article <gmgraves-801739.10384614102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





In article <DoNotSpamthegoat4-20A648.23244613102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





In article <gmgraves-898EF5.18295513102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





In article <11ku0hp5p7p0n9a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/pl_nm/bush_politics_dc

OK, I'll bite, why is this excellent news? I mean the guy is a lame duck. He can't run again, so why should he (or you for that matter) give a flying fornicatore what his approval rating is? I could see getting excited about it if our system of Federal government allowed for recalls but it doesn't. In early 2009, Mr, Bush is HISTORY, until then, his approval rating could fall to double naughts and it wouldn't mean squat.

It's good news because it means some of the people who were just way the *** too stupid to catch on yesterday "got it" today. It's an indication that at least 60% of the population still has some functional neurons. 

That's specious at best.





But I have to ask this one question: Is the US ready for the Clinton Bitch? Because we're going to get her.

Fine by me. I'm not a huge fan, but I honestly believe she'll clean up some of what Bush has royally fucked for the last few years.

You don't know "fucked-up", and won't until you see what that bitch has in store. Higher taxes, socialized medicine for a start. Her idiot husband was a moderate compared to this left wing ***.


George, I think higher taxes are a given, regardless of who comes next. This huge debt/deficit will have to be paid someday you know.

You cannot pay off an internal debt through increased taxation. It's like paying off one credit card with another at the same interest rate.


This is an exceedingly silly claim. The government can certainly pay down debt, both internal and external, through higher taxation. Please explain what mechanism prevents this.

Internal national debt is gauged by a negative deficit in services claimed to be provided through money gained by taxes and other money-gathering ventures undertaken by the federal government. Increasing the amount of services provided for your tax dollars is the only reasonable way to pay off an internal national debt. You cannot pay "money owed to the people" by taking more money from the people.


The government can do exactly that, if it takes that money from the people in a way that doesn't require it to pay them back, like taxes.

That just increases the internal debt. You take more and deliver the same services--that will not yield lower 'internal' debt.


It's true, this won't magically result in any more money existing in the economy immediately -- in fact, in the short term, it will result in less. But it will prevent the ongoing wealth transfer (in the form of interest payments) to the people who hold government debt. This wealth transfer is not a desirable thing from the standpoint of everyone who *doesn't* own government debt.

Once the government has paid down its debt, it can lower taxes.

It never will. If you spend $20 towards paying down your debt, but only earn $10, then you haven't decreased your debt at all.


And the really neat thing is, all that money that people were previously lending to the government is now available directly to the private sector -- it can be loaned to, or invested in, businesses.

Except it will forever be on loan to the government, because the government has no way to pay off the debt. What you describe is based on a faulty premise (that you can decrease internal national debt by tax hikes), and will do nothing but worsen the problem.


You're making even less sense; I just explained how the government can do exactly that.
By utilizing a faulty premise. Your explanation will only work if you accept the 'fact' that internal debt (money owed to the people) can be payed off by increasing internal debt (by owing even more money to the people).


Look, let's say I'm the government, and you're the entire population of the country I'm governing. You made $100 last year, and paid me $10 in taxes. But I spent $20. I covered that extra $10 worth of spending by borrowing money from you, so now I owe you $10. 
You are not valuing internal debt properly. Here is a more accurate picture:

Let's suppose you are the population of a mythical country. You pay $10 in taxes every year, and I claim to provide $20 per person in services. Unfortunately, I only *deliver* $5 in services per year. I now owe you $5 in services. Your situation doesn't get any better when I exact a $20/year tax on you, for $20 in services (fromw hich, you only get $5 in services). Indeed, I've actually made the situation worse because there is now a $15/year deficit in payment->services provided instead of a $5/year deficit.

Unfortunately for the U.S, it's not pocket change as a deficit, it's a fortune. And that fortune has been collecting interest for the last 50 years.


Now, let's say I'm going to spend $20 this year again. Well, if I have you pay $30 in taxes this year, then I can both cover my expenses and pay you back the $10 I owe you. You still don't *have* the $10 of course, because you had to pay it in taxes, but the government doesn't *owe* it to you anymore.
You are assuming that $20 into the government will yield $20 in results. No, it yields more like $10 in results--if your lucky. Also, increasing taxes will do nothing but reduce both the spending power *and* investing power of the nation's private sector. You may redistribute some of the wealth from the upper classes through your redistribution schemes, but you will completely kill the middle class (which spend much more than any other segment of the population--even your vaunted welfare recipiants).
.

Loading