Re: Is Anyone In This Group Enthusiastic About Any Candidate?


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qfiho3hapjgif29lvvlhpsl94oqsj7ebo8@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:14:29 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ltfo3pkh73c0166n99lrvnsth01rfoenq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:07:17 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<sniperoo>>>

That's a side issue. Any president who doesn't at least
balance the budget is responsible for increasing it, including
Clinton. If we don't get presidents who can do the job,
we're doomed - Alice can't keep running faster forever.

Well, nobody balanced it, ever. The debt increased even when Clinton
ostensibly had it "balanced.



As noted though, and as shown in the charts for
which I gave URLs, the increase in debt dramatically
decelerated under Clinton, and in his last two years
he came close to actually balancing the budget.
Then GWB came in and all hell broke loose, the
deficits took off into the sky again.



Maybe if we'd had another Democratic administration
instead of GWB, we actually would have started
paying down the debt. Even if the Democrats had
just held it steady, we'd be in debt only $6T now
instead of $10T.

Not a chance. The dot-com bust and associated loss of reciepts, 9/11 and
associated costs, Afghanistan, and the setup of Homeland Security would
have
happened to any president. All these costs would have been incurred under
any competent administration.


We would have had to rescind the Reagan tax cuts to make
real progress against the debt, granted, but the continuing
"borrow and spend" fundamental philosophy, if anything so
silly can be called a "philosophy", is responsible for the degree
of escalation of the debt.

That will never happen. Period. High marginal rates with all sorts of unfair
tax loopholes was the law prior to Reagan. Let's think of what's real, not
some high-taxation wet dream. What politician is going to float a marginal
rate over 70%?

9/11, while a shock, was not expensive on a National Debt
scale, and Afghanistan was a small war compared to the
unnecessary Iraq war. We wouldn't have gotten into war
against Iraq if Gore had been president.

Right so far.

Homeland Security
I regard as mostly a sham, since its main effect is to promote
the kind of control over the home population that fascist
states like.

The expensive parts of HSA have to do with passenger, port, and cargo
security. The parts you allude to are electronic, not people intensive, and
relatively cheap. The expensive parts were going to happen anyway.


Even so, we ran the FBI and CIA without the
deficits we've had since Reagan, so why would Homeland
Security be preternaturally more expensive?

See above.

Bush can't presume credit for "preventing another 9/11",
because there's still been more time between the two attacks
on American soil by foreign agencies (the attacks on the
WTC in 1993, and in 2001, during which period there was
no "Homeland Security"), than there has been since 2001.

Granted. I dislike that sort of reasoning myself.


What wouldn't have happened under a Democratic regime would have been the
tax cuts and Iraq. Payoff of debt wasn't the cards in this cycle.


It looks like there isn't going to be an end to the tax
cuts mostly to the wealthiest under any Democratic
who's going to get elected this round. You yourself
said elsewhere that you wanted to keep your tax cuts.
That makes you part of the problem IMV, but your
personal benefit doesn't do you any good if the country
and the dollar it's based on fall out from under your feet.

Tax increases are not necessary to balance the budget.


<snip>


2/3 until proven otherwise. I'm not of a mind to do the math, but I may
later on (I had a dental implant today and my patience is slim.)


2/3 is "most" in common parlance, at least as I use that
term.

Yea, but it's not "almost all."


Whatever.


<snip>


The log scale more closely represents reality in a compounding financial
scenario over time, which is why they are often used in financial
analysis.

You can see from the numbers I gave above how
misleading it is.

I don't see it as misleading at all. I never claimed it was an exact
measurment. As long as it's not 90% or more, my point is made.


I guess that's what you think, since you've put
numbers to the general phrase I put out and then
held me responsible for the boundaries you put
on the phrase.

That's what happens when people toss out hyperbole.

JG


.

Relevant Pages