XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Free Lunch"  wrote in message   
   news:8cifp8du6q2oa0s3mrsn342gbrcslmds2l@4ax.com...   
   > On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:17:23 -0500, RD Sandman   
   >  wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >   
   >>Free Lunch  wrote in   
   >>news:f8afp8trnqnk1gnco20rpnjbqdbhn5i60v@4ax.com:   
   >>   
   >>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:10:06 -0500, RD Sandman   
   >>>  wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >>>   
   >>>>Tom McDonald  wrote in news:imClt.5$7h5.2   
   >>>>@newsfe07.iad:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 5/17/2013 10:59 PM, linuxgal wrote:   
   >>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>>>>> They were only highest in nominal dollar amounts. Raising taxes on   
   >>>>the   
   >>>>>>> wealthy and raising spending will help the economy grow without   
   >>>>>>> increasing deficits.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Sure.  The wealthy will be just SO incentivized to open new   
   >>factories   
   >>>>>> with higher taxes punching a bigger hole in the bottom of their   
   >>boat.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> They don't seem to have been all that incentivized by previous tax   
   >>>>cuts,   
   >>>>> and the economy seems to be doing better with some tax hikes.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>The economy needs both more revenue and less spending.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not at the moment.   
   >>   
   >>It will soon.   
   >   
   > Then we cut the deficit when we need to.   
      
   Ok, at what time do you finally decide to cut the deficit?   
      
   Is it before or after you have fiscal collapse?   
      
   Before or after you run up a debt you can't pay off in the next two   
   generations?   
      
   I mean you told us that Europe is having their economic issues because they   
   overspent their GDP...aren't we doing exactly the same thing?   
      
   > In a strong economy, the total   
   > debt/GDP should decrease over time so it can increase in a weak economy.   
      
   Should....but these days it doesn't.   
      
   > Reagan kept increasing the debt/GDP even after the recession was over.   
      
   True, but also touched off the longest period of sustained economic growth   
   in American history.   
      
   > W   
   > kept increasing the debt/GDP even after the recession was over.   
      
   No, actually W reached his peak in 2003 and was declining the debt/GDP until   
   2008 when the housing bubble started to burst.   
      
   Meanwhile Clinton increased it in 1996 and again in 1999 even though there   
   was no recession.   
      
   However, comparisons to the GDP are dishonest since the government doesn't   
   operate on GDP but on it's tax revenue which has a connection to GDP is NOT   
   directly hooked to GDP.   
      
   To be fair what you need to do is compare debt/revenue ratios since in the   
   end that's all that really matters. Doesn't matter what the GDP does. The   
   GDP can increase by 200% but if federal revenues only increase by 5%...then   
   a 5% increase is ALL the federal government has to work with.   
      
   I would consider the best analysis to be debt/deficit/revenue adjusted for   
   constant dollars and then we could really see who stands were.   
      
   The problem there is a massive inertia in our economic growth vs the input   
   of government policy. Things that were changed may only cause major effects   
   20 years later. Obama's massive government spending may hold off a   
   depression, but the debt generated may touch one off later. So really any   
   simplistic analysis is going to be pretty sketchy at best and misleading at   
   worst.   
      
   Look at Obama care. Some $17 Trillion in unfunded mandates. Obama is not the   
   one that doing to have that debt show up on his watch, but he's going to be   
   among those responsible for it. Let's say 20 years from now Obama care   
   touches off an economic recession compounded by the federal government's   
   defaulting on the National Debt because we can no longer afford the interest   
   on the debt that exists, leading to depression, economic collapse and a   
   massive devaluation in the US Dollar.  How exactly would you suggest we   
   apportion the blame for all that?   
      
   Personally, I feel that in our simplistic analysis we should also include   
   any unfunded mandated enacted if we can get accurate data on enough of them   
   to approach some sort of consistency.   
      
   However, I bet you wouldn't want to do that, because I suspect it's not   
   going to make Obama look to hot. Probably not the worse, but certainly not   
   as good as you think he should be.   
      
      
      
      
   > If, as W was, you are adding half a trillion a year to the debt, it is   
   > much harder to come out of a recession with added stimulus. W's deficits   
   > after 2002 were irresponsible.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)