I thought this was interesting

[GenSeneca]

No, nor will any other simplistic solution.

So only vague suggestions like "Raising Taxes and Cutting Spending" are realistic, while the "simple" suggestions that offer actual details are not?

We need to start with what should have been done forty five years ago: Take Social security out of the general fund, and then start paying back the IOUs.

I think it's too late for that, the system is going belly up and the only "viable" political solution is the same one that's been used for decades, kick the can down the road for some future generation to deal with. No generation wants to be the one to fall on the sword and no politician can get elected, or remain in office, asking people to fall on this sword.

We need to quit spending seven times as much on the military as second place spender, China, then quit trying to be world cop.

I agree with the sentiment but not the tone... As a % of GDP we spend less on the military than China. Even so, I would like to see a massive withdraw of our troops from oversees and foreign bases in other countries. Protect our shipping lanes and our homeland, let the other countries of the world protect themselves.

We need to reform health care (yes, again) and bring down costs.

Again, I guess vague and undefined is "realistic" while plans with actual details are not.

We need to start discussing pragmatic solutions in Congress

You know how I feel about pragmatism, it's just a smoke screen to hide behind in order to execute unprincipled and immoral actions. But you certainly are maxing out the dial on the vague-O-meter.

We need to dispense with the wishful thinking that trickle down economic theory actually works.

And adopt your "trickle up" theory that claims raising taxes increases GDP?

That should be at least a small start on a pragmatic solution.

My solution may have been simple, but at least I actually said something. Spouting nebulous and undefined concepts sounds great on the political stump but the real world requires specific and well detailed actions be outlined in order for them to be implemented.

 

[GenSeneca]

...during the economic boom of the '80s... despite an economic upturn, the US went from a creditor to a debtor nation.

You really need to learn the difference between correlation and causation, that over spending causes debt and that tax rates have a correlative, not causal, affect on revenue.

You even admit that taxes were lowered and there was an economic boom, and as historical evidence has shown - Higher GDP = Greater Revenue - so the cause of the debt was overspending, not lower taxes.

Some homework for you on the difference between Correlation and Causation

 

[PLC1]

You really need to learn the difference between correlation and causation, that over spending causes debt and that tax rates have a correlative, not causal, affect on revenue.

You even admit that taxes were lowered and there was an economic boom, and as historical evidence has shown - Higher GDP = Greater Revenue - so the cause of the debt was overspending, not lower taxes.

Some homework for you on the difference between Correlation and Causation

I need to learn the difference between correlation and causation?

Those boom times in the '80s, were they caused by tax cuts? What does cause in increase in the GDP you keep mentioning?

 

[PLC1]

So only vague suggestions like "Raising Taxes and Cutting Spending" are realistic, while the "simple" suggestions that offer actual details are not?

I've also made some specific suggestions. Do I have to lay out a complete economic plan in an internet post?

I think it's too late for that, the system is going belly up and the only "viable" political solution is the same one that's been used for decades, kick the can down the road for some future generation to deal with. No generation wants to be the one to fall on the sword and no politician can get elected, or remain in office, asking people to fall on this sword.

That's exactly what is likely to happen.

I agree with the sentiment but not the tone... As a % of GDP we spend less on the military than China. Even so, I would like to see a massive withdraw of our troops from oversees and foreign bases in other countries. Protect our shipping lanes and our homeland, let the other countries of the world protect themselves.

The US spends 4.3% vs China' 2% Other than that, you have it right.

You know how I feel about pragmatism, it's just a smoke screen to hide behind in order to execute unprincipled and immoral actions. But you certainly are maxing out the dial on the vague-O-meter.

Yes, I know how you feel about pragmatism. We've discussed that issue before, and I know you aren't in favor of simply doing what works. Any proposal has to be ideologically pure, whether it works or not.

And adopt your "trickle up" theory that claims raising taxes increases GDP?

Cause and effect again: My saying the obvious, that taxes have to be increased in order to balance the budget, causes you to say that I think increasing taxes is going to increase the GDP.

Or, perhaps that's just a correlation.

My solution may have been simple, but at least I actually said something. Spouting nebulous and undefined concepts sounds great on the political stump but the real world requires specific and well detailed actions be outlined in order for them to be implemented.

Not simple, simplistic. So, we don't need a book published on this forum, but perhaps you could pick out one part of the economic plan and give us your detailed, non nebulous, well defined concept of how it might be implemented.

 

[GenSeneca]

I've also made some specific suggestions.

You only offered vague platitudes in the post accusing my suggestion of being simplistic.

That's exactly what is likely to happen.

I'd bet money on it.

The US spends 4.3% vs China' 2% Other than that, you have it right.

That's very interesting... I'm curious as to the methodology SIPRI uses to reach that conclusion. According to the CIA world fact book, China spends 4.3% to our 4.06%. If SIPRI is correct, then China has slashed their military spending by more than half but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I know you aren't in favor of simply doing what works.

If it works, and it doesn't violate individual rights, lets do it.

Any proposal has to be ideologically pure, whether it works or not.

If it violates individual rights but "works", you would welcome it as a pragmatic solution.

Cause and effect again: My saying the obvious, that taxes have to be increased in order to balance the budget, causes you to say that I think increasing taxes is going to increase the GDP.

That is correct, because the only way to increase revenue is to increase GDP and if you insist on claiming that raising taxes will increase revenue, then it's on you to explain how raising taxes increases the GDP.

perhaps you could pick out one part of the economic plan and give us your detailed, non nebulous, well defined concept of how it might be implemented.

Cut the federal budget 10% every year for 8 years. Strangley enough that would actually work to put our revenue ahead of spending, yet you don't consider it "pragmatic".

 

[BigRob]

This organization. Members include Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld.

PNAC somehow is responsible for the United States pursuing a policy of "world police"? Aside from the fact that we are not the world police, nor do we act like it, it is lunacy to claim that PNAC (which was not even founded until 1997) is responsible for American forces being deployed all over the world...

 

[PLC1]

PNAC somehow is responsible for the United States pursuing a policy of "world police"? Aside from the fact that we are not the world police, nor do we act like it, it is lunacy to claim that PNAC (which was not even founded until 1997) is responsible for American forces being deployed all over the world...

I was asked for a definition of what it means to be world cop. The philosophy of the PNAC outlines it pretty well.

No, of course the PNAC hasn't been around long enough to have been responsible for our having American forces all over the world, but their philosophy pretty much defines what a world cop would do.

 

[PLC1]

Cut the federal budget 10% every year for 8 years. Strangley enough that would actually work to put our revenue ahead of spending, yet you don't consider it "pragmatic".

Not politically possible, nor pragmatic. Would you simply cut every federal program by 10% across the board?

Or are you suggesting some targeted cuts?

 

[dogtowner]

Not politically possible, nor pragmatic. Would you simply cut every federal program by 10% across the board?

Or are you suggesting some targeted cuts?

I'd suggest a mix. Much could be done away with outright, the rest you do just say 'you will get 10% less, work it out'.

 

[BigRob]

I'd suggest a mix. Much could be done away with outright, the rest you do just say 'you will get 10% less, work it out'.

Neither party has the votes in Congress to make such a proposition likely.

The problem is not just coming up with a solution, it is coming up with a political viable solution.

 

[Rick]

It means imposing a pax americana on the rest of the world by force of arms. Read the goals of the PNAC before you reply with another question. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Pax americana? You're here to regurgitate standard leftwing slogans and snotty catch phrases that the leftwing uses to express their hatred of this country but has never attached any real meaning to (certainly it's clear that YOU don't know what they mean).

No, I didn't say that at all.

Yes you implied that, when you gave an unqualified answer to "What proof do you have that "partisanship" necessarily precludes solutions?"

You really don't know?

No, and it's pretty clear YOU DON'T EITHER.

Even after having supposedly read your assignment?

Yes, after reading your dynamite reference, written by someone with a BA in english. What a friggin HOWLER!!

Try again, and this time look for the idea that cutting taxes increases revenues, then see how well that worked out during the economic boom of the '80s.

Once again, Mr. Borderline Dementia, "trick down economics" had to do with the supposed market economic benefits to the lower classes of tax cuts, not the consequent growth of government revenue. This is getting pretty laughable when I have to untangle your own leftwing defamations-for-idiots, which you apparently swallowed whole and are now puking up, without ever having got the specious non-arguments straight in your slow-witted skull.

 

[dogtowner]

Neither party has the votes in Congress to make such a proposition likely.

The problem is not just coming up with a solution, it is coming up with a political viable solution.

When we lose our bond rating (not if) it becomes not only viable but the only way to avoid defaulting. We are at the brink here Rob. Did you ever believe that you would hear Moody's ever warning the USA on it bond rating much less repeatedly ?

 

[Stalin]

Here is a fascinating real-time clock and expenditure tally

Watch the millions flow out the door by the second

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Comrade Mao

 

[dogtowner]

Here is a fascinating real-time clock and expenditure tally

Watch the millions flow out the door by the second

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Comrade Mao

amaing what obama has accomplished

 

[PLC1]

amaing what obama has accomplished

Yes, but he is standing on the shoulders of giants.