In reply to madmallard:

Well, that's a good example, but I'm curious- I don't pretend to be an expert, and you are clearly very informed, so I'm genuinely interested to hear what you say.

When I think about spending, just based on reading and seeing the news, I think the big increases have been in the military, particularly to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are sustained and large expenses. More recently, after the economy melted down quite a bit, we spent a lot on stimulus. So I assume that's part of your equation? I think that's a little different because it's not sustained spending. Yeah, it dug us deeper on one side to keep us from going deeper on the other side.

I'm also under the impression that the so called “Bush tax cuts” did indeed cost us revenue in the long run. And extending them cost us a lot more. I didn’t hear anyone say that they would “grow the economy” anymore. I guess that’s a hard tale to tell when, clearly, it wasn’t working. When Reagan’s old guard started coming out saying it was a bad idea I got the impression it was more politics than policy.

I’m admittedly a partisan hack, but I’m trying to get over it. I’d like some objective information. It is possible- strike that- likely that I’m misinformed to some degree by liberal spin. So I would welcome some solid info. This has been a pretty productive conversation, so I look forward to hearing more and thank you for taking the time.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to madmallard: Well, that's a good example, but I'm curious- I don't pretend to be an expert, and you are clearly very informed, so I'm genuinely interested to hear what you say. When I think about spending, just based on reading and seeing the news, I think the big increases have been in the military, particularly to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are sustained and large expenses. More recently, after the economy melted down quite a bit, we spent a lot on stimulus. So I assume that's part of your equation? I think that's a little different because it's not sustained spending. Yeah, it dug us deeper on one side to keep us from going deeper on the other side.

All war spending was included in that figure which represented yearly budget. And what most people don't realise is much of the stimulus is not 'one time' things. The bulk of costs are to new and ongoing programs that have no finite end or goal.

I'm also under the impression that the so called “Bush tax cuts” did indeed cost us revenue in the long run. And extending them cost us a lot more. I didn’t hear anyone say that they would “grow the economy” anymore. I guess that’s a hard tale to tell when, clearly, it wasn’t working. When Reagan’s old guard started coming out saying it was a bad idea I got the impression it was more politics than policy.

The problem is that it doesn't matter. If the tax rates expired back to the old one, we'd still be floundering in spending. If the Bush tax rates went back to previou AND went up after that, AND we cut the military in the example I gave, we'd still be falling into debt. Just more slowly.

I’m admittedly a partisan hack, but I’m trying to get over it. I’d like some objective information. It is possible- strike that- likely that I’m misinformed to some degree by liberal spin. So I would welcome some solid info. This has been a pretty productive conversation, so I look forward to hearing more and thank you for taking the time.

There's nothing wrong with being a partisan hack. As long as you're being intellectually honest about what you think and feel, and not trying to put lipstick on a pig, its easier to have a conversation with someone.

If someone thinks richer people should pay more taxes just because they can afford it, then they better damn well be able to express that view directly and honestly and not draw up any ridiculous delusions of 'fair share' to dress it up with. If someone thinks the government should outlaw abortion because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, you better damn well be able to stand behind the fact that you want the government to enforce law of a religious doctrine, and not dress it up in a thinly veiled 'right to life' perspective.

madmallard wrote: There's nothing wrong with being a partisan hack. As long as you're being intellectually honest about what you think and feel, and not trying to put lipstick on a pig, its easier to have a conversation with someone. If someone thinks richer people should pay more taxes just because they can afford it, then they better damn well be able to express that view directly and honestly and not draw up any ridiculous delusions of 'fair share' to dress it up with. If someone thinks the government should outlaw abortion because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, you better damn well be able to stand behind the fact that you want the government to enforce law of a religious doctrine, and not dress it up in a thinly veiled 'right to life' perspective.

This is why we're having a productive conversation. I completely agree.

Personally, I like government services and don't mind paying for them. I hate that they close the library in Denver on Wednesdays because they can't afford to keep it open any more. But I love that we had a Mayor (who is now our Governor) who would do it because we didn't have the money. He's a Democrat, by the way, and is in a load of hot watter because he just slashed education spending. He calls it pretty clearly. He said, look, it's 40% of our budget. We can't balance our budget if we don't cut the biggest line.

Good call. Tough call, but good call. And I like how he did it. He didn't mandate any ciriculum, or cut the football team or the band or the astronomy club. He just told the districts "Here's how much you get. Figure out how to get it done best for that much." My hope is that doing the right, tough thing now will lead to a better situation down the road and we'll be able to restore a lot of those services.

By the way, I say that even though my wife basically lost her job due to those cuts. Doesn't really make any differenec as they didn't really pay her anything to begin with. I pay more in taxes than she earned last year.

Funny you say that fast_eddie, when I met Mrs Brown she was a substitute teacher with a hearing impaired certificate. She spent a lot of money to be able to make VERY little money, she now waits tables for a living making 7-10 TIMES what she made as a teacher.

John Brown wrote: Funny you say that fast_eddie, when I met Mrs Brown she was a substitute teacher with a hearing impaired certificate. She spent a lot of money to be able to make VERY little money, she now waits tables for a living making 7-10 TIMES what she made as a teacher.

That's interesting- my wife worked at a school that included the program for deaf and hard of hearing kids. Well, she still does... 'till the end of the school year.

She didn't make much at all. She was in grad school (graduates in a few weeks) to get a Masters in Library Science. The school lost their librarian a few years ago due to budget cuts. My wife has been working as a "para-professional" for several years, part time. She'd make more working at McDonalds. That's not a joke.

But she got experience actually working as a librarian, and they let her do the job as if she was a teacher librarian. So she got some experience and has some great contacts. It was worth it for us. We're lucky enough to be able to afford it.

I don't how much is not much money, but my sister was a hearing impaired teacher in metro Atlanta with a salary of around $60K. That seems good to me for 9-10 months a year. And this isn't hearsay. I do her taxes.

I used to date a girl about 10 years ago that was a 3rd grade teacher, and she made a bit above 40k then, plus tremendous health and retirement packages. My sister is a college professor and I know what she makes, and it's about twice my salary with about 10 weeks a year vacation, and I get paid pretty well.

I'm sure there are some teachers that do not make a lot, but the one's I'm associated with do OK, a lot better than the news would have you believe.

Truth is, every vocation is that way to some degree. You have to work up to a better salary based on performance and time spent. I know a couple of lawyers that barely squeek 40k a year, and a few engineers that are the same.

Not written by me but I found it somewhat relevant to this discussion as a whole

- My 401K is down 40%, my employer just cut the match; and it looks like I may have work until I'm 70 years old. I also pay for pensions to public employees who retired in their 50s.

I don't have enough money to go on vacation this year, but I paid my share of the federal government's $2.6 million grant to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. I pay for bridges to nowhere.

I drive a 1997 Honda Accord, but I had to pay for my neighbor’s $41,000 electric car. I also bailed out the United Auto Workers.

I contribute to my children's 529 college savings plan, but since I don't qualify for financial aid I pay for other people's kids to go to school as well. I also pay for the sociology classes where I am sneered at for my lack of social conscience and denounced as the very essence of greed, racism and environmental insensitivity.

I exercise regularly, watch my cholesterol, and pay for my own health insurance as well as copays and deductibles. I also pay for Other People’s tonsillectomies, appendectomies and occasional rhinoplasties. I pay taxes for Medicare, Medicaid and for various medical programs for poor children and now I will get to subsidize the health care of several million more non-elderly, non-impoverished Americans.

My small business just lost its line of credit, but I paid to bail out Citigroup, AIG, and Goldman Sachs, whose executives get bonuses bigger than my entire net worth.

I pay my mortgage, but I also pay to bail out banks who made risky loans and yuppies, who have trouble paying $700,000 mortgages on their McMansions they bought with no-down payment, adjustable rate deals.

I pay for groceries for my family, but also pay millionaire farmers not grow stuff like rice. I buy dinner for more than 41 million food stamp recipients (although, they now call it Food Shares.). I also pay for school lunches. And breakfasts, since other parents apparently can't be expected to feed their kids. I get to have red meat once a week, but I get to pay for urban hipsters to buy organic salmon at Whole Foods.

I pay my electricity and gas bills, but I also pay for other people's air conditioning, cell phones, digital televisions, new windows, subsidized rent, and remodeling,

I pay for my daughter's ballet lessons, but also pay for universities to develop computerized choreography programs that will help develop "interactive dance performances with real-time audience interactions." I probably won't be able to make the show, since I'll be working.

I'm trying to save enough money in case I lose my job, but I pay for more than 70 different means-tested poverty programs

Because I work hard and am successful, I am in the 10% of Americans, who now pay more than 71 percent of the total federal income tax burden. The top 50 percent of earners pay 97.11 percent. In others words, the bottom half of American earners-- theoretically 50 percent of the electorate – pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. I pay for them.

I pay property taxes, sales, excise taxes, taxes on my phone, my cable, my water; state income taxes, Social security and Medicare taxes. I also help pay the bills for the nearly half of households who no longer pay any federal income tax. I also pay the bills for the 60 to 70 percent of households who receive more from the government than they pay in.

I expect no gratitude for any of this; it has been years since the term "provider" was a matter of societal respect and personal pride. I understand that the transfer of wealth from makers to takers is seen as morally purer than the efforts of those who created wealth in the first place.

I know my role.

I am the piggybank.

oldsaw wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: Here is a funny slant. Most of those who are against debt, fall squarely into the conservative, personal responsibility camp.. If they shun debt, then, do they necessarily mean that they are not personally responsible enough to use it effectively? Like an addict and a beer?

You're fishing with a hook baited by your personal choices, again. That doesn't mean every fish sees your offering (or premise) as the best meal for them. Not everyone is as intelligent as you believe you are, nor or they as stupid as you perceive them.

Personal choices or sound financial judgement? You call it as you want... Then go dig up some finance books and find that I'm right..

As for the second paragraphy, You're talking about the teabaggers right? They think everyone's a stupid sheep and they're the only smart ones right?

You mean a book like this one?

When it comes to matters of money and debt: Ramsey>Iggy

Iggy, saying that debt can be good in some situations as a rationalization of the governments debt practices is a stretch.

Marty! wrote: You mean a book like this one? When it comes to matters of money and debt: Ramsey>Iggy

I only admire Ramsey, because he has taken common idiot sense that anyones father should have told them, and turned it into an empire by selling you crap. Basically, He's no better than a TV preacher.

As for traditional finance as it refers to the maximization of value and mitigation of risk by utilizing the power of cash flow, He knows nothing. He's a pretty good accountant.

MrJoshua wrote: Iggy, saying that debt can be good in some situations as a rationalization of the governments debt practices is a stretch.

Sorry man, I never said that. You're reading between the lines.

Iggy:

I am smart enough to maximize value by keeping my money in earnings positions as you are suggesting.

I have been in debt, and I've been COMPLETELY debt free (including home mortgage).

Life was better when I was debt free. Regardless of what is "smart investing".

I know this may defy logic. It's true.

Svrex:

I understand. I currently have no debt other than my student loans and am working to get those gone; but the difference is to not think of debt as some boogie man that should be avoided at all costs. It is a tool and should be utilized effectively. I think that too much debt and the other anti-debt extreme are equally silly.

huge-O-chavez wrote: . Basically, He's no better than a TV preacher.

Btw.. TV preachers are actually a great source of fascination for myself. You sell a product that can never be proven in a court of law to work or not work. Brilliant... Absolute brilliance.

I seriously think the only way to really get rich in this country, is to convince others that you can make them rich if you give me money... CEO's get paid to do it.. Dave Ramsey is getting paid to do it.. Hell most TV preachers are getting paid to do it...

Yeah I'm a bit off.

SVreX wrote: Iggy: Life was better when I was debt free. Regardless of what is "smart investing". I know this may defy logic. It's true.

SVreX, I know you are a good hearted and patient man, but I advise you not to bother. No matter how much you try to reason with him, no matter what logic or eloquence you bring to bear on him, he'll just pull some crap like this:

huge-O-chavez wrote: Sorry man, I never said that. You're reading between the lines.

...or, if you've absolutely nailgunned him to the wall with superior debate, he'll just claim that we don't know the real Iggy and this may (or may not) just be an internet persona he likes to put on for his own amusement.

It's just not worth spending your time entertaining him and validating his line of crap. But I know that may not prevent you from trying anyway.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: Iggy: Life was better when I was debt free. Regardless of what is "smart investing". I know this may defy logic. It's true.

SVreX, I know you are a good hearted and patient man, but I advise you not to bother. No matter how much you try to reason with him, no matter what logic or eloquence you bring to bear on him, he'll just pull some crap like this:

huge-O-chavez wrote: Sorry man, I never said that. You're reading between the lines.

...or, if you've absolutely nailgunned him to the wall with superior debate, he'll just claim that we don't know the real Iggy and this may (or may not) just be an internet persona he likes to put on for his own amusement. It's just not worth spending your time entertaining him and validating his line of crap. But I know that may not prevent you from trying anyway.

Love ya Iggy, but I just have to.

Duke, +1 for you!

Duke wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: Sorry man, I never said that. You're reading between the lines.

...or, if you've absolutely nailgunned him to the wall with superior debate, he'll just claim that we don't know the real Iggy and this may (or may not) just be an internet persona he likes to put on for his own amusement.

Sorry, I dont' see a superior debate. I see a bunch of people who are afraid of debt. How much success would the US as a country have had if it had borrowed nothing in the past 100 years?

OR.. I really actually didn't say it and you are reading between the lines. Sorry.. Have a nice day. Find anywhere where I said that I justify our current level of debt by any means, then I'll shut up. Or I won't cause I've been trolling on the internet since I was 11. It's in my blood. I remember this one time....

Duke wrote: It's just not worth spending your time entertaining him and validating his line of crap.

Here's my total line of crap. Debt and Inflation are required at some level to achieve success on the macro and micro economic levels. They are effectively like Water to a plant. If you have no water, the plant withers up and dies. If you have too much, the plant is drowned and dies. If the right amount is used; The plant grows. Though, inflation is not really so much a tool, but merely and indicator of effectiveness. Now here's my other line of crap. The federal government budget should never be balanced. Ohh Snap..

But to find fault in that, you'd actually have to do some reading in finance and econ, which you won't do. You will because you've been hurt by our exchanges in the past and your obvious dislike for me has colored your vision; which, If you want me to play the role of the classic internet troll, means I win.

So what church are we starting?

z31maniac wrote: So what church are we starting?

Already started. The Paved Church of the Holy Cone... Pay yo tide fool!

huge-O-chavez wrote: Sorry, I dont' see a superior debate.

It is far easier to see when one's eyes are in fact open.

Debt is certainly NOT like water to a plant, because there are lots of people who do quite well without it.

I think it is more like a hot trophy wife. Everyone loves the idea and the perks that come along with it, but most people can't handle it. It works for some, but leads to disaster for most.

BTW- the people who are generally the LEAST capable of handling it are those that think they can. Just a thought...

Wow. OK jumping in. Four things and a conclusion:

1. Government inherently has infinite capacity for evil, and only limited capacity for good. Therefore, limited government can be maximized for good, and minimized for evil. This is the Jeffersonian/Madisonian principle. If you don't buy this, you're looking at all of human history through rose colored glasses.

2. The longer a human being is in position to "lord" it over others, especially if said person truly believes that he/she is doing it for the others' "good", especially if said person truly believes that the others would not do as good a job themselves, the more potential damage to both the psyche of the one and the psyche of each one of the others. If you don't buy this...

3. Those who have been in the position of "lord" the longest in the USA are the members of the bureaucracy, not the legislature. President Reagan found this out. Remember, he promised to eliminate the Department of Education. He was not successful, primarily because of the power that the bureaucracy had over the Congress.

4. A bureaucracy always eventually functions as if its only purpose is to continue functioning. All contributing members of a bureaucracy must function with this purpose, or they get weeded out. Therefore, when calculating the cost-benefit ratio of continuing to ask funding for a program, this is not functionally based on whether it benefits anybody outside of the bureaucracy, but whether it benefits the functioning of the bureaucracy. This behavior is symptomatic of all long-standing bureaucracies, and the only way to minimize this is to kill a bureaucracy and start over.

Conclusion: The US Government will continue to waste much of what we the taxpayers (grudgingly) cough up until one of two things happen: 1. The government collapses. Historically, this often takes two or three generations, but there is adequate evidence that we might be half-way through this process. Scary. 2. A party comes in power that takes seriously the evil of bureaucracy, develops some sort of mindset that allows "forensic bureaucrats" great power in reforming federal departments, even eliminating federal departments, and are given much credence when they ask such questions of Congress as "WTF?" when Congress comes up with cockamamie ideas to spend money. The Inspector-Generals are supposed to fulfill this function, but you see how that has gone under this administration, and it wasn't much better under #43. They don't have nearly the power or voice that they need to have to make any difference. Unfortunately, as much as I want #2 to happen, I'm betting on #1. And just hoping that the house of cards doesn't collapse until I'm gone seems, well, pretty selfish. Even nihilistic. But the rot in our government is so bad, even the "good" guys who work there can't see the evil they do, or have learned to rationalize it. All for the paycheck. (sigh)

Imagine. Me, a libertarian, wanting to give power to a bureaucrat!

huge-O-chavez wrote: Here's my total line of crap. Debt and Inflation are required at some level to achieve success on the macro and micro economic levels. They are effectively like Water to a plant. If you have no water, the plant withers up and dies. If you have too much, the plant is drowned and dies. If the right amount is used; The plant grows. Though, inflation is not really so much a tool, but merely and indicator of effectiveness. Now here's my other line of crap. The federal government budget should never be balanced. Ohh Snap.. But to find fault in that, you'd actually have to do some reading in finance and econ, which you won't do. You will because you've been hurt by our exchanges in the past and your obvious dislike for me has colored your vision; which, If you want me to play the role of the classic internet troll, means I win.

That is a line of crap. Keynesian economics is so full of falacies it belongs in a feed yard. If you buy it, well, "foolish" comes to mind. Just to say that "the experts" say this, so you win, is plain bullying. Oh, yeah. And the Science On Global Warming is settled. Just pick the right experts.