On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400, krw wrote:

In article , dhomuth1
says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:39:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:
There were no Tax Cuts -- only Tax Deferrals.

Agreed. As long as the Democrats refuse to make the cuts permanent.

Oh, nonsense!

Where do you Wingnuts get off accusing the Ds of Not doing what the Rs
could do all on their own? They have the votes to do it, do they not?

No. Why don't you loonie leftist liberals learn how the system
works? They need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, which is
required to make the cuts permanent. The Rs don't have 60 votes.

Remember what happened recently, when the Ds started discussing a
filibuster, and the Rs threatened to change the rules -- the so-called
Nuclear Option at the time?

The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Anyone can create the Illusion of Wealth by charging off current
expenditures into the future.

If the purpose of the debt is to create an illusion, well, that's bad.

It's not about the Purpose -- it's about the outcome. And yeah -- it
is bad.

It's bad, but not as horrible as it's made out to be.

Other than that, Mrs, Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

The current national debt, at about 65% of GDP, is about half its historical
maximum. In fact, GDP has increased about five times faster than the
national debt.

It doesn't matter. Those are sidebar comments and meaningless in the
great scheme of things.

No, the GDP is a good measure of relevance. It's like the P/E
ratio of a corporation.

It's nothing like that at all, and even Trying to say so is silly.

There are two sorts of debt generally -- accumulated operational debt
and debt incurred for public investment in capital infrastructure.

The latter is good -- and there should be more of it. The former is
bad - and there should be less.

Ok, let's start with welfare. Then axe the Department of Education
and all of the other extra-constitutional budgets.

Al yagodda do is float the proposal, and see where it goes. There is
a political outcome to doing that. All that needs to make it happen
is for the Rs to agree on it, and the Ds can't stop it.

So -- why don't they do what you demand?

And it doesn't really matter how reducing it is accomplished --
increased taxation and/or reduced spending. Each comes with a
political cost that Borrow and Spend is designed never to pay.

If certainly does matter. Have you loons ever heard of the "Laffer
curve"? We're still on the negative slope (cut taxes and revenues
increase; raise them and revenues will fall).

Nonsense. No one knows Where the eponymously titled Laffer Curve is,
else it would be simple simply to set the tax rate at the point of
maximum revenues and be done with it.

It was never something Known in the first place, and pretending it is
is simple economic nonsense.

But Costs are Real and will and Must be paid.

Nope. Sooner or later even the sun won't shine.

So, those folks with the illusion of wealth in debt up to their ears
really Are richer?

Heh! Now that's entertaining!

I didn't make that up.

The holders of the debt now have a chokehold on this nation's fiscal
future. It is now dependent only on their ongoing good will.

Nope. A dead creditor isn't a good creditor.

As non a sequitur as one might find. The debt outlives the creditor.

But...there's an Iron Law to consider:

Costs are Real, and Will and Must be paid.

Sooner or later.

Sooner is better.

Sooner is not, in general, better.

For current year operational spending, yes -- it is.

Again, cut all extra-constitutional spending. No more pork; no
more federal welfare; no more Department of Education...

You could do that, and it Still wouldn't balance anything, nor would
it pay down the debt.

For long-term public capital investment, no -- it is not.

Ok, but we really don't nee the Alaskan highway to nowhere.

That was a bridge, but you need to explain that to the R leadership
incongruous, if you find it a problem. It was the Ds who rebelled at
it.

The two are different and must be seen differently and treated
differently.

Sure, but maintenance shouldn't be a capital expense either.

Maintenance is a current-year operational expense, and should be paid
from current-year revenues.

There will come a time when the level of taxation Must be higher than
the level of current-year spending. Rolling over the national credit
card charges year after year endlessly is bad fiscal policy.

It's never happened and never will. Can't.

It must.

Costs are Real and Will and Must be paid.

Hiding your R head in the R sand won't change that.