Sure, there would be painful cuts in both social programs and defense spending. But the Bush tax cuts would expire as well. In other words, we'd do what we have to do to reduce the deficit and, ultimately, the debt. Maybe a "Do-Nothing" Congress is just what we need!
30 comments:
M is fully explained...
"This is despite the fact that, all else equal, one should have less trust in someone to effectively manage something that is more complex," said co-author Aaron C. Kay, PhD, of Duke University. "Instead, people tend to respond by psychologically 'outsourcing' the issue to the government, which in turn causes them to trust and feel more dependent on the government. Ultimately, they avoid learning about the issue because that could shatter their faith in the government." [Emphasis added]
Yes - every penny saved from the bush tax cuts will immediately go directly to deficit reduction. You positive they won't spend it on other things?
Yes, what rld said.
Give them a dollar they will spend it, give them two they will spend two.
Heck, give them one and they spend two.....THATS HOW YOU HAVE DEBT SPENDING
As I said, it's not a revenue problem it's a spending problem.
thats a great link juris and that about sums it all up
juris and sw-Ad hominem...snore...
GD, so I take it that you were against the debt spending post WWII and during the Reagan years. Both time periods showed that spending money and running high debts/deficits aren't necessarily a bad thing.
You positive they won't spend it on other things?
Well, they seemed to do just fine during the Clinton years when we had a few years in a row of deficit surpluses and higher taxes (1998-2001). It wasn't until the GOP took over that the spending problems began. Now suddenly everyone has religion on spending.
Mark, one can spend more than one makes for a short time. Eventually the bill comes due though.
Post WWII - How many times do I personally have to say this here before you actually address it?
We (or the axis powers) had just bombed the holy living shit out of every other industrialized nation on earth. We were the only viable economy in existence. We were the only nation capable of building mass quantities of stuff post war. (note: I leave the USSR out of this because they removed themselves from participation in the global marketplace)
All this means that we essentially had a monopoly on the world production of everything for the next five to fifteen years (depending on the items in question). You get that? Everything.
Herein lies the problem - we had the markets cornered but the customers had no money because they had spent everything they had in the war.
Think of post war debt spending as an investment. Think of it as in house financing. Think of it as a Sear's card.
It was possible because it was likely to result in positive returns. And it was possible because it was not meant to be a permanent state of affairs.
That leads us to Reagan's debt spending. The positive returns there are a little more ethereal. The fall of communism? Well, at least the fall of the USSR? This is essentially underpricing your competition hoping they go out of business before you do. This is the business model of chemotherapy - hoping to destroy the cancer faster than you destroy the body.
This chemotherapy spending also was never meant to be a permanent state of affairs.
You look at opening a mortgage on a new house, see the positives of that incurring of debt and then try to assume that any and all incurring of debt has the same positive outcomes.
No M it is not ad hom. It really does describe you. If you happen to find it an insulting description, perhaps you should consider changing your ways. Seeing the world in more than black-and-white would be an excellent place to start.
Eventually the bill comes due though.
This is great example of the over simplification trap you guys fall into all the time due to your theology about spending. If you took the time to examine the history of this country and how we have become a world power, you would see how terribly off you are here. Flooding the world with the dollar was part of what spread free markets and liberal economic theory around the world. We have the global marketplace today because of US and part of that meant spending a lot of money to promote what is clearly the best way to go. Cuba, for pete's sake, has given up and is now allowing private land to be sold. This is what we have worked for since 1944, GD.
To equate the spending of the US government to something as simple as a home mortgage or a Sears card is completely moronic. You aren't even considering the the various geopolitical complexities that go along with being who we are and what we represent in the world as the sole power committed to free markets. Start doing that and then we can (perhaps) have a more substantive conversation. As of right now, however, you're making silly comparisons to fit your irrational and highly emotional views about spending.
This is great example of the over simplification trap
No it isn't Mark. You are trying to wave your hand in the air with a poof of smoke and declare airily that it's all very complex and the hoi polloi just can't comprehend it. But numbers is numbers. Addition and subtraction works whether it's Mary Jane Homemaker or Congressman Crackerjack doing the budget.
Tell me it's a trap when you yourself admit that the bill has come due on social security. You yourself admit that we have to change the outlay on SS because it's spends too much compared to its income.
What? We can't just flood the market with SS checks and watch middle class spending return greater rewards than we outlay? That's what you're trying to say isn't Mark?
Addition and subtraction works whether it's Mary Jane Homemaker or Congressman Crackerjack doing the budget.
So, let's be clear here, you are stating that the financial dealings of the largest economy and sole superpower in the world are perfectly comparable to a Mary Jane Homemaker. Good Lord...not much point in going further...
Aaaaand Marky fires up another strawman.
The government uses much larger numbers and a much longer list of expense and income categories. So there is a vast difference in scale.
What is NOT different is the logical relationships between those numbers and categories. In both cases, standard accounting rules apply to expenses and income. All the various expenses are eventually ADDED together to arrive at a single number: Total Expenses. All the various incomes are eventually ADDED together to arrive at Total Income. Those two numbers, though much larger for the government than for a private individual, are then compared the exact same way: Which is larger?
The fundamental LOGIC is exactly the same. (Sheesh, why am I wasting my time trying to get Mark to understand logic?)
Of course, the government has more options and greater tolerance for expenses which are larger than income than private individuals do, but those are not limitless.
You're all about government doing what the Bible teaches and having it take care of the poor. What about this part of what the Bible teaches?
“For the LORD your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.”
— Deuteronomy 15:6
Note: in accounting there is only one significant difference between private (personal or corporate) accounting and government accounting. In government accounting, funds which have been earmarked for a specific purpose cannot be used for another purpose. Everything else boils down to just scale.
So, let's be clear here
You have no ability whatsoever do to the math. None. It's too hard for you.
That clear enough?
As of right now, however, you're making silly comparisons to fit your irrational and highly emotional views about spending.
WOW, this is astounding ignorance laid out for all to see. Math is irrational?! Ha ha ha. Public school teacher even!
The fundamental LOGIC is exactly the same.
So, when Mary Jane Homemaker decides to spend money at her local bookstore she also takes into consideration the geopolitical ramifications from her purchase? She wonders if investing in the bookstore might somehow create a democracy among the employees of that bookstore and improve the relationship between her home and bookstore in terms of future trade issues?
6Kings, is that all you have to add? A childish lie? Let's see a critical analysis of the ramifications of US spending in the world and at home.
Let's go back to this comment and demonstrate another reason why it's crap.
Eventually the bill comes due though.
Not all the time. Debt cancellation occurs all over the world now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_cancellation
Now, one can argue the effectiveness of these initiatives but the fact that they happen means that the statement above is not valid.
Hebrews 8:12, your thoughts on the Jubilee 2000 movement. And Deuteronomy? You do remember that Jesus coming along changed everything, right? Forgiving debts, debtors..that sort of thing.
Debt cancellation happens all over the world now?
Like this is new? Good grief, that's called bankruptcy Mark.
Of course now I have a question. If GM was too interconnected to file a bankruptcy, and international economies are too interconnected to compare to standard accounting practices - how come these economies aren't too interconnected for bankruptcies?
Please do explain, Mark, just how we "flooded the world with dollars". Methinks you're dreadfully confusing cause and effect here.
So, when Mary Jane Homemaker decides to spend money at her local bookstore she also takes into consideration the geopolitical ramifications from her purchase?
Yes, some people do. Ever heard of "Buy American" movements?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Okay, I asked that one just to be funny. It's more like, so what? How do geopolitical ramifications change how math works? (You know… that process where numbers are added and subtracted.)
Hebrews 8:12
I've asked you before and I'm still waiting for an answer. What work do you claim this verse does for you?
your thoughts on the Jubilee 2000 movement.
Never heard of it.
You do remember that Jesus coming along changed everything, right?
We've been over this ground before. This is just your bias showing its face again. I repeat:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
— Matthew 5:17–19
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
— Hebrews 13:8
Also notice that the verse in Deuteronomy was describing what it means to be blessed as a nation. It sounds like your argument is that being blessed now means to be able to borrow without ever having to repay. Are you really SERIOUS about this?!?
The wicked borrows and does not pay back,
But the righteous is gracious and gives.
— Psalms 37:21
Forgiving debts, debtors..
So your "biblical" solution is for the government to demand that China just cancel the debt we owe them. Or maybe just refuse to pay the debt owed to T-Bills holders. How about the T-Bills held by the Social Security "trust fund". Government pensions. Payments for products and services delivered. Really? Really, really?!?
The only Biblical (not to mention legally practical and ethical) option we have is to forgive debts that are owed to us by others. We have no such option to demand such of others or simply refuse to repay. To forgive a debt is their choice, and only their choice.
If this is really an option, how about everyone in the country simply expect the government to forgive them of their tax debt?
Sorry, GD, but you're not going to wiggle out of your statement that easily. Does the bill eventually come due in light of the information I've provided or does it not? After you offer your explanation and thoughts, we can move on.
Larry, I'd recommend starting here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Readjustment
From 1947 until 1958, the U.S. deliberately encouraged an outflow of dollars, and, from 1950 on, the United States ran a balance of payments deficit with the intent of providing liquidity for the international economy. Dollars flowed out through various U.S. aid programs: the Truman Doctrine entailing aid to the pro-U.S. Greek and Turkish regimes, which were struggling to suppress communist revolution, aid to various pro-U.S. regimes in the Third World, and most important, the Marshall Plan. From 1948 to 1954 the United States provided 16 Western European countries $17 billion in grants.
The purpose of all of this was to encourage free trade and liberal economic theory to prevent world wars from happening again. It was also a strategy aimed at stemming the spread of the Soviet Union's influence and ideology in the world. Reagan continued this during his time in office and, in many ways, turned it up a notch with the deficits he ran.
How do geopolitical ramifications change how math works?
See the Bretton Woods link above and....
Suppose somehow we pass a balanced budget amendment. So, now your wish has come true. We are spending the same amount of money we are taking in with no deficit or serious debt. With the amendment now law, we have to live within our means just like Mary Jane Homemaker. But one day we wake up and find that China has invaded Taiwan and massively destabilized that region of the world. The markets began to react and the world economy is in turmoil. Many countries look to us to try to solve this issue but it costs more money than we are taking in and, since that sort of spending is now illegal, our hands are tied. Perhaps other countries who don't have this law step in and let's say these countries don't encourage free trade or free markets. Our power begins to erode and so does our ideological influence in the world.
This is a great example as to why running balanced budgets isn't necessarily a good thing. It's really not a good idea for the leader of the free world and the sole superpower. Get my point now?
What work do you claim this verse does for you?
I think it's pretty self explanatory. To me it says that God has forgiven our wickedness and will remember our sins no more because of the Grace of Jesus Christ. If we believe, we are saved (Romans 10: 9-10). Sinning doesn't enter into the equation anymore because we have a new covenant with God which is detailed in the entire chapter of Hebrews 8.
Never heard of it.
Look them up. I'm curious as to whether or not you think they are "real" Christians.
Regarding your Matthew quote, you're focusing in on the part that suits your argument. How about the rest of Matthew 5, hmmm?
To forgive a debt is their choice, and only their choice.
Well, that's not the point I'm trying to make. If they make that choice, then the bill doesn't eventually come due because they have forgiven the debt, right?
Well, that's not the point I'm trying to make.
That is the point we are trying to make.
If they make that choice, then the bill doesn't eventually come due because they have forgiven the debt, right?
And if they don't and you've spent based on the assumption that they will?
(I will respond to the rest later, except Jubilee 2000 due to lack of time.)
But one day we wake up and find that China has invaded Taiwan and massively destabilized that region of the world. The markets began to react and the world economy is in turmoil.
Hold on to your seat, Mark! I actually have the same concern with a balanced budget amendment. If it does not allow for borrowing in case of emergencies, then when (not if) emergencies arise which require borrowing, then we are screwed.
But that is exactly my concern with deficit spending. When we're borrowing and spending every dollar we can get our hands on when there is no emergency, there is no more room for additional borrowing when (not if) such emergencies arise, leaving us screwed.
The only rational course is a middle ground. Fiscal constraint when times are good, paying off debts, putting a little money away for a rainy day. Then when the emergencies do come up, we have funds available to react immediately and the ability to borrow what's needed for the duration of that emergency. That's how we managed to survive and prevail during and after WWII.
If your scenario actually came up today, I think our economy would probably collapse; not because of the extra costs of active involvement, but the mere domino effect of the worldwide economic earthquake hitting economies like ours that have no safety margin left.
Get my point now?
Out of town working Mark, but I will get back to you on this.
I think it's pretty self explanatory. To me it says that God has forgiven our wickedness and will remember our sins no more because of the Grace of Jesus Christ. If we believe, we are saved (Romans 10: 9-10). Sinning doesn't enter into the equation anymore because we have a new covenant with God which is detailed in the entire chapter of Hebrews 8.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you actually claiming there is no such thing as right and wrong anymore? That there is no such thing as sin? That God has said that literally anything goes now?
And who does this apply to? I know you said "if we believe", but 8:11 says "they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." What does verse 10 mean by "the house of Israel"?
Regarding your Matthew quote, you're focusing in on the part that suits your argument. How about the rest of Matthew 5, hmmm?
The rest of Matthew 5 does not overturn the Old Testament. Pay attention to the details. He was correcting distortions of the Old Testament which had become common. For example, these are notes I've collected on 5:43-48:
-----
Leviticus 19:18
The pharisees omitted the words “as yourself.”
“Hate your enemy” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. They were advocating hatred of those who were different.
Exodus 23:4-5; Proverbs 25:21
They changed the command in three ways:
1. They omitted part of the command: “as yourself”
2. They changed a definition: “neighbor” became “those you approve of”
3. They added to the command: “hate your enemy”
-----
Be sure to look up those verse references. They make it clear that Jesus was correcting their misunderstandings of the texts, not overturning them. The other "you have heard it said" sections have exactly the same kinds of corrections. (Another quick example: "eye for an eye" is not a code of personal vengeance as the Jews had made it, it was a precept of law: the punishment must fit the crime.)
The verse I quoted was Jesus' warning that he was about to sound like he was overturning scripture, but that he wasn't. He was only overturning cultural distortions.
The only "overturning" in the New Testament is that Christians are not bound by ceremonial laws given to Israel because they were part of the old covenant. You know, those shellfish, mixing cloth, animal sacrifice type laws.
From 1947 until 1958, the U.S. deliberately encouraged an outflow of dollars, and, from 1950 on, the United States ran a balance of payments deficit with the intent of providing liquidity for the international economy. Dollars flowed out through various U.S. aid programs: the Truman Doctrine entailing aid to the pro-U.S. Greek and Turkish regimes, which were struggling to suppress communist revolution, aid to various pro-U.S. regimes in the Third World, and most important, the Marshall Plan. From 1948 to 1954 the United States provided 16 Western European countries $17 billion in grants.
You should already be familiar with some version of the Debt to GDP chart on this page. Despite doing these things, our spending went DOWN after WWII. We started paying that debt back! We went back to living within our means.
We could do that because we weren't spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on things like Social Security. Is that the kind of economy you want to go back to?
The point is simple. Exactly what the money is spent on matters less than the keeping the spending within income! If we're living within our means, then everything else is quibbling over priorities, not worrying about economic destruction.
Yes, there is still such a thing as sin but it's pretty clear that by accepting Jesus as the son of God and savior, you are saved. Sin does not enter into the equation because Christ died for our sins. Sure, when we sin we break our fellowship with God but our belief in Christ saves us. We confess our belief not our sins and that's how God ultimately judges us, along, of course, with how we serve the less fortunate among us.
We weren't really living within our means during the Reagan Era. Look at the deficit spending during that time and compare it to WWII.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
That's not exactly living within our means either but I hope that you will agree that it was necessary. And look at the results.
See the Bretton Woods link above and....
A simple-minded wiki article that you cling to like it was holy writ. Need I remind you of what you learned from Manzi about that era?
We weren't really living within our means during the Reagan Era.
No, we weren't. Reagan and his advisers erroneously believed they could "starve" govt of revenue to force down spending. I think we can all agree that that is simply not possible with the federal govt. If you want to bring the budget to balance you have to attack spending first. Since no one, including the SuperFriendsCommittee has any intention of actually cutting spending - well, there you have it. Some external discipline will eventually have to come - sort of like what has been forced on the Greeks.
Yes, there is still such a thing as sin but it's pretty clear that by accepting Jesus as the son of God and savior, you are saved.
That much I can agree with. My question is still with this phrase:
Sin does not enter into the equation
Sin still has an impact on Christians:
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
— 1 Corinthians 3:11–15
In other words, yes, your sins have been forgiven. And if you then lead a sin-filled life, you'll get into heaven, but smelling of smoke. (Note: "the day" means the day of judgement.)
Paul considers willfully sinning because of grace so bad that he literally repeats himself in condemning that idea:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
— Romans 6:1–2
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
— Romans 6:15–16
He also says this in between the repeats:
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
— Romans 6:12–13
Hebrews is even harsher:
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.” And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
— Hebrews 10:26–31
(Note: The translation I'm using uses all uppercase to highlight quotations from the Old Testament.)
Paul repeats the theme again in Galatians 5:13.
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
— Galatians 5:13
And in verses 16-24 he contrasts living according to our own desires with living according to God's desires. Romans 7 he even complains about how hard it is.
The other thing I'm still unclear on is why you have bothered to bring up Hebrews 8:12 in the contexts where you did. Your explanations still haven't tied what that verse says to the places where you've brought it up. Again, why did you bring it up here (and elsewhere)? What does it "prove"? What does sins being forgiven have to do with government spending, debt, and taxes?
I'm outta here for a week, so don't expect any responses.
That's cool. I'll leave a response and you can get around to it whenever.
Sin enters into the equation only insofar as Christ dying for all our sins. I'm not suggesting that we can all wantonly sin and be protected by Jesus. Sinning breaks our fellowship with God and, as you say, one would be "smelling of smoke" if such a path filled with sinning was taken. Let's remember, though, that there would also be quite a bit of smoke if said person didn't serve the least among us.
I bring up Hebrews 8:12...actually the entire chapter of Hebrews 8...because it details the transition from the old to the new and how we are no longer "sinners in the hands of an angry God" but now are in a period of Grace with a loving and forgiving God.
What does sins being forgiven have to do with government spending, debt, and taxes?
Well, that's the whole notion of Jubilee which ties into serving the poor: forgiving debts. There's not only a religious component to this but a practical one as well. Countries in the Global South who become too burdened by debt are often run over by radical groups who then seek to destabilize the region of the world in which they reside. This usually results in a national security issue which invariably leads to harm to the global marketplace...the effects of which we all now feel, right? So, there are times (not all the time) when forgiving debt has a number of pluses.
Post a Comment