Wisconsin Liberal Disconnects

Today, several schools in Wisconsin announced that they would be closed so that their teachers could attend protests in the state capital, Madison, against GOP Gov. Walker’s proposals to take away collective bargaining rights from public sector unions. Wisconsin, like neighboring Illinois, is going broke. The behavior of the Wisconsin public school teachers pretty much underscores why Gov. Walker is right.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-protests-mount-as-wis-lawmakers-consider-antiunion-bill-20110217,0,5403222.story

We have several friends and relatives in Wisconsin who come from solid blue-color union backgrounds. Some have already retired on handsome benefit packages (one was able to retire with full retirement benefits at age-49), albeit from the private sector. Following their Facebook comments, we learn that they are in full uproar, encouraging each other to go to Madison to lend their support to the protests.

The funny thing is, these are the same individuals who have been complaining to us that they are thinking of moving out of Wisconsin because the cost of living and taxes are too high.

I suspect that this type of cluelessness is pretty common among Liberals in general.

So, in trying to patiently explain our (national) debt crisis to Liberals (I know, I know…for too many of them, math is hard, so KISS), I propose trying to lead them to the following exchange, based on conversations that I have had:

Liberal: “Our country should not have any trouble affording [insert Liberal pet project du jour]. We are the richest country in the world” (a line repeated to me ad nauseum)

Conservative: “Is someone with an annual income of $150,000 rich?”

(national GDP of roughly $15 trillion)

Liberal: “yes”

Conservative: “Is someone with an annual income of $150,000 that already owes $1,300,000 and $15,000 in new credit card debt rich”?

(Government debt obligations of $130 trillion plus $1.5 trillion in annual debt)

Liberal: ??

Conservative: “This is where we are as a country today!” (national + state debt plus entitlements, in trillions).

Does anyone have any better ideas on how to get this simple idea across to Liberals….that we are flat broke?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    I am from New York.  In New York it is illegal for certain classes of public-sector employees, including teachers, to go on strike.  And yet every fall there are always some who do.  New York, for whatever reason, never puts them in jail.  I have never understood this, it would be what I do as a matter of reflex.  I currently live in Washington, where it is – surprise, surprise! – illegal for some classes of public-sector employees, a class which very much includes teachers, to go on strike.  And yet, every fall, there are school districts that experience teacher strikes.  And, inevitably, none of them are tossed in jail – which is where they belong for illegally striking.  I am unable to explain why this is the case.
     
    I don’t know the law in Wisconsin, but am compelled by circumstance to suppose that it is probably illegal for their teachers to be on strike.  If this is the case, why the hell are they not in jail?
     
    It would not get the idea that we are flat broke across, but it would at least, by the number of voices reposing in cages, lower the volume to which those of us with sense are compelled to listen.

  2. Charles Martel says

    Liberals do not get simple math. The reason why is that the math, no matter how clearcut, gets in the way of the Narrative.

    My wife is a perfect example of somebody who clings to the Narrative no matter what. The other night, sitting at dinner with our son, the subject of some threatened California state program came up. I said, “There’s no money to pay for it so it’s silly to even discuss funding it.” Mrs. Martel said, “The wealthy can pay for it.” I pointed out that “the wealthy” already pay the lion’s share of state taxes, so it might be prudent not to push our grasping hands any further up the cloacas of our golden geese. “Besides,” I said, “taxes push wealthy people out of the state. Who’s going to replace them?” She mumbled something about how there are always people around who make their money—unfairly, it seems—off of other people. Just keep an eye on them and our funding problems will take care of themselves.

    National park rangers often tell campers that the way they control errant bears who are bothering humans is to first get the bears’ attention by whapping them on the head with a 2 x 4. “Once you have it, you can then get the bear to understand your concern.”

    The 2 x 4 that will finally get liberals’ attention in this case will be the collapse of the U.S. economy, which, more than ever, seems to be a looming possibility.

  3. MacG says

    Danny,  That’s simple math – even I got it! :)  It seems the old bumper sticker “I can’t be out of money, I still have checks”  has chang-ed to the hope-filled “We can’t be out of money, they still have checks”.  The Bible says that those who are in debt are slaves to that debtor.  Soon we will be the slaves of the world it seems.  Debt the great equalizer (for the poor that is).  There is no freedom in debt (though you can still play the video game while you ignore the phone calls of the collector soon it will be the Sheriff knocking on your door to take you in for some free room and board.

  4. bizcor says

    “jj, I am led to believe it is illegal for teachers in Wisconsin to strike. However they are not on strike…wait for it…wait for it…they are all out sick…so they are getting paid while out protesting. Wait a minute is calling in sick when you are not breach of contract?

    Whoa the Wisconsin Democrat Senators have left the building and maybe the state.
     

     

    I have had the Wisconsin fight song in my head for the last couple of days. On Wisconsin, on Wisconsin fight fight fight…
    Take heart my friends…Chris Christie hit a home run in DC yesterday, Gov. Rick Scott in Florida has proposed billions in cuts including layoffs in the public sector, Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin is telling unions no.. Of course the democrats have trucked in students and no doubt SEIU thugs to protest but I think the country has awakened. I would love to see a reliable poll on this but I would be willing to bet the majority of the people in this country are in favor of the cuts.

  5. Danny Lemieux says

    Bizcor…if the Democrat legislators have left Wisconsin, that’s a good thing. Just as long as they don’t come to Illinois. We have far too many Liberals trashing the landscape here as it is.
     
    Are you a Badger too?

  6. says

    Danny Lemieux: Government debt obligations of $130 trillion plus $1.5 trillion in annual debt

    Can you point to a reliable economic source for that number?

    In any case, that’s only half the balance sheet. You now have to calculate total assets. You’ll find the U.S. is more than capable of meeting its obligations over the long term.

  7. bizcor says

    No Danny I am originally from Maine, and currently live in New Hampshire. While in the Navy I was stationed in Great Lakes and used to travel up to Wisconsin often. Our daughter and son in law currently reside in Wisconsin about an hour west of Madison. As far as the Democrats leaving the state house it has been done to prevent a quarum therefore preventing a vote on the legislation. Rumor I heard was they all got on a school bus and left town. Can’t confirm the school bus rumor but below is a link regarding the Senators.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/teachers-march-wisconsin-capitol-senate-moves-curtail-union-rights/ 

  8. Charles Martel says

    “You now have to calculate total assets. You’ll find the U.S. is more than capable of meeting its obligations over the long term.”

    Can you point to a reliable economic source for that assertion?

  9. says

    Teachers are now basically nothing more than the hired hands of political special interests.
     
    Increasing their pay, isn’t increasing education. It increases the factionalism present in the country, in which government power is sought after to prosecute and nullify the prosperity of others.
     
     

  10. stanley says

    #7,
    True that the US still has much assets of value. But to access that means to “liquidate”, or eat your capital. This is the beginning of the end. So just because you have assets does not mean it is a good thing to liquidate.
    It is thinking like this that is why we are in the shape we are in, among other things. Some of you quote what liberals use as justification for the unproductive to rob the productive, but that just indicates a profound lack of common sense, substituted by a state-sponsored “formal education”.
    I do not think we are going to work our way out of this situation without a lot, and I mean a lot of pain and suffering. It is too late and society is burdened by people who have not an ounce of common sense nor an understanding of what it takes to be a free society.
    Here is a link to a person, currently in prison, under the most horrific of circumstances. He calls himself “American’s #1 political prisoner” and if judged by his past accomplishments he is right up there. We now have our government discussing “sovereign debt default”.  For all of our supposed “wealth” in assets, why is this discussion even occuring. While I don’t agree with all of Martin Armstrong (he sees a need for a Federal Reserve though not performing as it does now), his cyclical perspective of economics is something that I do agree with. One of the most interesting ideas is that “socialism is dead”. Problem is that it is morphing into its next stage, facism. http://www.martinarmstrong.org/economic_projections.htm

  11. says

    Danny:

    My maternal great-grandfather was a banker.  One of the things he told his granddaughter (my mother) is “the man without debts is a rich man.”  Clearly, he was a relic of a long-distant era.

    Liberals fundamentally never let reality interfere with their beliefs and desires, which is why I thought it was so funny that, for a while, they kept calling themselves the “reality-based community.”  I’ve told you before about Mr. Bookworm’s steadfast refusal to accept that the lightly sugared tea he routinely drips on my kitchen floor causes sticky patches.  “There’s almost no sugar in it.  That can’t be happening.”  Ah, but it is….

    As for not arresting law-breakers, jj, that’s just a liberal thing.  You humiliate conservatives and ignore criminals.  Easy-peasy.

  12. says

    Danny Lemieux: A first-rate article by Kevin Williamson in the National Review (June 21, 2010) catalogued our country’s debt obligations …

    That was suspected, as his article has been echoing through the right-wing blogosphere, and don’t seem to have independent support.
     
    Danny Lemieux: Government assets do not equal all the U.S.’s assets, as it does not have claim on private assets.

    If a government incurs an obligation, then the people incur that obligation. In any case, people will continue to need their food inspected, their children educated, need security, environmental protection, will grow old and sick. If the obligation is small compared to the available resources, then the ‘sky is falling’ mentality is misplaced.

    The U.S. generates ~$15 trillion per year in GDP. If we make any reasonable assumption for return on investment, then that indicates U.S. assets are at least a couple of hundred trillion dollars. But we can determine the number from the Z1: Flow of Funds of the United States which indicates $141 trillion in financial assets and at least $46 trillion in tangible assets.

    Many analysts put U.S. long term obligations at $60-$80 trillion. But let’s use Williamson’s unsupported $130 trillion. The U.S. still has far more assets, than liabilities. So what you have is what is known as a liquidity problem. Liquidity problems shouldn’t be minimized. Obviously, the U.S. needs to put his financial house in order. Fortunately, you are in a position to borrow. In the meantime, over the next 50 years, the U.S. will generate (assuming 3% growth) $1691 trillion in GDP. Somewhere in there, the U.S. can find a way to take care of their elderly and sick, maintain the infrastructure, and still have a thriving private sector.
     
    Conservative: “Is someone with an annual income of $150,000 that already owes $1,300,000 and $15,000 in new credit card debt rich”?

    The question is whether it is reasonable for an ongoing entity making $150k to pay out $1.3 million over a number of years and still afford the amenities of life. And the answer is yes. Over 50 years, $150k is $7.5 million. With pay raises of 3% per year, nearly $17 million. There’s plenty there to work with.

  13. says

    stanley: But to access that means to “liquidate”, or eat your capital. This is the beginning of the end. So just because you have assets does not mean it is a good thing to liquidate.

    Didn’t see your comment until after posting. That’s why a liquidity crisis can be dangerous, as was addressed above.

  14. suek says

    So…if it can be shown that the school bus on which they were transported en masse was supplied by a public school, what are the consequences?  who pays for the mileage?  the driver’s time?  If it can be shown that it was paid for by the SEIU, would there be any consequences?

  15. Charles Martel says

    I notice that young or foreign Zach (the bad grammar is the giveaway with this particular manifestation) scrupulously avoids mentioning that his scenario can only work if the U.S. stops taking on debt.

    Also, I’m interested in the magic 3% annual growth/pay raise figure he mentions. Is that an emanation or a penumbra? In any case, where the hell did it come from? I NEED CITES!

  16. Danny Lemieux says

    SADIE – that raised a chuckle. I know the Rockford “Clock Tower Inn” very well. I stayed there once early in my career – got a horrific case of food poisoning that had me spewing out both ends. Hmm! That was very long ago, but we can only hope…


    National Review as part of the unsupported “right-wing” blogosphere. Right!
     
    Liquidation of assets. Interesting concept, that. Perhaps the Obama administration should get out in front of it and offer our mineral and oil rights, not to mention a state or two, up for sale to the highest bidder. What would Alaska or Hawaii be worth? How well do you think that would go over with the public? Puts a whole new spin on the term “sell out”, doesn’t it?
     
    I can’t help but muse about the elephant in the room, however. That is what will happen to U.S. debt obligations when interest rates (and the service on the debt) inevitably shoot up. Things should really get interesting then.
     
    Charles, I would amend your statement to “…if the U.S. stops taking on debt tomorrow!”
     

  17. SADIE says

    Danny – In a Groucho Marx moment you said  the magic *word/s. and the duck has landed.
     
    *Liquidation of assets below and….



    http://americawakeup.net/acquisitions.php

    and…..

    Things have already becoming interesting for $10 billion – the sale of the NYSE. It barely got a mention in the news, unless I was so focused on other events it totally by-passed me.   Bailed out two years ago and then sold out.

    Under the terms of the deal, Deutsche Börse shareholders will own 60% of the newly merged company, with NYSE shareholders controlling 40%. Each Deutsche Börse share will be exchanged for one share of the new company’s stock, while each share of NYSE Euronext will be swapped for 0.47 share of the new company stock.
    http://biggovernment.com/snkapadia/2011/02/15/nyse-an-american-icon-sold-to-a-bunch-of-foreigners/

  18. says

    It’s the same here in NJ, public employees are NOT allowed to strike, and they are not arrested. So there is nothing to stop them.

    But, WAIT!  Sometimes laws are enforced . . .

    Middletown township, NJ, is by no means a poor area. I believe, the median income is above the national average.  This is the New Jersy shore afterall, not a cheap place to live.  In the Fall of 2001 the Middletown teachers had gone on strike for the second time in just three years. The area, and the nation, had just been hit by the 9-11 attacks, many of those from NJ who were murdered in New York that day were from some of these shore communities, including Middletown Township.

    Several (or was it ALL? I don’t remember) teachers walked off the job.  They were brought before a judge who ordered them back to work or they could resign.  Those that refused to resign or to go back to work were hauled off to jail IMMEDIATELY! 

    I remember reading one account in which one of the teachers pleaded with the judge to let her go home to feed her cat and get her medicine before going to jail.  Bravo for the judge as his response was something along the lines of “she should have thought of all that before she engaged in illegal activity.”  She ended up having to call a neighbor to feed her cat and to bring her medicine to her while she sat in jail. 

    In addition to her breaking the law and not having the foresight to plan for all this she also had the misfortune of having a last name that was near the begining of the alphabet.  If my memory serves me correctly the judge did not have to talk to each and every striking teacher.  The judge only got part way through the alphabetical list of teachers when the rest saw that the judge was serious, so most went back to work the next day.

    Funny, Middletown township hasn’t had a teacher’s strike since then.

  19. says

    “Is someone who earns $150,000 and has debt of $1.3 million rich?”
     
    The question cannot be answered without looking at his *assets* as well as his income and liabilities. If he spent the $1.3 million buying a business which is generating little or no current income but has good prospects for the future, then he may be pretty well off. Similarly if he spent the money buying zero-coupon bonds, which pay no current interest but basically accumulate it for payment upon maturity. (Assuming the zero coups aren’t for a municipality which goes broke, but that’s a different point)
    The problem we now have is not just the debt, but the fact that so much of the money raised by the debt has been, and is being, wasted.

  20. SADIE says

    bizcor
     
    What’s so damn infuriating is that a) it happened, b) none of the millions ov investors were asked to vote and c) not one segment on the news or column to be read on the topic.
     
    This was not a little  entry into the historical notebook of history, this was Joe Biden talking moment. What happens the next time there’s a ‘flash n’ crash’ moment or a hack attack?
     
    Yep, I am ready for a Tea Party with turrets!

  21. jj says

    Come on, Charlie M. – you have more reasonable conversations with your dog – or even me – than you do with this guy.  You won’t change him, and you can’t teach him… so?  (I’m not capable of generating your patience.)

    On the other hand: fresh powder everywhere, long weekend – shazam!

  22. Charles Martel says

    jj, good call—I do have nicer tete-a-tetes with my dog.

    Speaking of, it’s not really my patience or anybody else’s at work here with Zach. Think of him as a chew toy. Gnawing on Zach is a way to pass the time until the Left finally sends us a real thinker.  

  23. says

    Zachriel: Obviously, the U.S. needs to put his financial house in order.

    Charles Martel: I notice that young or foreign Zach{riel} (the bad grammar is the giveaway with this particular manifestation) scrupulously avoids mentioning that his scenario can only work if the U.S. stops taking on debt.
     
    Read it again.

    Charles Martel: Also, I’m interested in the magic 3% annual growth/pay raise figure he mentions. Is that an emanation or a penumbra?

    Average growth of GDP in the U.S. was 3.3% from 1947 to 2010. http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2010/11/04/log-scale-long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-1871-2009/

    The growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2010 was 3.2%.
    http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

    Growth may slow somewhat due to demographics (the retirement of the baby boom), so if you prefer to use a 2% growth rate, then the U.S. will produce about $1268 trillion over fifty years. But even at 0% growth, the U.S. will produce $750 trillion over that period.
     
    Danny Lemieux: Liquidation of assets. Interesting concept, that.

    Not necessary (except to liquidate excess assets). Investors can look at the balance sheet, the overall income, the potential for growth, and are willing to lend the capital necessary for restructuring. The U.S. has problems other countries can only dream of. That doesn’t mean changes aren’t required. Once the economy stabilizes, the Federal budget should be brought into line. That will require spending cuts as well as some modest tax increases.

    At the end of the Clinton Administration, there were long term projected surpluses. One of the presidential candidates suggested putting some of it aside for a rainy day. The other candidate proposed tax cuts. America chose tax cuts, leading to ongoing deficits, a market bubble, and fiscal calamity. 
     
    Zachriel: That was suspected, as {Williamson’s} article has been echoing through the right-wing blogosphere, and do{es}n’t seem to have independent support.

    Danny Lemieux: National Review as part of the unsupported “right-wing” blogosphere.

    Please read it again. National Review is self-described conservative commentary. Williamson’s commentary has been bouncing around the right-wing blogosphere. We don’t have to Google Williamson’s article, *just the number* to see the bounce. This is how the echo chamber works. Someone makes an unsupported claim, and everyone repeats it.
    http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22%24130+trillion%22
     
    Danny Lemieux: That is what will happen to U.S. debt obligations when interest rates (and the service on the debt) inevitably shoot up.

    That’s a very important component of the liquidity crisis. If the U.S. ignores the problem, rates will rise, and it will be even harder to fix the problem. But if the U.S. addresses the problem, then there will be less pressure on rates over the long term. 
     
    David Foster: The question cannot be answered without looking at his *assets* as well as his income and liabilities. If he spent the $1.3 million buying a business which is generating little or no current income but has good prospects for the future, then he may be pretty well off.

    Quite right!

    Anyone who looks at the U.S. can see great income potential. A very good credit risk — if they just put their fiscal house in order. 
     
    David Foster: The problem we now have is not just the debt, but the fact that so much of the money raised by the debt has been, and is being, wasted.

    Basically, living beyond its means. Instead of setting aside the projected surpluses, or investing it, they cut taxes.
     

  24. Danny Lemieux says

    It’s kind of interesting how the Left bleats on and on about the Clinton Administration’s projected surpluses. Typical of the Left to take a snapshot in time and project it into the future as if history is static rather than dynamic. As a point of order, most people on the Left conveniently forget that it is Congress that has the power of the purse, not the Executive branch. So, to put the current deficit debate in the proper perspective, the following:
     
    First, the cuts mostly came about as a result of defense spending cuts following the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was supposed to usher in an age of peace and prosperity, remember?).
     
    Second, it was the Republican Congress, not Clinton or the Democrats, that forced the Clinton Administration to reduce its deficits over the last two years.
     
    Third, the surpluses only held up until the economy (the “tech boom”) crashed, resulting in significant reductions in tax revenues. This was exacerbated by 9/11 and the soft economy immediately following.
     
    Fourth, we are now talking about current deficits that are the result of collusion between a radical-Democrat Left-dominated Congress and the executive branch. These are deficits that render the deficits of either the Bush or Clinton administrations to insignificance.
     
    Fifth, the Clinton-era deficits and (projected) surpluses addressed only Federal government spending, not the state, local, pension, social security and health care entitlement obligation that lie at the root of the country’s economic problems.

  25. Danny Lemieux says

    It’s interesting, Charles M, how people on the Left like to straight-line project trends, irrespective of the facts on the ground. Carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere? Well…project it straight out ad infinitum. A temporary warming trend? Well, project it straight out and we will obviously fry. A temporary cooling trend? Ack- anathema!
     
    Similar with economic statistics – it’s obvious to the Left that just because the average growth in the economy as been X, therefore it must always be X…irrespective of government policies and economic realities. I am sure that Cuba’s economic growth during the 1940s and 1950s just kept going up and up and up under Castro as it did under Castro’s predecessors.
     
    The U.S. enjoyed a stellar period of growth after WWII because we (and Sweden) remained relatively unscathed by the war. Now, we operate in a very different world with very different rules of play in which we have very real competitors and many jobs have been lost to technological obsolescence even as our government makes it much more difficult for businesses to compete.
     
    To assume that we will continue to enjoy the same rates of growth just because we did so in the past is, frankly, silly.
     

  26. says

    I said:

    The problem we now have is not just the debt, but the fact that so much of the money raised by the debt has been, and is being, wasted.
    to which Zachriel responded: Basically, living beyond its means. Instead of setting aside the projected surpluses, or investing it, they cut taxes.
    You ignore the fact that vast sums of money are being spent by government at all levels, and much of it, although represented as “investment”, is in fact wasted…on dysfunctional public schools, railroads to nowhere, subsidization of  higher education which wastes money on a vast scale and has too often failed to do a decent job of serious teaching, bailouts of politically-connected corporations and uneconomic “green” projects, etc etc.

  27. says

    Danny Lemieux: the cuts mostly came about as a result of defense spending cuts following the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was supposed to usher in an age of peace and prosperity, remember?).

    Much of the deficit reduction included tax increases. It was followed by several years of sustained growth, and led to budget surpluses.
     
    Danny Lemieux it was the Republican Congress, not Clinton or the Democrats, that forced the Clinton Administration to reduce its deficits over the last two years.

    Not one Republican voted for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, with many saying it would lead to economic collapse. Instead, it was followed by several years of sustained growth, and led to budget surpluses. Gore cast the tie-breaker in the Senate.

    However, Republicans were instrumental in welfare reform. To make the reform sustainable required jobs and job assistance for those newly entering the workforce, something the Clinton Administration stressed. 
     
    Danny Lemieuxthe surpluses only held up until the economy (the “tech boom”) crashed, resulting in significant reductions in tax revenues.

    The recession at the beginning of the Bush Administration was short-lived and didn’t significantly impact the economic fundamentals — unlike the financial meltdown in 2008.
     
    Danny Lemieuxwe are now talking about current deficits that are the result of collusion between a radical-Democrat Left-dominated Congress and the executive branch. These are deficits that render the deficits of either the Bush or Clinton administrations to insignificance.

    That’s what happens when you break your economy. 
     
    Danny Lemieuxthe Clinton-era deficits and (projected) surpluses addressed only Federal government spending, not the state, local, pension, social security and health care entitlement obligation that lie at the root of the country’s economic problems.

    A couple extra trillion in the bank would have come in handy in the last couple of years, and would have mitigated many of the worst aspects of the financial meltdown.
     

  28. says

    Danny Lemieux: Similar with economic statistics – it’s obvious to the Left that just because the average growth in the economy as been X, therefore it must always be X.

    The entire thread revolves around unsupported projections about the course of the economy over a 75 year time horizon.

    Strawman.

  29. says

    David Foster: You ignore the fact that vast sums of money are being spent by government at all levels, and much of it, although represented as “investment”, is in fact wasted…

    Rule of thumb: Half of all spending is wasted (and that assumes good management).

  30. Charles Martel says

    “The entire thread revolves around unsupported projections about the course of the economy over a 75 year time horizon. Strawman.”

    Folks, the pot has met the kettle and is now vigorously chiding it. 

    “Rule of thumb: Half of all spending is wasted (and that assumes good management).”

    CITES, please!

    “Once the economy stabilizes, the Federal budget should be brought into line. That will require spending cuts as well as some modest tax increases.”

    What a stunningly ingenuous and ignorant assumption lies hidden in that statement, namely that the economy will stabilize once the effects of current disastrous deficit spending have had their tonic effect. Also, when you hear a Kool Aid drinker like Zach say “modest tax increases,” reach for your wallet and your gun.

  31. says

    Zachriel: The entire thread revolves around unsupported projections about the course of the economy over a 75 year time horizon. Strawman.
    Charles Martel: Folks, the pot has met the kettle and is now vigorously chiding it. 

    The thread starts with an unsupported number concerning U.S. liabilities over some indeterminate amount of time, probably 75 years. From there it reasons to a sky is falling conclusion. It isn’t necessary to have a completely accurate projection to show that the claim is off by orders of magnitude. 
     
    Zachriel: Rule of thumb: Half of all spending is wasted (and that assumes good management).

    Charles Martel: Cites, please!

    It’s a common rule of thumb. Feel free to ignore it. 
     
    Charles Martel: What a stunningly ingenuous and ignorant assumption lies hidden in that statement …

    In fact, the global and U.S. economies have largely stabilized, and growth has returned. 
     
    Charles Martel: when you hear a Kool Aid drinker like Zach{riel} say “modeset tax increases,” reach for your wallet and your gun.

    A return to Clinton-era tax rates wouldn’t bankrupt the U.S. It’s possible to balance the budget without taxes, but it’s doubtful that the American public will be willing to do so. Guns won’t be necessary as the U.S. has a strong democratic tradition. Whatever decisions are made will be by the consent of the governed.
     

  32. SADIE says

    I interrupt this thread with an old quote, I particularly like them when the quote makes a *good point  [emphasis mine]

    Then-Senator Obama in 2006 voted against raising the limit, stating:

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. *America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply