[FoRK] "Two faces of the Tea Party"
jbone at place.org
Thu Jun 24 18:44:17 PDT 2010
On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Dave Kammeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Dave Kammeyer wrote:
>>> Show me some cuts that you are willing to make that will net 50-100
>>> billion and then I know you're serious.
>> There're only a few places that can come from. Every serious person looking at this BS knows that. Entitlements will be drastically reduced. We'll exit the perpetual war business. End of story.
> And higher taxes, and inflation. That's what the Tea Party types rail
> against, but that is the reality. Even cutting everything you can
> think of, you don't get enough.
This is nonsensical. If you cut everything enough, most of what you've got left is debt service --- and a lot of that is owed *back to the public.* Roughly-equivalent present tax base, potentially reoriented to free more productive capital, plus an increasing slowdown on tapping NPV discounted future domestic product, plus growth of future product as some of what currently goes to fund entitlements and other fiscal black holes is freed for productive purposes, and you've restored tenability.
> Furthermore, these taxes will be
> primarily on higher-income people, because that is who earns the vast
> majority of money in the U.S.
Also who funds growth of future domestic product.
> Inflation is a necessity, because due
> to the large debt that we have, if interest rates were to go to more
> natural levels, the deficit would be way worse due to borrowing costs
> to the govt.
Inflation is a treadmill that ratchets up mercilessly. It is a tax. And a very regressive one.
> Ok, let's see a self-proclaimed tea-partier with an actual, numerical
> plan to balance the budget. I see a lot of people complaining about
> high taxes, and some vague ideas about how to cut spending, mostly by
> repealing HCR and getting rid of "waste." That ain't gonna do it.
Yes, yes, you've asserted your thesis now numerous times. I don't understand why you think merely repeating yourself is somehow going to be convincing.
> Show me a column of numbers that sums to zero.
How about a column of numbers that doesn't grow as fast?
Clearly you aren't willing to apply your "all or none" logic universally.
Anything that slows growth, shrinks entitlement, frees capital, increases (rather than reduces, as the present proposals all do) entrepreneurship, caps spending or any number of other things that have been discussed would be an improvement over the status quo.
More information about the FoRK