Political Crossfire Forums

[Brooklyn]

I was thinking about this the other day. Gasoline is an inelastic product so people will not cut much consumption due to price increases. Could you consider gasoline a complimentary product to any other product that people are willing to give up consuming in order to keep the consuming the same amount of gas. Could you also make educated guesses about which products people will be willing to give up in order to keep consuming gas based on those products' elasticity? I know this doesn't fit the definition of "compliments". Are there other economic concepts that cover this information?

[LeopardPM]

I disagree that gasoline is inelastic in the first place. Not only are there a myriad of substitutes, but, many of its uses can be done without or demanded less (taking Sunday drives, not carpooling, electric furnaces instead of pellet stoves or other fuels, riding bikes instead of driving, etc).

An example of a truly inelastic good might be a glass of water in the desert, etc - beyond that, there are very few, if any, modern day examples.

[Brooklyn]

Quote: Not only are there a myriad of substitutes, but, many of its uses can be done without or demanded less (taking Sunday drives, not carpooling, electric furnaces instead of pellet stoves or other fuels, riding bikes instead of driving, etc).

I agree that there are many substitutes. I don't even own a car and never, ever, drive. However, for most Americans, using any of the substitutes are not an option for a number of reasons. Most of these reasons I don't agree with but, that is irrelevant. The fact remains demand for gasoline in the U.S. has stayed pretty steady even with the price increases.

[Publius2006]

LeopardPM wrote: I disagree that gasoline is inelastic in the first place. Not only are there a myriad of substitutes, but, many of its uses can be done without or demanded less (taking Sunday drives, not carpooling, electric furnaces instead of pellet stoves or other fuels, riding bikes instead of driving, etc).

An example of a truly inelastic good might be a glass of water in the desert, etc - beyond that, there are very few, if any, modern day examples.

Okay perhaps the better way of saying it is that gasoline is relatively inelastic. Sure people will try their best to decrease their consumption, but they can only do so much. Gasoline is actually one of the best examples of an inelastic product.

As far as the original statement goes, that would be interesting if we could accurately determine the primary goods that consumers are willing to sacrifice to maintain their consumption of gasoline. As you said this wouldn't quite meet the definition of complimentary goods, but I believe that it is a relationship worth investigating.

[ubikk]

Brooklyn wrote: I was thinking about this the other day. Gasoline is an inelastic product so people will not cut much consumption due to price increases. Could you consider gasoline a complimentary product to any other product that people are willing to give up consuming in order to keep the consuming the same amount of gas. Could you also make educated guesses about which products people will be willing to give up in order to keep consuming gas based on those products' elasticity? I know this doesn't fit the definition of "compliments". Are there other economic concepts that cover this information?

Obviously, they're going to forgo consumption of the most elastic products and services. So, take a look at those outputs that have the most elasticity.

Also, energy price elasticity (or inelasciticy) is not as simple as it looks. When people forgo other things to buy fuel, less energy is expended on producing and transporting those other things. There's a delayed effect, but still a reaction.

The corrollary to that is the case of the "Energy Conservation Paradox" which says that when people act to conserve energy, they will then spend the savings they collected from that conservation on other goods and services that in turn consume energy.

The "consevation paradox" is a common argument used by conservationists who believe that we have to make energy more expensive for everyone in order to have any true conservation and that's why most consevation programs have historically failed. I tend to agree with that camp.

I supported Clinton's BTU tax for that reason. It ultimately failed. Which is a shame, because the we've clearly seen that the economy can easily withstand gas prices in excess of $2 per gallon. We could have added a $1 tax to gasoline throughout the 1990s and paid off the entire national debt by the time prices finally started rising in summer of 2000.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: I supported Clinton's BTU tax for that reason. It ultimately failed. Which is a shame, because the we've clearly seen that the economy can easily withstand gas prices in excess of $2 per gallon. We could have added a $1 tax to gasoline throughout the 1990s and paid off the entire national debt by the time prices finally started rising in summer of 2000.
Yeah, right; spending would have been adjusted accordingly, and the impact there would have reduced revenue elsewhere.

[ubikk]

Quote: Yeah, right; spending would have been adjusted accordingly, and the impact there would have reduced revenue elsewhere.

Why not? The Administration had made deficit reduction a priority policy and the Congress was cooperating.

In fact as both branches worked together, deficits did go down, even as revenues from the growing economy went up. They did not rush spend all of the new revenue and then some.

Energy taxes on $12 oil and $0.89 cent gas was a lost opportunity. You can't deny that.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Quote: Yeah, right; spending would have been adjusted accordingly, and the impact there would have reduced revenue elsewhere.

Why not? The Administration had made deficit reduction a priority policy and the Congress was cooperating.

In fact as both branches worked together, deficits did go down, even as revenues from the growing economy went up. They did not rush spend all of the new revenue and then some.
Well, yes and no. They increased taxes, and cut spending. By the end of 8 years, and after a massive unsustainable bubble in the technology sector, they balanced the budget for a single year on paper. But look at how all the planets had to align. It's foolhardy, IMO, to assume that a huge tax on gas would not have had profound affects on these other forces.

Quote: Energy taxes on $12 oil and $0.89 cent gas was a lost opportunity. You can't deny that.
I can and do. You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

[ubikk]

Quote: You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

In my opinion, when we're trillions of dollars in debt, we need to raise revenue to pay it off. If Congress and The Administration are not willing to cut spending, they should pay their bills just like all the rest of us are expected to do.

If they want to cut revenue, they should cut spending first and refund the surplus. Just like regular people have to do when they take a pay cut or get laid-off.

Seems like Congress had no problem slapping regular folks with stiffer bankruptcy laws while at the same time repeatedly raising their own bankruptcy threshold (i.e. the limit on the national debt.) Hyporcisy, wouldn't you agree?

[Iriemon]

ubikk wrote: Quote: You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

In my opinion, when we're trillions of dollars in debt, we need to raise revenue to pay it off. If Congress and The Administration are not willing to cut spending, they should pay their bills just like all the rest of us are expected to do.

If they want to cut revenue, they should cut spending first and refund the surplus. Just like regular people have to do when they take a pay cut or get laid-off.

Seems like Congress had no problem slapping regular folks with stiffer bankruptcy laws while at the same time repeatedly raising their own bankruptcy threshold (i.e. the limit on the national debt.) Hyporcisy, wouldn't you agree?

Hear hear.

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Yeah, right; spending would have been adjusted accordingly, and the impact there would have reduced revenue elsewhere.

Why not? The Administration had made deficit reduction a priority policy and the Congress was cooperating.

In fact as both branches worked together, deficits did go down, even as revenues from the growing economy went up. They did not rush spend all of the new revenue and then some.
Well, yes and no. They increased taxes, and cut spending. By the end of 8 years, and after a massive unsustainable bubble in the technology sector, they balanced the budget for a single year on paper. But look at how all the planets had to align. It's foolhardy, IMO, to assume that a huge tax on gas would not have had profound affects on these other forces.

Quote: Energy taxes on $12 oil and $0.89 cent gas was a lost opportunity. You can't deny that.
I can and do. You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

And a gas tax would have been a perfect example of a "need-to" tax. We "need to" reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The best way to do that is to use market forces to encourage efficiency and development of alternatives by increasing the relative cost of the product.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen, gas prices stayed relatively cheap, people bought gas guzzling cars and there was little investment in alternatives, and our current president's plan to address the issue was to "jawbone" OPEC. Which has worked great. Now we are living with the consequences.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Quote: You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

In my opinion, when we're trillions of dollars in debt, we need to raise revenue to pay it off.
Good for you. I disagree; why are you right?

Quote: If Congress and The Administration are not willing to cut spending, they should pay their bills just like all the rest of us are expected to do.
Oh, I'm all for that: they can pay their bills. But that wasn't what you were suggesting; you were suggesting we pay their bills.

Quote: If they want to cut revenue, they should cut spending first and refund the surplus. Just like regular people have to do when they take a pay cut or get laid-off.
It's our money, not theirs. They should cut revenue regardless, as they are taking too much.

Quote: Seems like Congress had no problem slapping regular folks with stiffer bankruptcy laws while at the same time repeatedly raising their own bankruptcy threshold (i.e. the limit on the national debt.) Hyporcisy, wouldn't you agree?
Sure. They spend too much. Now, what are you going to do about it? Give them more to mismanage?

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: Yeah, right; spending would have been adjusted accordingly, and the impact there would have reduced revenue elsewhere.

Why not? The Administration had made deficit reduction a priority policy and the Congress was cooperating.

In fact as both branches worked together, deficits did go down, even as revenues from the growing economy went up. They did not rush spend all of the new revenue and then some.
Well, yes and no. They increased taxes, and cut spending. By the end of 8 years, and after a massive unsustainable bubble in the technology sector, they balanced the budget for a single year on paper. But look at how all the planets had to align. It's foolhardy, IMO, to assume that a huge tax on gas would not have had profound affects on these other forces.

Quote: Energy taxes on $12 oil and $0.89 cent gas was a lost opportunity. You can't deny that.
I can and do. You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

And a gas tax would have been a perfect example of a "need-to" tax. We "need to" reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The best way to do that is to use market forces to encourage efficiency and development of alternatives by increasing the relative cost of the product.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen, gas prices stayed relatively cheap, people bought gas guzzling cars and there was little investment in alternatives, and our current president's plan to address the issue was to "jawbone" OPEC. Which has worked great. Now we are living with the consequences.
I'd argue the market is correcting now what you suggest the government should have forcefully changed earlier. The gas prices will continue to go up, and the market will automatically move away from oil. Problem solved, and without even giving the government hundreds of billions of dollars it has no right to.

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

In my opinion, when we're trillions of dollars in debt, we need to raise revenue to pay it off.
Good for you. I disagree; why are you right?

Putting aside the fact that an ever increasing debt creates an ever increasing interest expense ($352 billion in 2005; http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm ) and increases the cost of credit for commercial businesses by increasing interest rates, many of us think it is wrong to expect future generations to pay for the costs of *our* government.

But I agree you are certainly not alone in your pro-debt atittude, lots of folks are, and the pass-the-buck Republicans pander to them.


Quote: Quote: If Congress and The Administration are not willing to cut spending, they should pay their bills just like all the rest of us are expected to do.
Oh, I'm all for that: they can pay their bills. But that wasn't what you were suggesting; you were suggesting we pay their bills.

And where are they going to get the money to pay for our government's bills?

Quote: Quote: If they want to cut revenue, they should cut spending first and refund the surplus. Just like regular people have to do when they take a pay cut or get laid-off.
It's our money, not theirs. They should cut revenue regardless, as they are taking too much.

Why not eliminate taxes altogether and just have the Govt borrow everything, eh?

Quote: Quote: Seems like Congress had no problem slapping regular folks with stiffer bankruptcy laws while at the same time repeatedly raising their own bankruptcy threshold (i.e. the limit on the national debt.) Hyporcisy, wouldn't you agree?
Sure. They spend too much. Now, what are you going to do about it? Give them more to mismanage?

Support candidates who are for a pay-go system and balanced budget and get the pass-the-buckers out of office!

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

In my opinion, when we're trillions of dollars in debt, we need to raise revenue to pay it off.
Good for you. I disagree; why are you right?

Putting aside the fact that an ever increasing debt creates an ever increasing interest expense ($352 billion in 2005; http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm ) and increases the cost of credit for commercial businesses by increasing interest rates, many of us think it is wrong to expect future generations to pay for the costs of *our* government.
Well, that's simply garbage. Future generations wont be paying for *our* costs any more than we're paying for past generations costs. The debt basically rolls over continually. It builds, but for the most part it increases with the GDP.

Quote: But I agree you are certainly not alone in your pro-debt atittude, lots of folks are, and the pass-the-buck Republicans pander to them.
Oh, sure, you soak-the-rich liberals have the answers. If only we would take every last cent from the American public and put it into government hands, we'd solve all our problems.

Quote: Quote: Quote: If Congress and The Administration are not willing to cut spending, they should pay their bills just like all the rest of us are expected to do.
Oh, I'm all for that: they can pay their bills. But that wasn't what you were suggesting; you were suggesting we pay their bills.

And where are they going to get the money to pay for our government's bills?
Where indeed! The problem with that rhetoric should be obvious now. The government doesn't pay for s**t: we do. When the government overspends its budget, that is an error on their part, and should be regarded as such. You'd apparently rather we grab our ankles and beg for more.

Quote: Quote: Quote: If they want to cut revenue, they should cut spending first and refund the surplus. Just like regular people have to do when they take a pay cut or get laid-off.
It's our money, not theirs. They should cut revenue regardless, as they are taking too much.

Why not eliminate taxes altogether and just have the Govt borrow everything, eh?
If they did, they'd probably have accumulated less debt. :lol:

If you build the trough, they (the pork) will come. Your "solution" is filling the trough with more funds, mine is filling it with less.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Seems like Congress had no problem slapping regular folks with stiffer bankruptcy laws while at the same time repeatedly raising their own bankruptcy threshold (i.e. the limit on the national debt.) Hyporcisy, wouldn't you agree?
Sure. They spend too much. Now, what are you going to do about it? Give them more to mismanage?
Support candidates who are for a pay-go system and balanced budget and get the pass-the-buckers out of office!
More like "plunge the nation into economic chaos in the name of fixing a debt that, for all intents and purposes, has little affect on most people's lives."

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

In my opinion, when we're trillions of dollars in debt, we need to raise revenue to pay it off.
Good for you. I disagree; why are you right?

Putting aside the fact that an ever increasing debt creates an ever increasing interest expense ($352 billion in 2005; http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm ) and increases the cost of credit for commercial businesses by increasing interest rates, many of us think it is wrong to expect future generations to pay for the costs of *our* government.
Well, that's simply garbage. Future generations wont be paying for *our* costs any more than we're paying for past generations costs. The debt basically rolls over continually. It builds, but for the most part it increases with the GDP.

Not true at all. In both real terms and as a percentage of GDP the public debt is twice as large now as before Reagan took office in 1981. And the debt would have been much higher still had the Clinton admin not put the brakes on borrowing for a few years.

Quote: Quote: But I agree you are certainly not alone in your pro-debt atittude, lots of folks are, and the pass-the-buck Republicans pander to them.
Oh, sure, you soak-the-rich liberals have the answers. If only we would take every last cent from the American public and put it into government hands, we'd solve all our problems.

I'd prefer spending cuts over deficits; no one is proposing a 25% across the board spending cut, to my knowledge. Who is even talking about balancing the budget? Certainly not the Republicans.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If Congress and The Administration are not willing to cut spending, they should pay their bills just like all the rest of us are expected to do.
Oh, I'm all for that: they can pay their bills. But that wasn't what you were suggesting; you were suggesting we pay their bills.

And where are they going to get the money to pay for our government's bills?
Where indeed! The problem with that rhetoric should be obvious now. The government doesn't pay for s**t: we do. When the government overspends its budget, that is an error on their part, and should be regarded as such. You'd apparently rather we grab our ankles and beg for more.

It's no error by the Govt, it is the irresponsibility of the deficit running administration.

I hate paying taxes. On the other hand, you'd rather the Govt borrow the money and let it be someone's else problem. That is immoral, in my view. You are entitled to your own opinion. As much as I hate paying taxes, *we* have the obligation to pay for *our* Govt. Not the next generation.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If they want to cut revenue, they should cut spending first and refund the surplus. Just like regular people have to do when they take a pay cut or get laid-off.
It's our money, not theirs. They should cut revenue regardless, as they are taking too much.

Why not eliminate taxes altogether and just have the Govt borrow everything, eh?
If they did, they'd probably have accumulated less debt. :lol:

Maybe under the "new math" :)

Quote: If you build the trough, they (the pork) will come. Your "solution" is filling the trough with more funds, mine is filling it with less.

If you don't fill the tax revenue trough, the pigs just go and feed from the debt trough. Your solution is running up debt through the debt trough.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Seems like Congress had no problem slapping regular folks with stiffer bankruptcy laws while at the same time repeatedly raising their own bankruptcy threshold (i.e. the limit on the national debt.) Hyporcisy, wouldn't you agree?
Sure. They spend too much. Now, what are you going to do about it? Give them more to mismanage?
Support candidates who are for a pay-go system and balanced budget and get the pass-the-buckers out of office!
More like "plunge the nation into economic chaos in the name of fixing a debt that, for all intents and purposes, has little affect on most people's lives."

We just disagree. Fair enough. You are like many or most of the pass the buck generation; happy with the Govt borrowing more and more as long as your taxes stay low. I agree with these guys:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01
www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf


"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" — President Reagan, Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: ubikk wrote: Quote: You don't tax because you can. You tax because you need to. The government needs to spend less, not tax more.

In my opinion, when we're trillions of dollars in debt, we need to raise revenue to pay it off.
Good for you. I disagree; why are you right?

Putting aside the fact that an ever increasing debt creates an ever increasing interest expense ($352 billion in 2005; http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm ) and increases the cost of credit for commercial businesses by increasing interest rates, many of us think it is wrong to expect future generations to pay for the costs of *our* government.
Well, that's simply garbage. Future generations wont be paying for *our* costs any more than we're paying for past generations costs. The debt basically rolls over continually. It builds, but for the most part it increases with the GDP.
Not true at all. In both real terms and as a percentage of GDP the public debt is twice as large now as before Reagan took office in 1981.
Heh, nice. You take the lowest point in the last 50 years, and compare against that. It ebbs and flows, of course, but for the most part stays between 40 and 75% of the GDP.

Quote: And the debt would have been much higher still had the Clinton admin not put the brakes on borrowing for a few years.
And raised taxes, and had the pseudo-benefit of a huge tech bubble.

Quote: Quote: Quote: But I agree you are certainly not alone in your pro-debt atittude, lots of folks are, and the pass-the-buck Republicans pander to them.
Oh, sure, you soak-the-rich liberals have the answers. If only we would take every last cent from the American public and put it into government hands, we'd solve all our problems.
I'd prefer spending cuts over deficits; no one is proposing a 25% across the board spending cut, to my knowledge. Who is even talking about balancing the budget? Certainly not the Republicans.
Exactly. And they wont so long as half the population is willing to raise taxes based on debt fear-mongering. Why should they? The sheep are more than willing to be sheered so long as they can be scared into it.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If Congress and The Administration are not willing to cut spending, they should pay their bills just like all the rest of us are expected to do.
Oh, I'm all for that: they can pay their bills. But that wasn't what you were suggesting; you were suggesting we pay their bills.
And where are they going to get the money to pay for our government's bills?
Where indeed! The problem with that rhetoric should be obvious now. The government doesn't pay for s**t: we do. When the government overspends its budget, that is an error on their part, and should be regarded as such. You'd apparently rather we grab our ankles and beg for more.
It's no error by the Govt, it is the irresponsibility of the deficit running administration.
BS. The Administration doesn't set the budget; it's the irresponsibility of the deficit-running congress. That is a result of a population that thinks of the government as a giver of goods, instead of what it really is: a taker.

Quote: I hate paying taxes. On the other hand, you'd rather the Govt borrow the money and let it be someone's else problem. That is immoral, in my view. You are entitled to your own opinion. As much as I hate paying taxes, *we* have the obligation to pay for *our* Govt. Not the next generation.
I don't want the spending, I don't get to vote on the spending. Why should I support the deficit? I have no moral qualm whatever with being against paying for something I never wanted in the first place.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If they want to cut revenue, they should cut spending first and refund the surplus. Just like regular people have to do when they take a pay cut or get laid-off.
It's our money, not theirs. They should cut revenue regardless, as they are taking too much.

Why not eliminate taxes altogether and just have the Govt borrow everything, eh?
If they did, they'd probably have accumulated less debt. :lol:

Maybe under the "new math" :)
Like the math that makes tariffs and minimum wages a good idea?

Quote: Quote: If you build the trough, they (the pork) will come. Your "solution" is filling the trough with more funds, mine is filling it with less.

If you don't fill the tax revenue trough, the pigs just go and feed from the debt trough. Your solution is running up debt through the debt trough.
I don't believe it can carry on forever. The public trough can.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Seems like Congress had no problem slapping regular folks with stiffer bankruptcy laws while at the same time repeatedly raising their own bankruptcy threshold (i.e. the limit on the national debt.) Hyporcisy, wouldn't you agree?
Sure. They spend too much. Now, what are you going to do about it? Give them more to mismanage?
Support candidates who are for a pay-go system and balanced budget and get the pass-the-buckers out of office!
More like "plunge the nation into economic chaos in the name of fixing a debt that, for all intents and purposes, has little affect on most people's lives."

We just disagree. Fair enough. You are like many or most of the pass the buck generation; happy with the Govt borrowing more and more as long as your taxes stay low.
My taxes? I'd rather have an economy. You don't seem to care whether we have an economy to pay for this spending.

Quote: I agree with these guys:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01
www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf


"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" — President Reagan, Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/
I do too. I just recognize that raising taxes is no solution. There must be measures in place to curb spending; until that day, I will oppose tax increases. I'll be damned if I give them more rope to hang me with.

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Heh, nice. You take the lowest point in the last 50 years, and compare against that. It ebbs and flows, of course, but for the most part stays between 40 and 75% of the GDP.

Heh, and that was just coincidentally just before Reagan slashed taxes, and it just coincidently ebbs higher when the Republicans control the presidency and flows down when the "liberals" do.

Quote: Quote: And the debt would have been much higher still had the Clinton admin not put the brakes on borrowing for a few years.
And raised taxes, and had the pseudo-benefit of a huge tech bubble.

Sure raised taxes. That is what balanced the budget.

Quote: Exactly. And they wont so long as half the population is willing to raise taxes based on debt fear-mongering. Why should they? The sheep are more than willing to be sheered so long as they can be scared into it.

Were that only true; we woulkdn't have an $8.4 trillion public debt and a $350 billion annual interest expense now.

Quote: BS. The Administration doesn't set the budget; it's the irresponsibility of the deficit-running congress. That is a result of a population that thinks of the government as a giver of goods, instead of what it really is: a taker.

BS, the president has as much to do with the budget as Congress does, if not more. He proposes one and can veto what Congress proposes.

Quote: I don't want the spending, I don't get to vote on the spending. Why should I support the deficit? I have no moral qualm whatever with being against paying for something I never wanted in the first place.

Obviously. Pass the buck.

Quote: I don't believe it can carry on forever. The public trough can.

True, at some point the level of debt will grow so high that lenders will demand such a high interest payment on the debt the Govt will have to dramatically raise taxes and slash spending, as more and more resources go into paying interest.

Great strategy.

Quote: Quote: We just disagree. Fair enough. You are like many or most of the pass the buck generation; happy with the Govt borrowing more and more as long as your taxes stay low.
My taxes? I'd rather have an economy. You don't seem to care whether we have an economy to pay for this spending.

What will really effect the economy in the long term is the greater and greater demand for credit by the Govt, squeezing the credit avaible to commercial enterprises.

The Govt certainly doesn't have to have deficits equal to ~25% of expenditures for the economy to run.

Quote: Quote: I agree with these guys:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01
www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" — President Reagan, Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/

I do too. I just recognize that raising taxes is no solution. There must be measures in place to curb spending; until that day, I will oppose tax increases. I'll be damned if I give them more rope to hang me with.

In other words, until the Govt cuts spending (which will never happen), your take is keep borrowing and let future tax payers deal with the cost of our Govt.

The pass the buck generation.

[Free Thinkr]

Iriemon wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Heh, nice. You take the lowest point in the last 50 years, and compare against that. It ebbs and flows, of course, but for the most part stays between 40 and 75% of the GDP.
Heh, and that was just coincidentally just before Reagan slashed taxes, and it just coincidently ebbs higher when the Republicans control the presidency and flows down when the "liberals" do.
Pretty much, yes.

Quote: Quote: Quote: And the debt would have been much higher still had the Clinton admin not put the brakes on borrowing for a few years.
And raised taxes, and had the pseudo-benefit of a huge tech bubble.
Sure raised taxes. That is what balanced the budget.
Balanced in theory. And that was about 1/3rd of the reason. Also relevant was the tech bubble, and an opposition congress dedicated to budget cuts (including cuts to welfare that liberals fought tooth and nail).

Quote: Quote: Exactly. And they wont so long as half the population is willing to raise taxes based on debt fear-mongering. Why should they? The sheep are more than willing to be sheered so long as they can be scared into it.
Were that only true; we woulkdn't have an $8.4 trillion public debt and a $350 billion annual interest expense now.
It is true, which is evidence we would have. Pay them to spend, and guess what? They spend. Eventually, someone cuts taxes, the debt goes nuts, everyone screams crisis, and spending gets vetoed and taxes raised.

Quote: Quote: BS. The Administration doesn't set the budget; it's the irresponsibility of the deficit-running congress. That is a result of a population that thinks of the government as a giver of goods, instead of what it really is: a taker.

BS, the president has as much to do with the budget as Congress does, if not more. He proposes one and can veto what Congress proposes.
Pttch. Proposing a budget and vetoing are but a small part. Congress tacks on so much pork it's incredible; the veto allows the President some discretion over who gets the pork, and that's about it.

Quote: Quote: I don't want the spending, I don't get to vote on the spending. Why should I support the deficit? I have no moral qualm whatever with being against paying for something I never wanted in the first place.

Obviously. Pass the buck.
Pass the buck? Your entire philosophy is senseless; the budget is a annual matter, not generational. What, I'm passing the buck to myself? Hell, I couldn't even pass the buck in the first place, as the buck aint mine.

Quote: Quote: I don't believe it can carry on forever. The public trough can.
True, at some point the level of debt will grow so high that lenders will demand such a high interest payment on the debt the Govt will have to dramatically raise taxes and slash spending, as more and more resources go into paying interest.

Great strategy.
It will happen either way. This effects change sooner than later.

Quote: Quote: Quote: We just disagree. Fair enough. You are like many or most of the pass the buck generation; happy with the Govt borrowing more and more as long as your taxes stay low.
My taxes? I'd rather have an economy. You don't seem to care whether we have an economy to pay for this spending.
What will really effect the economy in the long term is the greater and greater demand for credit by the Govt, squeezing the credit avaible to commercial enterprises.
Sounds good; too bad this doesn't happen in practice.

Quote: The Govt certainly doesn't have to have deficits equal to ~25% of expenditures for the economy to run.
I agree. They should cut the budget.

Quote: Quote: Quote: I agree with these guys:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01
www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" — President Reagan, Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/

I do too. I just recognize that raising taxes is no solution. There must be measures in place to curb spending; until that day, I will oppose tax increases. I'll be damned if I give them more rope to hang me with.

In other words, until the Govt cuts spending (which will never happen), your take is keep borrowing and let future tax payers deal with the cost of our Govt.
Spending cuts have happened many times. Saying they will never happen, then, is an outright fabrication on your part.

Quote: The pass the buck generation.
So long as you're going to include sloganeering as a mainstay in your arguments, I suggest "baaaah."

[Iriemon]

Free Thinkr wrote: Iriemon wrote: Sure raised taxes. That is what balanced the budget.
Balanced in theory. And that was about 1/3rd of the reason. Also relevant was the tech bubble, and an opposition congress dedicated to budget cuts (including cuts to welfare that liberals fought tooth and nail).

Balanced in theory? Balanced in actuality.

I used to give the "opposition congress" some credit for the balanced budget in the late 90s, but they showed their true colors when a Republican took the WH in 01.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Exactly. And they wont so long as half the population is willing to raise taxes based on debt fear-mongering. Why should they? The sheep are more than willing to be sheered so long as they can be scared into it.
Were that only true; we woulkdn't have an $8.4 trillion public debt and a $350 billion annual interest expense now.
It is true, which is evidence we would have. Pay them to spend, and guess what? They spend. Eventually, someone cuts taxes, the debt goes nuts, everyone screams crisis, and spending gets vetoed and taxes raised.

That seems to have been the cycle in the 90s and hopefully will be again starting in 08.

Quote: Quote: Quote: BS. The Administration doesn't set the budget; it's the irresponsibility of the deficit-running congress. That is a result of a population that thinks of the government as a giver of goods, instead of what it really is: a taker.

BS, the president has as much to do with the budget as Congress does, if not more. He proposes one and can veto what Congress proposes.
Pttch. Proposing a budget and vetoing are but a small part. Congress tacks on so much pork it's incredible; the veto allows the President some discretion over who gets the pork, and that's about it.

Only if the President actually has the cojones to use the veto to controll Congress -- which clearly the current occupant doesn't.

Quote: Quote: Quote: I don't want the spending, I don't get to vote on the spending. Why should I support the deficit? I have no moral qualm whatever with being against paying for something I never wanted in the first place.

Obviously. Pass the buck.
Pass the buck? Your entire philosophy is senseless; the budget is a annual matter, not generational. What, I'm passing the buck to myself? Hell, I couldn't even pass the buck in the first place, as the buck aint mine.

It is the legacy of our generation, a huge debt burden the next generation will have to bear, created from irresponsible fiscal policy based on overspending, under taxing and borrowing year after year, by leaders chosen by our generation who pander with tax cuts and spending and making false promises. Our generation chooses the easier way rather than standing up and making the tough decisions and doing the right and responsible thing.

"More taxes? Baah! Borrow it! Fight a couple wars? Great! As long as *I* don't have to pay for it. More Govt spending? Sure! As long as you don't expect *me* to pay more taxes." And we elect politicians like Bush and the Republicans who will pander to our irresponsible and selfish attitude, even worse, lie to us to make us feel better about it, and then pass the buck.

It's really pretty shameful, IMO.

Quote: Quote: Quote: I don't believe it can carry on forever. The public trough can.
True, at some point the level of debt will grow so high that lenders will demand such a high interest payment on the debt the Govt will have to dramatically raise taxes and slash spending, as more and more resources go into paying interest.

Great strategy.
It will happen either way. This effects change sooner than later.

Hopefully sooner.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: We just disagree. Fair enough. You are like many or most of the pass the buck generation; happy with the Govt borrowing more and more as long as your taxes stay low.
My taxes? I'd rather have an economy. You don't seem to care whether we have an economy to pay for this spending.
What will really effect the economy in the long term is the greater and greater demand for credit by the Govt, squeezing the credit avaible to commercial enterprises.
Sounds good; too bad this doesn't happen in practice.

It will happen if fiscal policies do not change; it is inevitable, no entity can go on forever going ever more in debt. Check the T-Bill rates over the last couple years, the Govt has to pay higher and higher interest to attract lenders.

Sitting there and saying "deficits don't matter" (apologies to Mr. Cheney for borrowing his line) is just the excuse the pass the buck generation tells itself.

Quote: Quote: The Govt certainly doesn't have to have deficits equal to ~25% of expenditures for the economy to run.
I agree. They should cut the budget.

They should balance the budget.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I agree with these guys:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01
www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" — President Reagan, Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/

I do too. I just recognize that raising taxes is no solution. There must be measures in place to curb spending; until that day, I will oppose tax increases. I'll be damned if I give them more rope to hang me with.

In other words, until the Govt cuts spending (which will never happen), your take is keep borrowing and let future tax payers deal with the cost of our Govt.
Spending cuts have happened many times. Saying they will never happen, then, is an outright fabrication on your part.

When has Govt spending cut at all, much less the 25% or so now required to balance the budget?

I'm not saying it is literally impossible, I'm saying it is politically impossible, and as a result, if revenues are not increased thru a tax in crease the only alternative is more and more debt. Which if you look at OMB projections that is the Republican plan.

Quote: Quote: The pass the buck generation.
So long as you're going to include sloganeering as a mainstay in your arguments, I suggest "baaaah."

I would expect that to be the response of someone who doesn't give a damn about how much debt we bequeath to our kids.