The so called "experts".
 

No, I think you were confusing my position with your idea of Ty's position.

Yes, thank you. Similarly, "Don't Walk" signals do not mean that I have no legal freedom of movement.

The so called "experts".
 

My solution to prevent the problem from being passed to future generations is this: set the estate tax based on the outstanding national debt. So if Bill Gates dies and his estate includes 2% of the total national wealth, his estate would owe a tax equal to 2% of the total national debt.

We would have to determine on an annual basis total wealth in the country and total debt, but that is not difficult to do.

I suspect we would see many more Republicans become true fiscal conservatives under this approach, and stop pouring our money into Iraq.

The so called "experts".
 

Yes.

The so called "experts".
 

You need to look at this in context. Even $388 billion can't buy you a half-way decent war.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So, where do I start? First, as I pointed out (and you gleefully ignored), 221 billion in 1985 dollars is about $388 billion today.

1985 dollars? 221 Billion dollars today may not buy as much as it did in 1985 but it still pays off a debt of 221 Billion even if it was incurred in 1985. You have to pay the 221 Billion plus interest. Is that what you mean by 1985 dollars?

The so called "experts".
 

You can if you leverage your allies' contributions and commit the needed forces at the outset. Otherwise, you're stuck hoping your invading forces are spontaneously greeted with flowers.

This I learned from numerous games of "Risk" when I was a lad.

How hard is this?

Look at Table 2

1985: Deficit, 5.1% of GDP, Debt 36.3%
2004: Deficit, 3.6% of GDP, Debt 37.2%

That would be another way of looking at the issue -- look at the principal plus the debt service costs. If you do that, though, then number is far higher than the simple inflation-adjusted number.

Either way, comparing the nominal deficit 20 years ago to today's total revenues and claiming that the former is "chump change" is silly.

Hell, even if your apples-to-oranges comparison had any validity, your conclusion would be wrong -- if you think $221 billion is chump change, would you be willing to have the government spend that on housing subsidies for the poor?

The so called "experts".
 

No, but the signals are an unnecessary intrusion by the Nanny State and a waste of tax dollars. They will be cut to balance the budget.

How hard is this?

Budget (large pdf) check table 6.1, which has interest payments. They've been going down of late, primarily because the interest rate is lower.

That said, you ought to look at the actual outlay and the interest (or interest on interest). It's sobering when one takes out a mortgage adn realizes that the $500k mortgage will cost you $1.5m in payments over 30 years (or thereabouts).

The so called "experts".
 

No, they solve a collective-action problem. That's legitimate government. Nothing else is.

The so called "experts".
 

Bullshit. It's needless government interference. If people really needed help crossing the street, they could hire crossing guards supplied by the private sector. If people don't value their safety enough to pay for assistance, they don't deserve to cross the street safely. Let the Market work.

And looked at that way, how much did the $221 billion in deficits in 1985 really amount to?

And is that number "chump change"?

The so called "experts".
 

If they hire crossing guards, I just have to run more people over to get through the light. Still a collective action problem. After you, Alphonse?

The so called "experts".
 

As long as they or their heirs are compensated fairly for any injury, who cares?