"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
What facts do I have wrong?

Lord, Spanky, I don't know. I hope you can at least see that a fewl of your listed "facts" have subjective value judgments buried in them.

I'm not paying nearly enough attention to this debate to make that kind of substantive contribution (which should be no surprise). In any event, you've been arguing with 5-6 folks and I'm sure they've covered it.

But I do recall that this debate began with an absolute-style statement from Slave about how Democrats (or was it Clinton?) never preached fiscal responsibility. That was challenged by pointing to 1993-94, when the Clinton/Dem budget raised taxes and cut discretionary spending -- which some people would consider fiscally responsible.

You began arguing increasingly complex and shifting points and sub-points in response and (I thought) shifting the grounds for the dispute. My thought in watching it was that you were doing exactly what you and Sebby frequently accuse Ty of doing.

Your earlier statement that only _cutting_ taxes is fiscally responsible seems to eliminate the possibility for any agreement.

But, I'll expect you to win this debate, as usual, because if you are anything you are indefatiguable. You never give up. I don't know anyone (except maybe Ty) who will keep up with you in length and number of posts on a given subject.

Take care.

S_A_M

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I've heard that argument before. "Family is all the poor have. It's their only sense of wealth."

We should put Norplant's operative chemicals in the water, like flouride.

Unfortunately, that would not work here ("where the slums got so much soul"), where even the locals drink bottled, treated water.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But, I'll expect you to win this debate, as usual, because if you are anything you are indefatiguable. You never give up. I don't know anyone (except maybe Ty) who will keep up with you in length and number of posts on a given subject.

I've already explained and given good support for why his 1) is wrong. Characteristically, he didn't bother to respond to it, and went and found another piece of evidence that says something else. Many others, yourself included, have similarly pointed out what he's missing. I don't feel like repeating myself ad nauseum, since he's not trying to engage. If that's victory, and not obduracy, he can have it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've already explained and given good support for why his 1) is wrong. Characteristically, he didn't bother to respond to it, and went and found another piece of evidence that says something else. Many others, yourself included, have similarly pointed out what he's missing. I don't feel like repeating myself ad nauseum, since he's not trying to engage. If that's victory, and not obduracy, he can have it.

Are you arguing about whether Clinton raised both taxes and spending in 1993? If that's the argument, I think (and I apologize if this is a serious STP issue) Spanky is saying that because the Dems raised taxes and did nothing to stanch the growth of entitlements, which necessarily raise spending, since they go up year to year, the Dems both raised taxes and spending that year. Stated otherwise, unless coupled with a temporary cap on the growth of entitlements, every tax increase would always also accompany a spending increase.

Is it possible you guys are arguing about whether not doing anything to stem the growth of entitlements is raising spending? This isn't a loaded question. I'm really just curious.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you arguing about whether Clinton raised both taxes and spending in 1993? If that's the argument, I think (and I apologize if this is a serious STP issue) Spanky is saying that because the Dems raised taxes and did nothing to stanch the growth of entitlements, which necessarily raise spending, since they go up year to year, the Dems both raised taxes and spending that year. Stated otherwise, unless coupled with a temporary cap on the growth of entitlements, every tax increase would always also be a spending increase.

Is it possible you guys are arguing about whether not doing anything to stem the growth of entitlements is raising spending? This isn't a loaded question. I'm really just curious.

I think that's the crux of it. The discussion we were having before Spanky chimed in had to do with whether Clinton and the Democratic Congress in ''93-'94 were profligate. Slave's opinion to the contrary, they weren't. They balanced the budget by raising taxes and cutting spending. The spending here is discretionary spending. Entitlements make up the larger portion of the federal budget, and they are structured so that they are off-budget -- Social Security payments (e.g.) continue each year with Congress taking action. Year on year, entitlements will always rise because the population is growing, whether or not they grow in relative terms (e.g., because the proportion of elderly is growing).

To the extent that Spanky is responding to what the rest of us were saying about Clinton and the Democrats by pointing to outlays, he is comparing apples and oranges, and is talking about something different.

Spanky appears to be fundementally confused about the relation of entitlement spending to the budget. I say this because he thinks Gingrich shut the government down in 1995 over entitlements, but the shutdown was over discretionary spending -- the failure to pass a federal budget. Republicans made noises in those years about cutting entitlements, but there was never any real prospect that they could do this -- it was more about making political noise than anything else. When they had a Republican President again, the GOP Congress increased entitlements (the drug benefit) rather than decreasing them, and when President Bush looked seriously at going after Social Security, Republicans in Congress saw political doom and ran away from him as fast as they could.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that's the crux of it. The discussion we were having before Spanky chimed in had to do with whether Clinton and the Democratic Congress in ''93-'94 were profligate. Slave's opinion to the contrary, they weren't. They balanced the budget by raising taxes and cutting spending. The spending here is discretionary spending. Entitlements make up the larger portion of the federal budget, and they are structured so that they are off-budget -- Social Security payments (e.g.) continue each year with Congress taking action. Year on year, entitlements will always rise because the population is growing, whether or not they grow in relative terms (e.g., because the proportion of elderly is growing).

To the extent that Spanky is responding to what the rest of us were saying about Clinton and the Democrats by pointing to outlays, he is comparing apples and oranges, and is talking about something different.

Spanky appears to be fundementally confused about the relation of entitlement spending to the budget. I say this because he thinks Gingrich shut the government down in 1995 over entitlements, but the shutdown was over discretionary spending -- the failure to pass a federal budget. Republicans made noises in those years about cutting entitlements, but there was never any real prospect that they could do this -- it was more about making political noise than anything else. When they had a Republican President again, the GOP Congress increased entitlements (the drug benefit) rather than decreasing them, and when President Bush looked seriously at going after Social Security, Republicans in Congress saw political doom and ran away from him as fast as they could.

I wouldn't consider a rise in entitlement costs a raising of anything, for what my opinion is worth.

On the SS issue, I think Bush's failure is the saddest reflection of our sorry state. We could debate the math all day, but the fact was, on a simple conceptual level, the plan would have forced a bit of self-responsibility and self-direction on many of the people most dependent on entitlements. Giving a bit of investing/financial education to a general populous in whic millions of people are presently claiming to not understand the concept of an ARM (which, as I'm sure you'd agree, is not something one needs much more than a 100 IQ to understand) isn't a bad idea.

Yes, I know sometimes a little knowledge is worse than none at all, but I believe a lot more people would be improved than hurt by the exercise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wouldn't consider a rise in entitlement costs a raising of anything, for what my opinion is worth.

If his point is that Clinton and the '93-'94 Congress did nothing about the cost of rising entitlements, he has (1) said nothing that can't be said about every President and Congress before and since, and (2) ignored that Clinton actually tried to address the rising costs of health care -- the much graver part of the rising cost of entitlements, although Republicans like to group it in with Social Security to lay the groundwork to get rid of Social Security -- and met with total opposition from Republicans. You can disagree with what he was trying to do on policy grounds, but the fact remains that he was trying to do something about health care costs, unlike the Republican Congresses and President we've had since.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
a simple conceptual level, the plan would have forced a bit of self-responsibility and self-direction on many of the people most dependent on entitlements.

People are risk-averse, and do not want "self-responsibility and self-direction" forced upon them, which is why the plan was a political failure. There's wonderful irony in the fact that a proposal founded in unleashing market forces was a flop because it tried to give the people what they did not want.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's more than tequila and beer.

It's also one of the uglier side effects of an undergraduate education. You understand shit, and that occasionally translates into a need to talk about it.

It's the dark underbelly of Success in America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I thought it was closer to 24 oz. of coffee, similar getting a red-eye venti.

And I wasn't referring to its diuretic effect.

These two sentences in juxtaposition is quite possibly the funniest thing Sebby has ever written without intent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
People are risk-averse, and do not want "self-responsibility and self-direction" forced upon them, which is why the plan was a political failure. There's wonderful irony in the fact that a proposal founded in unleashing market forces was a flop because it tried to give the people what they did not want.

You realize that's pathetic, and that such a mindset being embraced by our broader society pretty much answers the question "How did we come to where we are?"

Wihtout embrace of risk, there's nothing but a future of dominishing retruns. The wealth disparity in this coun try derives as much from risk aversion as it does tax policy or any of the other bogeymen offered up by the Left on the issue.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's also one of the uglier side effects of an undergraduate education. You understand shit, and that occasionally translates into a need to talk about it.

It's the dark underbelly of Success in America.

Truly "understanding" is impossible. We all know differing percentages of the whole. When I start thinking I know a lot I'm usually wrong.

To tie this into Ty's earlier observation, I generally find the most risk averse are often the most knowledgable on a lot of things. And it's not a surprising correlation. There seems to be a Laffer curve with knowledge, and if you know just a bit too much about the things going on around you, sometimes, it paralyzes you.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You realize that's pathetic, and that such a mindset being embraced by our broader society pretty much answers the question "How did we come to where we are?"

Wihtout embrace of risk, there's nothing but a future of dominishing retruns. The wealth disparity in this coun try derives as much from risk aversion as it does tax policy or any of the other bogeymen offered up by the Left on the issue.

I don't think you can really draw that correlation just from that. America does not need 300 million entrepreneurs. It needs enough of them to continue to grow the economy as it has historically, but not everyone needs to have that seat-of-the-pants, devil-may-care mentality that made this country great.

It also needs workers, many of whom can be quite, and comfortably, risk-averse. Taking a general preference for a system that's been in place for decades, and extrapolating that to society's pathetic and inevitable decline, isn't really warranted, because that argument suggests that we've just been asking for it since the 1930s.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There seems to be a Laffer curve with knowledge, and if you know just a bit too much about the things going on around you, sometimes, it paralyzes you.

I used to care a lot more about policy -- what it would be and whether it is based on a sound theoretical foundation. Not coincidentally, I also used to despise elected officials who seemed to act solely as intermediaries between the mechanics of governance and the latest poll results.

Now I care more about the process that preceded the policy -- the accuracy of information, the calculation of various risks, and (most important) whether the decision is being made by the man, woman or legislative body that will most immediately suffer the democratic consequences of having gotten it wrong. To govern consistently with theory and opposite to public opinion is tyranny.

As you might guess, this philosophy causes a diminishing role for the federal judiciary. I think life tenure made more sense when it was miraculous to live to 70.

Ain't no paralysis in giving the people what they want.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I don't think you can really draw that correlation just from that. America does not need 300 million entrepreneurs. It needs enough of them to continue to grow the economy as it has historically, but not everyone needs to have that seat-of-the-pants, devil-may-care mentality that made this country great.

It also needs workers, many of whom can be quite, and comfortably, risk-averse. Taking a general preference for a system that's been in place for decades, and extrapolating that to society's pathetic and inevitable decline, isn't really warranted, because that argument suggests that we've just been asking for it since the 1930s.

You're right. There must be balance, and I'm not suggesting everyone should run out and take entrepreneurial risk. What I am suggesting is that a very minimal degree of education applied across the board to the sectors of our society least knowledgeable about how to manage their finances wouldn't be a bad thing. Is there any real argument to be made against education? These people aren't going to learn finance in school because they haven't that opprtunity, but my bet is, a lot of them have the skill to grasp it, so why not allow them this little slice of risk and possible increased return to allow them to learn? If you offered that to many, I think they'd take it and run with it - look at the upside and say "Wow! I can make money here." Why not incentivize them to that betterment? The converse is a loathsome capitulation to the notion that the average person is too hopelessly stupid to be able to take that ball and run with it. I'd say the best compromise would be to use Bush's idea, but have it solely as an opt-in situation. If you want to take a small chance, you can. If you don't, then don't. That might cost us some money in the end because there would be losses and those losers would come back to the state for some sort of discounted bailout, but I think the benefit from an educational standpoint, and the improvement to our society would far outwiegh that cost.

They say we don't know enough math and science in this country. Well, this seems an apt program to remedy some of that. People never really learn anything until they experience it, so why not give the ones who want to try the best classroom available?

Having litigated on behalf of the poor from the plaintiff's side, trust me, you'd be amazed how fast some seemingly simple people can learn awfully complex legal issues when they think there's a payday in it. Why not mine that ingenuity?