Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
McCarthy perceived it 50 years ago. What's new?

McCarthy saw the WTC fall? Prescient dude.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, exactly. The guy has no conception of the "think, then talk" paradigm. ... If you say "John's an idiot", followed by "but then, I think everyone in the world is an idiot", guess which part gets quoted.

So his problem is that he said what he thought. Hmmm. Doesn't mean John's not an idiot.

I'm not sure, but I think you just called us all fish.

If you ask nicely, Atticus will post a list explaining which fish each of us is. I was going to do something similar with Thomas the Tank Engine, but I can't figure out who Percy, Terence and Ramon are.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Come on Hank, don't just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. Brazzi went to see Salazzo later in the movie. Hagen went to see the movie producer who said he wasn't no bandleader and then
(SPOILER SPACE)
...
...



woke up next to the severed horse head.

apologies- brazzi went to see the bandleader- that's what I thought you meant. Agreed, you cleverly hid your hate.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
McCarthy saw the WTC fall? Prescient dude.

compared to Nostradamus?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
McCarthy saw the WTC fall? Prescient dude.

No, he prevented the godless communists from toppling it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
sgtclub suggested recently that the size of the federal budget deficit is not excessive by historical standards. However, it turns out that that's true only if you disregard the Social Security surplus. Otherwise, we're at historical highs, and -- as sgtclub repeatedly observes -- that's without many of the tax cuts having kicked in yet.

or the stimulative effects of those cuts . . .

[confidential to burger]

it's all about the voodoo (

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
sgtclub suggested recently that the size of the federal budget deficit is not excessive by historical standards. However, it turns out that that's true only if you disregard the Social Security surplus.

I think that's if you do regard it, but, yes, as we historically have done, the SS surplus has been used to hide larger deficits. Did even Clinton balance the budget if you exclude the SS surplus (I don't remember,; if so, it was by only a few billion.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So his problem is that he said what he thought. Hmmm. Doesn't mean John's not an idiot.

Do you actually not understand what I said, or do you simply use this ineffective debate device in spite of your high school experiences with it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think that's if you do regard it, but, yes, as we historically have done, the SS surplus has been used to hide larger deficits. Did even Clinton balance the budget if you exclude the SS surplus (I don't remember,; if so, it was by only a few billion.)

If you follow my link, you will see the assertion that Social Security did not run a surplus until 1983, and that the surpluses were small for another decade after that.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Uh, what do you think happens in practice under our constitution? Let's see Constitution says congress shall make NO law re free speech. Judges say this doesn't mean NO if utility calculation comes out right.

I think there's a difference between, for example, strict scrutiny analysis and "it's all about utility." If your "utility calculation" includes the possibility that x > y^10 where x is a single individual right and y is the social benefit of banning x, then I gots no beef with you.

The Constitution is just our way of saying that x in the abstract is better than y in reality, even where y has a substantial exponent. That, my friend, is the diametrical opposite of "it's all about utility," unless you take utility to be broad enough to include enduring soluble social ills in individual cases for the sake of a more general value, like freedom qua freedom.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you actually not understand what I said, or do you simply use this ineffective debate device in spite of your high school experiences with it?

The efforts that you guys make to explain away what O'Neill and Suskind (and DeIulio before him) have to say are pathetic. So some of the press takes some of what he said too far. The man was perfectly qualified when Bush made him Treasury Secretary, but now he's a screwball? Whatever. Everything he said rings true, which is why it's so politically damaging. It's damning stuff, and all you've got is, 'So we were planning for the invasion of Iraq before 9/11 -- so was Clinton.' This argument is so bad that it's not even aspiring to be persuasive -- it's just seeking to fill space. Just give it up already.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The efforts that you guys make to explain away what O'Neill (and DeIulio before him) have to say are pathetic. So some of the press takes some of what he said too far. The man was perfectly qualified when Bush made him Treasury Secretary, but now he's a screwball? Whatever. Everything he said rings true, which is why it's so politically damaging. Just give it up already.

Nice try. The explanations of what has been said, and what has been spun, seem to be coming, not from me, but from O'Neill. I imagine in your world that's happening because the CIA has his kids in a locked room with alligators right now, but you don't do the rumors of your sanity any favors by claiming that I'm the one revising and extending this morning.

And, FWIW, O'Neill was a vapoid from the start. Bush should have seen that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you follow my link, you will see the assertion that Social Security did not run a surplus until 1983, and that the surpluses were small for another decade after that.

I think I just misinterpreted your use of the word disregard. I took it to mean that if you exclude the SS surplus the deficit is smaller. you meant it to mean that calling the current deficit not high requires one to ignore the fact that its nominal size is reduced significantly by the ss surplus.

regardless of what was meant, when ss was running a deficit it was off budget. around 1986, after it was clear it would be in surplus, it was put on-budget, so congress could claim smaller deficits.

and we could go on at length about which treatment is appropriate. on one hand is the "off-budget, because it's a separate program that creates future obligations. on the other is "on-budget, because it's a government program overall reflects current spending and taxation, and will continue to do so." While I'm sure budget scoring debates fascinate everyone here, I'll leave my position only as one favoring off budget, because we know now with almost mathematical certainty what each year's future liabilities are under current law, and that the future assets (that is, expected tax revenues), regardless of certainty, are insufficient to meet it. But, I have two checking accounts, one for big purchases, so perhaps I'm wrong

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nice try. The explanations of what has been said, and what has been spun, seem to be coming, not from me, but from O'Neill. I imagine in your world that's happening because the CIA has his kids in a locked room with alligators right now, but you don't do the rumors of your sanity any favors by claiming that I'm the one revising and extending this morning.

And, FWIW, O'Neill was a vapoid from the start. Bush should have seen that.

O'Neill said what he thought, and did not think through the effect it would have. He now regrets the effect. The rest of us can be appreciative of the glimpse of what was going on in the White House.

As for these "explanations," if I'm missing some other correction, spit it out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think I just misinterpreted your use of the word disregard. I took it to mean that if you exclude the SS surplus the deficit is smaller. you meant it to mean that calling the current deficit not high requires one to ignore the fact that its nominal size is reduced significantly by the ss surplus.

regardless of what was meant, when ss was running a deficit it was off budget. around 1986, after it was clear it would be in surplus, it was put on-budget, so congress could claim smaller deficits.

and we could go on at length about which treatment is appropriate. on one hand is the "off-budget, because it's a separate program that creates future obligations. on the other is "on-budget, because it's a government program overall reflects current spending and taxation, and will continue to do so." While I'm sure budget scoring debates fascinate everyone here, I'll leave my position only as one favoring off budget, because we know now with almost mathematical certainty what each year's future liabilities are under current law, and that the future assets (that is, expected tax revenues), regardless of certainty, are insufficient to meet it. But, I have two checking accounts, one for big purchases, so perhaps I'm wrong

My only point was that, Social Security aside, the budget is a huge mess. The figures that sgtclub were quoting tend to conceal this.

I also think that we need to plan for when the Baby Boomers retire. The facts are the facts, no matter how the budget scoring debate comes out. We GAs are going to paying when the GPs retire, and I would rather get started on fixing the mess now. Preferably by making them work longer before they kick back, but that's a different debate.