national debt guessing game

[killerweed420]

Listen Some of you are trying to over complicate the national debt. Its just the US government borrowing money from foreign banks. And that means a lot of interest is being paid out for interest that could be used for our benefit. No different than a household that's stupid enough to use credit cards for there day to day expenses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a lot of your money gets pissed away on interest rates that could be used for neccesities for the household. Credit is ALWAYS bad but sometimes a neccesity. There is no reason why tour government could not live off the tax money it receives, it just chooses not to so it can make other rich people richer for a few favours here and there.

[maladroit]

that's a mighty fine two step...i can label myself without it being a strawman fallacy because i know myself...you don't know me, so you cannot correctly label me a socialist or a somnabulist

obama isn't a socialist either (more strawmannery)...george bush just took control of the means of production on wall street so you could correctly label that policy socialist, but i think even george bush still has more capitalist than socialist in him...by itself, government intervention is not socialist...the US government and other governments around the world intervene in the free market all the time, but private property still exists in america, and american capitalists retain control of the means of production (until last month anyway)


this is an interesting observation:
"Furthermore, there are many socialist aspects at work such as universal health care, in that most, if not all devoted socialists believe it to be superior to a localized free market alternative. Better has yet to be defined by acceptance universally."

- are you saying universal health care is not superior unless it is accepted universally? most of the developed countries in the world have publicly funded healthcare systems, and the US health care system lags behind a few dozen universal health care systems of other countries...better has been defined, and universally accepted outside of the usa

US health care system ranked 37th in the world:
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

US health care system scores low marks compared to other countries:
Health Scorecard Ranks U.S. on Lower Rungs -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

[maladroit]

i agree killer

sometimes deficits are a neccessity...usually that neccessity is invoked during times when there is a recession, and the resulting debt is paid down with surpluses generated while the economy is doing well...that hasn't been happening for decades...in his first budget, george bush promised to pay down the national debt to $3 trillion by 2011, but it looks like it's going to be closer to $12 trillion by then...deither mccain nor obama have a plan to deal with that, and large deficits are projected to continue for years


McCain, Obama tax plans to boost U.S. debt: tax group - Boston.com

McCain, Obama tax plans to boost U.S. debt: tax group

June 11, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tax breaks proposed by both presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama would increase the U.S. national debt by trillions of dollars over 10 years, but Obama's plan would hike taxes for the wealthiest Americans, a tax policy group said on Wednesday.
more stories like this

In an analysis of how the candidates' tax proposals would affect federal revenues, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute said McCain's plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from 2009-2018 compared with current tax law. Obama's plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion over the same period.

Including added interest costs, McCain's plan would add $4.5 trillion to the national debt, while Obama's would add $3.3 trillion -- and that's before spending proposals are considered.

"It seems really unlikely that they're going to be balancing the budget," said Leonard Burman, director of The Tax Policy Center run by Brookings and the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.

The group sought to quantify revenue costs for the tax break proposals articulated on the campaign trail but assumed flat spending for each candidate based on this year's budget.

*snip*



"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms. This is our due."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, overriding objections to budget deficits from US treasury secretary Paul O' Neil, and who personally fired Paul O'Neil one month later

[GoldenBoy812]

that's a mighty fine two step...i can label myself without it being a strawman fallacy because i know myself...you don't know me, so you cannot correctly label me a socialist or a somnabulist

obama isn't a socialist either (more strawmannery)...george bush just took control of the means of production on wall street so you could correctly label that policy socialist, but i think even george bush still has more capitalist than socialist in him...by itself, government intervention is not socialist...the US government and other governments around the world intervene in the free market all the time, but private property still exists in america, and american capitalists retain control of the means of production (until last month anyway)

First off, the bailout was authorized by congress.

I have not misrepresented your position. You stated that you believe in capitalism, yet you revealed a great deal in:

ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living

That above is socialist innuendo...

Maybe it would be wise to understand what a straw man fallacy is.

- are you saying universal health care is not superior unless it is accepted universally? most of the developed countries in the world have publicly funded healthcare systems, and the US health care system lags behind a few dozen universal health care systems of other countries...better has been defined, and universally accepted outside of the usa

US health care system ranked 37th in the world:
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

US health care system scores low marks compared to other countries:
Health Scorecard Ranks U.S. on Lower Rungs -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

The WHO is subjective, and therefore cannot (IMHO) be taken seriously...

Something to ruffle your feathers:

As they tack left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can't agree on much. But one cause they all support â?? along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger â?? is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.

What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies. They are authors of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2005).
More by Michael D. TannerMore by Michael F. Cannon

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms â?? such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets â?? that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable.

Source: Universal Health Cares Dirty Little Secret

[maladroit]

socialist innuendo is another way of saying socialist insinuation...you are insinuating that i am a socialist...that is attributing a position to me that is not really my position, which is the meaning of straw man fallacy:
Fallacy: Straw Man

the world health organization health care ranking and the commonwealth report are both based on health care outcome figures, not subjective opinions...are you suggesting those two organizations fabricated data to make the usa look bad?

you dismiss the WHO data because it is 'subjective', and then provide a link to an opinion piece from the cato institute whose mission statement reads:
"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."

i think i detect a possible subjective bias in that brief cato commentary on universal health care's dirty secret...that cato article mentioned only three facts about the 3 countries that have universal health care, and only ONE fact about the US health care system...the commonwealth report measured 37 different indicators of health care outcomes across 23 countries...the WHO report involved more analysis than 4 snippets of data in a single page article

[GoldenBoy812]

socialist innuendo is another way of saying socialist insinuation...you are insinuating that i am a socialist...that is attributing a position to me that is not really my position, which is the meaning of straw man fallacy:
Fallacy: Straw Man

Pay attention:

ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living

Did you say this? If so, you lean towards socialism... Socialist

the world health organization health care ranking and the commonwealth report are both based on health care outcome figures, not subjective opinions...are you suggesting those two organizations fabricated data to make the usa look bad?

The point system favors UHC countries.

you dismiss the WHO data because it is 'subjective', and then provide a link to an opinion piece from the cato institute whose mission statement reads:
"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."

It was my intention to provide an opinion piece, to give you an idea what free market capitalists believe. It is not surprising that you disagree with it:thumbsup:

i think i detect a possible subjective bias in that brief cato commentary on universal health care's dirty secret...that cato article mentioned only three facts about the 3 countries that have universal health care, and only ONE fact about the US health care system...the commonwealth report measured 37 different indicators of health care outcomes across 23 countries...the WHO report involved more analysis than 4 snippets of data in a single page article

Possibly, but i was not the one claiming one system was better than the other. Only that i would prefer a free market orientated system. You lose again...:jointsmile:

[maladroit]

how did this turn into a discussion about me?

i don't know where you get your definition of socialism, but whatever you're talking about isn't it...funding social programs is not the same as controlling the means of production...if you're so eager to label socialism, why aren't you labelling the US government which just nationalized some of the largest financial corporations in the world? the us government isn't just funding AIG, fannie, and freddie: YOU own them so if anyone is a socialist here, it's YOU


are you enjoying your socialist control of the capital and means of production on wall street? it must be like playing monopoly with your grandchildren's money, except your socialist masters are rolling the dice for you


The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition, 2008

A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.

[GoldenBoy812]

how did this turn into a discussion about me?

You attempted to call a straw man on me, when in fact i have yet to put one forth.

The United States, for better or worse is a mixed economy. Certain aspects of life such as police, fire rescue, national defense, and roads/ highways are more efficiently provided via government programs. I have yet to argue to the contrary, as i am not an anarcho-capitalist. Yet i do not believe health care should be funded by means of federal taxation to the populace. I also do not believe schooling should be controlled and regulated via Washington.

Therefore i am a pro marketed capitalist.

There is a new trend emerging throughout Europe where socialism is becoming increasingly accepted. Universal health care paved the way for such a possibility.

If the current crisis was not as severe as it currently is, i would in no way be calling for a bailout. But it is a potentially devastating situation, and as i have said numerous times, instant change will bring forth chaos, which will usher even stronger government strangleholds across the board. This has to be avoided, and because government intervention IMHO caused this mess, i do expect them to fix it.

Political psychology of the populace changes as situations and crisis emerge. Prior to the '29 crash, government was only beginning to manipulate markets, and such occurrences faced backlash when they would show their head. Once a crisis such as that erupted on the scene, neo socialists (FDR) used government as a means of fear reduction. This in itself played a serious role, as citizens of this time period became heavily reliant on government. They had children (baby boomers), and to a point these ideals were passed on. As we speak, the baby boom generation is losing power daily; their idea's and actions have serious consequences which we are seeing today. Ron Paul and his ideals are very much so represented by todayâ??s youth; who will be tomorrow's leaders. Obama is the flip side of Dr. Paul, in that he is trying to offer equity by which Americans will be forced to give up personal freedoms to achieve such goals.

I believe Obama will win the election. I also believe his administration will spark a fire under the asses of the sons and daughters of liberty. Just as all aspects in life naturally attempt to balance out, a new leader will emerge to answer the call against neo socialists. Who this leader will be is still in question, but i do believe it is very close.

Under the right administration, the deficit can begin to fall. It will take a major decrease in spending, which will need to be accompanied by an increase in worker productivity as well as a production possibilities shift to the right.

if you're so eager to label socialism, why aren't you labelling the US government which just nationalized some of the largest financial corporations in the world? the us government isn't just funding AIG, fannie, and freddie: YOU own them so if anyone is a socialist here, it's YOU

This has more to do with monetary policy, then it does with control. I have yet to make any excuses for what has happened, nor will i. Instead, you have made a handful of assumptions that are fatally flawed. While i do believe there are many faults with my government, we still possess the greatest piece of legislation ever to be written: The US Constitution.

If i was a socialist, i would have opinions much like the ones you possess.

You have failed to respond to some of my points:

Question for you. Has our massive deficit crippled our ability to provide these social services you deem necessary? I believe it has not, as we were able to pump the entire GDP of Canada into our economy as a "primer" in the span of 1 year. That really says something of the power and magnitude of the United States.

You failed to answer that above

You miss my point completely, and then go on a rant. If the US were to cut out its massive military infrastructure built throughout the world, other nations might just have to take more of an initiative in providing for there own defense. My original statement was based on a production possibility frontier, and nothing else.

You failed to address this point
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Its time to step up or step down :jointsmile:

[daihashi]

http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/...ml#post1918424

There is all the information I posted on canada vs the US.

Please note that the information posted in that thread came from the last known census and officially documented information in comparison to our own. I could not find information for 2007 and 2008 is not over yet therefore you cannot really source that as information because it would be inaccurate to say that how a current fiscal year will end.

Even with the outdated information much of what I posted is still legitimate. Feel free to read.

I will say this.. someone in this thread is grasping at straws while another is giving some basic economic lessons

It's been entertaining to read to say the least and I am still impressed with Goldenboy's explanations. I never get tired of reading his posts. :thumbsup:

[maladroit]

"Certain aspects of life such as police, fire rescue, national defense, and roads/ highways are more efficiently provided via government programs."

- that sounds like socialist innuendo...will you correctly label yourself a SOCIALIST? of course not! fire and police are essential services...so is health care...you wouldn't expect people to buy private fire/police service insurance to protect them in the event of an emergency, so what supports your opposition to universal health care besides dogmatic capitalist ideology?



"we still possess the greatest piece of legislation ever to be written: The US Constitution."

- if it is the greatest piece of legislation, why was it amended 27 times? surely the greatest piece of legislation would not have allowed slavery...BTW: i think the constitution is not technically a piece of legislation...it's more of an outline for government's legislative body to write legislation, and executive body to implement legislation, and judicial body to judge disputes/crimes based on legislation, in accordance with the principles outlined in the constitution



"This has more to do with monetary policy, then it does with control."

- the government (read: you) owns a majority of shares in AIG, fannie, and freddie...the monetary policy is control of those formerly private corporations



"You miss my point completely, and then go on a rant. If the US were to cut out its massive military infrastructure built throughout the world, other nations might just have to take more of an initiative in providing for there own defense."

- i neither missed your point, nor failed to address your question...you asked if *canada* was getting a "free ride" on the coat tails of US national defense spending, and i provided a specific examples of US defence spending that has nothing to do with canada...apparently my rant was too brief because you turned that question into an IF-THEN compound statement, so i am happy to add some more details...*ahem*...in addition to the $6 trillion (2008 dollars) in defense spending i listed earlier, canada does not benefit from the:
- $100 billion star wars orbital missile defense program
- many of the CIA covert operations
- US nuclear weapons arsenal capable of destroying the earth many times
- $500 hammers and $500 toilet seats

it isn't just about wasteful US spending - that appalls everyone except military contractors...US foreign policy (which is mostly military) is the reason why the usa has to spend more money on defense and homeland security...your government drags you into war with american jingoism - you (as in we-the-people) brought this upon yourselves, and then you (goldenboy) point fingers at neutral countries and accuse them of getting a free ride...guess what? for the past few decades, we usually haven't going in the same direction, so thanks for the offer of a free lift, but we're not headed that way



"Has our massive deficit crippled our ability to provide these social services you deem necessary?"

- YES! of the $10.2 trillion national debt, $4.2 trillion is intragovernmental holdings, primarily in the form of money borrowed from social security trust fund, which has to be paid back somehow if people are going to collect social security...a few years ago, president bush stood on the steps of the social security department, and declared that the social security program (which is still generating a profit) was basically bankrupt because the SS trust fund was made up of worthless IOU's from the treasury department...that's just one example: as ron paul explained, foreign banks might stop lending money to the world's greatest debtor, which leaves the US gov't and it's social programs dependent on the whims of foreign, and often unfriendly countries...they are less likely to extend more credit after uncle sam's recent binge that crashed the global economy...credit is getting tight ya know

Bush: Social Security trust fund â??just IOUsâ??
President says, â??There is no trust fundâ??:
Bush: Social Security trust fund ââ?¬Ë?just IOUsââ?¬â?¢ - Politics - MSNBC.com