So next elections when the Republicans again run on "lowering taxes"

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Because then we default, creditors no longer trust the US Government and will no longer borrow, rates will have to skyrocket, the dollar plummets, etc. Basic Econ.

Logically, how do you think we would be able to fund the deficit if nobody will allow us to borrow from them?

Well, if a plurarilty of citizens felt that the debt was not theirs to pay, the US government would no longer need to borrow. It would have no legitimacy to borrow, print money or govern anyways. Basic econ is irrelevant, or at least less relevant than philosophy and history.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Smallest increase in government spending, different from smallest spending.

Which is in and of itself BS since it necessarily means pretending Bush and not Obama spent every dime in legislation between inauguration and FY 2009 ending.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Future generations could always decide something different. That's kind of what democracy means. I'm not sure why policy should be decided by hypothetical people who don't yet exist, and may not even agree with you.

Future generations can't decide that the sovereign debt isn't owed, they can't decide that the currency is worth more, they can't decide what reality itself obliges them to recognize or doesn't. If the family farm gets burned down, the inheritors can't decide it is standing again -- they can just try to repair the ruin left for them.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Well, if a plurarilty of citizens felt that the debt was not theirs to pay, the US government would no longer need to borrow. It would have no legitimacy to borrow, print money or govern anyways. Basic econ is irrelevant, or at least less relevant than philosophy and history.

And that's called a default, which will result in a collapsing dollar. We can decide to default, but we can't decide what the worth of a USD is.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I'm not searching for justifications. Just wondering why anyone would pay for something they felt they didnt owe, that's all. If I, as a hypothetical member of a future generation felt that I had been unfairly saddled with crippling debt that I didnt owe, paying it would not be something I'd be willing to do.

So are you saying my generation or the future generation should be able to opt out of SS and programs that will not give them back what they paid? Yes I know this sounds like a dumb question but...

This not a hypthetical. We are saddling out future generations with a burden to pay. The consequences are real!

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Look at how much our government spends per capita on health care. Look at our health outcomes. Look at how much other countries spend per capita on health care. Look at their health outcomes. Now try to convince anyone that our system works better.



This is true. I'm not sure what it has to do with your original question (And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school?), but it is certainly true.

So why not get government out of healthcare instead of more involved? You seem to imply our government has not clue on what it is doing with regards to healthcare. What makes you think spending more money will all of a sudden make things better?

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Future generations can't decide that the sovereign debt isn't owed, they can't decide that the currency is worth more, they can't decide what reality itself obliges them to recognize or doesn't. If the family farm gets burned down, the inheritors can't decide it is standing again -- they can just try to repair the ruin left for them.

Exactly.

And in the hypothetical world we have created on this thread I would not longer send in FICA taxes and many other things to the federal government...

[Dreamliner]

Americans consistently tell pollsters that government is too big and they consistently vote for more of it.

Therefore, it's beyond me why anyone should wonder why we have the politicians we do.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

And that's called a default, which will result in a collapsing dollar. We can decide to default, but we can't decide what the worth of a USD is.

That's not really what I was getting at. I was getting more at deciding that legitimacy of the debt itself was questionable, and therefore the legitimacy of the state itself. What then? The value of a piece of paper means nothing then, like Confederate money or borrowing authority in 1866. People will just circulate other IOUs based on other values. New governments will emerge.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Will the entire internet rise up as one and say "No sir! You mean increasing the deficit!"

Will it happen? It'll happen, right? Because we're smarter now?

Actually, the next candidate will be able to run on lowering government spending. Hopefully successfully.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Actually, the next candidate will be able to run on lowering government spending. Hopefully successfully.

Don't count on it. Ten years ago there were ample forebodings that we'd reached the end.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Future generations can't decide that the sovereign debt isn't owed, they can't decide that the currency is worth more, they can't decide what reality itself obliges them to recognize or doesn't. If the family farm gets burned down, the inheritors can't decide it is standing again -- they can just try to repair the ruin left for them.

They surely can decide the debt isnt owed. It entails some level of civil revolt or the dissolution of the state's legitimacy by a plurality. We are a government who's authority rests with the people after all, not a state mint. I'm not suggesting its easy or simply involves saying it three times fast. A states authority to borrow is relative to its legitimacy, because they are the ones backing IOUs.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

They surely can decide the debt isnt owed. It entails some level of civil revolt or the dissolution of the state's legitimacy by a plurality. We are a government who's authority rests with the people after all, not a state mint. I'm not suggesting its easy or simply involves saying it three times fast. A states authority to borrow is relative to its legitimacy, because they are the ones backing IOUs.

So your point is who cars if we spend money we do not have...so we leave our kids the option of revolt and tearing down what we left them or pay for the mess we left them?

Sounds like we are a splendid group that has no regard for the future generations...

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

So why not get government out of healthcare instead of more involved? You seem to imply our government has not clue on what it is doing with regards to healthcare. What makes you think spending more money will all of a sudden make things better?

I am implying that our current hybrid system is inefficient, and that more privatization hasn't been shown to increase overall health outcomes, or to lower overall prices. Single payer has been shown, in real life, to increase health outcomes and decrease health costs.

We don't need to spend more money, as I have pointed out several times (and this is the piece of information that finally moved me into the single payer camp), we are already spending enough money to do the job.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

So your point is who cars if we spend money we do not have...so we leave our kids the option of revolt and tearing down what we left them or pay for the mess we left them?

Sounds like we are a splendid group that has no regard for the future generations...

That's not my point at all. As long as people think the state can make good on an IOU in the future, there's no reason to question the debt. But crippling debt or self-inflicted wounds would put that into question anyway. If spending becomes critical, it will either be addressed, or the country will fail. Panic over the debt for "future generations" seems pointless to me, other than as a means to achieve certain policy ends in the present.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

That's not really what I was getting at. I was getting more at deciding that legitimacy of the debt itself was questionable, and therefore the legitimacy of the state itself. What then? The value of a piece of paper means nothing then, like Confederate money or borrowing authority in 1866. People will just circulate other IOUs based on other values. New governments will emerge.

Sure, but what is your point exactly? That we can run up the tab and if a future generation cannot or doesnt want to pay it they should collapse the country into some lawless land of bartering goods and services?

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

That's not my point at all. As long as people think the state can make good on an IOU in the future, there's no reason to question the debt. But crippling debt or self-inflicted wounds would put that into question anyway. If spending becomes critical, it will either be addressed, or the country will fail. Panic over the debt for "future generations" seems pointless to me, other than as a means to achieve certain policy ends in the present.

And that's the point of our current debate. I'd rather address the issue than have the country fail. And while it isn't a true linear degradation, it isn't binary either. The debt burden does, and has begun to, and will continue to, negatively impact the economy. It's not just a fail or thrive option.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Sure, but what is your point exactly? That we can run up the tab and if a future generation cannot or doesnt want to pay it they should collapse the country into some lawless land of bartering goods and services?

See #75.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

And that's the point of our current debate. I'd rather address the issue than have the country fail. And while it isn't a true linear degradation, it isn't binary either. The debt burden does, and has begun to, and will continue to, negatively impact the economy. It's not just a fail or thrive option.

That's not a position shared by a plurality though. So, that doesnt mean the debt is necessarily dangerous or spending is "out of control." Basically, at the point of real crisis, the political system will be force to either make it so revenues are in line with current spending or that spending is slashed into line with projected revenue, or somewhere in between. What the system has done instead is set up phony showdowns, which are easy to delay or kick down the road, or a tool to extract prefered policy outcomes. To me, that means that there is no debt crisis.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

I am implying that our current hybrid system is inefficient, and that more privatization hasn't been shown to increase overall health outcomes, or to lower overall prices. Single payer has been shown, in real life, to increase health outcomes and decrease health costs.

We don't need to spend more money, as I have pointed out several times (and this is the piece of information that finally moved me into the single payer camp), we are already spending enough money to do the job.

How do you suppose the government pay for millions (100's of millions at that) more to get healthcare if it takes over for us? It has proven it cannot and does not have the will to control costs already...