"To Help Other People At All Times"

[SeattlePioneer]

Very principled Beavah. You don't like the spending the Republicans did and you really like the much greater spending done by Democrats.

 

Your suggestion that we can choose between the massive spending we've done in recent decades and Somalia is offering the error of false alternatives.

 

You have a very weak line of argument in my opinion.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

You'll never get consensus or agreement between those that see the issues as infinite shades of gray and those that see the issues in terms of an Us vs. Them, Democrat vs. GOP or Conservative vs. Liberal.

 

Those of us who agree with Beavah and Eamonn see the issues in shades of gray and nuance. Those that agree with Tahawk and Seattle see definitive lines.

 

Of course, that conflict is what makes the politics forum so interesting.

[TAHAWK]

"The spending from 2008 to 2010 was not discretionary. That was a simple choice, between Great Depression II and massive intervention. Without the rescue, the banks would have failed, the FDIC would have collapsed, unemployment would be above 20% and the deficit would be just as large, because of greater loss of revenue. It's OK to be angry about it, I reckon almost all of us are. But there really wasn't a choice, for either Bush with TARP or Obama with da stimulus."

 

At least we know where you stand. "Simple choice": Cherry or Grape?

 

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrongsomebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promisesI say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we startedAnd an enormous debt to boot!

 

Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury, 1933-1945 (testimony to Congress, 1939).

 

You present a false dichotomy - endlessly spending massively more than we have to spend VS. something bad happening. Morgenthau saw the truth.

 

We are as addicted to spending someone else's money as the drunk is addicted to booze. And our children and their children through the generations will pay - and pay - and pay for our endless summer of spending.

 

[Beavah]

Very principled Beavah. You don't like the spending the Republicans did and you really like the much greater spending done by Democrats.

 

I don't "like" any of it, and it doesn't have a thing to do with Democrats or Republicans. That kind of "my tribe vs your tribe" stuff I mostly find just juvenile. Though my personal votin' record leans fairly heavily Republican over da years, I believe in America, not political parties.

 

While I don't like any of it, what I said was that the tax cuts in 2001 and not funding two wars and not funding a vast expansion of Medicare into prescription drugs were unnecessary. Those were voluntary choices by leaders who believed "deficits don't matter." By contrast, TARP (which was done under President Bush, if you'll recall) and da stimulus were necessary to avoid massive cascading bank failures and a depression. Da whole thing made me angry, but it was necessary. Remember, in a depression, your debt load gets worse as da currency deflates and the economy shrinks. So not acting would have had da same consequences of massively increasing the debt, but much worse consequences on da nation.

 

Your suggestion that we can choose between the massive spending we've done in recent decades and Somalia is offering the error of false alternatives.

 

Not what I said, eh? You're claimin' all taxes are evil, or at least that paying taxes is not a civic duty but a highway robbery. Somalia is what yeh get if yeh cut all taxes. By contrast, modern Greece is what yeh get if you encourage a culture where people don't consider it a civic duty to pay taxes. Greeks have believed what you believe for decades, and acted on it. How's that workin' out? You'd like Greece. They're even followin' da program of massive spending cuts with no tax increases, even selling off da equivalent of Yellowstone to foreign developers. It's causin' their economy to contract so their debt is actually gettin' worse. But while the electricity is gettin' sketchy, yeh can warm your hands by da fires of burning cars caused by da riots.

 

In America da "government" in the end is just US, eh? You and me and our fellow citizens. I like my fellow citizens. I appreciate 'em. And I don't mind joinin' with 'em to do things for the country, or joinin' with 'em to pay for things for da country we share in common. Just part of bein' a good neighbor, and a good citizen.

 

And personally, I'd rather pay taxes directly than be taxed indirectly by havin' Congress fumble da credit rating and seeing indirect taxes as business costs get raised all across da country as a result. The latter is da same as a tax increase, but it's much less predictable and therefore much less stable. Also prefer taxes to monetizing the debt, which is also much less stable.

 

Otherwise, there's always Greece. Or Somalia.

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

Historical analysis isn't as kind to Morgenthau. Morganthau's comment was during the thick of things. Once we passed through the period, and with benefit of historical hindsight, economists say the recovery during the depression was held back because we were too timid with our spending and didn't spend enough.

 

 

[Beavah]

You present a false dichotomy - endlessly spending massively more than we have to spend VS. something bad happening. Morgenthau saw the truth.

 

Morgenthau? LOL. That's rich. He'd be da fellow who cut spending in 1937 leading to a double-dip and extending the mass unemployment. He'd also be the fellow that led us out of the depression by massively spending money at deficit levels far exceeding what ours are as we moved in to World War II.

 

That's just too funny. Does the tea party crowd ever understand history? I take it yeh got that quote off of one of their sites somewhere, which just demonstrates how it's possible to confuse da well meaning folk with absurd quotes from various "authorities."

 

Nobody is suggesting "endlessly spending massively more than we have". That's the only false dichotomy here. I've been reasonably happy with every one of da serious deficit reduction plans, from Simpson-Bowles to da thing Obama and Boehner agreed to in principle before his caucus shut him down. We have to make substantive cuts in defense, genuine reform and controls in Medicare, substantive adjustments to social security, and raise revenues. We can do the latter by just lettin' the Bush tax cuts expire (which is all that's really possible politically unless/until we toss the witless teabag representatives), but I prefer that we do it more intelligently through things like a consumption tax on gasoline, closing loopholes that allow businesses and individuals to avoid payin', and taxin' the cockamamie businesses and investment vehicles that cause the mess to pay for proper oversight and regulation (and a few federal prisons for future perpetrators of large-scale financial fraud).

 

There's nuthin' wrong with massive spending to avoid a catastrophe, like what was necessary in 2008. But then yeh have to have the moral fortitude after yeh recover to pay your bills. Back in my day, we called that "character."

 

Too bad in Congress we only have characters, not character.

 

Beavah

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

I didn't say all taxes are evil. I said taxes are a NECESSARY EVIL.

 

You seem unable to understand the concept of this kind of duality.

 

 

Neither have I made excuses for tax avoidance or tax fraud in any way. When taxes are legally owed, we do indeed have a civil obligation to pay them.

 

But we also have a civil obligation to resist taxes from being imposed that we find are excessive or unreasonable. That is a large part of the idea behind republican government and the constitution. Control of taxing power is reserved to the Congress, the political process and the American people.

[TAHAWK]

I am not part of any "party," tea, coffee, or wine. Unlike some here, I don't like Koolaide of any flavor. I have made mistakes in who I have supported over the years, but I don't let any interest group direct me because they all have axes to grind and friends or "base" to make richer with taxpayer money. I don't believe in St. FDR OR St. Ronald. My "saints" are Wayne Morse and Gene McCarthy because they had what it takes to say the unpopular thing, even when I don't agree with what they said. (I am even starting to like Crazy Dennis a little on the same grounds, space men and all. He won't play nice with the other pols.)

 

Those who are dedicated to one gang or another always have an interpretation that makes their brand look good. So they give whatever credit can been seen (or imagined) to their side and blame whatever cannot be denied on the other side, fate, foreigners, or God.

 

Supply-Siders hail St. Ronald and ignore the growth of poverty, government employees, spending, and deficits -- while telling us that St. Ronald was responsible for the collapse of the tetering economic lie that was the Soviet Union. (Who was it said we could afford the "Great Society" and the war in Vietnam? LOL, I voted for that stiff even if I didn't vote for St. Ronald.)

 

Government-is-the-answer types ignore the cold, hard fact that discretionary spending is at record highs and someone, some day will * have * to * pay * the * bill -- while, of course, claiming it WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE -- an article of faith, not proof. (Funny those silly economists who decide how your union's pension money gets invested don't agree. They, daft lads and ladies, think all this deficit makes things worse. Opps! There goes the national credit rating.)

 

In 1944, at the height of WW II, the deficit in 2011 Dollars was $574,000,000,000.

 

In 2011, the deficit is slated to be $1,650,000,000,000. Hmmmmmm. Almost 3x the deficit we incurred to fight the biggest war in history with 11,000,000 in the armed forces. What do it mean? Was FRD/was Congress shorting the war effort?

 

Unemployment is currently said to be up to 9.6% -- but we don't count those who have stopped looking or in part-time jobs when they want full-time. Same folks say there's no inflation. All your imagination.

 

Whoever is at fault, it's a mess.

 

Repeat after me: "What, one pill made you sicker and two even sicker, you should have taken four. six, or eight."

 

"History" As written by whom? I am old enough to have seen "history" change. It's only interpretation of facts. Truman was a dunce when I was in High School. At some point, historians "discovered" he was one of the great Presidents.

 

Economics is worse. I took four years of it (1962-1965) and was told repeatedly we would never have a "serious" recession again, much less a depression. Why? Economists now knew exactly how to "fine-tune" the economy through government spending and monetary policy. Really. Honest. You betcha. So how's is that monetary policy and (record) government spending doing for you? "Serious" yet?

 

As for the Secretary of the Treasury cutting spending, there is this thing called Congress that controls spending. Morgenthau had influence with Congress and FDR, but no historian speaks of the "Morgenthau Administration" -- unless it's a worshiper looking for someone to take the blame off Saint FDR for the economic failure during his administrations.

 

Spending Other People's Money is hardly ever efficient. Are you old enough to remember $436 hammers in the B-52?. And those toilet seats that should have been made of gold, given their price? And the coffee-makers? My Lord, it's like the cardboard boots in the Civil War or spending more money to "save" a house from foreclosure than the owner's equity in the house [AKA, "Bank Welfare"]. (Google "Golden Fleece." You'll love it. No. You'll hate it.)

 

"Nobody is suggesting 'endlessly spending massively more than we have.'" Gee, as a matter of fact, if not "history," there was this one guy in Washington who said: "First, I am proposing a 5-year freeze on all discretionary spending outside of security."

 

Note "freeze." That is Washingtonian for "Go on spending the same amount." (In Washington, "cut" means slow down the increase so a "freeze" is also a "cut." There does not appear to be a verb that describes actually REDUCING spending.)

 

Why if we freeze spending we "save" $400,000,000,000 over ten years, this guy claimed.

 

1,650,000,000,000/year x 10 years = 16,500,000,000,000 - 400,000,000,000 = 16,100,000,000,000 more debt. Why, we have it licked!

 

Unless * something * changes.

 

2012.

[packsaddle]

I'd like to have a chat with the person who started this slander of Kool Aid which everyone seems to want to repeat. The people at Jonestown didn't drink Kool Aid. They drank Flavor Aid. For cryin' out loud, get the facts correct please.

[perdidochas]

One common mistake Beavah made. The assumption that raising taxes=increased revenue. Human nature shows us that this doesn't always work and that often the opposite is true. Why do we heavily tax cigarettes? It's not to raise revenue, rather it's to stop people from smoking (and studies show that it's successful). High taxation causes people to try to figure out ways to avoid it. It's human nature.

 

That said, I do think tax reform is needed. We need to look at the historical GDP taxation percentage (IIRC about 18% of GDP in the 20th century) and keep our spending to that level. I do wish that the Obama administration had actually suggested some of the Simpson-Bowles reforms--primarily flattening the tax rates and reducing most of the deductions.

[Beavah]

Yah, perdidochas, I agree with yeh about some taxes, and that it's a risk for consumption taxes so they're best used on things yeh want to cut, like smoking and gasoline use. But when we imposed da Bush tax cuts we severely dropped revenue, so I reckon that reversing 'em it's a good bet will increase revenue. Now personally, I didn't think my taxes in 1999 were excessive and unreasonable; they were in fact lower than they were for most of da previous 30+ years, so I'm not sure where SeattlePioneer is comin' from.

 

Tawhawk, I agree with a fair bit of what yeh wrote. We're probably not that far apart. And some of us here are old enough to remember Senator Proxmire, eh? We don't have to Google "Golden Fleece", we were there when he introduced it . He did a good job with some of 'em, especially the military which he knew well, but quite a few times he botched his analysis of science projects and had to apologize later. He just didn't understand da science as well as he understood da military.

 

I do think we should give Reagan some credit for da Soviet collapse. Not St. Ronald, but at least an "attaboy". I also think yeh bungled da WW2 to 2010 deficit comparison because yeh didn't take into account general economic / GDP growth. The WW2 deficits were a vastly larger percentage of da country's economic output. It's like da difference between a fellow makin' 30K a year putting $20K on his credit card a fellow making $500K a year charging $60K on his credit card. Yah, it's three times as much in dollars but nowhere near as much in risk.

 

Spending other people's money can be efficient or inefficient. I borrowed lots of other people's money to buy my first house for Mrs. Beavah. I did my homework and it worked out well. Companies that issue bonds borrow lots of other people's money to grow their businesses faster than they could by just reinvestin' the profits. That creates jobs and economic expansion. Overall, countries with robust banking systems that allow folks to borrow and spend other people's money vastly outperform those that do not. And many federal agencies are professional and efficient, so long as congress and da whitehouse don't micromanage. Every Golden Fleece has a corresponding GPS - a high expense, high risk investment that paid huge public dividends. NASA did well over the years, as has the CDC; the FAA's safety record is tops in the world, on and on. Yeh can point to good agencies and bad ones, successes and failures.

 

But much of da rest I agree with, eh? We do have a long-term structural deficit which needs to be addressed. At da same time, as you point out, we have a short- to medium- term chronic unemployment problem that needs to be addressed. And, truth be told, we're in da midst of a long-term economic shift that we're not ready for - the worldwide loss of middle-income manufacturing and clerical jobs, in a nation where only 30% of da population are prepared to be successful in professional / technical jobs.

 

So I get da whole "party of No" thing, eh? Yeh want to address the structural deficit. I agree. I haven't heard any coherent plans to do that out of da anti-tax/Tea Party crowd, other than just default and throw us into The Mother of Great Depressions. So what's the plan? The sum and total of all da Golden Fleece awards over 30 years doesn't get yeh enough to pay Medicare for a week.

 

What's the plan to help all those workers with medium-term chronic unemployment? Da teabagger plan is to cut the government benefits and push 'em into poverty, on da theory that will make 'em look harder for a job. We're talkin' about scouts and scouters in my area, mind. Oh, yah, and da second half of the plan is trash da country's credit rating and reputation to depress investment and job creation. Da democrats aren't doin' much better, eh? They can only muster temporary payments to get 'em by, but nothin' to actually address the problem. So what's the plan?

 

And what's the plan for da long term economic shift? America is still da biggest manufacturer in the world; we only get a small amount of cheap household goods from China. Offshoring has played a role, but da real story is automation and efficiency. We don't need to spend union wages on boltin' things together anymore, or on harvesting crops, or on filing stuff in offices. We never will again. So what are we goin' to do with the 70% of da country who aren't skilled enough to hold jobs that offer a middle-class wage? They can't all flip burgers or mop floors. Neither da teabaggers nor the Dems have a plan. Only difference is that da teabaggers want to cut education, because that makes sense when da majority of the population is underskilled. So what's the plan?

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

The plan IS to have no plan.

To risk the use of another contentious topic, I offer 'global warming' for example. One of my favorite skeptical scientists who is brave enough to publish his views on this notes that even if he accepts the admittedly flawed climate models, IF he employs them with the assumption that we can do the impossibly difficult task of removing the equivalent carbon which 1000 nuclear plants would replace, those same models show practically no change in the predicted outcome.

 

I am convinced that like the climate change situation, we have already 'screwed the pooch' on this. As a people we are not going to be effective at redirecting climate - it's arrogant to think that we even could, and we don't really seem to want to anyway.

Likewise, as a people we have elected an assembly which could not have been better designed to do nothing if we had consciously tried to do it. We don't have the stomach for measures that WOULD make the corrections, so the plan IS to let circumstances dictate our actions and the consequences. Lifespans ARE going to shorten for both young and old. 'Quality of life' IS going to degrade on average.

The tea party is little more than a political manifestation of the 'every man for himself' approach to government and life. And we have either consciously or unconsciously chosen this path. I don't see it turning around - I think I mentioned this near the end of the Bush administration: when the bus has just plunged over the cliff, what does it matter who is at the wheel?

[Basementdweller]

I have a unique perspective regarding homeless and beggars.......

 

I have lived in my house a really long time and for the longest time I thought it was neighborhood dogs dumping my trash cans and tearing open the bags.........nope it was the homeless guys collecting aluminum and tin cans. So now I have a big tote that i just toss anything metal in and they have stopped dumping all my trash all over the alley looking for the recyclables.

 

The intersections have guys holding signs up begging for help. So is giving him 5 bucks so he can go buy a maddog or wild irish rose wine and bowl of wendys chili helping him???? no.

 

Son and I work the food pantry, people lie, cheat and steal there too. Had one elderly couple go thru the line twice.....third time, the lady in charge turned them away. The church also is a sign up location for electric assistance.....Had one lady come in, she had a $600 electric bill, saw while she was sitting in line. Even with the high temps my biggest bill has been $150...key turn the dang thermostat up. my house temp has been 80 all summer.

 

AT ALL TIMES is hard.....

 

Especially when we eat store brand groceries and rarely eat out. Then you have families come in to the food pantry drinking mcdonalds milkshakes and complaining about the brands of peanut butter and cereal available.

 

When loading groceries in the trunk of one car the lady had made the rounds to all the food pantrys and didn't have room in her trunk for our box. Is that right????

 

 

 

Had a Rich suburban church want to turn a Big house a few streets over into a male homeless shelter..... I went to the meeting and asked the church representatives why they chose our neighborhood????? It seems they bought the house cheap and were planning on rehabing it. I asked why they didn't build it in their neighborhood or on the same property as their church. Their leader spoke up and said that their church was too far away from the services these types of people need. I inquired exactly What types of services were they refering too......I already knew...most of the local churches have soup kitchens open various days of the week so most days you can get free meals in the area. I mentioned that this would place an unfair burden on the local churches and hoped that the church intended on donating additional money to the churches to help with the additional meals needed. Well they ignored my continuing line of question......

 

The community board had a hearing, well a large number of neighbors turned out told them what we thought....well they agreed and told the church leaders to pack it up and put it in their own community.

 

For the record this is a community that also refuses to keep their own people convicted in sex crimes. They instituted a law that makes it illegal for a convicted sexual offender to live with in 1,000 feet of a school or park, well guess what that leaves absolutely no where for them to live. So where do they live????? Yep in my neighborhood. I get real tired of being the dumping zone for city.

 

To help other people at all times. Yes it is in the oath, but I would like to add, the people have to be trying to help themselves first.

[TAHAWK]

"I also think yeh bungled da WW2 to 2010 deficit comparison because yeh didn't take into account general economic / GDP growth. The WW2 deficits were a vastly larger percentage of da country's economic output. It's like da difference between a fellow makin' 30K a year putting $20K on his credit card a fellow making $500K a year charging $60K on his credit card. Yah, it's three times as much in dollars but nowhere near as much in risk."

 

Your analysis does not consider the $20-30,000,000,000,000 (different "economists" = different estimates) in "unfunded mandates." That would be Medicare and Social Security money "borrowed" by Congress and replaced with IOU's. Someone is supposed to pay that amount, and it dwarfs the National Debt AND keeps growing.

 

And if I "bungled," I guess S&P did too when they just lowered the credit rating (risk rating) of the United States of America, driving up the cost of our debt.

 

OPM: When you borrow money it's not other people's money. It's yours. You are on the line to repay, although the creditor's remedies are limited. When Congress spends your borrowed money it's other people's money because the politicians have no personal responsibility for repaying it. Gee, no personal responsibility. Golden toilet seats.

 

I simply have no faith that the government, local, state, federal, D, or R has better judgment than the private sector about where to spend money to create private sector jobs. Government IS excellent at creating government jobs (government voters) that increase the cost of government.

 

Efficiency? Compare Bell Labs to even NASA -- no contest (That would be the Bell Labs that the feds tacitly connived with AT&T to destroy. The agreement to break up the Bell System specifically addressed the break-up of Bell Labs. I was there.) Or compare Kaiser to the Navy ship yards. My Grandfather worked at both in WWII. He said Kaiser was much more efficient, and that's the general consensus. Or compare UPS to USPS. Which is going away? Beaver, on the topic of government waste, you do not want to go there.

 

Here we are with the China and the rest of the world lecturing us on our spendthrift ways and credit rating teetering, and the administration and Congress before that last election proposed no cuts in discretionary spending. OK, drink the grape stuff and say it's all Bush II's fault. Make it worse is a solution? That is not the "plan" you are looking for. That's just government soaking up more capital so it cannot be invested in anything else.

 

What's worst is the uncertainty. Money is in huge supply, hence the low cost of money. But those with money are afraid to invest it because they have no confidence in government, and neither do the citizenry.

 

Why should they have confidence? There is no strong leadership in either party that I can see. Obama raised so much hope in the majority of a departure from politics as usual and politics got worse. He is into leading from behind. And Congress gets lower performance ratings than the terrible ratings the Executive Branch gets -- and deserves low ratings.

 

Scouting is going to have lots of opportunity to be helpful to our fellow humans.

[CalicoPenn]

Why compare the USPS to UPS. The truth is that the USPS could destroy UPS if they were allowed to make it easier to print postage and ship packages from your own home and office instead of making people go to the post office to ship packages (after 9/11, it became against the rules to drop anything much larger than a 1st class letter in a mailbox - you can no longer wrap a book, weigh it, put the right amount of stamps on it, and drop it in a mailbox if it's over 13 ounces - you HAVE to take it to the post office). The postal rates for shipping are cheaper - and there is none of this "zoned" shipping charges - ship a media mail package by post office and the cost is around $1.50 - usually takes 1 to 5 days to get where it's going, depending on where it's going. Send it by UPS, and you'll spend $3.50 to $8.50, depending on where it's going, and it takes 1 to 5 days to get there.

 

If you're shipping 50 packages a day out at $3.50 but could ship them at $1.50, wouldn't you switch?

 

Also, can UPS deliver a 1st class letter from St. Pete, Florida to Homer, Alaska for under 50 cents? Nope - but the Post Office does.

 

Want to see the Post Office thrive? Get Congress out of its way and let them compete in a a truly free market way. UPS and FedEx thrive because we DON'T have a free market when it comes to delivery.