Bill McKee wrote:
Printing excess paper does not generate wealth.

Define "excess."

... Mostly, it generates
inflation.

Agreed. However, if the U.S. decides to print it's way out of debt, we
have a really long way to go.

... Where is the money for those IOU's going to come from?


The same place it has always come from.

So, you think the U.S. is going to default on it's debts? That will
affect the value of $20 bills almost as much as Treasury instruments.

The funny thing is that the people who are screaming about Treasuries
being "worthless IOUs" are the same people who most loudly support the
administration which is driving us headlong towards bankruptcy & default.

DSK

Jeff Rigby wrote:
You missed the point dude,

No, I didn't. But it's obvious that you know NOTHING about macro
economics... my bad, you've written as if you have some sense at other
times. Maybe it's more that you refuse to learn.

... The money is not there if Bush has to borrow
dollars to finance the private accounts.


Horse hockey. The money was borrowed from hundreds of years back. Why
should it change overnight?

... IF it was there then he wouldn't
have to borrow the money.


Is this an excuse for President Bush to spend like a drunken sailor on
everything *else*?

For one department of the federal government to come up with the money to
redeem the Treasury notes another has to borrow money by issuing more
treasury notes. You try to do that and you will go to jail, it's called
floating a check.


Gee, I never realized that gov'ts have to follow the same rules as people.

You can't print my own money either, or declare war and start killing
people, or bury spent plutonium & medical hazardous waste your my back
yard, etc etc etc.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
You missed the point dude,

No, I didn't. But it's obvious that you know NOTHING about macro
economics... my bad, you've written as if you have some sense at other
times. Maybe it's more that you refuse to learn.

... The money is not there if Bush has to borrow dollars to finance the
private accounts.


Horse hockey. The money was borrowed from hundreds of years back. Why
should it change overnight?

... IF it was there then he wouldn't have to borrow the money.


Is this an excuse for President Bush to spend like a drunken sailor on
everything *else*?

For one department of the federal government to come up with the money to
redeem the Treasury notes another has to borrow money by issuing more
treasury notes. You try to do that and you will go to jail, it's called
floating a check.

Gee, I never realized that gov'ts have to follow the same rules as people.

You can't print my own money either, or declare war and start killing
people, or bury spent plutonium & medical hazardous waste your my back
yard, etc etc etc.

DSK

Then he doesn't have to borrow the money and your statement was in
error????? If the money is there he doesn't to have to borrow it! You
can't have it both ways. We are talking practical here not the Orwellian
logic that is so often practiced (double think) by those in the federal
government.

The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent on SS.
This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent to
finance other areas of the Federal government. Not only is the money not
there but extra money coming into the SS system is already spent!

Beware the most vocal in criticizing Bush's plan for they have eyes on the
SS money and want to spend it on their pet projects. This includes
Republicans as well as Democrats.

The deficit spendinginflation/sliding scale income tax system that was
started in the 60's breaks down if congress reduces the tax rates or if we
don't have inflation above interest rates that are paid by treasury notes.
This is what we have had for the last 7 years. THEN we have to rely on GDP
growing at a astronomical rate to balance the budget. The Republicans are
overly optimistic about the latter and refuse to continue the previous
system started by the Democrats in the 60's (Johnson). Eventually either
they have to reduce the size of the federal government (republicans talk
this but don't carry thru), or raise taxes. This will be the true test of
their resolve.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Then he doesn't have to borrow the money and your statement was in
error?????

Of course not.

... If the money is there he doesn't to have to borrow it!

Uh huh. And since when did the Bush Administration propose a budget that
was anything close to balanced?

... You
can't have it both ways.

I'm not the one trying to have it "both" ways. I am trying to
familiarize you (and a few others) with a few basic facts, & introduce
some fairly simple & straightforward logic.

You are insisting that
1- US treasury bonds are somehow "worthless" when the fact is that they
are the most secure investment available.
2- If Bush can somehow make Social Security go bust all the sooner, that
the gov't will be forced to stop borrowing money.
3- that the above two points are actually sensible.


The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent on SS.

Correct.

This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent to
finance other areas of the Federal government.

Wrong.

This is like saying that you own your neighbor's house, because the
money the bank loaned him on his mortgage came out of your checking account.


Beware the most vocal in criticizing Bush's plan for they have eyes on the
SS money and want to spend it on their pet projects.

Wrong. The most vocal critics of Bush's SS plan are the ones who don't
want Social Security to go bust all the sooner, and who have the fiscal
responsibility to not want to run up an even larger deficit to make up
the difference in SS income/payouts.



The deficit spendinginflation/sliding scale income tax system that was
started in the 60's breaks down if congress reduces the tax rates or if we
don't have inflation above interest rates that are paid by treasury notes.

???

That almost sounds like an intelligent statement. But I suspect it's
another one of those delusions which you can't let go of.

Please explain further. Also explain why we haven't had this "breakdown"
when we've actually had inflation rates below Treasury return rates many
times over the past 40 years, inlcuding for about the last 10 ~ 12.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

Bill McKee wrote:
Printing excess paper does not generate wealth.

Define "excess."

... Mostly, it generates inflation.

Agreed. However, if the U.S. decides to print it's way out of debt, we
have a really long way to go.

... Where is the money for those IOU's going to come from?

The same place it has always come from.

So, you think the U.S. is going to default on it's debts? That will affect
the value of $20 bills almost as much as Treasury instruments.

The funny thing is that the people who are screaming about Treasuries
being "worthless IOUs" are the same people who most loudly support the
administration which is driving us headlong towards bankruptcy & default.

DSK



My definition: Excess: More than required. We need to go back to a gold
standard / silver standard. Currency that is backed by some hard item.
Plutonium? ;) That way the government can not just print more paper and
generate inflation that helps government revenues. (Bracket creep etc.).
The $20 bill is not worth what it was 25 years ago, or even 1 year ago. 25
years ago it took about 150 $20 bills to buy a mid range car, now it takes
about 1250 $20 bills. And the US may default on it's debts. We would not
be the first nation to do it. As to the present administration going
headlong towards bankruptsy, all the previous ones have paved the trail.
Even Clinton. Government revenues exploded during the dot.bomb and remember
Clinton raised taxes an exhorbitant amount. Even he admitted that he raised
them excessively. The government has to get the money from the people. The
same people that are paying a lot of taxes now. How much more can they
cough up? Cough up without having a revolution? When the people get fed
up, the Dems and Repubs will both be in the history book like the Whigs. I
see the Libertarian party having a huge influence in the political process,
if they get some decent leadership, that just does not press for pot
legalization.

Bill McKee wrote:
My definition: Excess: More than required.

Sounds reasonable.

... We need to go back to a gold
standard / silver standard. Currency that is backed by some hard item.
Plutonium? ;)

My gawd, that would be disastrous. You obviously have no idea what clue
even looks like!

Here's what you do... go down to the your local college and ask the
economics professor what would happen. Most likely he'll have a stroke
laughing, but if he survives, listen carefully to his explanation, maybe
take notes, it'll be an education for you.

OTOH shrug it off like all the other facts you seem resistant to. After
all, it's just a buncha pointy-head intellectual elitist blather, right?

... That way the government can not just print more paper and
generate inflation that helps government revenues. (Bracket creep etc.).
The $20 bill is not worth what it was 25 years ago, or even 1 year ago.

Well, duh.

Would you prefer going back to the pre-Fed monetary system where we had
a series of booms & panics, instead of steady inflation? Everything is a
trade-off. As long as inflation is reasonable (which I tend to think of
as anything less than about 15%) then it is far far FAR better than a
never ending cycle of some inflation, some deflation, interspersed with
super-inflation & collapse.

Here's a hint: look up the definition and origin of the word "shinplaster."


.... And the US may default on it's debts. We would not
be the first nation to do it.

True but we would be the biggest & the richest to do so. We are not even
close to being in danger of default... yet... although plunging towards
it without looking back...

... As to the present administration going
headlong towards bankruptsy, all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?

Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?

...Government revenues exploded during the dot.bomb

Not really.

... and remember
Clinton raised taxes an exhorbitant amount.

???

... Even he admitted that he raised
them excessively.

When?

.... The government has to get the money from the people. The
same people that are paying a lot of taxes now. How much more can they
cough up?

I take you're in favor of tax cuts for billionaires, but not in favor of
making up the shortfall out of middle class & lower class pockets? WTF
are you doing cheerleading for Bush & Cheney, then?

In any event, you're living in the same fantasy land as most of the
Krause-obsessed retardo-fascist crowd. Maybe you should join their club?
The fact is, Reagan and Bush jumped the national debt by orders of
magnitude more than any other administration. Remember the Gramm-Rudman
Act, a response to Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility?


.... the Dems and Repubs will both be in the history book like the Whigs.

Possibly. Don't hold your breath.

... I
see the Libertarian party having a huge influence in the political process,
if they get some decent leadership, that just does not press for pot
legalization.


Why should they not? There is absolutely no Constitutional grounds for
the federal gov't outlawing marijuana. Same for gun control, making
abortion illegal, etc etc. I suspect that you would *hate* the
Libertarian platform if it was explained to you in plain English.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
My definition: Excess: More than required.

Sounds reasonable.

... We need to go back to a gold standard / silver standard. Currency
that is backed by some hard item. Plutonium? ;)

My gawd, that would be disastrous. You obviously have no idea what clue
even looks like!

Here's what you do... go down to the your local college and ask the
economics professor what would happen. Most likely he'll have a stroke
laughing, but if he survives, listen carefully to his explanation, maybe
take notes, it'll be an education for you.

OTOH shrug it off like all the other facts you seem resistant to. After
all, it's just a buncha pointy-head intellectual elitist blather, right?

... That way the government can not just print more paper and generate
inflation that helps government revenues. (Bracket creep etc.). The $20
bill is not worth what it was 25 years ago, or even 1 year ago.

Well, duh.

Would you prefer going back to the pre-Fed monetary system where we had a
series of booms & panics, instead of steady inflation? Everything is a
trade-off. As long as inflation is reasonable (which I tend to think of as
anything less than about 15%) then it is far far FAR better than a never
ending cycle of some inflation, some deflation, interspersed with
super-inflation & collapse.

Here's a hint: look up the definition and origin of the word
"shinplaster."


.... And the US may default on it's debts. We would not be the first
nation to do it.

True but we would be the biggest & the richest to do so. We are not even
close to being in danger of default... yet... although plunging towards it
without looking back...

... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?

Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?


...Government revenues exploded during the dot.bomb

Not really.

... and remember Clinton raised taxes an exhorbitant amount.

???

... Even he admitted that he raised them excessively.

When?

Do a little research.


.... The government has to get the money from the people. The same
people that are paying a lot of taxes now. How much more can they cough
up?

I take you're in favor of tax cuts for billionaires, but not in favor of
making up the shortfall out of middle class & lower class pockets? WTF are
you doing cheerleading for Bush & Cheney, then?

In any event, you're living in the same fantasy land as most of the
Krause-obsessed retardo-fascist crowd. Maybe you should join their club?
The fact is, Reagan and Bush jumped the national debt by orders of
magnitude more than any other administration. Remember the Gramm-Rudman
Act, a response to Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility?


.... the Dems and Repubs will both be in the history book like the Whigs.

Possibly. Don't hold your breath.

... I see the Libertarian party having a huge influence in the
political process, if they get some decent leadership, that just does not
press for pot legalization.


Why should they not? There is absolutely no Constitutional grounds for the
federal gov't outlawing marijuana. Same for gun control, making abortion
illegal, etc etc. I suspect that you would *hate* the Libertarian platform
if it was explained to you in plain English.

DSK


You are not very smart. Can not understand what you read. I am for the
Libertarian stand, but mostly they push the pot button. No broad enough of
a public platform. As long as they have a cheap, quick test for driving
while under the influence of pot, ala Breathalyzer, legalize it. Will not
happen as to much money is being made from illegal drugs. Both in the
marketing side and the enforcement side. Fiscal responsibility? 15%
inflation? How long to double prices at 15% rate? Remember Jimmy Carter
years? The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about 50%,
What a job killer that is.

... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.


... Even he admitted that he raised them excessively.

When?


Do a little research.

In other words, this is the latest from right-wing hate-talk radio and
it never really happened.


You are not very smart.

Possibly.

... Can not understand what you read.

???
You mean you can't understand what I write?

... I am for the
Libertarian stand, but mostly they push the pot button.

When & where? Baradnik barely mentioned this in his campaign last year.

We have several Libertarians elected in local positions. Mostly they
seem to be common sense conservatives of a kind that is getting rarer &
rarer.

If you want to see what the Libertarian Party is *really* all about,
read this
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Perhaps you will do a little backpedalling, or perhaps you'll quit
altogether talking about things you know nothing about.


.... Fiscal responsibility? 15%
inflation? How long to double prices at 15% rate?

About 4 1/2 years. Know how to work 'the rule of 75'?

So, did you look up the origin & definition of the word "shinplaster"?
Are you advocating a return to the good ol' days of extreme monetary
swings & national fiscal panics?

... Remember Jimmy Carter
years?

Yes. I also remember the early Reagan years, and the massive gov't
spending that was his prescription to end 'stagflation.'

Funny thing, how come Bush & Cheney's massive spending has not given a
similar boost to the economy?

... The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about 50%,
What a job killer that is.


You just plain don't have the facts.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...criptions.html

For 1998, the total federal budget was 29% of GDP. Do you think it's
almost doubled since then? How can it, when Bush & Cheney have cut taxes??

I suggest you get in touch with reality before making these kinds of
dire pronouncements. Or it may be that you'd prefer to live in
right-wing fantasy land, and that's OK by me... just don't try to drag
the rest of us in there with you. You already have enough company in the
form of "Bert," "P.Fritz," John H, NOBBY (although you may want to watch
him, he's actually a Socialist infiltrator) and the other wrecked.boats
fascist whackoes.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.

He signed a budget (created by a Republican Congress), that was balanced for
a couple of years. However, the deficit increased over the life of his
Presidency.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.

He signed a budget (created by a Republican Congress), that was balanced
for a couple of years. However, the deficit increased over the life of
his Presidency.

It wasn't 'balanced' anyway.....since it depended on the SS surplus to
achieve a 'balance' That is like believing you are living on a balanced
budget by using you credit card to supplement your living.