Comments on: The Era Of Tax Cutting Is Over

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 11 May 2009 19:09:37 +0000

Re: Sinz54; 10:49 AM --

Sinz. Again. Just to be clear. You're certainly not talking about me, right?

I'm certainly in favor of raising the social security collection age - just not right in the middle of a period of high unemployment. In fact, I was the one who clarified your original call... or rather by questioning it set you up to clarify it yourself.

(*WINK*)

As to making specific proposals...

(*SMILE*)

I do it all the time. I've done it on the tax code and a host of other issues.

As to the Tea Parties...

(*SMILE*)

As I've made clear, I support them. They're a good start. They're a work in progress - or so I hope.

BILL

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:49:00 +0000

barker13: This is the problem with today's so-called "conservatives."

They talk a good game about "not retreating from conservative principles."

But when I make specific proposals on economic conservatism--raise the retirement age, get rid of the Cabinet-level Department of Education, end agricultural subsidies, end the tariff on imported sugar--they flee like scared rabbits, afraid that a message of specific cuts will be rejected by the voters.

They are accustomed to making vague pronouncements like "CUT SPENDING" and having the public dutifully vote for that.

Except for the Tea Party protesters, that's not going to work anymore. You've got a *popular* liberal President who is proud of his liberalism, and he's going to call us out on it and demand specifics.

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:05:44 +0000

Re: Sinz54; 6:17 AM --

Sinz. (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*) Why are you telling me...??? I agree with you!

(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)

Hey... where the heck is Bartlett...???

Last time he "contributed" he went toe to toe with a few of the posters, going so far as to get just as obnoxious and childish as several of our regulars... what with the name calling and everything.

Now...??? Nada.

(*SHRUG*)

Bruce... come out, come out, wherever you are!!!

Any reasonable responses (and answers) to my posts...???

BILL

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:01:45 +0000

Re: Sinz54; 11:29 AM --

"What would the U.S. economy look like without commercial paper?"

Who said anything about no commercial paper...??? Sinz, you're entitled to your "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" Chicken Little-like beliefs, but enough with the "all or nothing" strawman arguments.

"What would the U.S. economy look like with a drastic contraction in liquidity of the credit markets?"

Long term...? We'd look much healthier because we'd be much healthier.

Jeez... I'd laugh if the disconnect from reality inherent in your question didn't make me want to cry.

Notice... nothing about credit WORTHINESS in your question.

Notice... nothing about what the credit would be USED for in your question.

(*SIGH*)

Sinz. You don't "fix" a problem by redoubling your efforts to recreate the same exact circumstances that LED to the problem in the first place.

(BTW... I have all the credit I could ever need under normal circumstances. I had no problem getting a personal auto loan this past February. Neither my wife nor I has carried a credit card balance over since the early '90's when we were young and stupid - and no one "bailed us out" of our bills then... we simply chopped up our cards, locked in low interest rates, and paid down our credit card debt from $12,000 or so to zero over the course of a couple years.)

As for commercial lending...

Has it EVER occurred to anyone besides me that there's such a thing as over development...??? (Just a thought!)

"What would be the effect on national morale..."

"NATIONAL MORALE...?!?!" What the frig effect on MY morale do you think these bailouts and deficits and unsustainable debt coupled with unsustainable future liabilities has on my frigg'n morale...?!?!

With respect... have you lost your frigg'n mind, Sinz...?!?! You apparently have no clue as to how screwed we are as a nation.

"...and consumer spending..."

Consumer SPENDING was a huge part of the PROBLEM, Sinz...!!! Spending based upon BORROWING...!!! Unsustainable borrowing...!!! Oh, and spending on what... on crap... on junk... the spending was a double whammy of "stimulating" FOREIGN economies more than ours... (China in large part)... while at the same time rotting the values our our society (values like responsibility, thrift, planning for the long term) from within.

Oh, yeah... great frigg'n idea, Sinz... let's go right back to that way of life.

"I give Bush credit for at least beginning the process of deflecting..."

Folks. Again. I give you Sinz. His idea of "Republicanism" is to support deficit spending, massive deficits, bailouts, and moving the nation further Left.

Is it any wonder I would like to see him join the Democratic Party and get active within it. Sad to say, he'd move THEM to the Right!

BILL

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:17:53 +0000

barker13: With the new "Star Trek" movie a hit, let's recall that back in the 1960s with the original series, Gene Roddenberry had speculated that human life expectancy might be at least 130 years by the Star Trek era. (Due to medical advances, the end of poverty, etc.)

If so, that means that we'll have folks retiring at 65 and then drawing retirement benefits for another 65 years. IOW, you'll get retirement benefits for half your life span. That's totally unsustainable.

The retirement age MUST rise.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sun, 10 May 2009 15:29:27 +0000

barker13 sez: "If it hadn't been for TARP the chickens would have come home to roost - the right chickens, the right roosts - and the world as we know it wouldn't have ended."

What would the U.S. economy look like without commercial paper?

What would the U.S. economy look like with a drastic contraction in liquidity of the credit markets?

What would be the effect on national morale and consumer spending, if Americans suddenly found out that their money market funds and bank money market deposit accounts had collapsed?

What would have been the effect on international trade, if the global financial system had frozen up, after trillions of dollars of Credit Default Swaps proved to be worthless?

We were facing all of that in 2008.

I give Bush credit for at least beginning the process of deflecting America from this catastrophe. Things would have been far worse, if he had listened to guys like you and just let the "chickens come home to roost." An awful lot of chickens.

By: barker13

barker13 — Sun, 10 May 2009 13:42:06 +0000

Re: Kroner; 11:05 PM --

"...what I meant is that increasing the labor supply across the board (for instance by increasing the retirement age) doesn't affect unemployment once the economy has a chance to reach equilibrium."

OK. But I was addressing the "timeline" issue which Sinz left undefined in his original post.

You're agreeing that NOW isn't the time to raise the retirement age as far as social security payout eligibility is concerned I take it?

"If people who weren't in the market are added to the market, the amount of additional production they add to the economy is exactly the same as the amount of additional consumption they're allowed (due to their income) by definition."

Oooohhh Kaaayyy...

(*WINK*)

Seriously. Economic theory has its place, but if I'm reading you correctly in terms of your critique of Sinz's point and my point, you agree that now wouldn't be the time to raise the retirement age - right? Do you also agree with us that the retirement age should be raised... needs to be raised... even if we have to wait till employment reaches... er... equilibrium?

(Hmm... throwing NJ out of the Union... something to ponder...) (*WINK*) (*GRIN*)

"The notion that there's some sort of cap on the useful production of an economy is incoherent."

Actually it's not. (*SHRUG*)

But again... I suggest we try to stick to actual policy agreements/disagreements, not wander too far off into theory. If we do next thing we'll find ourselves doing is posting dueling economic formulas! (*CHUCKLE*)

BILL

By: kroner

kroner — Sun, 10 May 2009 03:05:30 +0000

@barker13:what I meant is that increasing the labor supply across the board (for instance by increasing the retirement age) doesn’t affect unemployment once the economy has a chance to reach equilibrium. It’s like claiming that by kicking New Jersey out of the United States we can solve unemployment, because now none of those people will be competing with us for US jobs. If people who weren’t in the market are added to the market, the amount of additional production they add to the economy is exactly the same as the amount of additional consumption they’re allowed (due to their income) by definition. The notion that there’s some sort of cap on the useful production of an economy is incoherent.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:21:01 +0000

barker13 wrote 45 minutes ago”Oh, pleeeaaase! Give it up…!!! If it hadn’t been for TARP the chickens would have come home to roost – the right chickens, the right roosts – and the world as we know it wouldn’t have ended.”……Barker confirms what has long been apparent. He’s either a nihilist or hasn’t the slightest idea of what he’s talking about. He also accidentally reveals the real nature of these tea parties which Bartlett and most of us recognize all too clearly.

By: barker13

barker13 — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:26:36 +0000

Re: Sinz54; wrote 12 minutes ago --

Just fyi, I don't pay attention to blogs like RedState.com or Townhall.com

Not that I'm condemning either site (because as I say, I'm not a frequent or even infrequent reader/poster), but I'm pretty busy with various newspaper and Think Tank sites for my "continuing education" and I consider blogs like this one to be basically entertainment.

Same with YouTube, Sinz. I use it for entertainment and as it's applicable to "news," I sometimes watch debates and interviews via YouTube. I don't really use it as a "new" source per se.

Again... I was at a major Tea Party. I know what I'm talking about. (At least about the one I attended.) As to other Tea Parties...

From what I saw on TV the one I attended was typical.

"But if we had not spent all this money on TARP..."

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

Oh, pleeeaaase! Give it up...!!! If it hadn't been for TARP the chickens would have come home to roost - the right chickens, the right roosts - and the world as we know it wouldn't have ended.

Obviously the fact that BUSH on the one hand and OBAMA on the other hand both supported TARP and various "stimulus" spending and various "bailouts" indicates to you that they... er... must know what they're doing.

Not to me, Sinz! To me it indicated that Bush was a hypocritical ignoramus and Obama say backing Bush policies on steroids as a way to increase governmental powers.

(*SHRUG*)

BILL