Sometimes real life intervenes to demonstrate the difficulties in delivering upon "government at cut rate prices".
Right now Texas is suffering terrible wild fires with over 1,000 homes recently lost.
Back in March Governor Perry helped arrive at a balanced budget by cutting funding to volunteer fire fighters to less than a third of the previous year...
Hard to figure how this bolsters the idea that there's waste we can cut everywhere...

http://www.kvue.com/home/Volunteer-fire ... 10059.html

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:I'm sorry, but this line of argument is just plain dumb. It was also essentially the WSJ editorial response as well. Come on people, you all can do better than that, can't you?

You're right--it's dumb to expect someone with a big yap to follow through on what he wants to force others to do.

Oh, come on. That's not how policy works. You can say, let's invade Libya, but if the country doesn't what are you going to do? Raise a private army? Policy is about moving forward in unison with common goals, benefits and sacrifice. But you know this. This line of argument is a red herring.

I'm not talking about policy. I am talking about leading. If we are to take Buffett seriously, he should lead by example. Otherwise, he's just another liberal trying to get others to pay more in taxes.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm not talking about policy. I am talking about leading. If we are to take Buffett seriously, he should lead by example. Otherwise, he's just another liberal trying to get others to pay more in taxes.

Sorry, still dumb. That's just not how policy, leadership, or democracies work. Also, how strange to label the most accomplished capitalist of our era as just another lefty. Ah, I get it! Warren Buffet is a socialist!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wealthy-conservatives

Too funny!!

More seriously, do you have a better argument? I confess I didn't read this entire thread yet, but if you can point to an post number, that actually rationally takes down Buffet's position?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm not talking about policy. I am talking about leading. If we are to take Buffett seriously, he should lead by example. Otherwise, he's just another liberal trying to get others to pay more in taxes.

Sorry, still dumb. That's just not how policy, leadership, or democracies work. Also, how strange to label the most accomplished capitalist of our era as just another lefty. Ah, I get it! Warren Buffet is a socialist!

I'll drop another name on you: Soros. Is he a socialist?

Being rich does not change one's political perspective. It didn't stop Jane Fonda from being a communist and a lack of wealth doesn't stop me from being a capitalist.

And, I really love your edifying argumentation. In fact, I'll raise mine to your level: your post is dumb, neener-neener.

More seriously, do you have a better argument? I confess I didn't read this entire thread yet, but if you can point to an post number, that actually rationally takes down Buffet's position?

Oh, that's so much better! In other words, you haven't read the thread, but want to respond on a minimal portion of it, then ask me to do your work for you?

Sorry, but that's just "dumb."

rickyp wrote:ray

But it is not lost on me that it is in a foreigner's interest to have us stimulate our economy because they won't be on the hook for the debt. But my lineage and I will be on the hook

.

Ray, do you remember when you started feeling this way about the accumulation of debt?
Did you feel this way through the 80's , 90's or through the first five or six years of this century?

Yes during the 80's. I was pleasantly surprised in the 90's when the 80's debt started to go away. By the way, I recall that we were all aghast when Reagan's budget had deficits of $200 to $300 B. That was considered extraordinary.

I was not that concerned during the 1st 6 years of this century. I did get very concerned about 2007/2008 because of the magnitude. We did go from running deficits of about $500 B to deficits of over $1 Trillion, which is where we are now. I'm a pragmatist on this stuff. I also pay more attention now than I did in the previous 30 years.

In the past you've said that you are a fiscal conservative. If you were an American, wouldn't you uncomfortable with these deficits?

By the way, when Buffet was asked why he gives money to charity instead of the federal government, his response was that the charities are much more efficient than the government in delivering services.

ray

In the past you've said that you are a fiscal conservative. If you were an American, wouldn't you uncomfortable with these deficits?

Hell yes.
But I have been more concerned about running deficits when the economy was humming along... Most of the last 3 decades.
We went through enormous accumulation of debt in Canada. Due mostly in the 80s to an idiot self described conservative named Mulroney . But we went through an austerity program through most of the 90s to get that under control. . When generally the economy was growing. And thus Canada grew the debt from 94% of GDP back down to 34%...Its gone back up some, with deficits due to stimulus spending.

My point in asking, is that the accumulated debt seems suddenly to have grabbed the attention of conservatives. Which you sort of confirm in your response that alludes to reagans deficits, but, remember that reagan never suffered politically for his deficits. (And by the way, all his submitted budgets had higher deficits then what congress passed.)
I think partly this new found alarm is because its a club to whack over the head of Obama... Whereas much of what has caused the misforunate economic conditions, came as a result of the previous administration or administrations, he now "owns" a large part of the debt.
Its a safe target to go after, because if he does go into a huge round of cuts as a response, the economy will almost certainly tank. But if he doesn't and the economy sputters he's still in trouble. And for cynnical politicians the misfortune is opportunity.What the far right seems to be trying (ala the debt limit debate) Simply oppossing anything he attempts, grinding the govnerment into inertia and trying to blame the resulting mess on him. At the same time proposing things in the House that havn't got a chance in the Senate. Just for show...
The problem really isn't the basic fundamentals of the US. Despite the problems, its still the largest, and amongst the most robust economies. (Witness where capital has been going lately. US treasuries) The problem is the inability to achieve a workable middle ground policy that has a realistic chance of effecting change in the near to mid term. Thats the uncertainty that people talk about... And its a shared uncertainty involving the entire congress and administration...

But the debt is just debt. It isn't unemployment. There are societal ills that come with massive unemployment. (added crime, added health problems, stalled economy). No one is going to riot if the debt to GDP goes up a few points.
But slums explode when unemployment and the daily grind of poverty attacks the young. Especially if resentment over what they would consider the overt protection of a small elite making millions is made obvious Example? Cut food stamps by 10% as an austerity measure and see what happens...
Thats why its important to deal with unemployment and the economy first, and get with an austerity program later...
The eventual austerity program is vital however... And an across the board cut would force beaureaucrats to do what NGO administrators have to do ...do as much as possible with whatever they are given... (Which is what Buffett experienced when drawn into work with NGOs by gates)
Austerity is always good for efficiency.

By the way, the last time the US had a concentration of wealth like it does now was at the end of the 1870's. and there followed much violence, and civil unrest.

George Soros is a very accomplished capitalist, not a socialist, by any measure (do you know what the word means? By even asking the question, I wonder.) Jane Fonda, I don't think of as a capitalist. Isn't she an actress that married well? Perhaps the more important question is, can they have different opinions than you and not be labeled socialists?

Warren Buffet is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and an American citizen. I am not aware of his political affiliation, and don't believe he has ever held or aspired to any elected office. He is leading on an issue of public policy as any CEO and citizen should lead, he is leading by making his opinion known and arguing that opinion in a matter of fact, straight-forward way. Good for him! You don't think it's good enough. Fine. But attacking him for it . . . perhaps its even worse than dumb.

geojanes wrote:George Soros is a very accomplished capitalist, not a socialist, by any measure (do you know what the word means?/quote]

Do you know how Soros spends his money? Promoting what can only be described as a socialist agenda. I don't care how he stole his money (currency manipulation), his political agenda speaks for itself.

By even asking the question, I wonder.) Jane Fonda, I don't think of as a capitalist. Isn't she an actress that married well? Perhaps the more important question is, can they have different opinions than you and not be labeled socialists?

Certainly, unless they are socialists.

Warren Buffet is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and an American citizen. I am not aware of his political affiliation, and don't believe he has ever held or aspired to any elected office.

. . . but, he has been an unabashed supporter of Obama's and remains so. He is just spewing talking points so that the One can regurgitate them and appeal to authority.

But attacking him for it . . . perhaps its even worse than dumb.[

You are getting pretty sloppy here. I went after his policy--in the posts you can't be bothered to read. I didn't attack him. I don't think his "authority" is better than any of a thousand other CEO's. And, the Obama economic plan that Buffett fawned over--how did that work out?

Opinions, facts--please do try to see the difference.

Ricky:

I think partly this new found alarm is because its a club to whack over the head of Obama...

Yes, you are partly right. Politics is a blood sport. This is what opportunists from both parties do.

But on the merits, you have to agree that the U.S. debt is unusual. It is very large, shows no signs of abating, and is structurally built in. In fact, given demographics and the rising costs of medical expenses, it shows signs of accelerating. The current annual deficit is about $5,000 per person. The debt is going to be over $50,000 per person by the time Obama leaves office (assuming he loses).

Obama promised that he would go thru the budget line by line. He also promised that he would bend the health cost curve down. He has failed on #1, and he has bent the health care cost curve up. I voted for the guy (mostly for social and foreign policy). He hasn't delivered. Shouldn't he be held accountable?

Ricky:

No one is going to riot if the debt to GDP goes up a few points.

Tell that to the Greeks and Italians.

geojanes wrote:I'm sorry, but this line of argument is just plain dumb. It was also essentially the WSJ editorial response as well. Come on people, you all can do better than that, can't you?

George, you don't understand the rules of debate on Redscape in the new world.

If ricky repeats a talking point that can easily be picked up from the media, he's a hack, he's a moron, he's got no original thought, and - by extension - everything else he says can be ignored, written off or ridiculed.

If Steve does it, then it's just an example of how bad the target of his snip is.

This is not double standards, it's just the new way of Redscape.

In all the hooha about Soros and whatnot, I notice that my question has been missed out.

All this panic about debt, right? But does anyone here even know what the other side of the balance sheet - US government assets looks like?

Because it's the combination of the two, not debt alone, that tells you where the Federal government is.

danivon wrote:

geojanes wrote:I'm sorry, but this line of argument is just plain dumb. It was also essentially the WSJ editorial response as well. Come on people, you all can do better than that, can't you?

George, you don't understand the rules of debate on Redscape in the new world.

If ricky repeats a talking point that can easily be picked up from the media, he's a hack, he's a moron, he's got no original thought, and - by extension - everything else he says can be ignored, written off or ridiculed.

Oh, everyone repeats themselves. That's inevitable. Ricky? He's a one-hit wonder whose needle is stuck in one groove of the record.

If Steve does it, then it's just an example of how bad the target of his snip is.

Thanks for illustrating how completely indifferent to the truth you are. George hadn't read anything, took a snippet, then pronounced the snippet "dumb" with zero supporting evidence.

You might call that brilliant argumentation, but that's by your standard.

This is not double standards, it's just the new way of Redscape.

Yeah, I miss the old way: you distorting the truth. Oh wait. That hasn't changed.

danivon wrote:In all the hooha about Soros and whatnot, I notice that my question has been missed out.

All this panic about debt, right? But does anyone here even know what the other side of the balance sheet - US government assets looks like?

Because it's the combination of the two, not debt alone, that tells you where the Federal government is.

That's a fine idea. So, why not do the research?

I'll wait. Thanks.

Btw, find out what the "auction value" is because we won't be getting KBB price.

Okay, now, to address your major point: it's not just about "debt." It's interest on the debt. It is consuming an ever-increasing portion of the budget. In the not-so-distant future, it will outpace defense.

I don't care how many post offices and cell phones we own that is not sustainable.

Steve, interest on the debt is currently lower (as a proportion of GDP or of Federal Spending) than it was in the 1980s

So...

Why should I do the research? It's you guys that assert there is a big problem with debt. Either you are ignoring assets, or making assumptions about them.

(actually, I suspect it's land that is the most valuable asset)