Where the "deficits do not matter" mentality came. RR

So your reply is that you do not worry about debt util it hits 100%?

That is like worrying about monkey pox after getting poked raw in the bung! Kinda late then don't you think?

All you've done is confirm what I've been saying.

Reagan started this mentality of deficits not mattering and fooled you and others by the combining of discretionary and nondiscretionary budgets. He did this by hiking the SS tax (a huge tax increase on the poor and middle class over 40 years) which covered the bulging gross debt because folks like you seem to think public debt does not matter.....and I suppose it doesn't if you have no intention of paying SS and Medicare in the future!

Which is really the point I've been trying to make for the last 20 years.

Reagan started the mentality of it not being a problem overspending....without ever a worry about getting that debt to GDP ratio down to a reasonable number.

See Tiny, that 50% number leads to a 70% number and then a 120% ratio and pretty soon in the scheme of things you've got a problem....and Reagan was the impetus. The numbers do not lie. Just look at the graph. Originally Posted by WTF

Again, you need to look at the net debt. If one of your midstream companies has $2 billion in cash and $3 billion in debt, are you going to assume it owes $3 billion and disregard the cash for the purpose of evaluating its solvency? Hell no. Same for the U.S. government.

Just Googling it, the Fed held $600 billion in treasury securities in 2001, when net debt as a % of GDP was 31%.

The Social Security Trust Funds held about $1.2 trillion in 2001. That was up from just $25 billion in 1982 before President Reagan and Congress saved social security. But since you believe the government can just increase social security contributions to be paid by the 2 workers who will be supporting every retiree, why not count that $1.2 trillion the same as cash?

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm happy to see you're waving the white flag. Let's stop arguing about ancient history.

Now get your ass over to ICU's "Biden Proud" thread. Yssup needs an education on the pluses of a Democratic president and a Republican House and he's not going to listen to me.

I'm happy to see you're waving the white flag. Originally Posted by Tiny

Holy smokes! Did WTF finally surrender and concede that we are correct?

(It's about time!)

I'm happy to see you're waving the white flag. Let's stop arguing about ancient history.

Now get your ass over to ICU's "Biden Proud" thread. Yssup needs an education on the pluses of a Democratic president and a Republican House and he's not going to listen to me.

Again, you need to look at the net debt. If one of your midstream companies has $2 billion in cash and $3 billion in debt, are you going to assume it owes $3 billion and disregard the cash for the purpose of evaluating its solvency? Hell no. Same for the U.S. government.
Originally Posted by Tiny

Holy smokes! Did WTF finally surrender and concede that we are correct?

(It's about time!) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Surrender, me?

I never Surrender when right and only occasionally when wrong.

This isn't one of those times.

Now let me school Tiny a tad more!

If my midstream had 2 billion in cash generated by one division and 3 billion in debt generated by another division....would you not at least take a peek at the division generating so much debt?

I have.

You it seems are working in the division generating all the negative cash flow and are flailing desperately to try and maintain the status quo.

Why else would you continue to deny the starting point of this decided shift where debt and deficits do not matter in your division?

This is like trying to explain to a child there is no Santa Clause or an adult there is no God. I understand how difficult it is to counter your belief system with facts but Tiny please come home to the land of reality where you quit arguing that a man who raises your taxes meant for your retirement and spends it on cars and loose women is not a good God....a fun sob but not a good father to little Tiny!

Tell ya what and this is a tad off topic but I know how you like to brag about how good our poor have it....so I've gotten you an 8 dollar an hour job. Try and not get fired and report back to us in a year how great it was!

Surrender, me?

I never Surrender when right and only occasionally when wrong.

This isn't one of those times. Originally Posted by WTF

LOL! (Are you sure?)

Now let me school Tiny a tad more! Originally Posted by WTF

Great! Please do.

(Because this debate is going so well for you)

Carry on, professor!

LOL! (Are you sure?)



Great! Please do.

(Because this debate is going so well for you)

Carry on, professor! Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Just because you think the water is warm and comfy in your little pot does not mean that the temperature is not on the rise.

Are you still of the opinion that the 83 increase to SS wasn't a tax on the poor and middle moreso than the higher earners.

Btw....where is the self proclaimed economic guru for this forum? Hopefully not posting more selfies! We need a man of his stature to line us all out on Reaganomics. I mean why listen to Ronnie's budget director when we have a guru such as this in our mist?

Are you still of the opinion that the 83 increase to SS wasn't a tax on the poor and middle moreso than the higher earners. Originally Posted by WTF

Good grief, man! Didn't we already explain this issue in such simple and straightforward fashion that even those who sleepwalked through their skool daze with a 2.0 GPA could not possibly fail to comprehend?

Good grief, man! Didn't we already explain this issue in such simple and straightforward fashion that even those who sleepwalked through their skool daze with a 2.0 GPA could not possibly fail to comprehend? Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

You've explained your Voodoo economics about as well and with as much conviction as Ronnie did at the time...a real Jim Jone drink the koolaid sales pitch.

But just as Jones left a trail of dead folks , Reagan left a pile of DEBT. Which is really interesting since Ronnie increased tax revenues with his tax cuts!

That Voodoo economics had me voting for Bush in the primary! Still cracks me up hearing about it some 42 years later!

I will say I admire you twos conviction.

You've explained your Voodoo economics about as well and with as much conviction as Ronnie did at the time...a real Jim Jone drink the koolaid sales pitch.

But just as Jones left a trail of dead folks , Reagan left a pile of DEBT. Which is really interesting since Ronnie increased tax revenues with his tax cuts!

That Voodoo economics had me voting for Bush in the primary! Still cracks me up hearing about it some 42 years later!

I will say I admire you twos conviction. Originally Posted by WTF

If you think I was advocating the principles you view as "voodoo economics," you do not understand anything I previously posted.

But then, why should anyone find that surprising? It's painfully clear that you have no understanding of the error-laden article you linked in your opening post and its reference to a misunderstood, out-of-context David Stockman quote.

If you think I was advocating the principles you view as "voodoo economics," you do not understand anything I previously posted.

But then, why should anyone find that surprising? It's painfully clear that you have no understanding of the error-laden article you linked in your opening post and its reference to a misunderstood, out-of-context David Stockman quote. Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Was Stockman taken out of context for his whole article!!

Was Hayek taken out of context too?

Keep in mind: Hayek is speaking his disillusion with the GOP’s misapplication of his theories in 1985. To this day he remains a favored mask of budget-wreckers pretending to be fiscally conservative while pushing for more tax cuts. Those wreckers are at work in Congress today as they argue for an extension of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which were far larger than Reagan’s of 1981 and 1986 (in 1986, Reagan agreed to some tax increases, but mostly in the Social Security payroll tax, meaning on the middle and lower classes).

Are you going to shoot down Hayek like you tried with Stockman? And let us not forget Reagan was a second tier actor and not an economic guru like Tiny's hero, lustylad!

Are you going to shoot down Hayek like you tried with Stockman? And let us not forget Reagan was a second tier actor and not an economic guru like Tiny's hero, lustylad! Originally Posted by WTF

Please read The Road to Serfdom and report back on whether Hayek's beliefs in the role of government are more in line with Ronald Reagan's or Joe Biden's. Maybe you could find a passage where Hayek praises higher taxes.

Sometimes like minded people disagree. For example, my hero and economic guru Lusty Lad believes the probability the COVID virus was a product of gain of function research in a Chinese lab is greater than 99.99%, and I don't. However I mostly agree with his views about taxes, the role of government, and economic freedom.

Please read The Road to Serfdom and report back on whether Hayek's beliefs in the role of government are more in line with Ronald Reagan's or Joe Biden's. Maybe you could find a passage where Hayek praises higher taxes.
Originally Posted by Tiny

You sound like the kid who still believes in Santa Clause making fun of a kid who still believes in the Easter Bunny!

So you are down to comparing Reagan to Biden as if we are stuck with that binary choice of what we prefer? You do realize that Biden is using the Reagan playback right? Which is to spend way more money than tax revenues. Way , way more than tax revenues would suggest prudent.....JUST LIKE REAGAN!
Which in fact was the topic of this thread. You and TC are Bur Rabbit and the tar baby...the more you post, the more you get on ya. You just continue to make my point.





Have you read the Stockman article I provided? Do you understand just what Hayek is talking about?

Keep in mind: Hayek is speaking his disillusion with the GOP’s misapplication of his theories in 1985. To this day he remains a favored mask of budget-wreckers pretending to be fiscally conservative while pushing for more tax cuts

Again, you need to look at the net debt. If one of your midstream companies has $2 billion in cash and $3 billion in debt, are you going to assume it owes $3 billion and disregard the cash for the purpose of evaluating its solvency? Hell no. Same for the U.S. government.
Originally Posted by Tiny

Let me explain it where you might be able to grasp it easier by asking you a question.

Do you count the 2 billion reserved for say paying your future taxes as as an asset or liability? Do you count your tax obligations as assets or liabilities? Because it sure seems like you are counting you tax obligations as a joke.

I mean you do have cash on hand...why not spend it, right Ronnie! Worry about the tax liability later , right Ronnie???

Do you even realized how deep you are indoctrinated with Ronnie worship?

The guy is responsible for the GOP losing its prominence regarding fiscal responsibility.

The first key to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. If you continue to believe the GOP is a fiscally responsible party, you are still on step one of my 12 step program!

Do not take this to mean I believe the Democrats are fiscally responsible.

But in a race to see who can create the biggest deficits, I do prefer the Democrats spending if only slightly. But that is like choosing between a firing squad or hanging.

I can only guess you have confused the meaning of being "hung" by your continued embrace of Reagan's supply side nonsense.

Let me explain it where you might be able to grasp it easier by asking you a question.

Do you count the 2 billion reserved for say paying your future taxes as as an asset or liability? Do you count your tax obligations as assets or liabilities? Because it sure seems like you are counting you tax obligations as a joke. Originally Posted by WTF

Let me explain it where you might be able to grasp it easier.

Your old lady is a spendthrift who takes every dime you make and spends it on Louie Vuitton purses and Louboutin shoes. And she's a fat pig. She's ugly. She looks like LBJ or Jimmy Carter. Their corpses.

You're going to have to spend $200,000 in about 10 years to keep your house from falling down. You wonder how you're going to be able to borrow the money because your wife is going to keep growing your credit card balance. Fortunately you have a credit card that only charges you 3% interest, exactly the same rate you make on your bank deposits.

So you open a bank account, and you start squirreling away money for the major house repairs. Your wife keeps growing the credit card balance.

Except for the psychological effect on your fat pig wife, it doesn't matter whether you're keeping cash in one account and growing your debt. Or if you use the cash to pay off the debt. Same result.

So what difference is it?

When Reagan took over, the balance in the Social Security Trust Funds was only around $24 billion. The increase in the contributions he and Congress engineered has resulted in a balance in the trillions today -- see the chart I linked to above.

You give Reagan no credit for shoring up social security. In fact you call it a regressive tax, because apparently you believe the top 1% of income earners should pay for 40% of people's retirement and 40% of their medical expenses after age 65. Like they pay 40% of the income tax.

You want to put Social Security Trust amounts into a separate bucket and totally disregard them.

And what's even more bizarre, you don't think the government debt held by the Fed, acquired for example because of quantitative easing, should be subtracted from gross debt. That amount, in a number of years, probably exceeded the amounts in the trust funds - I'm too lazy to look it up.

Please listen to reason. I honestly want you to get over your Stockholm Syndrome.