E Thomas St.

Spiraling Federal Debt: It's Likely to Get Worse

There's also been a swell in Marx sales.


On May 29 02:19 PM fireball wrote:

> so what is the breaking point? mine was reached in november, not
> because mccain was a great choice, or any better except for his rhetoric
> was barely more appealing. my breaking point was that the majority
> asked for the socialist welfare state.
> that made me choose to halt the game. the goalposts keep moving.
> i decided that i could retire and reduce income and be just fine.
> i take nothing from anyone, except what i pull from the market. my
> peaceful resistance is to help the bloated federal parasite starve
> by no longer paying the marxist progressive tax. it was with disgust
> that i chose this. i like to work but no longer wish to fund the
> destruction of my country.
> now my accountant minded pretty half is working on keeping us from
> paying any tax we can legally avoid.
> anybody noticed the swell in rand's sales? two complementary books
> are "unintended consequences" and "the battle of athens". the 1st
> is fiction. the 2nd is american history.

Stimulus Package: There Is No Free Lunch

Where were the belly-achers the past 8 years?

Tax cuts worked? When? Under W. Bush? Under Reagan? The same arguments being tossed out about what should be done from the left are echoed on the right; This worked before therefore we should do this again.

Think about it. People tilted towards the left point to The Great Depression and government spending on infrastructure among other things pulling us out of it. People tilted towards the right point to 1980 and point to tax cuts as being what righted the economy. In the discussion, both sides are saying there is essentially a free lunch, just at different parts in the day.

Essentially one side advocates that there is a free lunch in government spending because the spending will multiply the amount of output from the private sector and result in greater returns for the government (I can only think of a handful of current projects in consideration that fit this bill). The other side advocates that there is a free lunch in letting the private sector keep more money to spend on increasing output. The worst part is either side will try to frame the current situation in terms of the previous situation and then claim the obviousness of implement their chosen solution. The problem with both plans is that they are exacerbating a gap that increases government debt with the idea that that money not taken or money spent will somehow be the spark to recovery and growth. Both are built around the idea that deficits eventually pay for themselves. (and with hyper inflation eroding the value of the deficit and resultant debt they would be right eventually)

That being said, tax cuts at this point seems like throwing money at people that don't want to spend it, and government spending seems like trying to dig downward to get out of a hole. I think we're just going to have to take our medicine on this one and come to learn that governments shouldn't be used to prop up untenable values and beliefs.