Quote:He's smart, but whether he uses that gift for helping the people, or for his own gain is yet to be seen.Oh, hey, that's cool. Just toss out a random suggestion of corruption. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up? Or just musing? It sounds to me like you've already got him pegged, and he hasn't even been on the job for more than a couple months.
Quote:For example, do you *really* believe we can spend our way to prosperity? Do you *really* think driving the US deficit another trillion or two a year deeper per year will help get us out of debt? Because that is the "crack" that party is smoking at the moment.Yes, I do. Without deficit spending to get the economy back in gear, the recession caused by the 2008 implosion would have been longer, more painful, and even more destructive to the economy than it has been. 'Real' production would have fallen even further, credit markets would not have recovered, and unemployment would have gone even further through the roof. Assets would have been liquidated at fire-sale rates, and would not have been put back into productive use for years, if ever. All those things damage not just the short-term welfare of the people, but the long-term productive capacity of the economy.
If government hadn't stepped in to fix the economy, you'd be substantially less able to pay down or even service your debt in the long run. Three cheers for John Maynard Keynes.
Or, hey, just listen to Nouriel Roubini, one of the blessed few who actually predicted this mess, smoking exactly the same crack.
Quote:My complaint is that due to how that equation is structured, there is not enough potential energy stored when I will no longer have the kinetic energy to get out of bed.The reality is that 20 years (and maybe 30 years) of savings and investments have vanished (or it never existed). But, we still are paying today's rates.And my complaint with your complaint is that you are mixing real and nominal measures in a way that exaggerates in favour of your point. Either it is the case that 20 years' gains in net worth have vanished (which would be a real measure, because in nominal measures, you're still way ahead) or it is the case that the gains from 20 years ago are mostly illusory because you're still "paying today's rates". But not both -that would be double-counting the effect of inflation.
Quote:This is what is making the "Tea Party" crowd angry enough to crash the "Health Care" debate. Don't be confused (as are most in the press it seems) that the crowd is composed of Republicans.Are you kidding me? That crowd has to be at least 75% Republican voters - and most of those who aren't are either to the right of the Republicans, right-Libertarians, or part of some undefinable fringe group like the LaRouchies.
Show me any evidence that these "tea parties" aren't overwhelmingly Republican voters. I'd be downright shocked.
-Jester