Debt, De-Regulation, and Human Freedom
As the debate in our Nation’s Capital rages over raising the national debt ceiling I believe it is imperative for us as citizens to thoroughly examine the issue and participate in conversation.
The topic of debt in the United States and around the world is incredibly complex and could not fully be explained in a 500 page post, let alone the few short excerpts I intend to use. I will however explain the overall concept and keep it short for the reader.
The genesis of the debt ceiling argument can be traced back to one simple question; what is debt? Well in today’s money system, perpetuated by the Federal Reserve, World Bank, International Monterey Fund, and compliant governments, debt is money. Understanding how debt becomes money is quite eye opening. First, governments have to issue a single currency and force people to accept that currency by writing a legal tender law. So in the United States you have to accept the dollar for all debts both public and private. The significance of that statement is that even if the free market does not recognize the dollar as having any real value, you still must take; refusing will result in jail time or worse.
The next step after creating a legal tender law is making it so the amount of money capable of being printed has no limit. This is accomplished by removing any actual standard of value that backs a currency, so in the United States over a 65 years period we slowly were taken off a gold and silver standard. It used to be that you could take a dollar to the bank and get a dollar in gold, if that were still the case our current system could not exist because the money that circulates has no actual value except the faith we have as individuals in the government’s ability to force it on other people.
So at this point all you need to create money is to balance your assets versus liabilities on your spreadsheet. Without going into detail that is done by creating new debt both by individuals and governments. So every time someone goes to a large bank in order to take out a mortgage, the bank writes a check, of money that doesn’t actually exist yet. Once the zeros are added to the banks liability side of spreadsheet, a slight of hand moves it to the assets side. $40,000 in promised money from the bank to the customer becomes $40,000 new dollars that the Federal Reserve can print and send into circulation. By lending out $40,000 fiat dollars the bank created $40,000 new dollars.
Government not only made this practice legal but sanctions it in order to reap the benefits of endless spending. The system depends on two things, spending and ignorance. If most people understood that the U.S. dollar is not printed by the U.S. government, that the debt based system is smothering the potential for any real growth, and that every time they take out a new loan they are creating devastating inflation there would most likely be a lot more protests.
So what does this have to do with the debt-ceiling debate? The higher the debt ceiling goes the worse our problem becomes. Because the government continues to spend money at unsustainable rate not only are we nowhere near paying back the nation debt, we aren’t even close to paying off the interest of the money printed to the Federal Reserve. It is important to not raise the debt ceiling because the only foreseeable way to reverse the current trend and ensure that America has a chance at remaining exceptional is to stop spending. We must stop increasing our debt, stop allowing more money to be created by debt, and stop letting nations like China purchase our debt and trade it for things with actual value like U.S. property and natural resources around the world.
“Debt is the tyranny of human freedom.” If we want to be free, we have to get our financial house in order. Collectively we must spend less, we must tell our elected officials to stop mortgaging the convenience of the present on our children’s future, and we must get government off the backs of the people. You cannot control the economy because to do that you would have to be able to control people. We need to let the free market work and get government out of the banking business. The only thing the government should actually do is print our currency, something they have not done since 1913. I would recommend doing some supplemental reading on this subject in order to fill in the gaps I have left. Again this is a very complex topic but the answers are relatively simple. Stop increasing debt, spend less, and allow freedom to work.
Thank you for the time you have invested in reading my thoughts and thank you to Mr. Schultz for asking me to contribute to his blog.
Mike N.
Thanks for the post Mike. Our national debt has been a huge concern of mine since early in high-school. I've always been shocked it hasn't been a bigger issue until recently when the whole debt-ceiling thing came into play.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should reduce spending. I also think we should lower taxes for small business owners. I'm generally liberal but when it comes to money I always drift to the right.
However, we can't just say "lets reduce spending". We need solid ideas of where this spending can be cut. We need to be respectful yet thorough. Anywhere the government spends money should be examined for overspending. This includes social security and medicare. I'm not saying we need to completely remove or change these systems, but if they are not perfect why not try to make them work better?
I don't really know enough to know if we should temporarily increase our debt ceiling. I think if we increase it, it could result in bad things such as a trend of increasing it over and over. If however, critical problems will occur by not increasing it we may need a bit of an additional buffer to get things turned around. I would not increase it without a guarantee that not only will we not increase it again, but we will gradually reduce the cap over time, but more importantly is reversing the debt trend.
Well, that certainly is not a jaded post... All fear the big bad Fed. Reserve. Well, thats fine in theory, but what is the alternative? All I read was complaining about a "broken" system. What would we go back to? The gold standard? There isn't enough gold to truly back all of the currency that currently exists, and assuming there is, who says other countries with centralized banking would also fall in line with that standard? To subject ourselves to that risk is about as reckless as not raising the debt ceiling, which unsurprisingly, Mr. Nachef also advocates for. Additionally, while the current system is flawed, it is no more or less flawed than the Gold Standard and, when workign correctly, does a much better job of controlling inflation, prevents runs on the bank, and is much less prejudicial to "weak" currencies and countries/economies. For more info, see http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html --thats a good brief statement of what I am trying to say.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, contrary to Mr. Nachef's black/white assertion of what the possibilities are in curbing the debt, I can assure you the problems associated with not raising the debt will greatly exceed any "currently existing" under our dreaded centralized banking system. Mr. Nachef sounds more like some idealogue bent on imposing his will on the people for, "their own good" than someone proactively trying to fix the problem as well by refusing to even confront the severe ramifications of default or failure to raise the ceiling by Aug 2. It has been made clear to the US that failure to raise the debt ceiling will result in a downgrading of the US's credit rating--that means higher interest rates, greater control by creditors, and a host of inter-related global economic issues which would threaten our economy in ways that I don't think can be fully comprehended. And in that event all the money that has been spent by the govt to bring us out of the abyss and into some growth (though admittedly not enough) will all be for naught yet we'll still be paying for it--and at higher interest rates mind you.
Lastly, Mr. Nachef said the system needs ignorance to run. Well, aside from the condescending tone of that argument, I would say that Mr. Nachef needs to re-examine "ignorance" as his argument remains (at this point) ignorant of some of the serious hurdles involved in this discussion and for that reason, presents a jaded and rather unspectacular piece. I look forward to future guest posts. Thanks.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Southern Democrat. I ask only we keep the tone respectful in these comments. Attack the idea not the person. I appreciate your criticism though.
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to see a debate actually unfold in the blog.
I have a question regarding your comment though. Do you view the current economic system as sustainable for the long term progress of our country? I have fumbled with this question for a long time. You say we need to raise the debt ceiling but where do we go from there?
It is really nice to see young adults engage in political discussion.
I think it imperative to raise the debt ceiling but obviously, in the long run, I am not so naieve to think we can keep doing what we're doing.
ReplyDeleteTo me, there are a few big things mucking everything up. 1) Banks aren't lending. There are a number of reasons: toxic assets, financial uncertainty, Greece (now Italy), the stall over US Debt talks (not the debt mind you, but rather the political stalemate). None of these have anything to do with our government spending or taxing. While, I am not entirely sure how to fix the problem of toxic assets and promoting lending, I do know two things: a) it'll probably take a while and b) it's going to require some structural reform to prevent the problem from happening (reimplementing Glass-Steagal would be a good place to start). This lack of lending of course is hurting the real estate market, curbing job growth (because new companies create jobs(net) while established larger companies lose jobs(net) per year), and also decreasing revenure to the govt. if someone can figure a way to solve the bank lending/credit crisis, we'll be much better off, and that even if taxes went "up" or spending on the part of the govt went way down.
2) The discussion regarding spending has been a bit jaded and this in turn has shielded 2 important aspects of the debate. Right now, we are borrowing so much due in large part to the loss of revenue from extension of the BUsh tax cuts and increased spending from unfunded wars, unfunded medicare part d, and some serious stimulus programs (tarp, stimulus, etc.). The debate though ahs been framed in the context of runaway spending as if this sort of thing happens all the time--it doesnt. This is a bit of an anomalye. Now, the negative ramification which results from this is this: we are now fixated on cutting social safety net programs (not arguing the ovr. validity of reforming the programs... cutting and reforming are two different beasts) and if we do in fact shed billions of dollars from these programs, that money doesnt just evaporate and go away. That cost is then transferred to the private sector, namely the poor and elderly who are already struggling enough. the net result of too much emphasis on cutting these programs, in my opinion, will be a decrease in demand from where it already stands which will only contiune to stagnate growth. So I think that we should be more focused on shedding what is absolutely agreeable and then reforming the programs moving forward while still honoring their purpose (unlike Paul Ryan's plan).
3(PART A)-We need some campaign and finance reform. as long as special interests can buy the system and we have a class of professional politicians, we'll continue to muddle around the big structural issues facing our nation. this goes to both the left and the right.
3(PART B)-We need tax revenue and we need to incentivize the right things. the govt cannot operate on the bush income. i would suggest tax reform moving forward to re-classify the tax brackets to bring it more in line with where the top earners are. we also need to incentivize the right stuff moving forward and we need to have the govt spend money. we need roads, bridges, power grids, etc. i have also suggested before providing tax incentives for "green" measures (ex: you lay white tar on your roof so it saves you $$ and in the aggregate probably creates jobs on the service end and frees up $$ on the customers end to put back into the economy elsewhere). sure, we'll probably be in "debt" but thats the nature of the beast. thats how people create jobs and sput the economy. if everyone lived within their means and didnt take on some measure of responsible debt, well, i wouldnt be in school right now and a lot of other people wouldnt be partners at law firms or business owners, or what have you. the fact of being in debt is not the problem; the fact of being irresponsible with your debt is the problem.
o, another thing i would change if i could moving forward is the blatant ideological fanaticism going on. it goes on on both sides, but i find it mroe well documented on the right with litmus tests and some revisionism re: reagan and bush and taxes, etc. this fanaticism has spurred the cottage industry of conservative media which includes heritage, reason, fox, etc. now, obviously it takes two to tango when it comes to a stalemate but i think if wed just treat each other as human and move away from principle for the greater good, we wouldnt even be here now. but, no. eveything has to be some poltiical war to be won; some stand against big govt or big business. its always portrayed as black/white. thats the wrong approach
ReplyDeletewhat are your thoughts on all this Steve? PS, I encourage you to read my blog whenever you get a chance.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I'm in the middle. I tend to hold my thoughts until I've had more time to think about new information, see how it settles on my mind. This issue just baffles me. I have a hard time find anything wrong with what you say. I also have a hard time finding anything wrong with what Mike offered in his first post. I anticipate Mike to offer some counterpoints to your arguments when he has the time to do so. Looking forward to it.
ReplyDeleteWith your last comment I need to agree that the bipartisan idealism is really bad. Disagreement for the sake of not agreeing with the other party seems to be commonplace.
I will check out your blog when I have a chance. Is there any piece in particular you may think would be a good starting point?
As for my blog... I dunno. I like em' all(of course) but some are def. better than others. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Mike and I said... there are a lot of problems. I am not going to lie to you and say my solutions are the best or most probable. There's an issue with incentivizing the "right" things--everyone is going to disagree over 1) what are the right things and 2) some will go so far as to say that no incentives are good because they interfere with the "free market." Additionally, there is the problem of allowing the Bush cuts to expire. Many people see this as a tax increase, when, really nothing could be farther from the truth. Think about it like this: when Publix puts soda on sale, lets say 1/2 off, for a week, does that mean they increase the price once the sale is over? No, thats absurd. But thats the reasoning behind calling the expiration of the BUsh cuts a tax increase. But, unfortunately, this type of rhetoric doesn't make its way into the world because it takes more than 30 seconds to explain and thus, we'll probably be arguing the merits of the Bush cuts again in 2012 instead of handling the big problems. By the same token, there were plenty of things wrong with Mike's piece as well. Though my criticism is well-documented above, the crux of my criticism of Mike's stance (and the people who indulge that conspiracy theory) is it is nothing more than a blatant attempt to drastically undercut the government's ability to follow through on its ability to regulate and honor its monetary obligations and vis a vis, cut the most expensive programs (medicare, medicaid, s.s.) which, gathering from Mr. Nachef's tenor and argument, he would probably welcome. I would also venture to assume that Mr. Nachef thinks the government cannot regulate anything, as most people who subscribe to this fiat conspiracy theory are ardent free marketeers. Well, for those people(and for your pleasure, Steve) I would highly recommend reading Wickard v. Filburn--it is a SCOTUS case.
Though it oes without saying, there are problems with each argument (as there always are) and thats fine b/w private citizens. The problem is that governance requires compromise and unfortunately, there has been a compromise crisis for too long in this country and this debt ceiling thing is only exploiting that crisis.
I think incentives are good. I might actually write a whole blog piece on the issue, but the free market doesn't always do what's right. Need an example? Look at our environment. The free market puts no weight on environmental cost, which only incentives can do.
ReplyDeleteI also think the tax cuts could be reworked (anything could be better though). The problem is that the middle class is being crushed. We need more incentives for starting small businesses (i.e. lower self employment taxes). However, these tax breaks can't carry over to the upper class. The government simply can't function without taxes. I believe that our government is corrupted by billionaires that can get whatever they want. This, among other things, causes our government spending to be too high.
These are pretty raw thoughts. I haven't had a lot of time to think about how they apply to real life.
I also need to comment: when subway went away from 5 dollar footlongs, it felt like a price increase. The tax breaks have been in place for years and people are still struggling to make ends meet. The economy just seems to be gathering it's bearings.
Personally, I'm one of the crazies who think the country would be better off without the IRS. I believe our country would be better funded on spending then on earnings. The more money you spend the more money you pay to the government. Also sales tax should be much higher on luxury items, doughnuts (and other foods that are just terrible for people, to be governed by the FDA), environmentally damaging products (fund the government programs to improve the environment), and cigarettes (and other drugs). This creates an incentive program just based on spending habits. There is a need to solve the problem with people buying products from oversea manufacturers, as it is easily possible to do this.
1) I agree with the incentive to start small business, but you have to be careful. You dont want to incentivize it to the point that banks are lending to unqualified applicants (thats part of what got us into this mess). BUT, it wont matter what incentives there are if banks dont lend, and right now, theyre not. And they def. wont get any easier to get a loan from if the Mr. Nachef had his way and didn't raise the debt ceiling.
ReplyDelete2) I think our tax system is flawed, but not in its premise and concept. Think about it like this: where would the govt be right now if its income was predicated on spending? In a recession, a person may get laid off and still spend $$ sure; but for those who keep their jobs and spend less, I think the aggregate effect of the latter would outweigh whatever positive income was derived from the former. I have never been a fan of spending-based tax incomes because they're pretty regressive and unequal, but I wont get into the ins and outs of tax law--this is a debt-related blog post.
This is a comment from Mr. Nachef, the author of the original post:
ReplyDeleteMr. Democrat, aside from consistently attacking me in your comments regarding my post you have made a great deal of assumptions regarding my position. Here is an old saying for you: “To assume makes an ass out of u and me.” Also I find it rather ironic that your display name is “Southern Democrat” and you charge me with being an ideologue… I do have strong beliefs but also believe in the ability of Americans to compromise and find workable solutions to our problems. As Bill Clinton had said: “there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with, America!”
Now let me begin by apologizing for the indulgence above, needless to say I’d appreciate you commenting on the ideas and not what you assume I believe or attacking my character. One of your assumptions was correct; you said everyone is going to disagree over the solutions to our problems. We obviously have some fundamental disagreements in our approach but I do sincerely appreciate your contradicting opinion to my own because that is what makes our Country so great. I would like to address your comments in the original post regarding ignorance, I believe you misinterpreted what I intended, most likely my own fault for not clearly expressing that sentiment. I was not referring to individual ignorance, such as saying people are ignorant and that seems to be how you interpreted my remark. What I intended to communicate was that ignorance is bliss, like the person who enjoys sausage, you never want to actually see how it is made.
You were also correct when you noted that there is not enough gold to back all currency currently in circulation. However there is certainly enough gold and silver for a bi-metalisim standard. I have no intent to impose any will on my fellow citizens Mr. Democrat, rather to have them impose their own will on their own lives. You touted several scare tactics in the original post regarding the ramifications of not raising the debt limit, you are correct that living within our means can cause short term pain that will result in long term stability. Here are some interesting debt ceiling statistics: Currently we spend 25% of our Gross Domestic product on the functions of government, 70% of our GDP is debt. The Federal government spends annually 1,500,000,000,000 more than the federal government takes in. That’s one and a half trillion dollars, which means the federal government borrows forty cents out of every dollars it spends. It does not take an economist to understand that is an unsustainable policy. Even if we were to remain in our current monetary system we still can’t continue to spend at this rate.
Cont:
Cont)
ReplyDeleteCurbing the debt is black and white, Mr. Democrat; don’t spend more money than you take in. Let me give you an example, I work for the Florida Senate, here in Florida we are constitutionally mandated to pass a balanced budget each year. We will never spend more than our tax revenue allows, the federal government can and must do the same. Our tax dollar revenue is almost entirely generated by a standard sales tax, with no income tax in the State. The founding fathers were so aware of the evils of a government tax on income that they specifically prescribed in the constitution that such a thing could not be done. Unfortunately along with the creation of the Federal Reserve and Internal revenue Service in 1913, we also received the 16th amendment which changed the Constitution allowing the government to directly tax what you earn. I guarantee you a fair tax would generate higher revenue than the income tax because there is no way to cheat it, if you purchase you pay. Set an across the board federal income tax at 20%, and that will not only raise all revenues but will take care of all those income disparity complaints. The more freedom individual posses in being allowed to spend the money that they have earned the better off the economy will be.
I do not believe that cutting all of our social safety net programs is a good idea but I do believe making them more functional and getting money to the people that actually need it should be the goal. We have more than enough statistics to prove how entitlement programs are taken advantage of. That is because of the way they are measured, welfare should not be assessed by how many people the program gives money to but rather by how many people it enables to get off of welfare. Even when FDR created these programs he envisioned to be a short term fix, including social security. I am not as you would have the reader believe a conspiracy theorist, I just have enough common sense to look at our problem and apply a workable solution. You had made some good suggestions regarding extracurricular reading to help supplement your argument, I have some suggestions as well. Read anything by economist F.A. Hayek and then watch Ronald Reagan’s 1964 “Time for Choosing Speech.” Before you go off on telling me about how you feel President Reagan was inadequate I implore you to actually listen to the statistics in the speech, I will extend you the same courtesy and read the works you have suggested.
The Bush tax cuts are a good thing because they return the money to its rightful owners. Your Publix soda argument is flawed because the soda would first have to belong to the individual who’s buying it for the example to work. Our government can in fact operate at less of a cost and still be effective; I would be one of the first to say we do not need to be nation building across the globe and that would represent a significant cost savings to the American tax payer. Also as a government employee I can tell you in all honesty how much money is wasted on overhead and misappropriation. Should government build bridges? Yes. Should government give you cash for your clunker? No. I believe that lowering taxes will generate higher revenue and a stronger economy; on that principle we will not find compromise.
Government can best invest in the American people by incentivizing them to succeed. Let business make money, let people work in the professions of their choosing, let people spend their money how they want and tax the expenditure and not their income. You have given me a great deal to think about with your comments but I implore you to consider the simple fact that we cannot continue to spend more than we earn. I agree that there is banter on both sides of the issue and no one is completely right but again that is one of the best things about our great Country, the debate.
Michael Nachef
Well, that certainly is a lot to take in. Let me go point by point here.
ReplyDelete1) Just because my pseudonym is "Southern Democrat" doesn't make me an "ideaologue." Quite the opposite. I oppose GitMo now even under a Democratic WH, I oppose extension of the Patriot Act, I oppose some wasteful measure by the EPA(like the ethanol req. as it takes more fossil fuels to put the ethanol into the gasoline than would otherwise be put out if you just gave the consumer gasoline), I support structural reforms to Medicare/Medicaid/S.S.--while my pref. structural reform would be a single-payer system of healthcare, I also am not so hellbent on my idea of what rights to not accomodate whats practical--, I hate it when MSNBC goes on a rant about restricting abortion rights because to me Roe v Wade only syas the states can't outlaw it; not that they cant make it more difficult to get--to me, thats a 10th Amdt issue--, and I support the appointment of Judges by their legal peers and not political office holders or by election. Those are just a few examples, but they should show I am no ideaolgue and in fact, I hink for myself. I won't lie, I have a leftist leaning, but just because FDR or Obama or anyone else said it, doesn't make me worship it or accept as truth anymore than anyone else saying it.
2)You said, "I would like to address your comments in the original post regarding ignorance, I believe you misinterpreted what I intended, most likely my own fault for not clearly expressing that sentiment. I was not referring to individual ignorance, such as saying people are ignorant and that seems to be how you interpreted my remark. What I intended to communicate was that ignorance is bliss, like the person who enjoys sausage, you never want to actually see how it is made." OK, so ignorance is bliss seems to me to simply be a nice way fo saying, you're still ignorant. And whats the implication for people like me, then, who know of this and refuse to see it as you do? Does that make me dumb for falling for this great trick being perpetrated against us? Thats not an assumption mind you, its an inference based on what you said. The fact is, I don't think anyone ignorant to what is not there. I have never bought into this big fiat conspiracy involving numerous countries, men from jekyll island, bankers, world leaders, etc and that its been able to go on for nearly a century. To me, we have faith-backed currency and centralized banking because we learned a lot from the Great Depression (some of which we forgot which got us back into trouble in the last 30 years). But, I digress.
3)I fundamentally disagree with you regarding a metal standard. Debt is not inherently evil. Irresponsibility with debt is where people get in trouble. I stand by my earlier reasoning for why we should not have a metal standard.
ReplyDelete4)The debt ceiling is not black and white. I know all those facts and figures regarding the debt and I agree that its unsustainable. But, anyone serious about the debt will tell you that it requires a balanced approach. And before you even get to the long term solutions, you have to raise the darn thing! This is not an option--you have to raise it. Moodys and S&P's have both come out and said that (even assuming there's no run on US debt by countries holding it) even if the US can pay down its debt as it comes due they will lower our rating because we will be viewed with lower confidence by the markets. The result of lowering our rating will be terrible; as a leg. worker somewhat familiar with the law re creditor's/debtor's (I am assuming) I don't need to verse you in the legal ramifications of default. The economic ramifications will admittedly be far worse as the most "Stable" currency will have defaulted with a mounting debt--that would only get bigger with higher interest rates. So, all those cash for clunker programs and TARP that presumably you did not like, but did some good (we are after all in month 16 or 18 of job growth and not in a recession anymore) will be for naught--but we'll be paying higher interest rates on it. These are not scare tactics--these are realities. Forgive me if I am a little more explicit that you in describing what "short term" pain is. Just an example-- in the 70's we accidentally defaulted on some small amount of money (well, still a lot but smaller than what we'd be PURPOSEFULLY defaulting on on Aug 2) and the cost of that due to higher interest was 6 billion/yr (i think--may have been million since it was the 70's but im pretty sure it was billion--google it). Not raising the debt ceiling is not an option. Given your tenor, that may be politically practical as a Republican, but its not realistic and furthermore, this isn't a case of forcing the American people to eat their greens and default. Thats what I meant when I said you were imposing your will on the people--default is not an option, but it sounds like youd allow it to show the people whose approach is "right."
4.5) Coincidentally enough, I too am a resident of Fl. So, as for the balanced budget thing, let me knwo when ya'll figure that out since we have such a great Gov (note: sarcasm) cutting everything under the sun(shine state)since we're in the red. We all know that accounting tricks can make a budget seem "balanced." As for our sales tax... yea, thats workign out great now too. So, we have people spending less and the state is also making less as a result. if it were an income tax, the state would be making more $$ because people usually keep making the same in a recession or down economic time though they may spend less. I have always been of the opinion that "tourist" locations should have a sales tax and residents should pay income taxes.
ReplyDelete5) As for the constitution. I would like you to point out exactly where you get this notion that a literal interpretation says that any income tax is illegal. Are you referring to Art 1, Sec. 9, part 4? Thats what the 16th Amdt amended, but I disagree with your contention that it was the Founder's who so loathed income taxes as we know them. I personally hate getting into arguments on intent (because no one realy knows) and it boxes the broader legal analysis of interpretation into a small aspect of it. The reason for the 16th Amdt was the caselaw regarding that particular part of the Const. The caselaw was untenable for the government to do much of anything so the Const. was amended. But, a brief note on the Founders. The Federalists and Hamilton won out in alrge part both in the terms fo the Const. and the caselaw regarding it. Certainly there are exceptions (such as this) but if I was gonna put my money on what the majority of Founders(the Fed.'s) would deem appropriate, I think they'd say an income tax is OK.
6) I have read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. I do not consult political speeches for facts. In fact, your reference to Reagan is part of what I see is wrong with US politics. If you're a member of the GOP, its time to get over Reagan. He raised taxes because his supply-side economics didn't work out (o, and he ran up a pretty big deficit not to mention his deregulatory fervor resulted in the Savings and Loan scandal which helped plunge us into a recession (along wiht other things for sure)). I have no illusions of changing your mind on this, but putting it out there nonetheless.
7) I disagree with your criticism of my Publix sale analogy. Legally we all have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. This is why if you forge documents or fail to disclose material relevant to the govt for accurately calculating your taxes you can be sued or put in jail. So, you see, the implication of that is that the money which is to be taxed was never ours to begin with. That being so, your criticism is misplaced.
just some stubborn facts FYI
ReplyDeletehttp://zfacts.com/p/1195.html
O, though personally I don't take political speeches or ads very seriously, I have a suspicion that you(being a GOPer and having recommended Reagan) may take this seriously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nNJiJsm70&feature=player_embedded
ReplyDeleteenjoy.
Aw, no sur-sur-rebuttal from Mr. Nachef. I was sinerely hoping for one. : (
ReplyDeleteHe's a very busy man. From my point of view it looks like you have both stated your views and obviously see the issue very differently. Debate from here would be a bit nonsense in my opinion. The only thing it would do is give each party a chance to bash on the other one after every post.
ReplyDeleteI don't really have anything constructive to say that's why I haven't posted anything. Thank you both for your discussion though.