On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM, kirby urner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Paul Tanner wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> ... >>> The fact that Uncle Sam is already the world's largest single most >>> indebted institution in absolute dollar terms has already changed the >>> tune of eligible voters such as Mitt Romney, who now credits Big Bird >>> / NPR to China et al. > > << SNIP >> > >> I really don't know what it is you are trying to argue. Are you trying >> to negate what I said as to how we could get the national debt to >> start coming down as a percentage of GDP without having to give up >> social spending? What? > > Lets just say that your sanguine view that some "mathematical > economics" clearly shows, that if we just dialed back to Clinton Era > tax policies, that all would be well with our broke junkie Uncle Sam > -- as deficits as a percent of GDP would by hunky dory, and we could > have those surpluses again -- is just empty pipe dreaming, blowing > smoke. > > That's like trying to model the central nervous system on some > dissection of the big toe (bad analogy). > > Such "mathematical economics" is a chimera, a mirage. You come across > of superstitious about science on my end, like you've watched too much > NUMB3RS or something (very unrealistic show that lionizes mathematics > and mathematicians -- so of course most think it's great). > > Kirby > > Related: > > Another cartoon, connecting to my earlier one mentioning surpluses: > > http://4dsolutions.net/mycartoons/cartoon3.html > > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7914032 (earlier one, > Clinton Era)
But you're putting forth nothing useful. That is, in spite of your attempts to define away the problem, you still have to answer the same damn questions that everyone else has to answer, because you still have to address a basic problem, which is not enough income to offset the outgo enough to get the total debt to go down as a percentage of total output. And rather than address these questions, you act as if there is something wrong in addressing these questions.
These questions are:
(1) If you are not going to cut anything, then how are you going to get the needed revenue to pay for your spending?
(2) If are not going to increase revenue, then what spending are you going to cut?
(3) If you are going to do a combination of both, then we ask the the consequent of (1) and (2).
Your writing comes across like some hippie who, when confronted with the fact that he still needs money to buy toilet paper (metaphor) - assuming he wants to use toilet paper and not his hands (metaphor), tries to deny that the basic facts of life in terms of money apply, tries to say that it's bad to think about money and all that.