Big surprise, but once again your argument has come down to "me think Halliburton bad". I get it, you think they are bad. That's not proof of wrong doing via Cheney. I've seen that email and there's nothing in there that is proof of wrong doing.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

But MaKK, boorite showed that Cheney was at the helm of Halliburton throughout some of their sleazy/shady/evil dealings. Does that mean that Cheney, as the CEO of Halliburton, had no idea what his own company was doing?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

That's funny, I thought the discussion was about Cheney somehow orchestrating Halliburton deals while he was Vice President.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Bush is going insane... like mak.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Well, looks like both sides of the fence are certifiably insane.

I take most web news with a grain of salt, and this one feels a lot like something you'd get out of the Sun or WWN. At some points it feels like the Onion.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I take CNN and FOX with a ton of salt. Don't box yourself in.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

A ton of salt would mean that you put heavy weight on them. And you are correct to do so, most credible news outlets, like CNN and yes, you are right, Fox News, should be accountible when they do not provide accurate information.

I'm glad to see you've come around on this, Spankling.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Much of the news I read online finally comes out in the main stream press months later. I just don't like the delay. Main stream filters too much. I'm perfectly capable of filtering information for myself.

The "news" that Powel and Bush lied about WMD? I knew the day they lied thanks to online news. Mainstream didn't report it for months.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

They didn't lie, they used information given to them by the CIA. The CIA had faulty information. Thus this and this.

Or is that an example of your own "news filtering", by which you make up something that didn't happen.

The difference between your "sources" Spankling, like totally-true-news-which-is-the-thruth.com, and say CNN is that if CNN goofs up eventually it's expected to correct itself. If a news institution screws up too much, people are expected to be fired, like in the New York Times scandal, because you expect the news to be as accurate as possible, and the responsibility to the public is so great. No one is making totally-true-news-which-is-the-truch.com accountable for what they throw out, as their readers, like you, don't want the truth, you just want anti-Bush propaganda.

A ton of salt is actually kind of expensive.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

You make no sense.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Ok I'll try again:

Media sources which are trusted are accountable to the people because the people rely and expect to get accurate information from them.

Or do you not understand the concept of not lying to get what you want being bad in general?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Ok I'll try again:

Media sources which are trusted are accountable to the people because the people rely and expect to get accurate information from them.

Or do you not understand the concept of not lying to get what you want being bad in general?

---

Are you sure you are not affiliated with Fox News? You seem to be just as sensationalist and just as misinformed.

Vive le Ché!

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

US Debt Tracking

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Is there some reason this isn't corrected for inflation?

Can you explain to us all exactly what harm maintaining a nation debt is causing, Spankling?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

What does your credit card bill look like mak?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Is that supposed to answer my question?

1) That chart is not corrected for inflation. Inflation means money, over time, is worth less. That's why when you examine gasoline prices overtime, it's supposed to be corrected for inflation to make a reasonable comparison.

2) A business or nation running a debt is not a bad thing. But even if you are comparing the budget of a normal citizen (which I assume was your point in asking me about my credit card bill) to the budget of one of the world's largest economies consider these points:

Few people own their own homes; they carry a debt on their home.

Few people buy in cars in cash; they carry a debt on their vehicles.

Furniture is often financed. Large tickets items are often financed rather than purchased in cash -even if a cash-purchase is possible- because it's usually more beneficial to have liquid cash on hand. The same goes for businesses. The same goes for nations.

No, I don't have 280 million people in my household, so my debt wouldn't be anywhere near the national debt.

But even if you did keep up this idiotic comparison, multiply the number of people in the U.S. by just the average credit card debt carried. Your figure should be in the trillions, a figure relatable to the national debt.

And this is just considering credit card debt. It's not taking into account other forms of debt, such as home loans.

If you are against the national debt, are you against consumer debt also? If not, what is the difference? My question is reasonable since you brought up the question of my own credit card debt.

If that's not your point, and the point is "the debt is going up" the simple answer is because of inflation. This isn't spin, it's a very simple economic principle. It's like taking a chart showing how much milk was worth in 1930 and how much it's worth now and trying to blame it on politics.

The U.S. is paying interest to carry things on credit. Can you explain in economic terms at what point we are carrying too much debt? I suspect this might be a difficult question for you to answer if you cannot grasp the concept of inflation though. I won't hold my breath.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Makk is right on this one. Deficits on their own do no harm and may in fact stimulate the economy. We'd need some sort of argument that this is a particularly bad kind of deficit, or that the harm outweighs any possible good, or that the money borrowed is being wasted. Something like that.

Contrary to current orthodoxy, I think government spending can be a good thing, if it creates jobs and infrastructure. Big Government, after all, gave us Interstate freeways, rural electrification, land grant universities, and all kinds of other stuff.

Some worry that deficits tend to raise long-term interest rates. This might actually be a good thing for someone like me, who is locked into a low-interest mortgage and depends on investments for retirement. High interest rates are generally a good thing for investors and lenders. But for people who want to borrow money, high interest obviously sucks.

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that federal budget deficits affect long-term interest rates much. Makes sense when you consider that the federal debt constitutes about a tenth of our total debt as a nation. If Washington goes from borrowing, say, 10% of its budget to borrowing 33%, it doesn't have as huge an impact on the money supply as you might suppose. Certainly nothing like the recent boom in mortgage borrowing, and no one was much concerned about that.

Economics is out of my league, but it seems to me that Makk's post makes sense.

---
What others say about boorite!

1) Assuming that inflation is constant across the board, which it isn't. Even inflation-adjusted figures are just approximation.

Of course, inflation is not a good thing either, which made me snort at the columnists and economists last year who feared a little deflation. AFAK, making a dollar worth a dollar again would be a good thing.

2) Gas prices are of course a notable direct and indirect factor in inflation levels. So the adjusted figures are often double-compensating for it.

quote:

---

2) A business or nation running a debt is not a bad thing. But even if you are comparing the budget of a normal citizen (which I assume was your point in asking me about my credit card bill) to the budget of one of the world's largest economies consider these points:

Few people own their own homes; they carry a debt on their home.

---

True, and they often throw exorbitant interest down the toilet. I do, because I have to. But each month I toss in a couple months' extra principal, reducing the debt at a pace at which I'm comfortable. Emphasis on the reducing part. Unlike Uncle Sam.

Mine was paid off as soon as possible. Probably in 2 years, rather than 4 or 5. Saved a few grand in the process.

In my case, financing means putting it on a credit card and paying the whole wad off in approximately 40 days. A free loan I'll take, but I ain't paying for some bank executive's summer home. I've got a comfortable amount of liquid cash, and unlike other liquids, I don't care to piss it away.

And the implications of your possible irresponsibility and insolvency won't be quite so far-reaching.

Month-to-month, my credit cards contribute zero to that. Sorry.

In a perfect world, yes. Since most of us can't pay cash for a house in the current price structure, I'd suggest limiting debt to what's truly needed, not living beyond your means, and paying the darn things off as soon as possible. This is not a strategy we have witnessed often in recent actions of the US government.

That won't work. The only time in the past century that 18% interest would be keeping pace with inflation might be a short period during the Carter administration.

When we are incapable of working to pay it off.

When because of it, we can't afford essentials.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

And the implications of your possible irresponsibility and insolvency won't be quite so far-reaching.

---

Having debt doesn't make a person (or a country) irresponsible. It can make a business (and a nation) more efficient.

Month-to-month, my credit cards contribute zero to that. Sorry.

---

The average credit card debt per household is something like $8000. Try to widen your field of vision a little bit.

In a perfect world, yes. Since most of us can't pay cash for a house in the current price structure, I'd suggest limiting debt to what's truly needed, not living beyond your means, and paying the darn things off as soon as possible. This is not a strategy we have witnessed often in recent actions of the US government.

---

What indicator would you use to determine that the U.S. is living beyond its means?

That won't work. The only time in the past century that 18% interest would be keeping pace with inflation might be a short period during the Carter administration.

---

The chart still isn't accurate. And our expenditures as a nation are grossly inflated from 1950. I'm just trying to answer whatever point Spankling had. The debt has also inflated. You'd have to correct it for population booms and migratory shifts, economic cycles and a lot of other factors that affect government spending, but the overall point, that both our dollar is worht less, and that our spending is always increasing, is still correct and applicable.

---

When we are incapable of working to pay it off.

When because of it, we can't afford essentials.

---

So at what dollar amount does that happen? How big of a jump, specifically, is too much? That seemed like Spankling's point, that we were marching towards some kind of critical mass in relation to the national debt. Where is the cliff? What happens when we get there? How do we know we are there?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

When we are incapable of working to pay it off.

When because of it, we can't afford essentials.

---

So at what dollar amount does that happen? How big of a jump, specifically, is too much? That seemed like Spankling's point, that we were marching towards some kind of critical mass in relation to the national debt. Where is the cliff? What happens when we get there? How do we know we are there?

---

Let me bring in special guest commentator Jeff Foxworthy:

You might be too far in debt when you're happily raiding earmarked Social Security funds, figuring that paying it off in a couple decades will be Somebody Else's Problem.

You might be too far in debt when you have to tighten up the belt with regard to state aid, causing dozens of individual states to enter financial crises so severe:

1) They gut their education systems, so that only the rich can afford it, and they can't pay quality teachers.

2) They have to shelve essential infrastructure creation or maintenance projects.

Resulting in: You might be too far in debt when because of it you become a Third World country.

It's happening. Fear it.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Isn't most of that a spending issue? Having a high national debt doesn't neccessarily mean we are spending less so I'm not sure how good indicators these are. The federal government could cut funding to a hundred different programs and it not be a reflection of the national debt. It could be a very good reflection of politics.

I think the basic idea is that if you limit state funding, the states will correct for their missing monies with new tax programs after a few years, and each state could be more self-sufficient and also make the most efficient use of potential tax monies.

This reflects an implementation of policy against national income distribution. It doesn't exactly reflect a side-effect of the nation debt. Pointing to the national debt then pointing to state funding being cut isn't proof of cause and effect.

Maybe this is why Jeff Foxworthy isn't an economist.

quote:

---

Resulting in: You might be too far in debt when because of it you become a Third World country.

It's happening. Fear it.

---

That's an interesting point of view. A delay in civil infrastructure projects now means that we are living in the third world? I guess Boston's been a third world city for 30 years now.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Someone give MaKK some lithium. What kaufman is saying, if I understand him correctly, is an issue of gentrification vs. urban decay.

When actual NEEDED urban projects are being delayed/forgotten/eliminated and projects like the revitalization of the 42nd St. theater or the possible building of a new Sports Stadium are being pushed through, the far-reaching implications of this may be quite serious.

I think what kaufman was saying, SARCASTICALLY, since you seem to have missed the obvious humor in there, is that this sort of economic 'policy' may lead to a lot worse conditions than people understand. The simple fact that in just about any major city you can drive by several completely abandoned, gutted buildings (which have been that way for years) doesn't stimulate my faith in the government's spending policies.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Kaufman was saying the national debt has somehow caused state funding to be cut. I disagreed. I did not argue for or against the cutting of state funding, but I explained that something else (political agendas) was the most likely cause.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I kaufman can't beat some sense into Makk, nobody can.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

I would like kaufman to explain how the national debt reaching a certain point has caused state funding to be reduced.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008