[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

[John Clark]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:25 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> we will have something like a repeat of this whole thing in December,
>>
>> >At one time I would have said nobody is dumb enough to repeat this whole
>>> sorry fiasco, but that was before I met the Tea Party. If it turns out you
>>> are right then there is no longer any doubt, President Obama successor will
>>> be whoever it is that the Democrats nominate and election day itself will
>>> just be a formality…
>>>
>>
> > Indeed?  Would that be Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden?
>

I have no idea, all I know is the next President will be a Democrat if the
Republicans repeat their October stunt in January.

  > Would you feel better if they had no rivals?
>

It makes no difference how I feel about it, if they repeat the October
idiocy that has dropped the approval ratings that American voters give
Republicans to the lowest level either political party has ever received
then the Republican party will no longer be in critical condition, it will
be as dead as the Federalist or Whig Party.

>> If you buy something new that is very expensive and is not in the budget…
>>
>
>
> Then you scale it back, eliminate it
>

It's too late for that, YOU ALREADY BOUGHT IT!

> or sell it.
>

If you can find somebody who wants to buy our wars then fine, otherwise pay
your bills as you promised to do.

 > and you refuse to raise taxes to pay for it then logically you are
>> giving implicit permission to print more money…
>>
>>
>>
> > But of course you can’t do that unless someone lends the government the
> money to print.
>

The government has been finding people quite willing to do that since 1835.



> >> the determination of how much stuff the government needs or wants is
>> made by the House of Representatives
>>
> > Sure
>

Sure? So you're defending the practice of buying something on Monday and
refusing to pay for it on Tuesday when you get the bill?

 > but they cannot legislate wealth into existence.
>

So what? Most people don't have enough wealth to buy a house, so they
borrow money and buy a house. And the government of the USA didn't have
enough wealth to wage a war so they borrowed money and waged a war. And if
you don't think they should borrow money then you shouldn't have voted to
wage two wars.

> ****
>
>> >> If they decree that we need something or they just really really want
>> it then they're going to have to pay for it, and if it's expensive there
>> are only 2 ways to do that…
>>
> > If they decree that we need something, they are subject to the will of
> the lenders who may decree to the contrary.
>
I have no idea what you mean by that, all I know is that the Tea Party
House members voted to buy stuff and then refused to pay for it, and that
is not good fiscal policy, it is not conservative and it is not moral.

>> 1) Raise taxes, that is to say take more money from you and me to pay
>> for that new thing that we need so very badly…
>>
> > The problem with raising taxes it that it may or may not raise revenues.
>

I know, so if that doesn't work you're going to have to find another way to
pay the bills, and there is only one other way and it involves a printing
press. And if you don't like that fact you should have thought of that
before you bought all that stuff.

>> 2) Print more money to pay for it…
>>
> > Well sure, if someone is fool enough to lend you the money to do that.
>

As I've said, we've had no trouble finding such fools since 1835.

> ****
>
>  >> …And politicians, especially tea party politicians, love to shout
> that in general we should spend less money, but when asked for specifics
> about what exactly we should cut they suddenly get very shy…****
>
> > Ja?  I don’t get shy at all.  Do these things for starters: [lots of big
> cuts]
>
Yes Spike you're not shy in speaking your mind nor should you be on this
list, but you're not a politician and you never will be, not in the House,
not unless you carefully went through your extensive list of big government
cuts (many of which I agree with) and only pushed for the cuts that didn't
result in less government spending in your particular district. And the
more pork you can get for your district the more likely you are to get
reelected, so if you want to stay in the House you are going to have to
make deals with other representatives and vote for their pork if they vote
for yours. And then, if you want to prove to the Tea Party how very
conservative and fiscally responsible you are, when the bills for all that
pork comes due you're going to have to break your word and just refuse to
pay.


> > Pork barrel projects have to go too.  Time to face reality.


If you want to get into politics it would be fine to say that, required
even, but don't even think about actually doing it.

> ****
>
>> > And if you vote for my pork-barrel projects I'll vote for your
>> pork-barrel projects. In that regard at least the Tea Party politicians are
>> no different from anybody else.
>>
> > Ja, if so, then it is time for a more sincere version of the Tea Party.
>

That's never going to work. The insincere Tea Party would leave the sincere
Tea Party in the dust on election day because they can obtain more pork for
their district.

*>government spending must match revenue*
>

No Spike,  government expenditures don't have to match revenue, usually
they don't and very often they shouldn't. But to avoid disaster governments
had better pay their bills. Always.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131024/b40c2f0b/attachment.html>