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

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Sat Oct 19 16:34:22 UTC 2013

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:47 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:00 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > Etc.  John, it is much easier to paint your political adversaries as
>> crazy and stupid than it is to deal with their contentions.
> Yes indeed. When you have hard evidence that your adversary is crazy it's
> easy to paint him as crazy.

John, please back off the inflammatory rhetoric so that we can have a fact
based, rational conversation.

> > Economics and biology are two completely different disciplines.  Many
>> biologists are clued in on economics either.
> The primary problem is that Tea Party members are so ignorant that they
> don't even know they're ignorant.

I am a Tea Party member. Do you think I'm ignorant? I don't believe in
creationism. The Tea party is dedicated to ONE thing T.axed E.nough
A.lready. We believe in lower taxation, followed by a decrease in
government spending.

Just because there are some creationists that are members of the Tea Party
doesn't make the Tea Party about creationism. It's in the name, lower taxes
is what we demand. Lowering the debt and deficit are helpful in lowering
taxes long term, assuming we ever intend on paying any of that back.

You mentioned earlier that we've borrowed money for nearly 200 years. And
that's true, but whenever we've borrowed money against future inflation,
it's been a small enough amount that growth made it later seem
insignificant. With the coming shifts in energy, can we cavalierly accept
that the growth of the US economy will make 16 trillion dollars seem
insignificant? That is a pretty large bet on growth, especially when the
president sees himself as managing the equalization of the United States
with the rest of the world. American exceptionalism isn't part of his view
of the planet.

> > My contention is that we cannot tell for instance which wing is Ted
>> Cruz.  He could be far left as well as far right.
> I don't care if he's right or left, I care that Ted Cruz is not rational.

Or perhaps on economic and government growth issues he is the ONLY one who
is rational. You can't possibly think he's more wrong on those issues than
the entire rest of congress.

> >  Recall that the two farthest left members of congress in 2004 and 2006
> were the strongest voices against raising the debt limit, Charlie Rangel
> and Barack Obama.
> I'm not here to defend Obama, and all politicians engage in political
> theater, but this time it was a pointless 24 billion dollar production that
> came within 90 minutes of global catastrophe.

And what was that if not political theater? They weren't really going to
default on the debt. They were just making a point. I never heard Ted Cruz
or Mike Lee say that defaulting on the debt would be a good idea.

> >The fact that there is a Tea Party is what keeps the world having some
>> faith in the dollar.
> THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Tea Party hillbillies have turned the USA into a
> laughing stock in the eyes of the world, or at least they would be laughing
> if they weren't screaming in terror as if they just saw an infant holding a
> loaded handgun.

This could be debated. China recently downgraded the US again.

Again, you are conflating right wing religious zealots with the people who
just want lower taxes and smaller government. They are NOT always the same.
I give myself as a prime example.

> > You are saying the Tea Party is made up of crazy fools
> Yes.

Gee, thanks.

> > The Tea Party is gently suggesting that we cannot sustain the endless
>> borrowing and overspending the way we have been doing for at least 14 years.
> Yes, among other even stupider things that is what the Tea Party is saying.

How is that stupid?

> > Does that mean you believe we can sustain the borrow and spend
> indefinitely?
> Probably. The government of the USA has been in debt every year since
> 1835, and every single president since Herbert Hoover has increased the
> amount of debt. And except for 4 years the government has spent more money
> than it took in every year since 1970. And yet the country is still here,
> and as long as some intelligence is used, that is to say as long as the Tea
> Party is not involved, I see no reason this can't continue.

It's the level at which we're doing it now that is of concern.

This chart shows the situation really clearly.

For the Tea Party, the elbow of greatest concern is that at the beginning
of Bush 43. The hilarious thing about this graph from my point of view is
that Ronald Reagan was responsible for turning the whole ship about. Sigh.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131019/61898459/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list