How can the GOP rid itself of extremist moderates? What do I mean? The GOP has no plan in place for coming close to dealing with the trillion dollar plus deficits. None. This kind of spending is far beyond extremist, for no other country comes close to this type of spending.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAn interesting hypothesis. US federal government spending is 22.4% of GDP. How many countries with a higher level of spending would you like me to find? What about your favourite country, France? They are at approximately 51% of GDP. I could probably find at least several dozen more, but I think you get the point. Sometimes I find your lack of factual knowledge really baffling, whodey.
[...] no other country comes close to this type of spending.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHa! Pfft!
An interesting hypothesis. US federal government spending is 22.4% of GDP. How many countries with a higher level of spending would you like me to find? What about your favourite country, France? They are at approximately 51% of GDP. I could probably find at least several dozen more, but I think you get the point. Sometimes I find your lack of factual knowledge really baffling, whodey.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html
"For years the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for profit and nonprofit enterprises. The US Treasury balance sheet does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post retirement health benefits, but it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security, and other outsized and very real obligations."
"For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like this figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than 1/5 of the more accurate figure."
Originally posted by shavixmirI was going to use the term moderatards, but I found that it violated my better polically correct sensabilities and thought better of it. I think I made the right decision in not using the term.
Extremist moderates.
I presume you're typing that just to irritate me?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraObviously there are a lot of countries further down the road than the US. Do we have to follow them? Also, it must be observed that when State and local spending is added, government spending is accelerating at probably an unsustainable pace.
An interesting hypothesis. US federal government spending is 22.4% of GDP. How many countries with a higher level of spending would you like me to find? What about your favourite country, France? They are at approximately 51% of GDP. I could probably find at least several dozen more, but I think you get the point. Sometimes I find your lack of factual knowledge really baffling, whodey.
Originally posted by whodeyRegardless of the fact that your point has already been debunked on these forums several times, the US government is one of the smallest and most decentralized in the western world, despite your insistence that this is not so.
Ha! Pfft!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html
"For years the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for profit and nonprofit enterprises. The US Treasury balance sheet does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the ...[text shortened]... cit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than 1/5 of the more accurate figure."
Originally posted by normbenignWell, the US government should do what its people want, and you have your say in that. If that is a laissez faire government, so be it. I was just responding to the utterly absurd assertion that the US federal government spends more than any other nations when in fact it spends relatively little (as a percentage of GDP).
Obviously there are a lot of countries further down the road than the US. Do we have to follow them? Also, it must be observed that when State and local spending is added, government spending is accelerating at probably an unsustainable pace.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow has it been debunked? How is the article I provided wrong?
Regardless of the fact that your point has already been debunked on these forums several times, the US government is one of the smallest and most decentralized in the western world, despite your insistence that this is not so.
Originally posted by whodeyIf I recall correctly no1 had a lengthy analysis about it. One of the main points is that "future liabilities" are conditional and subject to inflation. Since you seem to be expecting hyperinflation within the next few attoseconds anyway, you shouldn't be worried.
How has it been debunked? How is the article I provided wrong?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe article mentioned nothing about inflation. It is all about what they count as debt and what they do not. For example, Social Security in terms of debt is just ignored.
If I recall correctly no1 had a lengthy analysis about it. One of the main points is that "future liabilities" are conditional and subject to inflation. Since you seem to be expecting hyperinflation within the next few attoseconds anyway, you shouldn't be worried.
Originally posted by whodeyThe article does not mention it but it is clearly relevant here. A projected cost of say $40 trillion over 50 years (for example) is not given in 2012 dollars since the dollar will most likely be worth less in 2062. That's not to say I don't think taking into account future expenses for Medicare or Social Security is a smart thing to do - of course it is. But intentionally overestimating future liabilities is not a very helpful step towards that goal.
The article mentioned nothing about inflation. It is all about what they count as debt and what they do not. For example, Social Security in terms of debt is just ignored.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA point to note is that the US spends a great deal on the defence of Europe.
Well, the US government should do what its people want, and you have your say in that. If that is a laissez faire government, so be it. I was just responding to the utterly absurd assertion that the US federal government spends more than any other nations when in fact it spends relatively little (as a percentage of GDP).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraInflation of the dollar only makes those projections much worse. In fact I consider, intentional inflation by central banks and governments the worst fraud and abuse of the common people there is, short of imprisonment, slavery and death.
The article does not mention it but it is clearly relevant here. A projected cost of say $40 trillion over 50 years (for example) is not given in 2012 dollars since the dollar will most likely be worth less in 2062. That's not to say I don't think taking into account future expenses for Medicare or Social Security is a smart thing to do - of course it i ...[text shortened]... intentionally overestimating future liabilities is not a very helpful step towards that goal.