Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Well, I understand your preference to focusing on the spending side of the dial. It just seems kind of self-serving, especially when your party is no better than the party of me (and my Daddy) when it comes to curbing federal spending.
|
Check.
Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Call me old-fashioned, but to me if you're spending money you don't have it seems a little more significant than if you're spending money you do have. Especially when the Baby Boom generation is nearing the time when they cash in their Social Security chips. While deficits of this size may or may not have the negative macro effects that opponents charge, one thing is sure: we have to pay that money back out of taxes someday. I guess the saving grace to those intrepid warriors on Capitol Hill is that when that happens they'll be part of the masses cashing the SS checks, not paying them.
|
Old fashioned like how? When did we not do this? 1910?
Actually, I'd agree that its "a little more significant". Even "fairly significant in comparison". Check. But deficits aren't disasters in and of themselves.
Now for the hard part. Did you just say Baby Boom? You want to know what is really scary? I'll tell ya. This whole conversation is a mootity. We are getting to the point where these old buggers will live til 100. And retire at 65. And get out of government-subsidized education at 30. I.e., working barely 1/3 of their lives. We have anti-cancer drugs, anti-arterial plaque drugs, anti-diabetes drugs. Do you ever worry that maybe people won't die? Well I do. I'm worried that people won't die and, in fact, they'll be living on a beach in florida til 100, while I'm slaving my life away for the Man. Oh, does that sound like I'm taking your concerns and extending them? Sorry, I don't mean to hijack you like that. But social security is a joke as far as I can see. And the way medicine is going, I don't see how it still works the same way by the time we get there.
As to the "paying back", that is my point about inflation etc.... Sometimes its just easier to hear this from our parents (I am being serious here). You buy a home for 28K in 1968 and take on a 22K mortgate. When you finish paying it off in 1998, the proportionate share of the debt is an almost insignicant hit on the income.
Now, insteady of 22K in 1968, I'm just thinking 5.5B in 2003. Simple enough.
Hello
