Two More Army Divisions?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

This is a scare tactic floated by the Democrats. Frighten parents and young people with the prospect of forcing people into the military, and you may persuade them to vote for the candidate to whom the policy is not attributed.

Specifically, there was an intimation out of the Kerry campaign that there was a "secret plan" by the Administration to institute a draft after the election. ( Big on secret plans, those guys. ) Bush has since stated flatly that there would be no draft, and the Kerry campaign has fallen back to the position that the military stop-loss policies constitute a "back door draft": how people who voluntarily signed up for service can be considered to have been "drafted" is puzzling, but logic doesn't often stop politicians...

And of course, some people can be counted on to hear "draft" and not listen or care about anything said later on. In which case the rumor has done its work.

And his Daddy #41 said, "No New Taxes" and right after the election, lied to American voters.

[Soldier]

Which is entirely significant, because it has been proven that every man is invariably destined to be just like his father.

[S. Hunter]

Maybe I am wrong in this - But doesn't a draft need to be aproved by congress and NOT by executive order? Bush may have had some ideas to do a draft, but whereas he doesn' not care about reelection if he wins, Reelection is ALL the congresscritters care about, as edvidenced by the 400+ to <5 on the draft vote a few weeks ago. As long as we have congress, a draft is really not an issue.

(And lets remember that the ONLY draft plans have been proposed as democrats as blatant scare tactics to make people think Iraq is worse than it is)

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

And his Daddy #41 said, "No New Taxes" and right after the election, lied to American voters.

Hmm... Kerry seemed to have said something very similar in debate #2...

[jeff]

Merely saying it isn't what makes it a lie - it's saying it and then doing the opposite, as Bush #1 did. If Kerry is elected and doesn't raise taxes on those earning less than $200K, he didn't lie.

FWIW, Reagan did a large, behind the scenes tax increase....

[Soldier]

What makes you say that W is more likely to do so than Kerry? Heredity? Just because his father did that?

[jeff]

Do what? Raise taxes? No, that's one thing I'm sure GWB won't do. If there is any fixed idea in his political system, it is that taxes should be lowered, regardless of the financial consequenes.

Or, do you mean "lie". I already believe Bush is a big liar; you can see it in the way he justified the war, and recently in the lies he and his people spread about Kerry (example: Kerry says explicitly that there would never be a foreign veto on US policy in a Kerry administration; Bush, Cheney and the others say that Kerry said there would be. Exact wording is easy to find...)

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

And his Daddy #41 said, "No New Taxes" and right after the election, lied to American voters.

Yes. And so? How does that fact refute or dissipate the truth of what I said about THIS particular tactic? Does a lie by A make a lie by B more acceptable to you? This is the tu quoque fallacy in its full flower: implying than an act is acceptable because someone else has committed it, too. And if that wasn't what you meant to argue, then of what possible relevance is a 12-year-old offense by someone else to the assertion that THIS is an offense?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by S. Hunter

Maybe I am wrong in this - But doesn't a draft need to be aproved by congress and NOT by executive order?

Yes, but don't you see? Bush "controls" the Congress ( except when it does something the Democrats applaud; in those cases it "defies" him ).

This is the rationale which leads Kerry to aver, as he did in the last debate, that the failure of the Senate's drug reimportation bill was Bush's fault, even while he complains that Bush is the Only President never to have vetoed any bill!

If Bush didn't veto it, then it can only have died in the House, or it would be law. But in this case, naturally, it only died in the House because Bush somehow prevented the House from passing it. Never mind that Republicans also control the Senate yet it passed there---if Republicans are in control of the House, then Bush tells them exactly what they can and can't do. But not the Senate. Except when he does.


The same applies to the failure to renew the assault weapons ban: that too is Bush's fault, because he failed to manipulate his puppets in Congress to do what the Democrats wanted! Isn't it clear?

You have to understand: there is nothing that cannot be blamed on Bush, if only it is spun properly.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

yKerry says explicitly that there would never be a foreign veto on US policy in a Kerry administration; Bush, Cheney and the others say that Kerry said there would be.

So explain the "global test", Jeff. Seemed pretty clear to me. I'd have put it down to inelegant phrasing, except that Kerry, unlike Bush, is never guilty of that. Or I'd attribute it to a simple mistake, but in that case Kerry would surely admit to it, since it's only Bush who cannot admit his mistakes, of course. Or I'd say that maybe it was just one of those "nuanced" positions of his, except he's always had one consistent position and never tries to have it both ways....

What DID he mean in saying that US foreign policy ought to "pass a global test", Jeff?

Sorry, but you cannot have two positions and then call the other guy a liar when he reminds you of one of them, no matter how vigorously you focus on the times you've said the opposite. Because we just can't be sure which of Kerry's many positions is supposed to be the real one.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes. And so? How does that fact refute or dissipate the truth of what I said about THIS particular tactic? Does a lie by A make a lie by B more acceptable to you? This is the tu quoque fallacy in its full flower: implying than an act is acceptable because someone else has committed it, too. And if that wasn't what you meant to argue, then of what possible relevance is a 12-year-old offense by someone else to the assertion that THIS is an offense?

I don't think Bush #2 is any more trustworthy to his word than Bush #1 was to his. Just because the man says he won't institute a draft doesn't mean that when pushed into the tight squeeze he will stick to his word. His daddy found that it was impossible to carry out a poorly considered campaign promise and I think, especially in light of Bush #2's ill conceived plan for concluding the Iraq occupation, that he too will be squeezed into a corner where his only way out will be to go back on a promise, and blame some other guy for his failure.

It's my belief that these Bush men come from families where failure was significantly ridiculed and punished, to the point of building up a defense of lying and blame to protect themselves and their poor performance. I see it as the reason why we see both of them so incapable of admitting any error or misjudgement on their parts and why we see this resolute steadfastness in Bush #2 to his erred decisions.

[Inquartata]

Keep on topic, if you please!

Your reply to my precis of Kerry's disingenuous tactic was "Bush the Elder lied, too." I asked you, how is that relevant to the question of Kerry's behavior. I understand that you'd rather not have to look squarely at anything redolent of clay feet in your guy, and would rather change the subject, but haring off on a jeremiad on Bush family social psychology doesn't really answer the question. The argument that "Kerry X" is NOT refuted ( or even addressed ) by "Bush X", still less by "All Bushes X"...

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Uh...no. Deficits and debts can be grown away. They aren't synonymous with tax increases.

But you may have a promising career as a political spin doctor.

[THREADJACK] (Sorry Inq I'll try to get it back round to the thread's point but I hold out little faith.)

Debt can NEVER be grown away. Every debt, Federal Debt included, has a lender. Each lender has an expectation of growth of invetment. In the case of the US federal Debt there are public and private holdings.

The public holders of the US debt are every single owner of a federally secured Treasury bill. These investor include Private individuals, Pensions, Mutal Funds, and a vast array of other financial devices. Each one of these holders has invested in the T-Bills on expectation that their investment will out perform inflation. That is why T-bills are considered safe investments. Should such bills fail to do so the public investors will undoubtedly move thier investments elsewhere. The present publicly held debt stands at about 4.3 trillion. Available here:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

The private debt is also held to an interest requirement, there are many institutions that make up the private holders, including about 1.7 trillion in debt being owed to foreign governments. These private holders while not expecting thier return to be tied to inflation do have interest expectations and at very least expect intial investment returns. Presently the interest being paid on the US debt yearly stands at: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

Both of these above interest expectations reduce to zero the possiblity that inflation over time could reduce the US debt responsiblity. Interest payments will always in some way correspond with inflation.

The idea the economic growth will allow us to 'grow' out from under federal debt by making people feel richer and therefore invest in more T-bills is significantly flawed. First, such an argument does nothing to insure that T-bill investments would go to actual debt reduction as opposed to interest payment as no limit on spending is tied to such a belief. Second, economic growth is dependant on certain limiting factors such as employment numbers, as un-employment reduces the ceiling of an economy's possible expansion is reached. Presently an unemployment rate of 5.4% doesn't actually leave that much room for expansion.

Lastly, the possibility that GDP could be increased to some number that would allow for the US debt to GDP ratio to be something reasonable is also unfortunately unrealistic. Presently the GDP sits at 10.99 Trillion, about $37,000 per person. The US Debt to GDP ratio sits at 10.99 Trillion to 7.4 Trillion or about 70%. The worst ever ratio was 114% right after WWII. In order for the US to reach a ratio of 26%, (A reasonable number, particularly if you consider this is also around the accepted maximum for personal debt in relation to income), without increasing taxes the GDP would have to jump to 28.4 Trillion or about $96,000 per person.

So yes technically a debt of 7.4 trillion COULD be grown out from under by tripling the GDP. But, with only 5% of your workforce unemployed is in fact an impossiblity. There is no way to pay back such a debt without tax increases. Or a significant influx of unemployed tax payers...

Here is a nifty article about the Federal Debt:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FederalDebt.html

And the GDP info was gleened from:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html

Also, I apologize I should only have attributed about 3 or 4 Trillion in debt to the present administration. The deficit is what was at a positive when Bush gained office.

[ENDTHREADJACK]

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What DID he mean in saying that US foreign policy ought to "pass a global test", Jeff?

Credibility test. We should be able to lead others by our example and by our arguments, made convincing by the strength of evidence and our reasons. And, if they still, at length don't follow our lead, then we will do what we have to do. And, if our justifications strike everyone else as false, bizarre, contrived, and self-serving, then we should do some self examination before we do so.

Look, you're pitting an explicit, repeated statement by Kerry ("no foreign power vetoes US actions") against what you infer from his wording, along with yoiur insincere "he never is guilty of inelegant phrasing" remark (as you certainly know he can be inelegant or clumsy in expression - just not as often as Bush). Moreover, the Bush campaign certainly knows what Kerry said and what he meant, which is why their words to the contrary are dishonest. If person A stands in debate and says "I believe X", and person B stands next to him, hears it, and subsequently says "Person A said 'not-X'" you can safely call that lying.

[Inquartata]

That was a fairly thorough ( though in my regard unnecessary---my academic background is in economics ) explanation of the basics of the public debt. After which we come to the inferences you draw from those basics, which is where I fear you go somewhat astray.

Originally Posted by Drifter

The idea the economic growth will allow us to 'grow' out from under federal debt by making people feel richer and therefore invest in more T-bills is significantly flawed.

This is not the operative mechanism. You are describing only the refinancing process. ( Albeit there would be some diminutional effect over the long term if the refinancing were done at lower interest rates, some of which indeed has been done over the years. )

When I spoke ( OK, typed ) of growing out of the debt, I referred to the process of economic growth, e.g. growth in GDP. Ceteris paribus, the larger the GDP, the smaller the debt as a percentage of GDP and the easier to pay down. With regard to the annual government budget deficits, growth in GDP increases tax and miscellaneous other revenues, meaning less need for borrowing to finance expenditures.

Of course, the you-know-what in this punchbowl is that ceteris doesn't stay [/i]paribus[/i]. ( I just threw the Latin in for Jeff and other fans. )

The problem is government. Only rarely can it bring itself to dedicate additional revenues brought in by GDP growth to reducing the deficit, much less paying down the debt. Generally it prefers to spend them instead. Indeed, it insists upon it---and upon borrowing still more. Worse and worse. And BTW this is my main complaint with the Bush Administration: it has acted shamefully in this regard. Yes, some additional spending was warranted by post 9-11 exigencies, but these so-called conservative heirs to the Reagan mantle have been profligate spenders above and beyond those.

Interestingly, meanwhile, some 40% or so of the federal debt is "owned" by the government itself...

Presently an unemployment rate of 5.4% doesn't actually leave that much room for expansion.

Wait a minute, let me gather my wits, which have been scattered by the novelty of that position! I have been thrown wholly off balance by even an adversion to the full-employment boundary of economic growth! Usually I am required to cope with complaints that unemployment is too high! I hear little else, either on this board or in the campaign coverage. This is very refreshing!

Anyway, you are quite right---a finite labor pool presents a limit to economic growth, at least to the extent that (a) capital cannot be substituted for labor, i.e. the productivity of labor cannot be increased to compensate, and that (b) the economy exists largely in a state of autarky with regard to labor.

However, both of these assumptions are in question. With regard to the first, productivity growth is possible. It has in fact been quite robust of late. And with regard to the second, well, you've only to look at two of the most contentious issues in the political spotlight these days to see how weak it is: outsourcing, and immigration. The US labor force is no longer limited to the US labor force. It is to a great extent augmented by the available wordlwide labor pool. Thus globalization is attenuating the strictures formerly faced by industrial economies...

Lastly, the possibility that GDP could be increased to some number that would allow for the US debt to GDP ratio to be something reasonable is also unfortunately unrealistic. Presently the GDP sits at 10.99 Trillion, about $37,000 per person. The US Debt to GDP ratio sits at 10.99 Trillion to 7.4 Trillion or about 70%. The worst ever ratio was 114% right after WWII. In order for the US to reach a ratio of 26%, (A reasonable number, particularly if you consider this is also around the accepted maximum for personal debt in relation to income), without increasing taxes the GDP would have to jump to 28.4 Trillion or about $96,000 per person.

Ah, sorry, I should have read through your whole post before concluding that you had omitted mention of the relevant process. I see that you have indeed considered it.

However, I must nevertheless quarrel with your conclusion that GDP growth sufficient to reduce debt load is impossible. Given government restraint in the spending arena it is quite feasible---and even without it---well, let me just point out that neither deficit/GDP nor debt/GDP ratios are even close to historical highs reached in the WWII period ( which wasn't exactly a contractionary period economically ), and that many countries have debt levels much higher than our own without noticeable retardant effects on their economies. For example, the last time I checked Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Nethelands, Japan, Canada, France and Germany all had debt/GDP ratios higher than our own; and China, perhaps the world's fastest-growing economy, has been estimated to be running debt/GDP ratio in the neighborhood of 130%. If one were to be considering drawing a lesson from correlations, one might do worse than to conclude that the higher the debt relative to GDP the better for the economy...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Look, you're pitting an explicit, repeated statement by Kerry ("no foreign power vetoes US actions") against what you infer from his wording,

Hold on, hold on---aren't you forever cavilling at Bush's "explicit, repeated statements" ( or as you like to call them, "lies" )? Aren't you forever and anon "infering" dark motives and ignoble practices from his "wording", or even out of no more than "relationships"? Aren't you accustomed to scoffing whenever he says something straight out, and insisting he really means or intends something quite different? A little consistency, please? Either condemn with both hands or refrain with both hands, can't you?

Moreover, the Bush campaign certainly knows what Kerry said and what he meant, which is why their words to the contrary are dishonest.

Wow!

You really can't see what you're doing, can you? I feel sorry for you, that your political advocacy and animosities have so hamstrung your critical capacities...

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That was a fairly thorough ( though in my regard unnecessary---my academic background is in economics ) explanation of the basics of the public debt. After which we come to the inferences you draw from those basics, which is where I fear you go somewhat astray.




This is not the operative mechanism. You are describing only the refinancing process. ( Albeit there would be some diminutional effect over the long term if the refinancing were done at lower interest rates, some of which indeed has been done over the years. )

When I spoke ( OK, typed ) of growing out of the debt, I referred to the process of economic growth, e.g. growth in GDP. Ceteris paribus, the larger the GDP, the smaller the debt as a percentage of GDP and the easier to pay down. With regard to the annual government budget deficits, growth in GDP increases tax and miscellaneous other revenues, meaning less need for borrowing to finance expenditures.

Of course, the you-know-what in this punchbowl is that ceteris doesn't stay [/i]paribus[/i]. ( I just threw the Latin in for Jeff and other fans. )

The problem is government. Only rarely can it bring itself to dedicate additional revenues brought in by GDP growth to reducing the deficit, much less paying down the debt. Generally it prefers to spend them instead. Indeed, it insists upon it---and upon borrowing still more. Worse and worse. And BTW this is my main complaint with the Bush Administration: it has acted shamefully in this regard. Yes, some additional spending was warranted by post 9-11 exigencies, but these so-called conservative heirs to the Reagan mantle have been profligate spenders above and beyond those.

Thank you very much for agreeing with me on this point. I am glad to see that you are not wholly shaded by this administration's Jedi mind tricks. It is as you'll see the crux of my main contention later on in this post.

Interestingly, meanwhile, some 40% or so of the federal debt is "owned" by the government itself...

Yes, Intragovernemtal debt but I wasn't sure how to explain that one in a simple manner. So I just kinda included that into the "private" debt column. (Probably not the right place for it but...) You see I was unaware I was responding to someone well versed in economics.

Wait a minute, let me gather my wits, which have been scattered by the novelty of that position! I have been thrown wholly off balance by even an adversion to the full-employment boundary of economic growth! Usually I am required to cope with complaints that unemployment is too high! I hear little else, either on this board or in the campaign coverage. This is very refreshing!

I believe that is because you've made the wholly incorrect presumption that because I find the present administration despicable that I must then therefore be a Democrat. While I do hold rather strong beliefs that are in significant opposition to the current Republican love affair with the radical religious right, I am indeed just as strongly in the conservative economic policy camp. In fact I find the fact that Ayn Rand and current board chairman Allen Greenspan had a multiyear extramarital love affair to be one of his most redeeming qualities. (This is true I'm not just making a joke)

Anyway, you are quite right---a finite labor pool presents a limit to economic growth, at least to the extent that (a) capital cannot be substituted for labor, i.e. the productivity of labor cannot be increased to compensate, and that (b) the economy exists largely in a state of autarky with regard to labor.

However, both of these assumptions are in question. With regard to the first, productivity growth is possible. It has in fact been quite robust of late. And with regard to the second, well, you've only to look at two of the most contentious issues in the political spotlight these days to see how weak it is: outsourcing, and immigration. The US labor force is no longer limited to the US labor force. It is to a great extent augmented by the available wordlwide labor pool. Thus globalization is attenuating the strictures formerly faced by industrial economies...

I was trying to make an allusion to someting of globalization in that line I tagged on there at the end about an influx of unemployed tax payers, but wouldn't there still need to be some way of insuring profits from such outsourcing stays on continent? Presently I don't see that happening. Virtually all of it seems to be trickling down if you don't mind me stealing a phrase.

Ah, sorry, I should have read through your whole post before concluding that you had omitted mention of the relevant process. I see that you have indeed considered it.

No apology necessary I know long posts take long well thought out replies. Heck I'm still working on the reply to your post on the other thread that I seem to have stuck my nose into.

However, I must nevertheless quarrel with your conclusion that GDP growth sufficient to reduce debt load is impossible. Given government restraint in the spending arena it is quite feasible---and even without it---well, let me just point out that neither deficit/GDP nor debt/GDP ratios are even close to historical highs reached in the WWII period ( which wasn't exactly a contractionary period economically ), and that many countries have debt levels much higher than our own without noticeable retardant effects on their economies. For example, the last time I checked Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Nethelands, Japan, Canada, France and Germany all had debt/GDP ratios higher than our own; and China, perhaps the world's fastest-growing economy, has been estimated to be running debt/GDP ratio in the neighborhood of 130%. If one were to be considering drawing a lesson from correlations, one might do worse than to conclude that the higher the debt relative to GDP the better for the economy...

As I mentioned before, the main thrust of my argument is that presuming governmental spending is NOT reduced as there is no reason to believe it will be. Such a debt can not be paid down without a tax increase and a mighty big one too. Now could the US carry a 70% debt/GDP ratio indefinitely? Absolutely. Would it eventually impact the US credit rating like it has of all those other countries you've mentioned? Absolutely.

With regard to you point about the post WWII period you are absolutely correct. During the period the US debt/GDP ratio was at 114% about 40% above present levels. The time period was one of significant and eventually very prosperous growth. There was however a drastically different makeup in the population from that period. The population makeup was weighted toward the working age. Now and continuing until the baby boom bubble from that exact time period has passed, the US has and will have a population makeup weighted toward the retirement age. Retirement being a time in life when a person relies on his government the most, spending is not likely to reduce even with a fiscally responsible governement and the tax paying portion of society is dimishing greatly. If you ask me, all of this spells significant tax increases in order to maintain the US position in global economics. And unfortunately there is only one group of people that such an event will impact the most. You and me.

The Sabre fencers of the world will end up having to pay even more for our equipment, the foilists and epeeists will laugh at us. It'll be mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together.