From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 23:33:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <1992Oct7.143532.15645@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> >I'm just trying to enumerate the ways to get us out of the massive
|> >federal debt.  I didn't say they were all good ideas.  We need to
|> >examine all of the scenarios though.  If we really want to get rid of
|> >the debt, it's going to hurt.  The question is, how much "hurt" do we
|> >want to inflict on ourselves.
|> 
|> I think there's a difference between 'discomfort' and 'hurt'.  This
|> first method is tantamount to chopping off your leg because your
|> toenails need trimming.

Fred thinks that defaulting on the debt is a bad idea.  Fred doesn't
feel like saying why.  Fred accuses me of not "understanding" why this
is a bad idea, when I never said it was a good idea.  Fred does his
little "superior dance" and chants his "I'm an economics god -- you're
not worthy" mantra once again.

|> >|> Not allowing deficit spending for any reasn is a bad idea.  No
|> >|> government spending except to service current debt is a bad idea.  A
|> >|> poll tax as the only tax is a bad idea.
|> >
|> >Argument by assertion.  Isn't that special?

|> Yes, it is.  There are entire wings of libraries filled with books
|> explaining the theory of why this is a bad idea.

Never mind the fact that you don't seem capable of naming even ONE.

|> Anyhow, let's try a brief explication of some of these things.

Finally, some substance from Fred McCall.  You must have some free
time on your hands today.

|> It
|> will be brief enough so that you will no doubt be able to raise all
|> sorts of simplistic arguments that would require more detail to
|> refute.  Because that sort of game is such an incredible waste of
|> time, I prefer not to play it.  Anyway, on with the show.

"I'm an economics god -- you're not worthy"

|> With regard to the elimination of all government services other than
|> debt service on currently existing debt, whether this is a 'bad' idea
|> or not relies on whether or not you think there are some things that
|> government should actually be doing.

Now we find out that Fred's blanket "it's bad" pronouncement earlier
is dependent on his view of the role of government.  OK.

|> In
|> addition, what happens with regard to interstate commerce, interstate
|> disputes, defense, foreign policy, and all those other things that (to
|> me, anyway) it makes sense to do at the national level?

What happens to them?  Well, if you were to pick this approach, they
would all have to wait until you got your financial sh*t together.  If
I ran up 4 trillion dollars on my Visa card, I'm sure I would not be
able to live in the style to which I have become accustomed for a
while.

|> As for the poll tax as the only tax, a bit of simple thought seems
|> enough to debunk this.  This is a highly regressive method of taxation

Regressive != Bad.  We established this long ago.

|> that in no way reflects the benefits that people get from government.
|> The net effect (assuming you make it high enough to get enough money
|> to do ANYTHING) is to force an even larger percentage of the U.S.
|> population into living below the poverty line.

You're forgetting that a poll tax is voluntary.  If the "government"
you get isn't worth the cost, then you don't "buy" any that year.

|> >Absolutely not.  This is just the first step in changing from the
|> >"soak the rich" method of taxation to a "pay for what you receive"
|> >method.  If you stop here, it's not much of an improvement.
|> 
|> Actually, it is an INCREDIBLE improvement.  I guess what you consider
|> an 'improvement' rather depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

It's only an improvement from the standpoint that you get rid of the
monsterous tax code and the IRS bureaucracy.  It still punishes people
for making more money.

|> A flat tax puts people in the position of getting what they pay for
|> (government services are typically worth more to people who have more
|> to protect, more interests, more interaction on the sorts of levels
|> that require governmental regulation, etc.).

I've debunked this about 3 times already.  Please explain how income
correlates with either "things to protect" (you never define what
these "things" are), or government services.  All of these
"externalities" that you keep harping on benefit everyone equally,
right?  So why should a person with a higher income pay more for her
equal piece of the service?

|> To get down to where a 15% flat tax on income will cover
|> things, you are going to have to cut spending roughly to 1/3 of what
|> it is now (approximately to $500 billion or something less -- I really
|> don't feel like working the numbers in detail).  Interest on the debt
|> runs around $200 billion.  I assume you also want to pay down the debt
|> in some reasonable amount of time.  You're going to pretty much have
|> to cut everything, and not by anything remotely resembling half.
|> Let's be generous and say you have $300 billion left after you pay the
|> interest on the debt.  What do you want to spend it on?  That's
|> probably an easier question than asking what gets cut.

See Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

|> If people can't vote responsibly for people to represent them, how do
|> you expect them to do this?  If people wanted the cuts you're talking
|> about prior to this point, why aren't they voting for people who
|> advocate such cuts?

Because most of the people who vote aren't paying most of the bill. 
We should either have equal taxation, or people who pay more taxes
should get more votes.

|> Let me get this straight.  Here is the man who claims *I* have a chip
|> on *MY* shoulder, and yet he uses terms such as "'soak the rich'
|> mindset" to describe anyone who disagrees with his vision of
|> Libertopia?  Looks to me like you're reading the wrong mind again,
|> John.  

Yeah, well maybe if you would support your claims once in a while, I
wouldn't have to try to read your mind.  I admit I'm a lousy mind 
reader.  Until you explain your bizarre contention that higher income
gets you more benefit from government, it will continue to look like
income redistribution.

|> What happens to all those people who will simply be unable to both pay
|> your proposed taxes and stay alive at the same time?

Two choices:  They vote and die, or they don't vote and live.  I think
most of them will choose the latter.  By the way, the poll tax
wouldn't be high enough for this to even be a concern.  If a person
living in $20,000 "poverty" can afford a $20 a month cable TV bill
(not to mention the TV), he can afford a $100 a year poll tax.

|> And so we come down to it.  You're not interested in an 'equal say'.
|> You're interested in putting in place a system which is an oligarchy
|> in all but actual title.

Explain to me why you should give "equal say" to people who don't have
to pay the bill.  I don't own any TI stock.  Can I vote in the next TI
annual meeting?

|> Fine, you've stopped the 'lower income
|> people' (who make up probably 60% of the population, given the current
|> income distribution) from having a say (since probably 30%-40% of them
|> will simply be unable to both live and pay their taxes).  Now, what's
|> to stop that top 20% from riding roughshod over everyone else?

People who pay the taxes should be the ones who decide how the money
is spent.  That's all I'm saying.  A poll tax is one way of
accomplishing this.

|> 'Everything' being WHAT?  Right now, you have managed to say that the
|> poorest people have to pay the bulk of the interest on past debt while
|> getting nothing in return (and presumably going to prison when they
|> are unable to pay).

Whoa.  Where did THAT come from?  Try "an equal amount of the interest
on past debt" and "getting an equal amount in return".  And your
presumption about prison is wrong.

|> There's not much left to cut, John.  Have you
|> paid the debt off yet?  From the numbers so far, it sure doesn't seem
|> like it. 

Interestingly enough, as you are throwing stones at every idea that is
offered, you never bother to say whether you think we should cut
government spending at all.  Do you think "more of the same" is the 
best approach?  Do you think this is much ado about nothing?  Do you
think the current spending levels are reasonable?

|> Rather generous, you say?  Let's look at a few numbers, then.  The GNP
|> Deflator (a measure of inflation in the economy rather than from a
|> consumer standpoint, as the CPI measures) has increased to roughly 12
|> times what it was in 1910.

[sanity check: 12*6.81 = 81.72]

|> That says that your $100/person is pretty
|> much the 1910 level.  So much for 'generous'.

As usual, I'll have to ask you for a source.  Not that I expect to
actually get one.

|> Now, if you take into
|> account that this ISN'T 1910 and that the world and the economy have
|> changed immensely since then, you should see that the level of
|> spending that was sufficient in 1910 simply isn't going to be enough
|> now.

And just how much is enough?  $5,000 per person?  $10,000 per person? 
What is government doing now that it didn't do in 1910, and do we NEED
to be doing them?  Do we have a government that is 50 times as good,
or are we getting ripped off?

|> I trust this was long enough so that you don't have to engage in any
|> 'mindreading', John.  Perhaps now you see why I didn't really want to
|> expend the time and effort to try to explain what I meant,

If you're not willing to expend the time and effort to support your
arguments, I have to wonder why you bother participating here.

|> [I don't mean that to be insulting; it's just that without sufficient
|> background on your part, I can sit here and try to explain the
|> concepts underlying the reasoning here forever.  I really don't want
|> to type in several thousand pages of explication.]

Fred, you write enough words on here to "explicate" volumes.  You just
choose to use most of them to argue, belittle, and "one-up".

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10999 talk.politics.misc:52466