[Rhodes22-list] Jesusland.

Steve rhodes2282 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 24 07:21:06 EST 2004 

Yes it does, Warren.  Don't tell me you to don't know
the value of debt.


Ok Warren & Stephen.  Here is a little 101 lesson
since you two are I guess to lazy to look up this
stuff for youselfs.  This should be easy to
understand; I didn't go to a web site for brainie
people:-)
***************

A Tribute to the Reagan Administration's Smart-Debt
Policy

Let's think back to the Reagan years. Or, as Ronald
Reagan used to say:
"Let's take a trip down memory lane..."

Did we cut tax rates? Yep.
Did we increase the debt? Yep. 
Are we paying interest today on the debt we added back
then? Yep. 
Did the Soviets have a plan for initiating a
"winnable" thermonuclear war? Yep. 
Did we beef up defense and improve our national
security? Yep. 
Did the Soviets start a thermonuclear war? Nope. 
Did the economy grow faster, uninterrupted by a
thermonuclear war? Yep. 
Did tax receipts grow in tandem with the economy? Yep.

Did tax receipts grow more than enough to cover
interest payment growth? Yep. 
Are we wealthier today than we would have been
otherwise? Yep.

and last but not least:
Does the Soviet Union, Iron Curtain, or Berlin Wall
exist any more? Nope.

Think all those things are coincidences? If so, think
again. The Reagan Administration was employing the
Smart Debt policy. Thanks to his wisdom and instinct,
my generation is now far better off than we would have
been otherwise.

Guess what: Debt can be used wisely! Corporations do
it all the time. So do individuals and local
governments. So can the federal government; the Reagan
Administration proved it.

These days, the national debate typically shakes out
as follows: Democrats hate defense spending and
tax-rate cuts; Republicans hate deficit spending; the
Concord Coalition hates debt of any kind; everybody
takes national security and economic growth for
granted; President Clinton would read the polls, and
conclude that debt-reduction rhetoric would increase
his popularity; and, sadly, the media has been little
more than a net judge at a ping-pong match. 

The other policy, in blue, is the smart-debt policy:
using borrowed money wisely, to enhance the wealth and
well-being of future generations. 

The most important line is GDP -- Gross Domestic
Product. It is the best (albeit imperfect) measure we
have of our nation's aggregate wealth -- your income,
my income, our neighbors' income, and future
generations' income. (The debt-phobes would have us
believe that the Debt line is the most important one.
But it's not. Reason: Debt, used wisely, can help our
incomes grow more than they would have otherwise.
Corporations, by the way, have proved time and again
that debt is a sound way to finance growth-inducing
investments. Check Wal*Mart, for example.)

The debt-phobic policy reduces the debt, and it
reduces the interest payments. We hear that all the
time, don't we? But it also forces us to forgo good
investments that would have helped improve future GDP.
(Yes, I know that most investing is done in the
private sector -- which is why tax-rate cuts for the
taxpayers would provide more fuel for the private
sector to boost GDP even further; however, as I've
explained elsewhere, the government invests, too.
Defense, justice, education, and infrastructure are
investments which, as Adam Smith told us, are the
duties of government.) 

What happens when we pursue the debt-phobic policy? We
cut defense (check Clinton's track record on that, if
you don't believe me). We reduce or eliminate
infrastructure investments (result: crumbling bridges
and highways, outdated air-traffic control systems,
reduced weather satellite coverage,
inadequately-defended embassies, rejection of a
knowledge-enhancing supercollider, corner-cutting on
space shuttle safety, just to name a few). We continue
with a justice system that is unequally-applied.
[Although it's also true that we continue failing to
provide equal opportunity for elementary and secondary
education across all classes within our population, it
has much less to do with money than other factors.] 

In other words, by pursuing the debt-phobic policy, we
are building a cramped austerity box around ourselves,
all in the name of reducing the false "burden" of
interest payments -- which, by the way, are being paid
right back into the private economy. [Ask yourself
this: Why are those interest payments such a huge
"burden" to the taxpaying, interest-collecting
public?] 

And if any of the above rubs you the wrong way, I
would welcome evidence to the contrary. 

All of those shortcomings bother me. Do they bother
you? At least three of those four are the result of a
false fear of debt (education's problems being the
likely exception). In any case, we could be doing a
better job of providing our nation with defense,
justice, and infrastructure -- if we could only get
over that false fear. The rhetoric of the debt-phobes
is blocking better progress in those areas. The false
premise of debt phobia is stunting our growth. 

Much better would be a "smart-debt" policy, which
says, "We can use new debt to supplement tax revenues,
as long as we manage all of our expenditures wisely.
With additional money from the sale of Treasury
securities, and with good spending management, the
federal government can improve our nation's defense,
justice, education, and infrastructure. With tax-rate
cuts, taxpayers can choose to invest in more private
projects, or buy safe Treasury securities. 

Moreover, better results by both the government and
the private sector will fuel more GDP growth than we
would have had otherwise -- growth that will generate
additional tax revenues that will be more than
sufficient to cover the interest on that new debt."

In other words, those who understand the smart-debt
policy understand that it is perfectly acceptable for
GDP, debt, tax receipts, and interest payments to grow
together, in tandem. Even though debt and interest
payments continue to grow, the ratio of debt-to-GDP
never deteriorates, and that means our financial
health is never deteriorating.












--- "Foy, Warren" <Warren.Foy at mhgrp.com> wrote:

> Well put Steve.
> 
> "That means nothing and the American people
> obliviously
> agree."
> 
> Yes, the election showed that the majority of the
> Americans "obliviously
> agree."
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve [mailto:rhodes2282 at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:00 AM
> To: Stephen Staum; Rhodes 22 List
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Jesusland.
> 
> 
> Stephen
> Talk about being condescending.  If you knew
> anything
> about economic; you wouldn't have made those
> comments.
>  Do your research before you show your lack of
> knowledge on a subject.  And you should support your
> family.  You are suppose to!!!!!!!!  Deficits are
> not
> necessarily a bad thing.  That why I'm saying you
> don't know what you are talking about.  In order to
> reverse the tax & spend policies and revanp the
> militery; an increase in the deficit was not only
> necessary but had to be done to bring this country
> out
> of the recession that the Clinton economic policies
> created.  The current Bush policies will fix all
> this
> and could be verified if you would do your research.
> 
> Simply throwing out comments like something is bad
> is
> what the Democrats did all threw the election.  That
> means nothing and the American people obliviously
> agree.  As for what I know or don't know about you;
> I
> know you don't know economic or you wouldn't have
> made
> your comments.
> Steve
> 
> 
> --- Stephen Staum <staum at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > Try not to be so condescending.  You really have
> no
> > idea what I know or do
> > not know.  All the alleged "experts" are often
> dead
> > wrong about the economy.
> > One thing that I am sure of:  our presidents get
> way
> > too much credit or
> > blame for the state of the economy.  They don't
> > really control very much of
> > it.  However, excessive deficits are NEVER a good
> > sign.
> > 
> > FYI, I have always earned a living for my family
> so
> > I don't know about life
> > after welfare.  SS
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> > To: "Stephen Staum" <staum at earthlink.net>; "The
> > Rhodes 22 mail list"
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:05 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Jesusland.
> > 
> > 
> > > Stephen
> > > If you knew anything at all about economic; you
> > > wouldn't be showing your lack of education on
> > these
> > > subjects.
> > >
> > > The current government spending and the increase
> > in
> > > the nation deficit was necessary to reverse the
> > > recession that the Clinton administration
> econcmic
> > > policies created.  Try and learn something from
> > this
> > > last election.  There is more to life that
> > welfare!!!
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Stephen Staum <staum at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nice dream.  Check the gov. spending and
> deficit
> > if
> > > > you want a little
> > > > reality.  SS
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "stan" <stan at rhodes22.com>; "The Rhodes 22
> > mail
> > > > list"
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:49 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Jesusland.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Stan
> > > > > Republicans are for a balance budget and
> > smaller
> > > > > government.  The current economic plan will
> > > > reverse
> > > > > the budget impact that the Clinton
> > administration
> > > > > created that led to the recession.  This
> will
> > > > again
> > > > > balance the budget just the same way the
> > Reagan
> > > > > economic plan created the surplus that
> Clinton
> > > > tries
> > > > > to take credit for.
> > > > >
> > > > > The current administration also has loosen
> > > > government
> > > > > grip on business which is why you are seeing
> > new
> > > > job
> > > > > growth.
> > > > >
> > > > > All is well in the world:-)
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- stan <stan at rhodes22.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > right you are - times they are a changing:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > republicans used to be for a balanced
> budget
> > and
> > > > > > keeping government off our
> > > > > > back
> > > > > >
> > > > > > now they are for endless debt and putting
> > > > government
> > > > > > inside your body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > guess we should reverse the political
> labels
> > -
> > > > or
> > > > > > join my new Enlightened
> > > > > > Capitalists party.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > stan/EC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "stan" <stan at rhodes22.com>; "The
> Rhodes
> > 22
> > > > mail
> > > > > > list"
> > > > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:27 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Jesusland.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stan
> > > > > > > Gays don't need to be married.  They can
> > get
> > > > power
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > atorney over one another. But marriage
> is
> > > > between
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > man & a women.  Beside, check your
> Bible.
> > > > > > Remember
> > > > > > > what happen to that one city?  People
> are
> > free
> > > > to
> > > > > > sin
> > > > > > > and break the law but on the whole; it's
> > not
> > > > right
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > moral.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought the Dems was the party for the
> > > > people.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > guess that has changed.  Looks like the
> > Dems
> > > > now
> > > > > > > respresent the gays, eviromental wackos
> -
> > > > whats
> > > > > > funny
> > > > > > > is they even lost a bunch of the union
> > > > > > vote:-)Times
> > > > > > > are a changing!
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> > > > > http://my.yahoo.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> > > http://my.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
> http://my.yahoo.com 
>  
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com

More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list