Whichever one of us is factually correct, you've been much more disrespectful to me (to me, not just my ideas) than I have to you or, in fact, I think, to anyone on this site. And it may surprise you to learn that it hurts me to be accused of intellectual dishonesty; which is why comments like these: (Why, we have google! Nothing is beyond our ken! All those sites to reinforce our own preconceived notions. We’ll simply draw from each one like an arrow from a quiver and pray one of them shoots straight.) bother me a great deal, even when they turn ot to be baseless. In my exchange with you, I have quoted four sources in this thread: A table on Wikipedia (the dread fallible encyclopedia) whose numbers were taken entirely from the OMB (I checked); the Senate's own records of party divisions in Congressional history; and the House's version of same. If you want to bring up my exchange with Entroper, I only took from two sources -- and yes, one of them is hardly nonpartisan. But in no case did I participate in anything remotely like "shotgun research"; and all of the sources I used in our own exchange were completely nonpartisan AFAIK. (factcheck.org was the only site from which I quoted anything other than incontrivertible historical fact.)

A final note: for someone as sharp-tongued as you are, I think you took my "does this mean I win?" post far too seriously. It was merely intended to provoke you into responding to my post. Yes, yes, you had already responded and I had overlooked it. You similarly overlooked one of my own posts earlier in the thread. Are you finished yet, or can I expect to see you bring it up again every time we meet in the forums forevermore?

I'd probaly vote for him if I was American. It just seems Canada has way less issues to deal with, making it easier to decide who to vote for. Anyway, I'll keep hoping NDP rises it's ranks :P

Final-Fan said: So cut spending. THEN cut taxes. 22% of the budget is spent on interest of the debt, as I recall. That is a lot of wasted money. Tax cuts that precede spending cuts increase this waste.

A lot of the debt is public, so the interest payments (on savings bonds and such) go back into the economy (with a side of inflation).  Our external debt has grown faster than our internal debt under the current administration, though.  Not a good thing.

This argument seems to be focusing on the economics of tax cuts vs. tax increases, when what Final Fan is really trying to say is that the government should not spend more money than it has except in case of emergency.  That's pretty much the definition of fiscal responsibility, is it not?  (PS, I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, so Final Fan can correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

Entroper said: Final-Fan said: So cut spending. THEN cut taxes. 22% of the budget is spent on interest of the debt, as I recall. That is a lot of wasted money. Tax cuts that precede spending cuts increase this waste.  A lot of the debt is public, so the interest payments (on savings bonds and such) go back into the economy (with a side of inflation).  Our external debt has grown faster than our internal debt under the current administration, though.  Not a good thing. This argument seems to be focusing on the economics of tax cuts vs. tax increases, when what Final Fan is really trying to say is that the government should not spend more money than it has except in case of emergency.  That's pretty much the definition of fiscal responsibility, is it not?  (PS, I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, so Final Fan can correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

You're absolutely right, as far as my intentions are concerned. As far as the interest going back into the economy -- well, a lot of it is going into CHINA's economy, right? And anyway, it's money that wouldn't have to be taken from taxpayers (to be given to bondholders) in the first place if we did something about the debt.

Entroper said: This argument seems to be focusing on the economics of tax cuts vs. tax increases, when what Final Fan is really trying to say is that the government should not spend more money than it has except in case of emergency. That's pretty much the definition of fiscal responsibility, is it not? (PS, I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, so Final Fan can correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

 That's entirely impossible! Or much too reasonable.

Final-Fan said: You're absolutely right, as far as my intentions are concerned. As far as the interest going back into the economy -- well, a lot of it is going into CHINA's economy, right? And anyway, it's money that wouldn't have to be taken from taxpayers (to be given to bondholders) in the first place if we did something about the debt.

That's where a lot of the non-public debt is going, yeah.  The public debt can be thought of as a redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to bondholders.  Whether or not that's in your interest depends on whether or not you're a bondholder.  :)

@Final-Fan

This has become tiresome.

Yr / inflation adj chg in debt / wh / s / h of r / attributed to R’s / attributed to D’s
30>9>RRR> 9 >0 | 60>>2>RDD>>> 1 > 1 | 90>-353>RDD> -118> -235
31>-7>RRR> -7>0 | 61>-23>RDD> -8> -15 | 91>-412>RDD> -137> -275
32>-41>RRR> -41>0 | 62>-49>DDD>0> -49 | 92>-432>RDD> -144> -288
33>-42>RRR> -42>0 | 63>-33>DDD>0> -33 | 93>-368>RDD> -123> -245
34>-56>DDD>0> -56 | 64>-40>DDD>0> -40 | 94>-285>DDD>0> -285
35>>-43>DDD>0> -43 | 65>-9>DDD>0> -9 | 95>-224>DDD>0> -224
36>>-65>DDD>0> -65 | 66>-24>DDD>0> -24 | 96>-143>DRR> -95> -48
37>>-32>DDD>0> -32 | 67>-54>DDD>0> -54 | 97>-28>DRR> -19> -9
38>>-1>DDD>>>0> -1 | 68>-162>DDD>0> -162 | 98>88>DRR> 59 > 29
39>>-42>DDD>>0> -42 | 69>>18>DDD>0> 18 | 99>157>DRR> 105 > 52
40>-43>DDD>>0> -43 | 70>-15>RDD> -5> -10 | 00>286>DRR> 191 > 95
41>>-70>DDD>>0>-70 | 71>-118>RDD>-39> -79 | 01>151>DRR>101>50
42>-262>DDD>0> -262 | 72>-117>RDD>-39>-78 | 02>-182>RDR>-121>-61
43>-658>DDD>0> -658 | 73>-70>RDD>-23> -47 | 03>-428>RDR>-285>-143
44>-564>DDD>0> -564 | 74>-26>RDD>-9> -17 | 04>-456>RRR> -456>0
45>-551>DDD>0> -551 | 75>-206>RDD>-69>-137 | 05>-340>RRR> -340>0
46>-170>DDD>>0> -170 | 76>-270>RDD>-90>-180 | 06>-257>RRR>-257>0
47>37>DDD>0> 37 | 77>-185>RDD> -62> -123 | 07>-163>RRR> -163>0
48>102>DRR>>>68>34 | 78>-189>DDD>>>0> -189
49>>>5>DRR>>>>>3>2 | 79>-117>DDD>>>0> -117
50>>-27>DDD>>>0>-27 | 80>-187>DDD>>>0> -187
51>>49>DDD>>>>0> 49 | 81>-281>DDD>>>0> -281
52>>-12>DDD>>>0>-12 | 82>-276>RRD> -184> -92
53>>-51>DDD>>>0>-51 | 83>-435>RRD> -290> -145
54>>-10>RRR>>>-10>0 | 84>-372>RRD> -248> -124
55>>-23>RRR>>>-23>0 | 85>-411>RRD> -274> -137
56>>30>RDD>> 10 > 20 | 86>-420>RRD> -280> -140
57>>25>RDD>>> 8 > 17 | 87>-275>RRD> -183> -92
58>>-20>RDD>>-7> -13 | 88>-274>RDD> -91> -183
59>>-91>RDD>-30> -61 | 89>-256>RDD> -85> -171

Your assumptions: Distribute 1/3 of inflation adj change in debt to each party in control of White House, Senate and House of Rep. Total debt chg attributed to R’s is 3.8T; to D’s 7.0T. Avg for R’s is -84B (3.8 / 46 events); avg for D’s is -104 (7.0 / 68 events). If you apply the population avg for the WWII years it shifts to a tie. Not sure what more you want done. If this is not the methodology as you intended then I have absolutely no idea what it is you are trying to do.

But it really doesn’t matter. I wanted to demonstrate was how your White House to debt correlation was misleading. If not intellectually dishonest, then certainly intellectually lazy. I suppose you turning yourself into a pretzel trying to prove your correlation by another means (the above) is sort of an indirect acknowledgement that your original reasoning was flawed. I’d prefer a more direct admission next time.

Reagan launched a massive arms buildup that played a critical factor in ending the Cold War. The declassified statements of the Soviet government leave little to dispute there. Yes, it cost a pretty penny, but the peace dividend recouped in the 90’s probably made it worth it, eh?

Look, it’s your correlation. Do with it what you want. I think the whole mess is bunk either way. When I draw attention to the itty bitty role that Congress plays in creating spending bills and levying taxes, it is to reveal your original corollary is not as obvious as you would have others think. This has gone on much too long. Let it die.

To be unconvinced of something infers that you examined the evidence and found it lacking. To be wholly unconvinced of something suggests that a more exhaustive study occurred, but still did not persuade. For you to be wholly unconvinced of something you have not investigated is either a contradiction or arrogance.

OK, so you would have advocated a tax increase during an economic slump. Well, I’ll give you points for originality. I don’t know that there are many times when tax increases are advocated during economic troughs. But you skirted the more relevant points. Your own sources acknowledged the tax cuts contributed to economic growth (wasn’t that something you were wholly unconvinced of, too?); though you would have gladly foregone it in the name of debt reduction (some might ask, could you pick a better time?) And how is it that you lay the blame for reduced revenues to the government in 01-03 on the 2001 tax cut when it was phased in over 10 years (later accelerated by the 2003 legislation)? And with tax revenues back at historical rate vs. GDP by 05/06 and the economy remarkably buoyant despite a multitude of impediments you lament tax policy? I’ve said it once, and I will say it again, focus on cutting entitlements.

I asked you how burdened you were by the debt taken on by your grandparents during WWII. Rather than answering the question you responded that those deficits were acceptable (don’t disagree). And that would have been a perfectly good answer if it were at all relevant. You see, whether the debt level (109% of GDP at the time) came about by worthy means or not it was still debt. Does it really change the impact on future generations if the debt is incurred freeing the world of fascism or if it is blown building the tower of Babel? I am curious because I know how worried you are about current debt levels.

Of course social security would still be a problem without deficits. An ever growing pension liability set to outpace GDP growth dumped on future generations. Yeah, that’s bad. The bigger problem will be Medicare/Medicaid. If you are worried about saddling future generations with massive obligations, go after the entitlement programs. But you can’t and that’s where we get to the heart of the problem (I knew we’d get here eventually). You can’t name a major program you would severely cut (except the perennial airline bailout. totally agree. survival of the fittest), but would instead promote even greater government involvement in these systems. You need not be an expert on all of the bureaucracy. No one is asking you to produce a 3,000 page policy paper (seriously, don’t). The existing entitlement programs are already unviable, yet you would entrust the government with even greater involvement? That, my friend, is what will crush future generations. Even if the budget is “balanced”, you have just signed them up to a crushing tax liability. Or are we to believe it will be different this time around?

Umm. As far as missing some of your posts, I’m tackling about five at a time. Give me a break.

Yes, I have been critical of you and not just your ideas. The little diatribe I posted earlier goes into my motivation. While I would like to be contrite about it all, I have little patience for someone so pompous and flippant. Sometimes a little humility is in order. Maybe it's a taste of your own medicine? Or maybe I really am being too hard on you. After all, I haven’t seen any Wario/Kirby pictures lately.

I think that your numbers are severely flawed. Allow me to explain why. My total for Republican-attributable debt is 3916B to your 3800B, while my D-debt is 7095B to your 7000B; the difference is small. I make no assertions as to whose totals are more accurate. But you divided that total, in the case of Republicans, by 46 "events" (not sure what you mean here), while I divided it by the 83 "thirds" (of FY budget control) that Republicans exercised. 3800 / 46 = 82.61 (not sure how you arrived at 84, except perhaps by dividing in reality by 45) whereas 3916 / 84 = 47.18. Similarly, for the Democrats, you divided 7000 by 68 "events" (again, what does this mean?), while I divided 7094 by 151 "thirds" of FY control. 7000 / 68 = 102.94 (again, not sure how you got 104, unless you actually divided by 67) whereas 7095 / 151 = 46.98. WWII: (7095-2035) / (151-12) = 5060 / 139 = 36.40 In my above post, I (apparently) accidentally subtracted four years instead of twelve thirds from the 151 total. Whoops! My apologies. So, in conclusion, I reaffirm my faith in my methodology (count up the debt by "thirds", then divide by number of "thirds") and register my utter confusion at yours (count up the debt by "thirds" (I presume), then divide by whatever the hell "events" are*). *[edit: In actuality, I had by this point developed a suspicion as to what you counted as "events", which a brief check has just confirmed. You counted an "event" as a FY in which a party had some input on the debt, regardless of whether that was 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3. I remain curious as to what possessed you to do this instead of weighting debt responsibility by degree of budget control, or if nothing else CONSISTENTLY applying the "event" rule instead of only applying it to one-half of your methodology.]

I suppose I was being intellectually lazy in posting the Wikipedia chart that touched all this off. I do apologize for that. I hadn't done so before because I figured I was admitting fault by acceding so readily to your demand that I account for Congress's input.

At this time I am disinclined to argue further about how the numbers of the budget history should be interpreted [edit: politically, I mean, not how we are calculating them]. Please do not interpret this as unconditional surrender or cowardice, as I'm sure I'm just as tired as you are of all this. It's just that I fear that that deate, as well as the debate on what policy would be best for the future, have likely been poisoned by our mutual enmity, even in the event our opinions aren't totally irreconcilable to begin with.

But as for "crushing tax liability", I think that the richest 2-5% of Americans can afford to pay way more than they currently do. My evidence? Taxes HAVE been way higher on the very rich than in past portions of the 20th century, and I don't recall a time in that period when multimillionaires were being "crushed" by their taxes. That goes triple for the estate tax.

Only one question remains for me to ask: Do you in fact support endless deficit spending? Based on your posts, it sounds to me that you are, on the grounds that the lower tax rate will drive economic growth to outpace debt growth [edit: at a rate greater, presumably, than the rate at which the hypothetical debt-free economy would outpace zero]; and that politicians will be scared off of increased spending by the presence of those deficits. [edit2:  Also, I believe, the increased revenue would have to outweigh the interest payments.]  But clearly I might be mistaken.