I’m All About The Sharing

Since signing up for a forum on “Obama.com” last year, I’ve been indundated with email from various functionaries in the campaign.  Most of it was pretty typical “send us money” boilerplate.
But this past week, they asked me – all of us, really to “Share our about the Economic Crisis”

I figured, how many chances like this does a guy get?  To send my story directly to the President?

I had  to respond!

I work for a company that depends on the free and open flow of commerce, and a robust business market. My “economic crisis”is that, while I’m one of the 93% of Americans who ARE working (knock wood), my company’s business is going to get hobbled by the hiked interested rates and jacked-up taxes the “Obama” (really Pelosi) plan will foist on us all.  The “cure” might be worse than the disease.

Please stop mortgaging my childrens’ future.

That’s my crisis story.  You should put yours up there, too.

56 thoughts on “I’m All About The Sharing

  1. You should add something about being a Gay-American person of color who lives off of a fixed income and can’t afford health insurance.

  2. Careful there, Chuck. You add those kind of qualifiers and it will be just a matter of time before Nick Coleman comes knocking for an interview for his next column.

  3. “my company’s business is going to get hobbled by the hiked interested rates”

    With the real interest rate somewhere south of zero, my guess is your employer has other things to worry about.

  4. The team Obama economic plan:
    Count on the Chinese buying T-bills with a negative interest rate.

  5. RatioRick, yet again you show you utter ignorance. You have no idea what interest rate really is and how it works in the business world, do you?

  6. Mitch, you just bought your ticket to the gulag! Good news though, they’ll probably put the gulag in North Dakota, so you know… Fascism with a smiley face! 🙂

  7. Rick,

    Wait till you get a load of the interest rates is a few years! Printing money like it’s toilet paper generally has the effect of making it worth about the same as toilet paper. Barry hasn’t got to that page of of his Econ 101 text yet.

  8. Kermit, saving today IS a losing proposition. Part of it is counting on the Chinese buying those negative (effective) interest rate T-bills. Liu has already said they’d only buy because they have no choice today, and he’s right: if they stop buying T-bills their currency appreciates and they really go into the tank like Japan has done now (13% annualized contraction because of currency appreciation during a consumption downturn in their main customer).

    Keep in mind we’re running a massive trade deficit with China and Japan, in particular. They’ve been selling us goods and instead of taking all of the money back into their economies, they’ve been propping up the dollar by buying US government securities. By doing that, they’ve been importing American jobs because it’s now too expensive for Americans to compete with foreign manufacturers: the American currency is artificially inflated in value because the government is hoovering up all the spare change.

    And now, RickDFL, for the rest of the story. For China the interest rate right now on those t-bills is 0%. But Obama just passed a bill that will run us well over a trillion in the next decade according to the CBO. We’ve just about a trillion last year on the TARP, and now TARP II is coming up to spend over 1.2 trillion, and if Roubini is only half right we’ll spend another couple of trillion on the banks before we’re done.

    So, what happens when we spend 4+ trillion we don’t have in less than 2 years? Even China, who would dearly love to keep the exchange rate where it is so they can export goods and import American jobs to get stability in their country, can’t buy up that much debt and the Lord knows we don’t have anywhere near that much in savings. So we get massive inflation here, which takes our currency into the tank.

    Now, things get complicated. What happens when the US has 20% or higher inflation and China is getting 0% on the money we’re supposed to be paying back? Gee, it looks like China takes it in the shorts while we merely struggle with all the problems of inflation like declining standards of living, job market contraction, social instability, etc. Right?

    Maybe, maybe not. Suppose China doesn’t want to lose all that money. They could dump all their US debt into the market in a fire sale to minimize their loss. The dollar goes so far into the tank that oil passes $200/barrel like a Ferrari passes a Prius and everything we depend on from China goes through the roof in price. That’ll do wonders for the economy short to medium term. It’ll make the 80s recession and what we’ve got now look like a picnic in the park.

    But suppose China doesn’t want the social instability of losing their manufacturing base. After all, their inherent social stability is far less than ours and watching those workers lose their livelihoods tends to lead to revolution there. Suppose they’re willing to give themselves a blast of inflation to match ours with their own “stimulus” package. Then we’re in a race to the bottom, with all the other countries in the world joining in a giant Wiemar inflation game, each trying to export their problems to another country.

    So yeah, savings now is a losing proposition; the coming inflation will wipe you out. You get 0% on money that will rapidly become worth less and less as Obama’s policies take their full effect even in the best case scenario. Not that Obama’s got strong position from which to start. This has been building from the Reagan years and neither party managed it well with the GOP sucking up to business and the Chinese buying the Clintons.

  9. Nerbbert:

    Yes inflation is a worry sometime in the future, but right now the bigger worry right now is a deflationary spiral and a liquidity trap. If we got runaway inflation we can fight it by raising interest rates and/or reducing government spending. We can not fight deflation/liquidity trap right now b/c interest rates are at 0. Government spending is the only effective tool we have right now.

    Yes we are wound in a unstable financial situation with China, but simply allowing our economy to slip into a deep recession will not help. If China opposed the current stimulus package they would have made their concerns known.

  10. BrACK! Ricky want a cracker! BrACK!

    or maybe that should be BarACK!

    You don’t solve a problem by making a worse problem. There is a correct way to fix the current problem, but no one is doing it. The wrong way is just too irresistibly sexy for bureaucrats to pass up. Oh, & the way that we are taking isn’t expected to fix the problem we are in.

  11. and/or reducing government spending
    Heh. hehehe. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
    gasp
    Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!

  12. If we got runaway inflation we can fight it by raising interest rates and/or reducing government spending.

    Must. Stifle. Laughter. BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, Lordy, there was no way to contain that. Reduce government spending?! OBAMA, Pelosi, and Congressional Democrats?! Now there’s a joke that even you should get.

    Government spending is the only effective tool we have right now.

    Yes, it is. So why are we not using it to correct the liquidity problems? Why are we using it to fund programs that have little to do with actually fixing the the liquidity crisis?

    Obama and company are attacking this exactly the wrong way. They’re spending on questionable (at best) projects with little to no relationship to to the problem. Japan showed that massive public works can’t get you out of these problems, so why are we trying it?

    They’re keeping institutions like GM, BoA, Citit, etc from failing. Let them fail, let the investors/creditors take the shaft since they’ve been living high off the returns, fire the management and help new institutions rise in their place with debtor-in-possession financing by the Fed. When they’ve restructured the Fed can then back out of them and get some of our money back. Now we’re just sending billions down the black hole of GM with no hope of either turning the company around or getting the money back.

    Even with the right solution we’re still going to get an inflationary blast because we still need to borrow money but nobody has any. Japan is going so deep into recession it’ll probably take China with it so there won’t be much out there to get. But the stimulus bills spends so directionlessly that it makes drunken sailors seems parsimonious.

  13. Mr. Shirt: From the article you cite.

    “Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, said after a speech in New York that China would continue to buy Treasuries in spite of its misgivings about US finances.”

    Nerdbert:

    “Let them fail, let the investors/creditors take the shaft since they’ve been living high off the returns, fire the management and help new institutions rise in their place with debtor-in-possession financing by the Fed.”

    Agreed. That is what liberals like Paul Krugman are pushing for.

    “But the stimulus bills spends so directionlessly that it makes drunken sailors seems parsimonious. ”
    Asserted without proof. I am unaware of any alternative spending recommended by Republicans. They either suggested not spending or cutting taxes.

  14. Asserted without proof. I am unaware of any alternative spending recommended by Republicans. They either suggested not spending or cutting taxes.

    Ok, tell me, what’s the payback time on the green energy technologies that are in the porkulus? What is the economic payback time on the ACORN payoff? What’s the payoff time on the poster boy of the porkulus: the highway bill? All of these things are at best slow, and even in the best case we have Japan and the New Deal as examples that these public infrastructure paybacks are decades later, and boondoggles at worst.

    Compare to the effects of cutting taxes on individuals. Consumer activity is 75% of the economic activity. Consumers have been getting massively poorer. They’ve cut back consumption because they’ve seen their net worth trashed. Until they get their debt under control, they can’t spend and can’t get credit. How can they get their debts under control with their jobs having no pay increases and the government taking even more of their money? The key to getting the consumer back in the game and the economy growing is to get rid of consumers’ massive debts. To get rid of consumer debts you have to inject money into their pockets, and the government is not pursuing policies that will do that quickly or effectively.

    Tax cuts may not have caused much immediate spending, but it would have reduced the overall debt, causing a recovery in the consumer sector much more quickly than by indirect methods such as spending on highways or green energy projects. AND the tax cuts could be reduced almost immediately when the recovery happens and inflation ignites. The porkulus uses projects with vastly longer time constants that can’t be cancelled in time to prevent massive inflation.

    The best policy we could have would be an income tax holiday. Even a 0% rate would have been cheaper than the porkulus.

  15. Nerdbert:

    Tax cuts do have the advantage of speed. They are an easy way to get $s out the door fast. But, tax cuts have little stimulative effect. The people most likely to spend, the poor, don’t get a big cuts and everyone else is likely to just stuff the extra cash in the bank or pay down debt.

    Frankly if tax cuts stimulated the economy we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    Highway programs employ people who then spend their wages. Extra money for food stamps and unemployment gets spent right away on daily living needs. Education aid keeps States from laying off teachers and janitors. All of that means more consumers with money in their pocket.

  16. “Extra money for food stamps and unemployment gets spent right away on daily living needs.”

    Soo, you’re saying that food stamps are going to be put into general circulation as legal tender? Makes sense….pfffft.

    “Bring your trade in and your food stamp books and get your 2010 Chevrolet ‘Pelosi’ today!” “Buy now and get a spare pack of 9V batteries for just $10 in stamps!”

  17. “Frankly if tax cuts stimulated the economy we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    Highway programs employ people who then spend their wages. Extra money for food stamps and unemployment gets spent right away on daily living needs. Education aid keeps States from laying off teachers and janitors. All of that means more consumers with money in their pocket.”

    Well, frankly, the same could be said of government spending… If it stimulated the economy, we wouldn’t be in this mess. California would not be going bankrupt, Japan would not be in their second lost decade, etc, etc, etc…

    Tax cuts are a proven stimulus, time & time again. The last time taxes were cut, it pulled us out of a recession. It is proven. Recent studies have shown that the so-called “Keynesian Multiplier” of government spending, is not 1.5 but rather 0.8. Where the multiplier of tax cuts is 3.0.

    Government spending has to damage the economy before it can help the economy. Before a $1 food stamp can be issued, the government has to take about $1.65 from a taxpayer. That removes more money from the economy than it puts in. And when you remove money from businesses through taxes to keep a teacher employed, they have less money to make their own payroll, so they lay-off an employee. It’s all just a shell game.

    But despite all this, has anyone asked “Is any of this Constitutional?”

  18. Frankly if tax cuts stimulated the economy we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    For the record, Nerdbert, the White House is bragging about the tax cuts in the Stimulus Plan.

    You’re off message or very confused, Rick. I think the White House is right and you’re wrong.

    Mr. Shirt has it right: why is a tax cut putting money in everybody’s pockets different than just putting money in the pockets of construction folks? Are you saying that folks who get more money won’t spend it? Or that somehow only construction folks getting the money will spend it?

    How is putting money in everybody’s pockets different than stuffing it in teachers’ and janitors’ pockets — other than the fact that by stuffing it in state employees’ pockets directly you get them to vote for you?

    Why is spending money on teachers different than spending money on factory workers? And why should government employees be sheltered from the impacts the economy is having on everyone else?

    Sorry, but there’s a lot of fundamental and concrete proof that massive public works have a best a secondary and minimal stimulative impact; in fact, they often retard recovery because servicing the increased debt load overwhelms the return on the public work. Look at what Japan went through in the 90s and what we did in the 30s. Even FDR’s economists admitted that the public works projects failed to achieve their goals, and now we’re doing more of the same.

  19. RickDFL said:

    “But, tax cuts have little stimulative effect.”

    From Captain “Asserted without proof”? Laughable.

  20. So which one is it, RatioRick?

    “With the real interest rate somewhere south of zero, my guess is your employer has other things to worry about” or “If we got runaway inflation we can fight it by raising interest rates and/or reducing government spending.”?

    Having your cake and eating it too? Looks like you wikied something that contradicts what you asserted before – all because you just copy and paste without any idea what the words mean.

    I have to give you credit for trying, though. But, dude, get a clue, would you? When was the last time you tried getting a business loan?

  21. JPA: They are both true and don’t contradict. Doing different things in different circumstances makes sense.

    Nerdbert:

    I can’t really make sense of your post. Tax cuts, construction, teacher pay all have various stimulative impacts. Obama’s plan includes a mix of all the above.

    “Sorry, but there’s a lot of fundamental and concrete proof that massive public works have a best a secondary and minimal stimulative impact;”

    Sorry but you are going to have to show your work on this one.

  22. RatioRick – read back your 4:26pm reply. And then slap yourself. It does not make sense to you because you do not understand it. No amount of “showing your work” or explaining will make you understand. You’ve proven your lack of capacity for comprehension long time ago.

    BTW, you DO live in an alternate universe – the time there is 1 hour ahead! Are you in the eastern time zone? This may explain a thing or two.

  23. $13 dollars a week will stimulate…. what, exactly?

    Furthermore they are cuts in “payroll” taxes, meaning Social Security & Medicare. These are supposedly programs that every citizen pays into so they can get it back in later years. Supposedly they are not welfare programs because you paid in, so it’s more like a savings plan… are you ready to call Social Security & Medicare welfare programs?

    All you lefties like to point at infrastructure & say it’s great. But when the interstate system was built, there was nothing like it. there was a crude system of two lane state highways that took indirect routes through towns with stop signs, slow speeds & sunday drivers. In 1929 only 5% of the population had in home electric power. Developing the power grid distributed power to nearly everyone in a couple decades. Both of these utterly changed human existence.

    What infrastructure in Barry’s plan (which insiders say he hasn’t read yet) is even remotely along those lines? Light Rail? Puh-lese. A new bridge? It might be needed, but since it’s replacing a bridge, the payoff is nil. Smart Grid? While it could make for more efficient delivery, we DO already have delivery, so again, nil.

    But Rick, only 17% of this “stimulus” is for infrastructure. About the same for the $13 per week tax cut. The rest is political payoffs for supporting The Party.

  24. And you totally dodged the logical statements I made in my other comment above.

    If Gov’t spending worked California would not be bankrupt, the US Economy would be excelling, Japan wouldn’t be “lost”. And government programs to benefit some, must first harm others.

  25. Mr. Shirt:

    Take your Ritalin. I can’t keep up anymore.

    “Furthermore they are cuts in “payroll” taxes, meaning Social Security & Medicare” Maybe, but I don’t think so. I don’t think either has been cut.

    “It might be needed, but since it’s replacing a bridge, the payoff is nil.”
    So you won’t mind if I take your new car and replace it with my old car. Since the ‘payoff’ is nil, you won’t be out anything.

    “Smart Grid? While it could make for more efficient delivery, we DO already have delivery, so again, nil.”
    So you would be OK if I replaced your current water heater with an older less efficient model. Your bills will go up, but since you still get delivery of hot water the change will be nil.

    “If Gov’t spending worked California would not be bankrupt” CA like other states must balance its budget. It can not engage in Keynesian counter-cyclical spending.

  26. I can’t really make sense of your post.

    *rolls eyes* I’m frankly not surprised.

    Tax cuts, construction, teacher pay all have various stimulative impacts. Obama’s plan includes a mix of all the above.

    Oh yes, they do. Live high on your $13/week tax cut. That’ll really stimulate the economy and let you pay down your debt. Just how long will it take to pay off all those HELOCs and credit cards at $13/week? Democrats did absolutely nothing to help the average American with this bill — they’ve just helped selected groups like community organizers, heavy construction workers, teachers, etc.

    Now, imagine instead a real tax cut, not the phony one The One did. Suppose we totally stop INCOME tax receipts. Everybody gets to keep their money for a year; it’ll cost much less than the porkulus. Now everybody gets a big tax cut. Real money in their paycheck, not the trifle The One is giving them. You actually get the consumers to pay down their debt and/or spend as they see fit. Consumers manage to recover more quickly and might actually be able to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

    What do we have now? The porkulus takes from everybody and lards up construction workers, state employees, teachers and janitors. Those are your examples and you seem to approve spending money on them. You’d rather take the money of factory workers and give it to state employees to spend; somehow you think that the money is better spent on state employees and taken from factory workers who might spend it on themselves and others not in those blessed groups.

    That’s my point: you want to pick the winners and losers. You want to choose who gets money from the federal trough and feed them rather than treating everybody as deserving of relief. Nice to know that if you’re not in a core Democratic group you can expect to kiss your money goodbye.

  27. I can’t keep up anymore.

    What do you mean “anymore”?

    “So you won’t mind if I take your new car and replace it with my old car. Since the ‘payoff’ is nil, you won’t be out anything.”

    Well my newest car is a 1994, but like your statement, it’s a non-sequitur. A bridge only holds up a roadway. it doesn’t matter if it’s 1 year old or 100 years old, whether it is a plain green set of steel girders, or an artistic exercise from the Taliesin Architects. It holds up a road that people drive across, if they work, their economic benefit is the same.

    “So you would be OK if I replaced your current water heater with an older less efficient model. Your bills will go up, but since you still get delivery of hot water the change will be nil.”

    Again with your silliness. My 15 year old water heater could be replaced with a more efficient model, but at a cost. I have to decide whether buying & installing a new one would be worth replacing the old one that works fine, but not as efficently. In economics, it’s called a cost benefit analysis, I’m sure you can wiki that. Here’s the other catch in this simile, I don’t need the government to give me a subsidy to change it. Neither do the electric companies. If it would be such a great advancement in the efficiency of their business, then they will do it on their own.

    “CA like other states must balance its budget. It can not engage in Keynesian counter-cyclical spending. “

    UHHH, so does the USA… but if you still disagree, what about Japan?

  28. I missed one:

    “Furthermore they are cuts in “payroll” taxes, meaning Social Security & Medicare” Maybe, but I don’t think so. I don’t think either has been cut.

    So you are totally misinformed about this plan then? For that matter, you’d have to be totally misinformed about the entire Obama candidacy! When he said cut payroll taxes this means the tax that all workers pay into Social Security & Medicare. That is where the $13 per week tax cut is coming from.

  29. Rick, are you at all disappointed that only 17% of the plan goes to “infrastructure”? & which Obama “infrastructure” program is going to pay off to fix this economy, HMMMMM?

  30. I don’t even why this is a matter of discussion. Look at what Japan did to counter their deep recession and don’t do it.

  31. Nerdbert:

    Tax cuts for the wealthy have almost no stimulative effect. The money just sits in their bank account. In general tax cuts are less stimulative than government spending for the same reason. The whole point of Keynesian stimulus is to get the Government to do what individuals won’t.

    “you want to pick the winners and losers”. No that is why Obama tried to spread the stimulus across a variety of sectors. Factory workers benefit from increased demand for steel and machine tools. Teachers with jobs by washers and dryers from factory workers. But, no government program benefits every person equally. If it did we would never do anything.

    Mr. Shirt:

    Believe it or not bridges have to be maintained and eventually replaced. New bridges cost less to maintain and have a longer time till they need to be replaced. If you think a new bridge has the same economic benefit as a 100 year old bridge, that goes along way towards explaining how the GOP managed to destroy the economy.

    “If it would be such a great advancement in the efficiency of their business, then they will do it on their own.” Not in the middle of an economic downturn during which people and companies cut back on their expenses. Government spending is meant to counteract the curtailment of private spending.

    “so does the USA”. The U.S. is not required to balance it’s annual budget. That is why you read stories about the Federal deficit. This is really elementary stuff.

    “he said cut payroll taxes this means the tax that all workers pay into Social Security & Medicare”
    Payroll taxes include Federal income taxes too. Again, really elementary stuff. I think those are the taxes Obama’s stimulus plan cuts. If you have a link saying he is cutting SS or Medicaid/Medicare feel free to share.

  32. Nerdbert:

    Just FYI:
    “it’ll cost much less than the porkulus”

    Total Fed Income Tax for FY2008 were 1,146 Billion. That is about double the spending portion of the Stimulus plan.

  33. Once again you have proven unteachable. Quit dodging the fact that YOU have NO answers by trying to obfuscate the conversation!

    Believe it or not bridges have to be maintained and eventually replaced.

    Well duh!

    New bridges cost less to maintain and have a longer time till they need to be replaced.

    Not necessarily. Are you ready to tear down the Brooklyn Bridge & build a new one? But my point is simply if you do tear it down & build a replacement, you still only have a bridge that crosses the East River. economic gain from this “infrastructure” is nil.

    If you think a new bridge has the same economic benefit as a 100 year old bridge, that goes along way towards explaining how the GOP managed to destroy the economy.

    Actually according to your il-logic, a 100 year old bridge is better for the economy. You have to pay inspectors, metal workers, painters, road crew, buy materials, pay bureaucrats to over-see the goings on of the maintainence projects, etc. far more regularly for an older bridge… all funded by the glorious act of government spending. But once again, you missed the point, once the old bridge is gone & the new one is up, you still have a road across a void… which is what you had before. As compared to Eisenhower building a freeway, which was taking open space & placing a high speed transportation network in it’s place.

    Not in the middle of an economic downturn during which people and companies cut back on their expenses. Government spending is meant to counteract the curtailment of private spending.

    Yawn, Yes that is the *intended* purpose of gov’t spending, but as stated above & proven throughout history, it is the most inefficient 7 typically corrupt way to get things done. Give the electric companies incentive to get it done & they will, IF it is truly a benefit.

    But again, only 17% of the “stimulus” package is for infrastructure.

    The U.S. is not required to balance it’s annual budget. That is why you read stories about the Federal deficit. This is really elementary stuff.

    Sorry buddy, someday, the US will have to pay the piper. The fact that you & all the political “leaders” have ignored this fact is why ALL OF THEM have “managed to destroy the economy.” & you are backing another set of fools with a fools plan to make the matter worse.

    But again, if it’s so great for nations, why is Japan in their second lost decade?

    Payroll taxes include Federal income taxes too. Again, really elementary stuff. I think those are the taxes Obama’s stimulus plan cuts. If you have a link saying he is cutting SS or Medicaid/Medicare feel free to share.

    When your candidate repeatedly says income taxes only affect some people, so we need a cut in payroll taxes that will benefit all workers, it becomes quite apparent what he means. It requires logic, but try hard!

    Here’s from December:
    “One option that could get Obama a good way toward that 95% is his proposed Making Work Pay credit — a centerpiece promise in his campaign. The credit would essentially work as a payroll tax credit equal to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples.”

    Now if only about 50% of workers pay an income tax, how does the other 45% get a “payroll credit”?

    “The $500-per-worker credit for lower- and middle-income taxpayers that Obama outlined during his presidential campaign was scaled back to $400 during bargaining by the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. Couples would receive $800 instead of $1,000. Over two years, that move would pump about $25 billion less into the economy than had been previously planned.”

    So what will $13 per week stimulate?

    Links will follow in another comment.

  34. Total Fed Income Tax for FY2008 were 1,146 Billion. That is about double the spending portion of the Stimulus plan.

    If you give a tax cut, there is no interest to pay. the $787 billion does not include the interest to be paid, that amount raises the porkulus to about $1.3 trillion.

  35. Let people retire early with full SS benefits, provided they agree not to work. Everyone wins. Except politicians who were looking forward to using stimulus money for patronage

  36. Guys, you are trying to use logic and reason with RatioRick. He had proven in the past to be an empty quote puller who does not understand the meaning of the words he writes. It does not matter what facts you use with him – he does not have the capacity to understand basic tenets. Maybe when he grows up, he’ll come around. Until then, you are wasting bandwidth.

  37. Mr. Shirt;
    “But my point is simply if you do tear it down & build a replacement, you still only have a bridge that crosses the East River. economic gain from this “infrastructure” is nil.”
    Suppose I offer to privatize one of two bridges and allow you to charge toll. Both are alike in all respects and have equal traffic flow, but one is a very old bridge with an expected life of 10 more years the second is a new bridge with an expected life of 80 years. Which bridge to you take?

    “Actually according to your il-logic, a 100 year old bridge is better for the economy.”
    Your confusing a project’s immediate value as stimulus with its overall value. Paying people to dig ditches has immediate stimulative effect but does not add much to the economy long term. The goal is to do as much of both as possible.

    “If you give a tax cut, there is no interest to pay. ”
    This is why I love SITD. You get the strait up bug ass crazy economic illiteracy. A budget shortfall caused by lower revenues must be made up by borrowing. Those bonds must pay interest. In what fantasyland do people lend a government money at no interest simply because the shortfall was caused by a tax cut.

  38. Mr. Shirt:

    Just read your links. Neither discusses a cut in the tax rate for SS taxes or Medicaid/Medicare.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.