Comments on: Spending money that we don’t have for projects that we don’t have to have http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:56:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: OccamsRazor http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1051 OccamsRazor Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:00:58 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1051 [Is backed by all the land in the United States] [Is backed by all the land in the United States]

]]> By: OccamsRazor http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1050 OccamsRazor Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:41:17 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1050 Is ALWAYS ALWAYS based off of _PRODUCTION_and yesterdays/todays..mayhaps...perception. Period. Is ALWAYS ALWAYS based off of _PRODUCTION_and yesterdays/todays..mayhaps…perception.

Period.

]]> By: LJ "Beaglescout" Miller http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1049 LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:11:36 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1049 argh, that is a compounded increase of 16% in the debt raises total debt, not the GDP. And the point I didn't make is that at the end of 10 years, the debt/GDP ratio is 1.47:1. At the end of 20 years it's 2.17:1. At the end of 30 years it's 3.21:1. In other words, even if the spread is only 4% it still gets to a point where the government cannot pay even the interest on the debt, even if the government taxman seizes every single dime that America produces. And the GDP is not going to grow any faster than 1% until the government repeals a lot of the anti-business regulations that have been strangling the economy since Nixon brought the EPA into existence. argh, that is a compounded increase of 16% in the debt raises total debt, not the GDP.

And the point I didn’t make is that at the end of 10 years, the debt/GDP ratio is 1.47:1. At the end of 20 years it’s 2.17:1. At the end of 30 years it’s 3.21:1. In other words, even if the spread is only 4% it still gets to a point where the government cannot pay even the interest on the debt, even if the government taxman seizes every single dime that America produces.

And the GDP is not going to grow any faster than 1% until the government repeals a lot of the anti-business regulations that have been strangling the economy since Nixon brought the EPA into existence.

]]> By: LJ "Beaglescout" Miller http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1048 LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:00:15 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1048 I was actually thinking about the national debt going up by 16% in 2008, thanks to Paulson and Bernanke and George W. Bush's betrayal of free market principles. But the point is the same. We have (multi) trillion dollar deficits as far as the president elect's eye can see. Is the GDP going to grow by a trillion every year to keep up with it? If not, then the ratio of debt to income will keep on going up. You can afford a house that costs 2.5 times your income. But can you afford a house that costs 5, 10, or 20 times your income? Eventually the ratio will kill you. So if GDP goes up by 1% annually, after COLA and other inflation are counted out, and the debt goes up by 5% a year, then with compound interest being what it is, things get very bad very quickly. Check out this table. At the end of 30 years, a compounded 1% increase in GDP raises GDP by 35%. At the end of 30 years, a compounded 16% increase in the debt raises GDP by 8,585%. That's 85 times as big as it was at the beginning. <table style="text-align: right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><col></col><col></col><col></col><col></col><col></col> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Year </strong></td> <td><strong>1.00%</strong></td> <td><strong>5.00%</strong></td> <td><strong>10.00%</strong></td> <td><strong>16.00%</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>1.01</td> <td>1.05</td> <td>1.10</td> <td>1.16</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>1.02</td> <td>1.10</td> <td>1.21</td> <td>1.35</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>1.03</td> <td>1.16</td> <td>1.33</td> <td>1.56</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>1.04</td> <td>1.22</td> <td>1.46</td> <td>1.81</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td>1.05</td> <td>1.28</td> <td>1.61</td> <td>2.10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>1.06</td> <td>1.34</td> <td>1.77</td> <td>2.44</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> <td>1.07</td> <td>1.41</td> <td>1.95</td> <td>2.83</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>1.08</td> <td>1.48</td> <td>2.14</td> <td>3.28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>1.09</td> <td>1.55</td> <td>2.36</td> <td>3.80</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> <td>1.10</td> <td>1.63</td> <td>2.59</td> <td>4.41</td> </tr> <tr> <td>15</td> <td>1.16</td> <td>2.08</td> <td>4.18</td> <td>9.27</td> </tr> <tr> <td>20</td> <td>1.22</td> <td>2.65</td> <td>6.73</td> <td>19.46</td> </tr> <tr> <td>25</td> <td>1.28</td> <td>3.39</td> <td>10.83</td> <td>40.87</td> </tr> <tr> <td>30</td> <td>1.35</td> <td>4.32</td> <td>17.45</td> <td>85.85</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I was actually thinking about the national debt going up by 16% in 2008, thanks to Paulson and Bernanke and George W. Bush’s betrayal of free market principles. But the point is the same. We have (multi) trillion dollar deficits as far as the president elect’s eye can see. Is the GDP going to grow by a trillion every year to keep up with it? If not, then the ratio of debt to income will keep on going up. You can afford a house that costs 2.5 times your income. But can you afford a house that costs 5, 10, or 20 times your income? Eventually the ratio will kill you.

So if GDP goes up by 1% annually, after COLA and other inflation are counted out, and the debt goes up by 5% a year, then with compound interest being what it is, things get very bad very quickly. Check out this table. At the end of 30 years, a compounded 1% increase in GDP raises GDP by 35%. At the end of 30 years, a compounded 16% increase in the debt raises GDP by 8,585%. That’s 85 times as big as it was at the beginning.

Year
 1.00% 5.00% 10.00% 16.00%
1 1.01 1.05 1.10 1.16
2 1.02 1.10 1.21 1.35
3 1.03 1.16 1.33 1.56
4 1.04 1.22 1.46 1.81
5 1.05 1.28 1.61 2.10
6 1.06 1.34 1.77 2.44
7 1.07 1.41 1.95 2.83
8 1.08 1.48 2.14 3.28
9 1.09 1.55 2.36 3.80
10 1.10 1.63 2.59 4.41
15 1.16 2.08 4.18 9.27
20 1.22 2.65 6.73 19.46
25 1.28 3.39 10.83 40.87
30 1.35 4.32 17.45 85.85
]]> By: LJ "Beaglescout" Miller http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1047 LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:47:59 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1047 and our GDP is only growing by 2-3% at best. After a few years our deficit triples and our GDP goes up by 6%. Rinse and repeat. It cannot continue forever. and our GDP is only growing by 2-3% at best. After a few years our deficit triples and our GDP goes up by 6%. Rinse and repeat. It cannot continue forever.

]]> By: Achance http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1046 Achance Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:35:22 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1046 but most of my Boomer peers have pretty nice retirements set up. I went to my 40th HS Class Reunion last year and most of them seemed pretty well set, and that was a bunch of people who went to HS in a rural Georgia farm town. Sure there were some that lacked either skill or ambition, but even they had houses and such and had worked their whole life. It is definitely a bad time if your wealth is your house since virtually all houses in the Country are worth precisely nothing if you can't sell them, but at least you can live in them and even if all you have is a house and SS, you can get by. You won't be gallavanting around the world as a stylish retiree, but you won't go hungry or sick. Now, the government IS going to take care of me for the rest of my life, but I paid in seven or more percent of my income to that retirement for twenty-odd years and I also worked some pretty good private sector jobs and have SS. And, wonder of wonders, we even have some savings, some property, and some of that archaic net worth stuff. but most of my Boomer peers have pretty nice retirements set up. I went to my 40th HS Class Reunion last year and most of them seemed pretty well set, and that was a bunch of people who went to HS in a rural Georgia farm town. Sure there were some that lacked either skill or ambition, but even they had houses and such and had worked their whole life.

It is definitely a bad time if your wealth is your house since virtually all houses in the Country are worth precisely nothing if you can’t sell them, but at least you can live in them and even if all you have is a house and SS, you can get by. You won’t be gallavanting around the world as a stylish retiree, but you won’t go hungry or sick.

Now, the government IS going to take care of me for the rest of my life, but I paid in seven or more percent of my income to that retirement for twenty-odd years and I also worked some pretty good private sector jobs and have SS. And, wonder of wonders, we even have some savings, some property, and some of that archaic net worth stuff.

]]> By: Aaron Gardner http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1045 Aaron Gardner Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:24:12 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1045 with a defense. I think that his response was fine. I read both of his diaries and recommended both, as they were good diaries. And Bird is correct in the sense that if the FEDERAL Government has the power to step in and stop anal sex from occurring under one administration that under another administration it could indded have the power to madate that you can't smoke a cigarette, or that you must purchase this insurance plan or this care, or only use this many squares of toilet paper. Birds consistent point in all of his posts is that he is for limiting the power and jurisdiction of the FEDERAL government, as intended by the founders. If this now equates to a bad faith troll on a Conservative/Republican site, well I guess we will be endorsing Dukakis for President in 2012. Stranger things have occurred I suppose. with a defense. I think that his response was fine. I read both of his diaries and recommended both, as they were good diaries.

And Bird is correct in the sense that if the FEDERAL Government has the power to step in and stop anal sex from occurring under one administration that under another administration it could indded have the power to madate that you can’t smoke a cigarette, or that you must purchase this insurance plan or this care, or only use this many squares of toilet paper.

Birds consistent point in all of his posts is that he is for limiting the power and jurisdiction of the FEDERAL government, as intended by the founders.

If this now equates to a bad faith troll on a Conservative/Republican site, well I guess we will be endorsing Dukakis for President in 2012.

Stranger things have occurred I suppose.

]]> By: birdmojo http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1044 birdmojo Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:18:00 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1044 If, for example, I ask someone a question like "Is there *ANYTHING* that could change your mind about the bailout being necessary?" and the answer comes "there's no way you can prove that it didn't avert a disaster", at that point the only tools you have are the tools you use against Al Gore Global Warming types. When even they admit that there is no evidence that would change their minds... Well, the amount of faith already in the conversation isn't "good". If, for example, I ask someone a question like “Is there *ANYTHING* that could change your mind about the bailout being necessary?” and the answer comes “there’s no way you can prove that it didn’t avert a disaster”, at that point the only tools you have are the tools you use against Al Gore Global Warming types.

When even they admit that there is no evidence that would change their minds…

Well, the amount of faith already in the conversation isn’t “good”.

]]> By: zuiko http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1043 zuiko Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:13:57 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1043 They are expecting the government to take care of them. They are expecting the government to take care of them.

]]> By: Vegas_Rick http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1042 Vegas_Rick Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:03:20 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1042 When they do start to sell, market watchers may not even know it. When they do start to sell, market watchers may not even know it.

]]> By: Neil Stevens http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1041 Neil Stevens Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:03:11 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1041 See what I mean Aaron? Not a good faith poster. See what I mean Aaron? Not a good faith poster.

]]> By: birdmojo http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1040 birdmojo Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:56:16 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1040 My 12 Step diary was a serious attempt to tell the Republicans what they need to do to start winning elections again, rather than merely reap the fruits of the electorate throwing the bums out. Rather than say "here's what I think they ought to be doing!", I laid out a plan for what they need to do if they are going to win. Unsurprisingly, it didn't do anywhere near as well as my "libertarian theory" diary that said that what they need to do to win and what I think they ought to be doing are two different things and went to talk about the wacky stuff Libertarians (Libertines!) like me believe. My distinction is that when I see "The Right" (an overbroad term, I know) argue that the government should have the right to pass laws far-reaching to the point where they involve sodomy, they will soon find themselves with Democrats in power and the government all the way up their behinds. Don't take my word for it though, just keep your eyes open. My 12 Step diary was a serious attempt to tell the Republicans what they need to do to start winning elections again, rather than merely reap the fruits of the electorate throwing the bums out. Rather than say “here’s what I think they ought to be doing!”, I laid out a plan for what they need to do if they are going to win.

Unsurprisingly, it didn’t do anywhere near as well as my “libertarian theory” diary that said that what they need to do to win and what I think they ought to be doing are two different things and went to talk about the wacky stuff Libertarians (Libertines!) like me believe.

My distinction is that when I see “The Right” (an overbroad term, I know) argue that the government should have the right to pass laws far-reaching to the point where they involve sodomy, they will soon find themselves with Democrats in power and the government all the way up their behinds.

Don’t take my word for it though, just keep your eyes open.

]]> By: birdmojo http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1039 birdmojo Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:34:15 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1039 Haven't been selling in order to begin enjoying the fruits of their retirement. There's been a small group doing so, of course... but more and more folks have been buying (Dow 36,000, baby!!!) and a good chunk of those have been folks who want to cash out early... many of whom are not as smart as your second paragraph implies that they ought to be. Haven’t been selling in order to begin enjoying the fruits of their retirement.

There’s been a small group doing so, of course… but more and more folks have been buying (Dow 36,000, baby!!!) and a good chunk of those have been folks who want to cash out early… many of whom are not as smart as your second paragraph implies that they ought to be.

]]> By: Neil Stevens http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1038 Neil Stevens Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:34:09 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1038 By: Neil Stevens http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1037 Neil Stevens Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:32:59 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1037 By: Aaron Gardner http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1036 Aaron Gardner Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:31:18 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1036 BTW, I miss very little context on this site...I am a constant reader, much to the dismay of my Wife. My point is that if you want to boycott serious discussion that is fine, but I don't see any point in poking him if you don't want to deal with the sarcasm that it will inevitably produce. If you don't like his style, ignore it rather than encouraging it by opening the door. BTW, I miss very little context on this site…I am a constant reader, much to the dismay of my Wife.

My point is that if you want to boycott serious discussion that is fine, but I don’t see any point in poking him if you don’t want to deal with the sarcasm that it will inevitably produce. If you don’t like his style, ignore it rather than encouraging it by opening the door.

]]> By: birdmojo http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1035 birdmojo Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:31:06 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1035 I would hope that the sound of them with a Democratic Majority in the House and the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and the next two or three Supreme Court Justices picked by the aforementioned groups would have you see the statements in a whole new light. If you don't see it yet, you will. 2009 is barely getting started. I would hope that the sound of them with a Democratic Majority in the House and the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and the next two or three Supreme Court Justices picked by the aforementioned groups would have you see the statements in a whole new light.

If you don’t see it yet, you will.

2009 is barely getting started.

]]> By: Vegas_Rick http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1034 Vegas_Rick Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:30:34 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1034 When the entire hedge fund industry has to liquidate to meet obligations you see what happened in the markets this fall. Boomers may well be the tipping point, I just don't think it will show up as such in the stock market. Besides, most people close to retirement (if they're smart) have moved most of their money out stocks and into bonds, cash and other less volatile instruments. When the entire hedge fund industry has to liquidate to meet obligations you see what happened in the markets this fall.

Boomers may well be the tipping point, I just don’t think it will show up as such in the stock market. Besides, most people close to retirement (if they’re smart) have moved most of their money out stocks and into bonds, cash and other less volatile instruments.

]]> By: Neil Stevens http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1033 Neil Stevens Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:26:24 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1033 The last few times I engaged him seriously, he spited me with nasty sarcasm. In fact he'd take my words and echo them sarcastically over, and over, and over. So I'm boycotting any serious debate with him. The last few times I engaged him seriously, he spited me with nasty sarcasm. In fact he’d take my words and echo them sarcastically over, and over, and over.

So I’m boycotting any serious debate with him.

]]> By: Aaron Gardner http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/01/08/spending-money-that-we-dont-have-for-projects-that-we-dont-have-to-have/#comment-1032 Aaron Gardner Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:21:39 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/?p=87#comment-1032 You get on Bird's case when he brings up sodomy and you get on his case when he doesn't bring up sodomy. Quit being an ass man. Bird says something serious and you write him off, then you get on his case when he replies with sarcasm...think maybe you might just have a personal issue with Bird, rather than a simple political disagreement. Seriously, it gets tiresome. You get on Bird’s case when he brings up sodomy and you get on his case when he doesn’t bring up sodomy.

Quit being an ass man.

Bird says something serious and you write him off, then you get on his case when he replies with sarcasm…think maybe you might just have a personal issue with Bird, rather than a simple political disagreement.

Seriously, it gets tiresome.

]]>