Pay off our debt

[The Rabbi]

Okay, how about first we stop spending money in other countries? Bring our soldiers home and let them guard our own borders?

The total bill for foreign aid is probably $50B. That is honestly nothing. Some of it ends up getting spent here anyway as countries buy American goods and services. Some of it buys us influence around the world.
Having soldiers guard our borders would probably run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act.
But other than being wrong and misguided those are great ideas.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I was more interested in how you plan to get these policies implemented, not so much the specifics. As I said, there's no political incentive to do any of that, and, as you said, that's because the voters are vehemently opposed to doing any of that. Since that's the case, and since this is just a start as you said, I'd say it seems extremely unlikely that anything will ever be done until we're forced to default.

That is NOT what you said. You said that default was the moral and ONLY option. I would agree that it is unlikely to be taken care of but that does not mean we should make that our goal. As a matter of fact, that is the problem in the first place - voters that simply give up and see such things as ‘inevitable.’ I certainly don’t see default as inevitable and even see it as unlikely. What is more likely IMHO, is that we will come to terms in a decade when there is going to be extreme pains in righting the ship.

For me, I will do the only thing that I can do: vote for the politicians that reflect the direction I wan tto see the country go in. I suggest more people do the same.

I said that default is the moral position, because stealing from people to pay off a debt they had no hand in creating is immoral, in my opinion. I said that default is inevitable based on the fact that there is no political incentive to do anything about paying down the debt, and then agreed with you that the reason there is no political incentive is because voters don't want to see these issues touched. I was not saying that it was for some reason impossible that $16 trillion could be paid off hypothetically, merely that with our political culture based on demagoguery and government handouts it will almost certainly never happen.,

 

[The Rabbi]

So taxing people is immoral but welching on your word is moral?
No wonder people are turned off by the libertarians.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So taxing people is immoral but welching on your word is moral?
No wonder people are turned off by the libertarians.

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

 

[FA_Q2]

So taxing people is immoral but welching on your word is moral?
No wonder people are turned off by the libertarians.

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

But then you seem to have no problem driving on the roads built by our fathers. The freedom created from the solders of our past or anything else that comes from being in a NATION that has a past. What you are referring to is an outright refusal to accept that there is more than just the microcosm of the self. I agree that pulling from the present because of injustices of the past is rather immoral but that does not make reneging on our nation’s debs moral. That is not how things work. If you want to be an American then you are accepting responsibilities of things America has promised to do. If not, go live in the middle of the forest where you don’t have to worry about the actions of others or the promises they have made.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So taxing people is immoral but welching on your word is moral?
No wonder people are turned off by the libertarians.

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

But then you seem to have no problem driving on the roads built by our fathers. The freedom created from the solders of our past or anything else that comes from being in a NATION that has a past. What you are referring to is an outright refusal to accept that there is more than just the microcosm of the self. I agree that pulling from the present because of injustices of the past is rather immoral but that does not make reneging on our nation’s debs moral. That is not how things work. If you want to be an American then you are accepting responsibilities of things America has promised to do. If not, go live in the middle of the forest where you don’t have to worry about the actions of others or the promises they have made.

Or how about I go live in Somalia, or Afghanistan, or any other such nonsensical intellectually dishonest argument.

 

[Wiseacre]

So taxing people is immoral but welching on your word is moral?
No wonder people are turned off by the libertarians.

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

But then you seem to have no problem driving on the roads built by our fathers. The freedom created from the solders of our past or anything else that comes from being in a NATION that has a past. What you are referring to is an outright refusal to accept that there is more than just the microcosm of the self. I agree that pulling from the present because of injustices of the past is rather immoral but that does not make reneging on our nation’s debs moral. That is not how things work. If you want to be an American then you are accepting responsibilities of things America has promised to do. If not, go live in the middle of the forest where you don’t have to worry about the actions of others or the promises they have made.

Your argument would carry more weight if everyone were paying income taxes. The fact that almost half are paying no income tax but are reaping the benefits provided by past generations hardly seems fair to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

So taxing people is immoral but welching on your word is moral?
No wonder people are turned off by the libertarians.

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

You could make the same argument about corporate debt, since shareholders are "coerced" into funding interest payments, even when the debt was incurred before the shareholder bought into the company.
You're right: I won't bother reading Rothbard's essay because anyone who thinks there is a difference between public credit and private is an idiot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So taxing people is immoral but welching on your word is moral?
No wonder people are turned off by the libertarians.

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

You could make the same argument about corporate debt, since shareholders are "coerced" into funding interest payments, even when the debt was incurred before the shareholder bought into the company.
You're right: I won't bother reading Rothbard's essay because anyone who thinks there is a difference between public credit and private is an idiot.

Then they didn't have to buy into the company.

 

[The Rabbi]

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

But then you seem to have no problem driving on the roads built by our fathers. The freedom created from the solders of our past or anything else that comes from being in a NATION that has a past. What you are referring to is an outright refusal to accept that there is more than just the microcosm of the self. I agree that pulling from the present because of injustices of the past is rather immoral but that does not make reneging on our nation’s debs moral. That is not how things work. If you want to be an American then you are accepting responsibilities of things America has promised to do. If not, go live in the middle of the forest where you don’t have to worry about the actions of others or the promises they have made.

Your argument would carry more weight if everyone were paying income taxes. The fact that almost half are paying no income tax but are reaping the benefits provided by past generations hardly seems fair to me.

There is an intangible benefit simply to living in a society like ours governed by law and protected by the strongest military on earth. How much is it worth to know that the Hutus are not going to start raping and pillaging your suburb? At least some of that debt went to create that society. That is a benefit everyone living here gets. If they don't want those benefits and dont want to pay for them there is a simple solution: emigration.

 

[The Rabbi]

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

You could make the same argument about corporate debt, since shareholders are "coerced" into funding interest payments, even when the debt was incurred before the shareholder bought into the company.
You're right: I won't bother reading Rothbard's essay because anyone who thinks there is a difference between public credit and private is an idiot.

Then they didn't have to buy into the company.

And they don't have to live here. If you think state obligations are too onerous, and taxes too high, move to a different state. People do it all the time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You could make the same argument about corporate debt, since shareholders are "coerced" into funding interest payments, even when the debt was incurred before the shareholder bought into the company.
You're right: I won't bother reading Rothbard's essay because anyone who thinks there is a difference between public credit and private is an idiot.

Then they didn't have to buy into the company.

And they don't have to live here. If you think state obligations are too onerous, and taxes too high, move to a different state. People do it all the time.

Except that I live on what is alleged to be my property. Why should I have to move to Somalia when I already have my own property here?

 

[flacaltenn]

Even as a RothBard loving Libertarian --- I want to honor the commitments made to Current generations in terms of Soc Sec/Medicare as best as we can.. But at the same time -- the message must CLEARLY GO OUT -- that the FED has STOLEN and MISMANAGED those programs into a wreckage of the their Ideal. And they are NOT TO BE TRUSTED with glorious concepts like that in the future.

I also cringe on reneging on public service contracts -- although in that case, I agree with Kevin that those contracts were created LARGELY without the consent of the co-signers. That's a problem of REPRESENTATION and CHOICE. I would suggest that Kevin is correct in a place like California where the very Democratic Ballot initiative process puts the Citizens signatures ALL OVER those bond measures and boondoogles that exploded their budget.

In that case -- let em all fry.. And don''t look to MY WALLET for their stupity..

But in other places, citizens are ill-informed about Public Emp. Contracts and back-room deals and have placed too much trust in elected officials that did COERCE them into contracts they probably would never have approved.. But we'll never know --- will we?

Question really is -- should budgets and state contracts be on auto-pilot? Or visible and acknowledged by public initiiative as in Cali?

 

[flacaltenn]

But then you seem to have no problem driving on the roads built by our fathers. The freedom created from the solders of our past or anything else that comes from being in a NATION that has a past. What you are referring to is an outright refusal to accept that there is more than just the microcosm of the self. I agree that pulling from the present because of injustices of the past is rather immoral but that does not make reneging on our nation’s debs moral. That is not how things work. If you want to be an American then you are accepting responsibilities of things America has promised to do. If not, go live in the middle of the forest where you don’t have to worry about the actions of others or the promises they have made.

Your argument would carry more weight if everyone were paying income taxes. The fact that almost half are paying no income tax but are reaping the benefits provided by past generations hardly seems fair to me.

There is an intangible benefit simply to living in a society like ours governed by law and protected by the strongest military on earth. How much is it worth to know that the Hutus are not going to start raping and pillaging your suburb? At least some of that debt went to create that society. That is a benefit everyone living here gets. If they don't want those benefits and dont want to pay for them there is a simple solution: emigration.

I'll bet the British Empire lived in daily fear of being pillaged by the Hutus.. Explains all that interest in Africa for certain....

 

[Katzndogz]

We just passed the 16 trillion debt mark. We're on our way to 17 trillion now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then they didn't have to buy into the company.

And they don't have to live here. If you think state obligations are too onerous, and taxes too high, move to a different state. People do it all the time.

Except that I live on what is alleged to be my property. Why should I have to move to Somalia when I already have my own property here?

No one's making you live anywhere. Anymore than if I wanted to open a hog slaughtering operation next door to you. I can do that because I'm not forcing you to do anything.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And they don't have to live here. If you think state obligations are too onerous, and taxes too high, move to a different state. People do it all the time.

Except that I live on what is alleged to be my property. Why should I have to move to Somalia when I already have my own property here?

No one's making you live anywhere. Anymore than if I wanted to open a hog slaughtering operation next door to you. I can do that because I'm not forcing you to do anything.

Well not you per se, but you are supporting the government taxing my alleged property. And when I point out that taxation is coercion the inevitable "Move to Somalia" chorus can be heard coming from you and other like minded statists.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except that I live on what is alleged to be my property. Why should I have to move to Somalia when I already have my own property here?

No one's making you live anywhere. Anymore than if I wanted to open a hog slaughtering operation next door to you. I can do that because I'm not forcing you to do anything.

Well not you per se, but you are supporting the government taxing my alleged property. And when I point out that taxation is coercion the inevitable "Move to Somalia" chorus can be heard coming from you and other like minded statists.

It is coercion. No question about it. So is every other law on the books. That's what gov't does: it coerces people into certain types of behavior. Welcome to society.

 

[FA_Q2]

As Rothbard pointed out in the essay you won't bother reading, private contracts and government contracts cannot be considered the same when one is based on voluntarism and the other is based on coercion. Or as Rothbard himself put it, "The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract."

But then you seem to have no problem driving on the roads built by our fathers. The freedom created from the solders of our past or anything else that comes from being in a NATION that has a past. What you are referring to is an outright refusal to accept that there is more than just the microcosm of the self. I agree that pulling from the present because of injustices of the past is rather immoral but that does not make reneging on our nation’s debs moral. That is not how things work. If you want to be an American then you are accepting responsibilities of things America has promised to do. If not, go live in the middle of the forest where you don’t have to worry about the actions of others or the promises they have made.

Or how about I go live in Somalia, or Afghanistan, or any other such nonsensical intellectually dishonest argument.

OR, you could accept the fact that to be in America comes with certain obligations from those that actually established this nation and the ones that followed. You immediately call anyone that tells you to move then as leveling nonsensical statements. Your right, they are nonsensical. Just as nonsensical as you trying to garner all the benefits of the society that you live in without occurring ANY of those said debts.

You are essentially stating that society can renege on any promises that it has made simply because you don’t want to be held to those agreements. Under such an asinine thought process the entire concept of nations becomes untenable. No longer can you enter into treaties, they don’t need to be followed. Trade, nah, we don’t actually have to honor our agreements. National defense? Forget it. Who says that the government should even bother?

Simply put, the government has obligations and to discount them simply because it is the government is asinine.

 

[flacaltenn]

But then you seem to have no problem driving on the roads built by our fathers. The freedom created from the solders of our past or anything else that comes from being in a NATION that has a past. What you are referring to is an outright refusal to accept that there is more than just the microcosm of the self. I agree that pulling from the present because of injustices of the past is rather immoral but that does not make reneging on our nation’s debs moral. That is not how things work. If you want to be an American then you are accepting responsibilities of things America has promised to do. If not, go live in the middle of the forest where you don’t have to worry about the actions of others or the promises they have made.

Or how about I go live in Somalia, or Afghanistan, or any other such nonsensical intellectually dishonest argument.

OR, you could accept the fact that to be in America comes with certain obligations from those that actually established this nation and the ones that followed. You immediately call anyone that tells you to move then as leveling nonsensical statements. Your right, they are nonsensical. Just as nonsensical as you trying to garner all the benefits of the society that you live in without occurring ANY of those said debts.

You are essentially stating that society can renege on any promises that it has made simply because you don’t want to be held to those agreements. Under such an asinine thought process the entire concept of nations becomes untenable. No longer can you enter into treaties, they don’t need to be followed. Trade, nah, we don’t actually have to honor our agreements. National defense? Forget it. Who says that the government should even bother?

Simply put, the government has obligations and to discount them simply because it is the government is asinine.

Treaties, trade, and defense are Constitutional duties of the Fed Gov.

Let's not get alll faux anarchical here..