Burden on Our Kids? They Will Thank Us (Why Bush's critics are mostly wrong)

The Los Angeles Times ^ | December 7, 2003 | David Gelernter

[quidnunc]

New Haven, Conn – Some people want to know, how can the Bush administration commit the moral perfidy of first squandering the Clinton budget surplus, then running up huge deficits that the "next generation" will have to pay for?

The assumptions beneath this question are all wrong. The looming deficit might or might not be important, but it has no moral implications of any kind. As for the economy, the president's performance has not been perfect, but he's done fine under the circumstances. The mistakes he has made would have been hard for any president to avoid.

It would be nice if the deficit were smaller. Then again, borrowing money is, at base, a bet that you will be richer in the future than you are today. Will this nation continue — allowing for regular business-cycle fluctuations — to grow richer? We don't really know, anything could happen, who can say, no one can predict — waffle, waffle, waffle — and the answer is yes. So, it's hard to get too worked up over the deficit. Most Americans agree. Anyone who thinks that the deficit is hot news in the sushi bars and Thai restaurants of Middle America has not been paying attention.

-snip-

[quidnunc]

If you're one of those who refuses to register with the LA Times, just move on to another thread because I don't want to hear about it!

Besides, if you haven't read Gelernter's article you can't comment on it intelligently.

[Irene Adler]

Okay, I am not going to register so I can read the article, but I do regret being unable to read a piece by David Gelerntner who is a very good writer. He suffered a maiming injury in one of the Unabomber's attacks and was very nearly killed. He is a fine conservative thinker, and I always pay attention to his work.

[Willie Green]

Besides, if you haven't read Gelernter's article you can't comment on it intelligently.

Well Gelernter certainly hasn't contributed anything new to intelligent discussion.
Instead, he trots out the same old lame excuses and pack of lies:

• Blame everything on Klintoon.
  Anything bad with the economy started before Dubya took office.
• The United States is infinitely rich. Therefore it doesn't matter how much we spend and go into debt.
  Make an irrelevant comparison of deficits to GDP.
  Ignore all other forms of debt that must be serviced by our domestic economy.
  Ignore that close to 20% of federal revenue is already dedicated to make just the interest payments on the debt.
• Understanding our economy is like buying a pizza.

Gelertner is an idiot.

[Gunslingr3]

Oh, yes. Thanks. Thanks a thousand times over for spending billions of dollars you don't have year after year. Thanks again for creating new entitlements so that over half of the federal budget can continue to be robbing Peter to pay Paul for Paul's vote. And in case I forget, let me say thanks for spending all those trillions collected for Social Security, and then expecting future generations to go without so you can have that tax money spent on you again.

[Chairman Fred]

Or just use the VRWC Universal Password:

username: Hildabeast
password: Isaliar

Works every time.

[Miss Marple]

Good article, and worth registering for. An interesting take on the deficit, and one that bears some consideration.

Thanks, quidnunc!

[Jaysun]

I'm not sure that I understand where Gelernter was going, or where he ended up. There weren't any (in my opinion) reasonable explanations as to why our boys seem to have developed a chronic spending fetish. Also, I disagree with his using the tax cuts in the deficit equation because the tax cuts amount to 1% of the budget when you get right down to it. A 1% spread out over a decade. They have a hard time keeping spending increases under 6% over the previous year. It's the same dance with a bit nicer music - they're spending too much.

[AZLiberty]

Overthrowing tyrants is a gift that keeps giving. Howard Dean's grandchildren will bless George W. Bush. And if future generations wind up paying part of the tab, I doubt they will whine. More likely they will thank us, and write books about what a great generation we were.

In the past few decades "we" have borrowed money to fund the silicon revolution, the genomics revolution, the environmental revolution (yes, Virginia, the air and water really are cleaner than they were 40 years ago), the Internet, and the democratic revolution in Eastern Europe. We're borrowing money now to keep the world safe from Islamofascists.

This will more than make up for the money wasted on the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Republicans, and other insane governmental schemes.

Our grandchildren will, indeed, thank us.

[DumpsterDiver]

Did you see Post 5? You can use this:

username: Hildabeast
password: Isaliar

[qam1]

What a freaking Moron.

Comparing the deficit to a 20 year mortgage?

"if I take out a 20-year mortgage on my house, that doesn't mean I'm inflicting my debts on my children or the next generation."

Well it does if you take out a 20-year mortgage every year and then saddle your kids with the interest payment

Typical me,me,me,me Live for the moment baby boomer. He even states as such in the last paragraph, To paraphrase/translate his whole point "Who cares about long term economics as long as we are living the good life right now"

[Restorer]

Make an irrelevant comparison of deficits to GDP.

I'm curious. Why is the deficit as a percentage of GDP irrelevant? Seems to me that if I have annual income of $100,000 I can afford to assume a lot more debt, for instance on a mortgage, than I can if I have an income of $50,000. How exactly does this analogy differ from that of GDP/deficit?

[Roughneck]

>>>> Oh, yes. Thanks. Thanks a thousand times over for spending billions of dollars you don't have year after year. <<<<

Well, thats a lot better than klintonistas placing such a LARGE TAX BURDEN on the middle class, that He (Klinton), was spending billions of dollars every year of money I dont have to spare! The government has NO BUSINESS having a SURPLUS at the PEOPLES EXPENSE!!!!!!!

Klinton and most liberals are WRONG. The peoples money belongs to the people - not on the nanny-socialist nation the klinton regime desired, each generation can pay the debts of those before them, why the "L" not? it aint hurting them!

Better a debt, than to pay for the welfare state and moral decay on the backs of good, hard-working, tax-paying people!

[qam1]

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1982*) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.

New: Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details.

[LN2Campy]

your example precisely illustrates the inanity of the comparison of comparing GDP and budget deficit -- in your own example you compared INCOME with ability to service debt.

[Willie Green]

Why is the deficit as a percentage of GDP irrelevant? Seems to me that if I have annual income of $100,000 I can afford to assume a lot more debt, for instance on a mortgage, than I can if I have an income of $50,000.

If $20K of your annual income was already committed to simply making INTEREST payments on existing debt (mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, etc.), I doubt that you'd be able to borrow 1 more penny anywhere.

[Ditto]

Ignore that close to 20% of federal revenue is already dedicated to make just the interest payments on the debt.

That's about the same amount of my revenue that went to the mortgage interest payments when I first bought my house. But since then, my revenue has gone up significantly while the interest payment is so low now that I'll probably end up using the standard deduction this year.

[Orangedog]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people keep excusing the spending and debt being racked up every year. There hasn't been an entitlement yet that didn't grow far in exess of long-term projections. This latest one with prescription drugs will be no different.

Sure, we can afford to service the debt load now with historicly low interest rates. What happens in a few years if we end up with 1970's style interest rates? We could be looking at somewhere close to $1 trillion a year in interest payments on top of the social security and medicare payments for the boomers.

[Willie Green]

That's about the same amount of my revenue that went to the mortgage interest payments when I first bought my house. But since then, my revenue has gone up significantly while the interest payment is so low now that I'll probably end up using the standard deduction this year.

Well Ditto, I'm will to bet that you also paid down some of the principle on your mortgage as well.
And as your annual revenue increased, you didn't make a habit of spending 20~30% more than you earned each and every year.

[StoneColdGOP]

Here's something for discussion: Why are Republicans in Congress spending money like there was no tomorrow? What happened to balancing budgets and cutting spending?

And I'm not talking about expenditures related to the War on Terror. I'm talking about the GOP spending our cash just like the did prior to '94 when we took over, ostensibly to halt such gluttony.

[Tigercap]

Darn you!
I thought you were serious. :)