The following graph shows various measures of the federal debt since 1940:
The actual numbers and sources can be seen at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/debt40.html. As can be seen, the only time in the past sixty-five years that a rapidly rising gross debt has been changed to a falling gross debt in one year was 1947, at the end of the Second World War. You say that you are "(not) unimpressed with PAYGO" (I assume that the double-negative was unintented) because it did not have the same radical effect on the debt as the end of the Second World War. You are a tough man to impress! The fact is, PAYGO did everything that could be expected of it. It forced some badly-needed budget discipline on the Congress and helped to bring the deficit down, turning it into a surplus.
This is not sarcasm. Your argument is that PAYGO affects the deficit which affects the debt which affects the economy which affects whether we're earning and accumulating wealth.
That is NOT my argument. My argument is that it decreases the deficit which decreases the debt from what it would be otherwise.
Our central question is the nature of any link that may exist between PAYGO and our ability to accumulate wealth. We seem to agree that the link between PAYGO and the debt (through the deficit) is weak. I see a negative direct impact that PAYGO has on personal wealth in the taxes that it can raise. PAYGO is not justified.
No, the link between PAYGO and the debt (through the deficit) is very strong. By decreasing the deficit, PAYGO made the debt lower THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN. That's simple math. In any case, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on a number of basic items on which I see no indication that either of us will change anytime soon. Hence, I suggest we end the conversation here and agree to disagree on this topic.