David:
I'll let you start this one.
Doug:
Ok. Your title gives me insight into why you think a regular person would care about these things. First, let's consider the national debt. Here are two charts that probably capture the essence of the issue:
The top chart shows the US debt growing over time, and the bottom chart shows that value divided by the Gross Domestic Product. Note that debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since 1973, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Keeping debt in check seems like a reasonable goal. And it can fluctuate wildly, in just a few years, regardless of past behavior (consider Clinton's years).
David:
Here's an article that helps to explain the numbers better than your Wikipedia graphs, which have no real meaning behind the numbers:
http://www.moneytips.com/national-debt-vs-gdp
The real value of the debt has increased significantly, and as the economy has languished at around 2% growth, our ability to address the debt has been significantly burdened. The real debt has doubled under Obama's watch, up 116% to over $20 Trillion. The interest on this debt continues to eat up more and more tax revenue, leaving less to spend on programs to meet the needs of Americans. Over time, this leads to a decreased standard of living for average Americans.
Doug:
I think it would be fair to say that whomever was president these last 8 years that it was a tough economy on the heels of the largest amount of money spent on war in our history. And on top of that, we had the sequestration, which severely limited the economic stimulus. And very lowest tax rates. But gee, if there were only some way to get more money to pay off the debt?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally
David:
Democrat:"Wow, I've maxed out all of my credit cards by buying a lot of stuff I can't afford. I need someone to force my boss to pay me more for doing my job, because I have an income problem."
Republican:"Let's see, I only make this much money, and my bills are this much, so to get that new car, I'll have to save over the next 8 months. And I'll have to skip going out to that expensive restaurant to make sure I don't go into debt."
Doug:
Democrat: "You have to make money to spend money. And I'd like to make sure we have money for a rainy day. We all have rainy days. Let's get through this together."
Republican: "If you don't make money, then you can't spend it. And I really don't want to make your life as good as mine. Rainy day? Screw you... get a job!"
David:
Perhaps you don't realize in your examples, the Democrat wants to take money from working people and give it to those who aren't, while the Republican just wants to get everyone working. I don't know why you equate that with wanting someone to have a poor life. If everyone has a job, they can improve their lot the same as everyone else. I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Doug:
Translation: if you don't have a job, get a job! And while you are trying to get a job, get another job!
David:
Here's another article that helps to put the numbers into real terms people can understand:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/national-debt.asp
The problem with comparing the debt to GDP, is that we don't pay off the debt with the GDP. We pay off the debt with taxes, which can be related to the GDP, but not always. Think of it this way: You don't pay off your credit cards each month with the value of goods and services you provide when you do your job at work. You pay your bills with the money you actually receive in your paycheck. When you say that the debt is over 100% of GDP, that is hard to understand. When you say that every man, woman, and child in America owes over $80,000 to pay this debt, it takes on real meaning. Since many people don't actually pay anything in taxes, the burden for taxpaying individuals is over $160,000 per individual. Those are real numbers, and since spending has increased another 7% this year, the numbers keep rising.
Doug:
You said that-word-that-must-not-be-spoken by Republicans: taxes. Indeed, the article states that "The national debt has to be paid back with tax revenue". How could we possibly solve this issue?
David:
You like to talk about increasing taxes. But then, you are a Democrat. The government runs on taxes. That isn't an issue. It's the reckless way Democrats spend the money, running us into debt, that bugs Republicans. When we desire lowering taxes, it's to serve two purposes: More money in people's pockets leads to economic growth, and putting the government on a budget leads to wiser spending. At least it does when adults are in charge.
Doug:
You say it is "reckless" to not raise taxes, but you also complain that we don't have enough to pay our debts. It is reckless to not pay taxes. For you, any amount of tax is reckless. I want to have enough money to pay for what we spend. That sounds rational, not reckless.
David:
I said Democrats spend our money recklessly. Everything else you're saying is reflecting your crazy view that Republicans are all rich people with money stuffed into their mattresses. Just not true.
Doug:
No, that's the irony: many poor republicans vote against their own self interest. Why? Because of the strawman argument that you make.
David:
Here's another way to look at how this affects each of us, and our children:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/04/24/national-debt-tops-18-trillion-guess-how-much-you-owe/#64dca49f5ebd
Doug:
Now, let's consider climate change. Whatever you wish to measure (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, temperature, etc) they all are heading into uncharted territory:
As most any scientist will tell you: this is caused by human activity over the last 100 years, and can't be reversed.
Which is the greater threat? The one that is irreversible and will affect every living thing on the planet, of course.
David:
You make several unsubstantiated comments there, in rapid fashion (faster than the former Bruce Jenner ran the 100 meter dash). The temperature appears to have have risen compared to what we have documented in the past. However, the first thermometers were created in 1641. The Fahrenheit scale wasn't developed until 1724, and thermometers were often calibrated by hand (leaving a relatively large margin of error. At least 1-2 degrees). In fact, temperature readings couldn't readily be accurate to within a single degree until the 20th century. Climate scientists now marvel that the temperature has risen by tenths of a degree, but the international temperature scale was only developed in 1990. Before that time, there was no standard to use between different thermometers. When comparing the data over more than a decade or two, the data all falls within the margins of error. Comparing the temperature reading further back than that is just folly. The thermometers just were not accurate enough.
Doug:
Of course, there are many ways to estimate the temperature (locally and globally) going back millions of years. Climate scientists know a bit more about environmental temperature changes than you and your cursory dismissal of thermometers.
David:
They are talking about tenths of a degree. I'm sure Caveman Joe was calculating temperatures with a digital thermometer. How else would he know when his Brontosaurus steak was thoroughly cooked? The ways in which scientist estimated temperatures even 100 years ago do not match the small measurements they are talking about now. It just isn't possible. One example of estimating temperatures in the past is measuring tree-ring growth. You remember from grade-school, larger tree rings equal warmer temperatures for that year? Unfortunately, you can't measure what the actual temperature was, or even nail it down within any range of temperature at all. Also, in the past 50 years, we've found that on some of the coolest years, tree-rings were much wider than on warmer years. Why? No one knows, but the facts now make that system of measurement totally invalid.
The second problem you illustrate is that the accumulation of gasses, which was predicted to result in increased temperatures, didn't materialize. As carbon dioxide has doubled in the atmosphere, temperatures remained constant.
Doug:
Oh, now you can trust those pesky thermometers! But of courses, in reality, temperatures are on the rise. But you have painted yourself into a corner: either you have to trust thermometers (and claim that temperatures have not risen) or argue not to trust thermometers (because temperatures have risen.)
David:
We've only been measuring the accumulation of those gasses in the atmosphere for the past 30 years. Thermometers are reliably accurate during that time frame. Maybe your brain is overheating?
Doug:
One can "do science" to determine the composition of the atmosphere for millions of years. You are not a climate scientist, but you want to argue science with them. Let me introduce you to two additional scientists: Dunning and Kruger.
David:
Anyway, scientists had to "reassess" their models to account for this. They theorize that the oceans are a "carbon sink", that blunts the effects on temperature. In fact, all of the predictions that climate scientists have made have had to be "reassessed". To say that global warming is irreversible would be to claim that you know much more about the climate than is actually known. The models are improving, and climate scientists are the first to admit their models have been flawed. To mandate large-scale economic policies based on admittedly flawed models is not good economics or science.
Doug:
Everything is reversible, given enough time. I just meant that it cannot be undone in the same amount of time that it was done. But realizing that the oceans are a carbon sink is also a bad thing to have happening. It does have an effect of the speed of the climate change, but is also an even worse outcome than we thought.
David:
Worse outcome? Says who? The same guys who don't understand how this process works in the first place?
Doug:
Yes, those same "guys." They are scientists who are attempting to study and understand. The debt can be undone even faster than it was done. Look at the Clinton years. We had a surplus when W took the reins. He killed that with his rebates and tax cuts.
David:
Right. People pay off their debt easily all the time, in the magic land of Democratic economics you live in. Perhaps you haven't heard all of the commercials offering to help people get out of debt or decrease their credit card debts? Getting out of debt is difficult. Paying down the national debt, during a time of economic stagnation is nearly impossible. And it is a serious problem facing our children and grand-children.
Doug:
If we had to on take a 40% loan to pay off our 20% loans, then, yes, it would be hard. But we can simply collect more money from billionaires. This isn't rocket science. It isn't even environmental science (which is just as complex as rocket science, in case you misunderstand.)
David:
Unfortunately, there isn't enough money to take from successful Americans to cover the wasteful spending of government. That's just a tired, and untrue Democratic talking point: Let's take the money from the filthy, evil, rich people, and we'll have a fountain of unlimited cash. Hey, we'll even add more spending, like free college tuition!
Doug:
Yes, I understand that is your image of what a Democrat stands for because you have not really paid much attention to what I am actually saying. Not much I can do about your misunderstandings.
David:
So, the debt is real. It is a hard number. It is accurately measured by the Treasury Department. And it affects us all, within our lifetimes. Our children will likely have less economic opportunity than we did because of the debt. Climate change makes many assumptions, all of which have been wrong so far. It speculates that changes will occur hundreds or thousands of years into the future, and guesses that those changes will be bad, even though many leading climate scientists have noted a moderate degree of warming would be beneficial to mankind. So which issue is a greater threat? Obviously, the debt.
Doug:
I do not want you managing my risks, or the country's. We could raise taxes, and fix the debt in a few years. Climate change will effect the Earth and our descendents for generations.
David:
You and Hillary can raise those taxes by $160,000 on every American and the debt will just go away. You're a genius. How did I miss such an easy answer? Climate change has been ongoing, well, since creation. The climate affects us everyday, and we've managed pretty well. You're following an unproven religion of global warming, that's been wrong more than it's been right.
Doug:
You do not understand that 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. You don't raise taxes on every American. You miss easy answers because you don't want to see them. The climate is being changed by us. Science is not religion. Funny that you would try to besmirch science by tainting it with religion. Science is not perfect, but that is the goal.
David:
Apparently you don't understand that 50% of the population pays no taxes, and the top 10% pays over 70% of all taxes. The top 1% pays 50% of all taxes. To pay off our debt, you'd have to confiscate all of the money from every working American, and you'd still fall short. (Remember, our debt is now 116% of GDP.)
Unfortunately, and I think we can agree on this point, neither economists or scientists will get much of a say in either of these issues. Both issues are firmly in the hands of politicians. With that in mind, I don't see how any of this ends well....
Doug:
Then you don't have much imagination. I do not agree with you! You want to denigrate the scientists (economists and environmental scientists) and then wring your hands that they don't get their say? No! How about we let the economists and environmental scientists do their jobs, rather than attempting to block them.
David:
I was hoping to let you have the last say, but then you went off on a crazy, unrelated slant. How you ever reach your conclusions, I'll never guess. Climate scientists are continually wrong, yet Democrats want to spend money we don't have, to enact laws that further harm our economy, based on those predictions. I encourage those scientist to keep at it. Maybe someday they'll get it right. Economists (and first-graders) all agree that if you spend much more than you have, you go into debt. If you continue to spend more and more, you never pay off your debt. I believe that's what I've been consistently saying. We have a spending problem.
Doug:
There's your problem: first graders (and you) do not understand economics nor environmental science. These areas are complex and often times non-intuitive. You hope to let me have the last say, but you realize that you can control that right? Well, maybe you'll let me have the last say with this: I think that we can work towards getting politics out of science. With that in mind, I can plainly see how this could go well. But it is an everlasting battle that never ends, unfortunately. Perhaps we can agree on that.
David:
Yes, I believe we can agree on that! Wait! Scratch that. You get the last word. (Am I too late? Dang it!)
I'll let you start this one.
Doug:
Ok. Your title gives me insight into why you think a regular person would care about these things. First, let's consider the national debt. Here are two charts that probably capture the essence of the issue:
Keeping debt in check seems like a reasonable goal. And it can fluctuate wildly, in just a few years, regardless of past behavior (consider Clinton's years).
David:
Here's an article that helps to explain the numbers better than your Wikipedia graphs, which have no real meaning behind the numbers:
http://www.moneytips.com/national-debt-vs-gdp
The real value of the debt has increased significantly, and as the economy has languished at around 2% growth, our ability to address the debt has been significantly burdened. The real debt has doubled under Obama's watch, up 116% to over $20 Trillion. The interest on this debt continues to eat up more and more tax revenue, leaving less to spend on programs to meet the needs of Americans. Over time, this leads to a decreased standard of living for average Americans.
Doug:
I think it would be fair to say that whomever was president these last 8 years that it was a tough economy on the heels of the largest amount of money spent on war in our history. And on top of that, we had the sequestration, which severely limited the economic stimulus. And very lowest tax rates. But gee, if there were only some way to get more money to pay off the debt?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally
David:
Democrat:"Wow, I've maxed out all of my credit cards by buying a lot of stuff I can't afford. I need someone to force my boss to pay me more for doing my job, because I have an income problem."
Republican:"Let's see, I only make this much money, and my bills are this much, so to get that new car, I'll have to save over the next 8 months. And I'll have to skip going out to that expensive restaurant to make sure I don't go into debt."
Doug:
Democrat: "You have to make money to spend money. And I'd like to make sure we have money for a rainy day. We all have rainy days. Let's get through this together."
Republican: "If you don't make money, then you can't spend it. And I really don't want to make your life as good as mine. Rainy day? Screw you... get a job!"
David:
Perhaps you don't realize in your examples, the Democrat wants to take money from working people and give it to those who aren't, while the Republican just wants to get everyone working. I don't know why you equate that with wanting someone to have a poor life. If everyone has a job, they can improve their lot the same as everyone else. I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Doug:
Translation: if you don't have a job, get a job! And while you are trying to get a job, get another job!
David:
Here's another article that helps to put the numbers into real terms people can understand:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/national-debt.asp
The problem with comparing the debt to GDP, is that we don't pay off the debt with the GDP. We pay off the debt with taxes, which can be related to the GDP, but not always. Think of it this way: You don't pay off your credit cards each month with the value of goods and services you provide when you do your job at work. You pay your bills with the money you actually receive in your paycheck. When you say that the debt is over 100% of GDP, that is hard to understand. When you say that every man, woman, and child in America owes over $80,000 to pay this debt, it takes on real meaning. Since many people don't actually pay anything in taxes, the burden for taxpaying individuals is over $160,000 per individual. Those are real numbers, and since spending has increased another 7% this year, the numbers keep rising.
Doug:
You said that-word-that-must-not-be-spoken by Republicans: taxes. Indeed, the article states that "The national debt has to be paid back with tax revenue". How could we possibly solve this issue?
David:
You like to talk about increasing taxes. But then, you are a Democrat. The government runs on taxes. That isn't an issue. It's the reckless way Democrats spend the money, running us into debt, that bugs Republicans. When we desire lowering taxes, it's to serve two purposes: More money in people's pockets leads to economic growth, and putting the government on a budget leads to wiser spending. At least it does when adults are in charge.
Doug:
You say it is "reckless" to not raise taxes, but you also complain that we don't have enough to pay our debts. It is reckless to not pay taxes. For you, any amount of tax is reckless. I want to have enough money to pay for what we spend. That sounds rational, not reckless.
David:
I said Democrats spend our money recklessly. Everything else you're saying is reflecting your crazy view that Republicans are all rich people with money stuffed into their mattresses. Just not true.
Doug:
No, that's the irony: many poor republicans vote against their own self interest. Why? Because of the strawman argument that you make.
David:
Here's another way to look at how this affects each of us, and our children:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/04/24/national-debt-tops-18-trillion-guess-how-much-you-owe/#64dca49f5ebd
Doug:
Now, let's consider climate change. Whatever you wish to measure (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, temperature, etc) they all are heading into uncharted territory:
Which is the greater threat? The one that is irreversible and will affect every living thing on the planet, of course.
David:
You make several unsubstantiated comments there, in rapid fashion (faster than the former Bruce Jenner ran the 100 meter dash). The temperature appears to have have risen compared to what we have documented in the past. However, the first thermometers were created in 1641. The Fahrenheit scale wasn't developed until 1724, and thermometers were often calibrated by hand (leaving a relatively large margin of error. At least 1-2 degrees). In fact, temperature readings couldn't readily be accurate to within a single degree until the 20th century. Climate scientists now marvel that the temperature has risen by tenths of a degree, but the international temperature scale was only developed in 1990. Before that time, there was no standard to use between different thermometers. When comparing the data over more than a decade or two, the data all falls within the margins of error. Comparing the temperature reading further back than that is just folly. The thermometers just were not accurate enough.
Doug:
Of course, there are many ways to estimate the temperature (locally and globally) going back millions of years. Climate scientists know a bit more about environmental temperature changes than you and your cursory dismissal of thermometers.
David:
They are talking about tenths of a degree. I'm sure Caveman Joe was calculating temperatures with a digital thermometer. How else would he know when his Brontosaurus steak was thoroughly cooked? The ways in which scientist estimated temperatures even 100 years ago do not match the small measurements they are talking about now. It just isn't possible. One example of estimating temperatures in the past is measuring tree-ring growth. You remember from grade-school, larger tree rings equal warmer temperatures for that year? Unfortunately, you can't measure what the actual temperature was, or even nail it down within any range of temperature at all. Also, in the past 50 years, we've found that on some of the coolest years, tree-rings were much wider than on warmer years. Why? No one knows, but the facts now make that system of measurement totally invalid.
The second problem you illustrate is that the accumulation of gasses, which was predicted to result in increased temperatures, didn't materialize. As carbon dioxide has doubled in the atmosphere, temperatures remained constant.
Doug:
Oh, now you can trust those pesky thermometers! But of courses, in reality, temperatures are on the rise. But you have painted yourself into a corner: either you have to trust thermometers (and claim that temperatures have not risen) or argue not to trust thermometers (because temperatures have risen.)
David:
We've only been measuring the accumulation of those gasses in the atmosphere for the past 30 years. Thermometers are reliably accurate during that time frame. Maybe your brain is overheating?
Doug:
One can "do science" to determine the composition of the atmosphere for millions of years. You are not a climate scientist, but you want to argue science with them. Let me introduce you to two additional scientists: Dunning and Kruger.
David:
Anyway, scientists had to "reassess" their models to account for this. They theorize that the oceans are a "carbon sink", that blunts the effects on temperature. In fact, all of the predictions that climate scientists have made have had to be "reassessed". To say that global warming is irreversible would be to claim that you know much more about the climate than is actually known. The models are improving, and climate scientists are the first to admit their models have been flawed. To mandate large-scale economic policies based on admittedly flawed models is not good economics or science.
Doug:
Everything is reversible, given enough time. I just meant that it cannot be undone in the same amount of time that it was done. But realizing that the oceans are a carbon sink is also a bad thing to have happening. It does have an effect of the speed of the climate change, but is also an even worse outcome than we thought.
David:
Worse outcome? Says who? The same guys who don't understand how this process works in the first place?
Doug:
Yes, those same "guys." They are scientists who are attempting to study and understand. The debt can be undone even faster than it was done. Look at the Clinton years. We had a surplus when W took the reins. He killed that with his rebates and tax cuts.
David:
Right. People pay off their debt easily all the time, in the magic land of Democratic economics you live in. Perhaps you haven't heard all of the commercials offering to help people get out of debt or decrease their credit card debts? Getting out of debt is difficult. Paying down the national debt, during a time of economic stagnation is nearly impossible. And it is a serious problem facing our children and grand-children.
Doug:
If we had to on take a 40% loan to pay off our 20% loans, then, yes, it would be hard. But we can simply collect more money from billionaires. This isn't rocket science. It isn't even environmental science (which is just as complex as rocket science, in case you misunderstand.)
David:
Unfortunately, there isn't enough money to take from successful Americans to cover the wasteful spending of government. That's just a tired, and untrue Democratic talking point: Let's take the money from the filthy, evil, rich people, and we'll have a fountain of unlimited cash. Hey, we'll even add more spending, like free college tuition!
Doug:
Yes, I understand that is your image of what a Democrat stands for because you have not really paid much attention to what I am actually saying. Not much I can do about your misunderstandings.
David:
So, the debt is real. It is a hard number. It is accurately measured by the Treasury Department. And it affects us all, within our lifetimes. Our children will likely have less economic opportunity than we did because of the debt. Climate change makes many assumptions, all of which have been wrong so far. It speculates that changes will occur hundreds or thousands of years into the future, and guesses that those changes will be bad, even though many leading climate scientists have noted a moderate degree of warming would be beneficial to mankind. So which issue is a greater threat? Obviously, the debt.
Doug:
I do not want you managing my risks, or the country's. We could raise taxes, and fix the debt in a few years. Climate change will effect the Earth and our descendents for generations.
David:
You and Hillary can raise those taxes by $160,000 on every American and the debt will just go away. You're a genius. How did I miss such an easy answer? Climate change has been ongoing, well, since creation. The climate affects us everyday, and we've managed pretty well. You're following an unproven religion of global warming, that's been wrong more than it's been right.
Doug:
You do not understand that 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. You don't raise taxes on every American. You miss easy answers because you don't want to see them. The climate is being changed by us. Science is not religion. Funny that you would try to besmirch science by tainting it with religion. Science is not perfect, but that is the goal.
David:
Apparently you don't understand that 50% of the population pays no taxes, and the top 10% pays over 70% of all taxes. The top 1% pays 50% of all taxes. To pay off our debt, you'd have to confiscate all of the money from every working American, and you'd still fall short. (Remember, our debt is now 116% of GDP.)
Unfortunately, and I think we can agree on this point, neither economists or scientists will get much of a say in either of these issues. Both issues are firmly in the hands of politicians. With that in mind, I don't see how any of this ends well....
Doug:
Then you don't have much imagination. I do not agree with you! You want to denigrate the scientists (economists and environmental scientists) and then wring your hands that they don't get their say? No! How about we let the economists and environmental scientists do their jobs, rather than attempting to block them.
David:
I was hoping to let you have the last say, but then you went off on a crazy, unrelated slant. How you ever reach your conclusions, I'll never guess. Climate scientists are continually wrong, yet Democrats want to spend money we don't have, to enact laws that further harm our economy, based on those predictions. I encourage those scientist to keep at it. Maybe someday they'll get it right. Economists (and first-graders) all agree that if you spend much more than you have, you go into debt. If you continue to spend more and more, you never pay off your debt. I believe that's what I've been consistently saying. We have a spending problem.
Doug:
There's your problem: first graders (and you) do not understand economics nor environmental science. These areas are complex and often times non-intuitive. You hope to let me have the last say, but you realize that you can control that right? Well, maybe you'll let me have the last say with this: I think that we can work towards getting politics out of science. With that in mind, I can plainly see how this could go well. But it is an everlasting battle that never ends, unfortunately. Perhaps we can agree on that.
David:
Yes, I believe we can agree on that! Wait! Scratch that. You get the last word. (Am I too late? Dang it!)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!