Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering

Was it also Santayana who said "Those who cannot remember the past, feel free to make something up?"

Heh, heh... Too bad there's not a like button around here. I think he said it about [and here there's a Strangelove struggle between my hands, the keyboard and good sense] Fox news. I'll cheerfully take all the brickbats thrown at me for such a nakedly biased comment. But I think ironic good humor should count for something, even across party lines, shouldn't it?

Absolutely. And I wouldn't call it "biased" at all. I would call it a well-reasoned evidence-based conclusion. Share the brickbats.

I am surprised that Steve has not locked this thread.

There are a lot of things that do not pass the smell test. Having been in private business for 31 years, I have seen my business rise and fall for years at a time by 10%, 20%, yes even 100%. To say that the government and the larger economy cannot live on a 2% cut is laughable. I am sorry if that 2% hurts George or any other loyal and good government employee. But what many of us see is waste on both sides of the aisle. No I am not a tea party person.

It would be interesting (but probably futile) to see if ones viewpoint could be explained by age, occupation, whether or not he or she ever slaughtered a pig, was thin or fat, straight or gay, actually worked with prisoners vs reading about them, went to college, had a two-parent family, lived in an Ivory Tower or a trailer park, worked in the non-profit sector, drove a truck, etc, etc.

I guess the only thing totally in common with all of us here is that we love the mountains. It has been said that at a family reunion, one should not talk about religion, politics, or child-rearing practices.

As for our various political leanings.... here comes a quote... one might paraphrase this one from religion to politics:

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

I strongly weigh(ed) in to keep the thread open. It is my beelief that this great collection of intelligence, experience, & and in many cases, wisdom brought from age is too valuable to shut down just because we don't have all the answers, and we cannot convince anyone but ourselves what the solutions are (well, I think that George and I could form "team Krugman"...JUST KIDDING!!! sort of..)

We NEED to bee talking about this and many other issues that will eventually wreck havoc in our lives, whether or not it directly relates to Whitney or hiking( because eventually it will)

That may be why nobody is saying it.

Sorry, Harvey, but that's a false argument. Sure the government or the larger economy can survive a cut. I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise, But that's not the issue. The government and the larger economy are not monoliths, all parts of which stand or fall together. They have component parts, some with plenty of fat and some with barely enough muscle and bone now to survive. And we're talking about a couple of those already starving components, not the whole. Some agencies' budgets would hardly feel a 10 percent cut, some would bleed to death from a 1 percent nick.

So what is easier for us mountain lovers to give up: a Ranger's annual salary or one hour's flight time for an F-22? The dollar price is the same.

and therein lies the problem - who gets cut?

No, that's still not the problem. The problem is that everybody gets cut, but the one who is too fat to begin with just bleeds a little, and the one who was already lean and mean dies.

yes, as a result of not being able to agree on how to raise revenue, or make decreases in which expenditures, or both, either side claiming the moral high ground with other peoples money. Every recipient program will claim it is lean, or needy, or indispensible. Agreed, some fit the description better than others. Way too many, not at all.


should we start our own list of biased expenditures that we want their budgets:

protected or increased: National Park Service

decreased: everything else

I'd also support Bee's thought that this should be continued. There's no real animosity -- an occasional shot, but no serious damage. Absent name calling, it should probably just be allowed to die a natural death.

And I'm actually learning a few things, though not in the intended way. As noted, my econ background is weak, so looking this stuff up is actually good for me. For instance, I knew little about the actual economics of the Great Depression (though had just finished The Worst Hard Time). So Travis' comment about '37 got me doing a small bit of research. The point of theory, as I said earlier, is it has to be testable or predictive and upheld by actual experience. Contrary to Travis' point, the second dip in the 30s actually confirms a relationship between government spending, economic recovery and unemployment. We apparently didn't learn what, for a long time, was a well-understood lesson. Everyone seems to forget that even Reagan increased gov't spending more than Obama during his recession.

And tdtz' link is a good example of the good humored irony we should all strive for. It's utterly wrong, of course, though really well done. The analogy between a family budget and a government with its own currency doesn't hold, but I'll spare everyone a reference. There's lots.

And it all does keep coming back to Harvey's who gets cut? Though I'd add where and how do we get extra revenue? There is no way we can cut domestic programs anywhere near what's needed to cover projected problems with SS & Medicare 20 and 30 years out. Back to the pie chart -- that was accurate in the relative size of the sequestration cuts and its effect on budget, debt and deficit. Almost negligible. A lot of pain and risk for a negligible effect.

Oh, ps: Good one saltydog one hour of F-22 vs. ranger's salary: spot on! I didn't know that.

Whether state or federal, there is a reason that the jobs that are put on the chopping blocks are the popular services. You'll always see teachers, police, fire and yes, NFS/NPS on the chopping block. But you never see the bureaucratic institutions on the chopping block. The reason is obvious. Nobody could give a crap about some mindless drone in Washington D.C. whose job was created as a form of welfare. Nobody will fight to keep a guy employed who doesn't really provide a meaningful service. But for big government advocates, those jobs are key. Those jobs are votes in favor of big government.

But if you target the jobs where an actual meaningful service is provided, then everybody gets their hackles raised and fights to avoid any cuts in spending.

I want George to keep his job, but I don't want the guy who is in charge of setting up trade missions with Botswana and Zambia to keep his job. (I use that example because I am actually having to deal with that right now).

We are all being manipulated with the headlines of longer lines at the airport (HA!!! there's no way they can be longer. The TSA is already a bloated agency that keeps lanes closed even when with agents standing around doing nothing). Teachers losing jobs, Yosemite being closed.

The simple fact is, our government, regardless of whichever party is in power, is out of control with spending. It is time that we required our government to follow the same economic policies that are expected of us as individuals.

And tdtz' link is a good example of the good humored irony we should all strive for. It's utterly wrong, of course, though really well done. The analogy between a family budget and a government with its own currency doesn't hold, but I'll spare everyone a reference. There's lots.

Saying that it is utterly wrong does not make it so. Sure the federal government has its own currency. Why do you think that means that we can print our way out of an economic mess. If printing (inflating) money supply solved the problem, then why not just go crazy with the printing press? (it's really a virtual printing press, money supply is actually increased through lower interest rates that allow money to be loaned repeatedly).

Yes, you are right, we will never have to pay an actual debt. What will happen is that we will devalue our currency and pay off those t-bills with worthless paper. But in the process of devaluing our currency it takes more of our worthless paper to buy actual goods and services. Things like food, energy and housing will cost more because our dollar is worth less. We may not get the bill for all of this economic irresponsibility, but we will definitely pay.

There are no shortcuts with fancy economic theories. It's simple math. And the same economic principles that apply to individuals also apply to governments.

OFFICIALLY DEVALUED

ie, pay back todays high debt with tomorrows cheaper dollars

that is what I am afraid of, just what Mexico did in 1994.

My brother and I talk about this all the time. I am 62, he is 64, we do not take SS yet, but the fear is that one day our personal savings and retirement plans will be worth 50% less. Wake up one morning and overnite you have been ruined by your own governments fiscal and fiduciary irresponsibility. When it happens, it will not be the stated goal of "wealth redistribution" but it will be the storm tide that lowers all boats.

Interesting... the stock market doesn't seem to mind what is going on. They do not seem to be as fearful as my statements above.

"Interesting... the stock market doesn't seem to mind what is going on. They do not seem to be as fearful as my statements above."

International investment money loves a weak dollar.

The dollar actually had a strong month in February, but it's looking like it is going to top out right about....now. Meanwhile, during the dollar rally, the stockmarket was essentially flat.

If the dollar weakens in the coming months, I would expect an epic rally in the stock market. Which will, of course, be followed by a pretty brutal correction.

there's no question that the intent is to inflate our way out of debt. In the process we will make ourselves poorer and we will piss off some really powerful debt holders.

Interesting graphic from Media Matters

Hmmm... Here's the image, as posted on Facebook:



Can someone find a link to the discussion of the info?


mediamatters.org had a Limbaugh statement that I followed to the audio link... Limbaugh: Any Future Positive Economic Numbers Under Obama Are "Fake" He was pretty confused by a caller's question, but what he said in response made me laugh.

Federal deficit can shrink and the debt will still increase. Does anybody know why that is true?

There is a reason why many in our government wanted the debt limit raised even with declining rate of deficit spending.

But when you start talking big numbers, it isn't unusual for rates of change to decrease. That is why big companies start to have slower growth. The actual numbers are still big, but the percentage decreases.

It's probably not a bad thing for the folks at media matters to read up a bit on the difference between deficit and debt. Two different animals altogether.

I'll see your MediaMatters and raise you a Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...ful-As-Possible

An internal government email sent Monday instructed an official with a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make sure that sequester-related cuts inflict as much pain as possible to make sure "you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

That's an issue I mentioned earlier, Tom. The average Joe-on-the-street doesn't know the difference between the deficit and the debt - and you better believe the media and spinmeisters know it.