Reply #5: He wasn't done

[Kennah]

Not sure if he'll respond or not. Perhaps I got a stake in him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fred
To: Kennah
Sent: Thu, July 21, 2011 11:51:35 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Debt ceiling

Frequently, you are critical of me (the person) rather than my views. For example, one of your statements in this line of email says: "Fred. Please do try to keep up" is insulting to me. It is this kind of drive-by slam that prompts the reply I sent.

Now. Do you want to discuss these issues; or do you want to continue trying to make me wrong for objecting to your insults?

This thread began when I sent out a video - noting that Congress would push our kids and grandkids further into debt.

This is indisputable fact: our borrowing is on a trajectory whereby interest on the debt will soon consume all government income. We will be like Greece. And both the Dems and the Reps are promoting this.

Doesn't this seem irrational (or destructive of the U.S.) to you?

What will the world be like when Treasury securities are rated as junk (or below)? Or, do you believe that this just won't happen?

Before you answer, please remember that I correctly called the October 2008 collapse. (Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke missed it)

Take Care,
- Fred

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kennah
To: Fred
Sent: Fri, July 22, 2011 1:36:08 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Debt ceiling

You wrote "Debt ceiling" in the subject line, I pointed out to you that it's a non-issue, and you said you never used the word ceiling even once. It's hard to take you seriously, Fred.

I once called you out on the 14th Amendment, and you were certain of what it said. When I showed you that you were wrong, you conceded and said the Constitution was long and that you hadn't read the whole thing. My thought at the time was, "Seriously?" Anyone with a high school diploma should be able to read the entire thing, including all the Amendments, in under an hour even if they take breaks. As such, I cannot take seriously any claims by you about your reading of Black's Law, Adam Smith, etc.

In the past, you cited movies ("Enemy of the State" and "The Matrix" come to mind) in defense of your beliefs, along with twits like Glenn Beck. It appears you get most of your information from entertainment sources, and in the case of Beck insane ones.

The Debt Ceiling is being discussed in the news, and the date approacheth. I really couldn't care less about Ron Paul's bullshit and thoroughly disproved ideology. Ayn Rand, the hypocrite, didn't live up to her professed ideals because she took Social Security and Medicare benefits when smacked with reality. Her writings were complete and utter crap. I read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" years ago in high school, and I think "The Great Gatsby" and "Heart Of Darkness" were less painful reads.

Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't even close to the highest of the highs after WWII--and we're there thanks to Dubya, the GOP, and unfunded wars and mandates--but we got out of the debt of WWII just fine by building stuff and taxing the wealthy. Our economy works when people buy stuff, not when they're selling pencils and apples on the street, and it doesn't matter one damn bit about the tax rates of the wealthy. Top tax rates of 74 to 91 percent were accompanied by some of the greatest prosperity of the last century. Low tax rates, low tariffs, and crap from China ain't gonna buy us anything except servitude to The Dragon. That's way scarier than debt. BTW, do you have any kids?

Clinton came into office inheriting a budget deficit, he raised taxes, there was prosperity, and when he left office there was a budget surplus. Granted, he waged war on workers (NAFTA and GATT) and the poor (war on welfare). Nevertheless, the idea that we need to cut taxes to reduce the debt does not hold up.

Dubya managed to reverse the trend and turn a surplus into a deficit, but he's also the guy who somehow managed to go bust running an oil company. This nonsensical argument that we need to embrace austerity doesn't stand up very well if one looks to the times it's been tried. You may recall hearing about a guy named Hoover, and given that we're in a depression we don't need more austerity induced Hoovervilles. Sadly though, Obama appears to be embracing Hoover and the discredited Austrian model rather than FDR, Truman, Galbraith, and the proven Keynesian model.

At times, nihilism gets the better of me in agreeing with those who say, "Don't raise the Debt Ceiling. Just let the banks and the U.S. credit rating all come crashing down." I would be inclined to agree, if I thought Obama would pursue the path of FDR or Truman in the aftermath. Instead, I fear, he'll become Hoover, serve only one term, and the next President out of the GOP will champion fascism. Michele Bachmann might be the scariest of the GOP hopefuls.

You didn't call shit on October 2008. Some of the names I've heard credited with calling it are Michael Panzner, Nouriel Roubini, Gary Shilling, Robert Prechter, Peter Schiff, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Marc Faber, Stephen Roach, Meredith Whitney, David Rosenberg, Jeremy Grantham, James Grant, Antal E. Fekete, Darryl Schoon, Med Jones, Steve Keen, Dean Baker. There are also plenty of critiques of many of them saying the same thing: they didn't call shit.

In declaring that you can't take anyone challenging you on your views, and that you aren't going to change your mind, what you're really saying is, "Shut up and listen to me." You have no interest in discussing the issues, so FOAD.