NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/69288

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 2.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69288 talk.politics.theory:5732 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13532
Path: sparky!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:19:50 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 46

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (mike
myke schwartz) writes:
|> Ted Frank ([e-mail]) wrote:
|> : In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(mike myke schwartz) writes:
|> : >Ted Frank ([e-mail]) wrote:
|> : >: So how would World War II have been funded?  Without a violation of
|> : >: the Fifth Amendment, mind you.
|> : >
|> : >Issuing bonds and defecit spending are not the same thing.
|> :
|> : Please, for the rest of us, explain the difference.
|> :
|> : (Hint: they are the same thing.)
|>
|> Bonds are an instrument of borrowing, true.  But the purpose of bonds are
|> for a specific project, not for general expendatures.
|>

This is often true for munipalities, counties, and states, but alarmingly
untrue for the federal goverment which issues treasuries (bonds) as a
vehicle for raising cash in the short term to fund its *general* expenditures.

Many of us are deeply concerned because,

1.) the US government is issuing bonds to finance general expenditures,
    because it is outspending tax revenues, and

2.) it is issuing bonds to pay off the interest on bonds, and

3.) continuing both 1.) and 2.) ad nauseum.

1.) is the financial definition of "bad."  That's "bad."  Those of you who
have trouble with the good/bad thing, 1.) is "bad."

2.) is "mortifying."  This means you're frozen in silent awe.  You want to
scream but nothing but silence comes out of your throat.

3.) lets those of us who are not debt-a-holics see the national obsession
with denial and lying surrounding the national debt.  It is re-assuring
to the extent that it explains our mortification over 2.) and tells us to
pursue personal strategies of financial protection, until 1.) ceases and
desists.  No need to argue about it, is there?  Just go protect yourself.

Paul Collacchi