<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "Economic Mumbo Jumbo" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/730]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from konscept]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/698402]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[This is such a well written post that I feel compelled to comment. It is artistic not in content but rather in style. 

The idea of placing a ceiling on spending while positing that inflation will devalue the debt is a bad one. The reasons behind the plan are poor, inaccurate, and misleading (as stated in the introduction). None of the ideas are solvent, but thatâ€™s not the point. Taken individually and in isolation to each other, each point shines brilliant. It is this engaging dialogue, the kind which engenders the comments I see, that muddles and borderline abuses public opinion and participation. I see this kind of presentation on TV, hear it on the radio, and read it in print. You could change the content from a contemporary political issue to something else and still deliver the same charged afterthoughts.

Thereâ€™s a lot packed in here which demonstrates how a complex topic is more susceptible to being grossly generalized or overly simplified.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/698402]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mazarlarry]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/669260]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[According to Washington Post, defense spending is 3.5% of GDP---  that's an 800 pound gorilla?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/669260]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from rogerdanielpaul]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/668305]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I almost forgot about the first three paragraphs by the time I finished the last one.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/668305]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from normfromga]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/659698]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@GLK

I agree that this sounds more than a little like Ron Paul's libertarian rhetoric, with one unfortunate difference:  As an independent, he would be able to hold policy opponents' feet to the fire, regardless of affiliation.  As a Republican, I believe he would be too much of a gentleman to &quot;jilt the ones who brought him to the dance.&quot;  [Conversely, an independent, regardless of creds, has no chance of being elected nationally in a system controlled by the two major parties.]

The most important thing to remember is that once in office, a truely conservative POTUS does not need Congressional approval NOT to spend money, so that !$%*!$%* whole cabinet positions, and other expenditures,  is not as farfetched as sometimes portrayed in the media.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/659698]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Schuhe]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/640097]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Required me time for them to read most of the feedback, but I actually loved this article. It turned out to be very necessary to me and More than likely to the many commenters at this point! It is constantly good when you canâ€™t just learn, and also engaged! Iâ€™m sure you had pleasure writing this post. Anyway, inside my language, there arenâ€™t a great deal good source along these lines.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/640097]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Bronco]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/637346]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, 

Lively post and responses.   Great job!   By the way, where is the renowned Dilbert &quot;Mission Statement Generator&quot;  these days?   Best regards,   Ron Bronco Fey    ron.bronco.fey@live.com]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/637346]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mwiley63]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/635118]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[What can we do to help you get elected?  (Keep in mind I have very little money!)

I agree with your approach and reasons, and having you as president would be tonic for this country.

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/635118]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Tigerfan]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/633177]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You thief!  That is almost exactly my plan!

There are a few nuanced details you have deal with (does SS spending count in your freeze?  What about medicaid/medicare?).  This plan cannot work without entitlement reform.

You also might want to let goverment grow at a rate less inflation/revenue growth, but still let it grow some (say 1-2%).

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/633177]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Dalebert7]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/632667]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'd vote for you. I don't honestly think you can do any worse than any of the normal bunch of losers we have currently running our government (or running for office).]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/632667]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Drowlord]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/631741]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[When our so-called federal &quot;budget&quot; is around 200% of our actual federal income, freezing the budget won't have the effect you're suggesting.

@TheShadowNose any inspection of federal spending shows that the military is NOT the problem with our federal budget.  At $700 Billion, it's expensive and I'd love to see it trimmed down to something more reasonable, but if we eliminated it entirely, we'd still be deep in the red.

Social Security is $715 Billion, Income Security Programs (unemployment, food and rent programs) total $630 Billion, Medicare is $450 Billion, Medicaid is $375 Billion, Education subsidies (low income school districts, minority scholarships, etc) are $130 Billion, Aid programs for Veterans cost $110 Billion, and Community &amp; Disaster Relief programs cost $25 Billion.  These alone total over $2.4 Trillion, and our federal receipts are only $1.8 - $1.9 Trillion.

There's no way that anyone could possibly argue that social programs are not breaking us.  By themselves, they consume everything AND incur a half-trillion dollar deficit every year.

I'd just as soon keep supporting transportation (roads, bridges, air traffic, shipping), federal justice, and the comparatively small sums we invest in environment ($44 B), energy ($12 B), agriculture ($22 B), and science ($32 B).  And I suppose we should keep paying government employees ($24 B) for their work.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/631741]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from DMH]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/624266]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I don't want to accuse you of harboring a hidden agenda, but I have this strange feeling that immediately after being sworn in on your zero budget growth platform you will turn around and announce your plan to solve unemployment.  AKA building Cheaptopias from sea to shining sea.

I guess what I'm asking is...  If I make an early political contribution to your campaign can you guarantee me a nice Cheaptopia house with a view of the Pacific and a veto over who my neighbors will be?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/624266]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RayKremer]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/622879]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I've been telling people, not here but elsewhere, for a long time that I would happily accept a federal budge freeze. Hopefully as a temporary stopgap on the way to true cuts, but if a freeze is the best we can do forever, that's better than the current system.

The current system, by the way, for most federal programs uses automatic annual increases, that are assumed by the number crunchers to be etched in stone. This is known as baseline budgeting. Under this system, a spending freeze is called a drastic cut. Even a reduction in the increase, to something that is still an increase, just a smaller one, is still called a cut. This is mostly so the Democrats can demagog attempts to reign in spending by using misleading language that makes people think spending reductions are being threatened when the proposed spending is actually at the same or a greater amount.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/622879]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from chuck.milner]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/621972]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Can someone correct me if I'm wrong about this:

The President (as the Chief Executive) can order the various government departments to do anything he wants. But Congress controls the money and passes the laws which limits what the President can do. 

But, is the President required to spend all the money that Congress authorizes?
If President Adams wants to freeze government spending, but Congress keeps passing increased spending bills, can he choose not to spend all the money?

Note: It's estimated there's $650 billion in money from past budgets that has not been spent. So Congress authorized the borrowing, spending and in some cases specified what the money was to be spent on, and it simply hasn't been spent yet.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/621972]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from GLK]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/621739]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You knock Ron Paul yet your ideas are strangely similar...

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/04/ron-paul-answers-questions-from-freakonomics-readers-encore/

Q. (To RP) What would your plans for economic stimulation look like during this slumping economy?

A. (RP's Answer) Letâ€™s start with what I wouldnâ€™t do, which is make the problem worse. We can not solve our problems with what weâ€™ve been doing â€” borrowing money from overseas and creating money and credit out of thin air. Distorting interest rates and inflating the monetary supply sometimes provides short-term relief, but it will only make the pain worse in the long run. During the presidential campaign, I released the following four-point plan, and would stick by it while at the same time listening to experts for advice on how to improve it: The Four-Point Plan 1) Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes. 2) Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels. 3) Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money. 4) Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of U.S. markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/621739]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from OneMist8k]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/620206]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Tiny flaw with this plan: The president doesn't pass the budget, he just signs it into law or vetoes it.

To make any type of change, we need to put people in congress who are serious about budget cutting.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/620206]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from arsonist]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/619801]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott says, &quot;Sometimes it is better to sound smart than to be smart. Today I will discuss economic policy in an oversimplified and misleading fashion. I'd be surprised if anything I say makes sense. But it will sound brilliant because I will use some psychological tricks to accomplish the illusion.&quot;

Random commentators respond, &quot;You're idea is oversimplified and misleading!  It doesn't even make sense...This would never work.  Stop trying to use your Jedi-Mind Tricks on us!&quot;

I love it.  Adams 2012.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/619801]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from bubbaHjones]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/615488]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[First, this isn't a new suggestion.  I have liked it for a long time though I don't pretend to have originated it.

However, you don't seem to understand that what you are suggesting is a much, much larger &quot;cut&quot; than any US Presidential candidate has ever suggested.

In DC, everything is relative to a &quot;baseline&quot; which projects current budgeted growth in government spending.  A &quot;flat&quot; budget as you suggest would be scored as a multi-trillion dollar cut by the government accountants.  It is FAR more &quot;drastic&quot; than what a Ron Paul budget would actually look like.

So, whatever jedi mind tricks you threw out at the end are essentially moot.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/615488]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from nasch]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/614040]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;Behavior follows incentive. You need to dig into what motivates politicians and design incentives that encourage the desired behavior. If you can do this, politicians pursuing their own interests are also pursuing the nation's interests. This is how to create real long-term change. &quot;

The problem is, it's Congress that would have to change those incentives, and they're the ones benefitting from the current incentives.

&quot;Instead of having both the Senate and House develop detailed budgets, perhaps as president you could sponsor a bill that separates the process. The Senate would set the size of the total budget, and the House would allocate portions of that total number to the different programs.&quot;

Wouldn't that require a Constitutional amendment?  Interesting idea though.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/614040]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from chuck.milner]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/612276]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Just curious Scott, but why are you running?
Since free will is an illusion, something else must have compelled you to make the decision.
Did God tell you to run?  Because he told 3 other candidates the same thing and they've all quit.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/612276]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from steveskf]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/612034]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Ok, so how exactly does this solve the problem of all the greed and corruption currently controlling the everyday operations of the federal government?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/612034]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
