I love how Blanton becomes more and more unhinged, even as the range of what he still bothers to dispute becomes narrower and narrower.
Just as I quibbled about Root calling inflation and redistribution "Ponzi schemes", I readily agree that "national debt" is not the best term to describe the $100+ trillion dollars in present value that actuarial science says you would need to pay for the future stream of unfunded promises currently embedded in the nanny state's laws. Unfortunately, Root didn't have enough space to phrase it that way in his "Think about X. Think about Y. Think about Z." litany of past nanny-state failures that I quoted @4.
But it's not enough for the Root-obsessed Blanton to point our that Root's phrasing was suboptimal. Instead, Blanton @2 first pulled the $100T quote completely out of past-nanny-state-failures context, and whined "Well, garsh dagnabbit Wayne. I reckon we’d never knowed Obama done spent all that money since Mr. Boosh left." I immediately busted him @4 on this blatant deception, and quoted Root's entire paragraph. Blanton has since fled from defending his snark, and now he -- who issued a flat-out lie about what party Root is in -- wants to call $100T an untruth because Root used "national debt" as an inapt shorthand for "unfunded legal liabilities". And so desperate is Blanton to make this charge stick, that he's willing to pretend that all Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries might drop dead tomorrow, thus erasing the $100T obligation that the nanny state's own demographers admit they are imposing on future taxpayers.
Thus Blanton would paper over the nanny state's most monumental act of larceny, just to cobble together a case that Root was as untruthful about the sum of outstanding T-bills as Blanton himself was about Root's party affiliation. ROTFL.
None of Blanton's desperate sputtering about "sphincters", "idiots", "fools", "narcissistic freaks", "hallucinations", "pompous", "phony", etc. can change the fact that he's still fleeing from his "garsh dagnabbit" statement @2. And none of Blanton's red herrings about Reagan or South Korea or my blog-comment aggregation practices can change that fact either.
Tom K., I'll say it a third time: "If people should be punished financially for lending to The Omnimalevolent State, then surely they should be punished financially (at least!) for taking up arms for The Omnimalevolent State." Your response is....?
And I'll reiterate: repudiating the national debt is voiding a financial contract, while continuing all present benefits for today's seniors is blessing the receipt of stolen goods. You cannot be so obtuse as to not see why those two positions need reconciling -- at least for a libertarian. If you were a lefty Robin-hood redistributionist, your blank stare would indeed be an appropriate response to my point.
