Wow 2012 that's great !!
Wait a minute didn't we have a gigantic surplus under Clinton ??
Oh yeah and also the value of the dollar has declined by 50% under Bush, let's not forget that the dollars that you are talking about in 2012 will not be the dollars that we had in 2000. They will be like tiny dollars.

Bush is pulling a Bill Clinton, the debt been rising by half a trillion a year, just like this year it rose half a trillion. Borrowing from government trust and debt monetization don't count as deficit, but this is just accounting BS.

Total long term obligations have risen like 20 trillion dollars because of Bush legislation.
(He's promised out over a year of everyone's hard labor).

Social security now becomes insolvent in only 2018.

Leave it to politicians to brag about how much they borrow.

The decline also accelerates the reduction of the Debt by lowering the amount borrowed to service the Debt.

I’ll save some time here, robert, also not included in the deficit are any liabilities which are not due (hence the term ”deficit”). The “unfunded liabilities" of which you spoke in previous posts are not at this time due and payable and therefore are part of the long term debt and not included in current deficit calculations. In other words; the Deficit feed the Debt, but the Debt is not solely an accumulation of deficits.

Increases in long term Debt are well below the current estimations of economic growth, and recession likelihood has dropped in recent months putting the probability at less than 10%. I’ve already explained that monetization policy has contracted the money supply in relation to the growth of the economy, so there is no “accounting trick” in play; this is solid growth and rational Fed policy.

Interestingly, if we had used the “Clinton Budgets” which he submitted in 1998 -2000; we would be sitting on a deficit of $212.0 B for fiscal 2007-2008; Clinton never once submitted a balanced budget, nor projected a surplus in any future budget year.

Dasein, that's what I'm trying to say.

Deficit = Money borrowed from the public and foreigners.
Debt = Stuff we pay interest on.
Obligations = Money we've promised out, this includes the debt as a part of it

The government spent 500 billion more than it taxed this year, it made up some of it by the deficit, that's the 163 billion number we borrowed, it made up some by unfunding social security, and it made another part by printing bonds, having the fed print money and then trading those 2 peices of paper, hence the "printing money".

Also we promised out alot of new medicare part D, NCLB, nation building, added near 4 tril to the debt, ect..., calculated all out into the future, that's the 20 trillion number.

For those of you that think that we've hit the apex of the laffer curve and can't possibly make any more money by raising tax rates, how are we going to mantain our massive entitlement spending, and why did Bush keep increasing it? Because of Bush type big government, big spenders, are we doomed to the sink to the level of some POS socialist European country?

20 Trillion is alot of money, Bush type big spenders are wrecking the future of this county.

DL,

But don't you realize that even with low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, a record stock market index, record home ownership, 8 million new jobs, 49 straight months of economic growth, Bush is still evil and driving our economy into ruin?

/sarcasm

What are you people, some kind of "intellectuals"? You are ruining Matt's "truthiness" :-)

An informed electorate: what a concept!

robert,

For now let’s stick with facts; deficit is the shortfall between income and immediate obligations. Deficit includes interest payments, and includes the “nation building” you’ve referred to; these are immediate debts.

The Fed doesn’t “print money” for the purpose of paying the deficit, and it isn’t funded by printing Bonds either. The reason we have a Federal Reserve is to finance the Government and help control the economy in such a way as to prevent the kind of things you mentioned (printing money and issuing instruments to pay bills). Your reference to “printing money” is an arcane argument left over from the Nixon years and really has no bearing on the financing of the Debt or issuance of fungible instruments.

I’m glad you didn’t add Sarbanes-Oxley (or SASS-112) to your list of gripes, which would be inconsistent with your argument of over control of the market by governmental entities. Factually, the increases in liabilities from the entire Bush Administration are dwarfed by the impending Social Security disaster.

I frankly don’t understand your complaint regarding NCLB or Medicare, and can’t see any way these “programs” would impair our economy to the tune of socialist old Europe. Put your energies into defeating the economy crushing tax policies the democrats are proposing; call for Congress to stop the “feel-good” legislation that inhibits our ability to deal with foreign governments (Armenian genocide resolution) and demand that something is done about Social Security.

A-10,

I’ve been monitoring the same arguments for years now, and nothing new has ever been presented. It was refreshing when Ross Perot tried to explain government spending with his charts and graphs, but even then I found myself yelling at the TV because the government doesn’t run like your household finance.

You’re dead-bang on (sarcasm aside) in that closing the deficit is accomplished in one of three ways; increase taxes, lower spending or grow the economy. Two of those are as effective as throwing your stash in the air when the police bust in the door; it’ll work for a little while, but eventually it’s going to crash and cause other problems. The third is the only successful way to deal with an ever expanding world economy, and ever expanding populace.

robert,

Oh, and if you’re seriously concerned about government spending, you must withdraw your support for the buffoon Ron Paul. Even though he makes the argument that all spending outside the borders is unnecessary and will be vetoed, he actually advocates withdrawing from the world’s economies with punitive protectionist tariffs that would make our market irrelevant to our current trading partners (Canada notwithstanding; as they cannot support their socialist utopia without American economic strength.)

A President Paul would be at odds with the Legislative branch, Wall Street and Main Street; like any third party candidate he'd have no allies with which to play out his fevered mini-economic anti-elastic protocol.

DL,

Much of the problem is the indocrination that is taking place in our schools and univeristies. Students are not being taught micro and macroeconomics. They are not being taught how the government is funded, the effects of tax policy, and how different economic systems function.

Instead, they are filled with lies, distortion, and half-truths based on the teacher's/instructor's/professor's bias. They come here and to other right-of-center blogs and spew their distorted picture of how our economy and government funding works. They only believe what they have been told for years. When exposed to the truth, they do into denial, they attack the messenger, or they change the subject.

(BTW, I have a graduate degree in Public Administration. You know, the degree for those working in the public sector. Where they actually teach micro and macroeconomics, government finance, budgeting, etc.)

The current prescription is the proper treatment for our economic ills (what few ills there are). Low tax rates (I hate it when the left talks about "tax cuts". The tax rates were cut, not the amount taxed. In fact, the "rich" are paying even more in taxes because the lower tax rates provide an incentive to earn more income. But that is part of the indoctrination) stimulating economic growth, resulting in increased revenues. If we could only hold the line on spending (fat chance with Democrats in control of Congress and their desire to increase entitlements), we would get out of the red and into the black.

"But don't you realize that even with low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, a record stock market index, record home ownership, 8 million new jobs, 49 straight months of economic growth, Bush is still evil and driving our economy into ruin?" - A-10

And is this helped by Bush's massive spending, or in spite of it? How is a huge federal government good for the economy? Government obligations = future taxes.

Dasein, debt monetization is printing money, yes the main we use it isn't as a hidden tax anymore, and yes the process is slightly more complicated, but it's just trading 1 piece of printed paper for another, then you can trade those peices of paper for tangible goods and services. That's called printing money.

SOX doesn't cost the government much if any money, just buisness. It does cost buisness a whole lot though. And yes, I think it's some of the worst legislation in a while, why do we need to nationalize accounting standards?

Do we have an impending social securtiy disaster. YES OF COUSE, social security was solvent until 2041 before Bush took office, now it's solvent until 2018. That's the reason debt increased 500 billion this year and the deficit is less than 200. And adding new entitlement spending is quite possilby the worst thing you can do. Bush campained heavily on social security and we had 6 years of republican majority and what did they do about it?? Absolutely nothing!!

Middle class entitlement are Europe's problem, it's just like social security, any cut in benefits is a political third rail. They can't cut taxes because they can't cut entitlement spending. What do you think medicare part D is.

Both Robert and DL are correct; they are however talking about different things.

The long-term structural Debt is growing because our long-term obligations are growing and revenues to meet those obligations are not growing fast enough to meet them. A "tipping point" comes between 2018 and 2025 (estimates vary) when FICA revenues no longer exceed FICA obligations.

The Deficit is the difference between current revenues and *current* obligations. If our bills are $2 Trillion dollars this fiscal year and we collect $1.8 Trillion dollars in revenues, the Deficit is $200 Billion dollars and that has be be borrowed.

We have what's essentially a balloon payment due on our long-term obligations in 10-15 years and aren't saving up to make that payment. When it hits we'll have to convert it into SHORT TERM debt, which means the Deficit explodes again and becomes completely unmanageable. The only way to absorb the hit w/o damaging our economy would be to do something insane like invade Canada and steal all their oil sands.

At this point a "Canadian invasion" scenario is starting to look pretty good. We could have dealt with the problemn during the 1990s fairly easily but the Clinton Administration wasn't interested in anything beyond the next focus group. GWB tried to deal with it but could never assemble a supermajority in the Senate to go along with him. Now the Ship of State is caught in the current and headed for the rocks; it will take a miracle to avoid the shipwreck.

Dasein, you are absolutely wrong about Ron Paul. Ron Paul support unilateral free trade, like Hong Kong, not the bureaucratic, interest group run monstrosity that we call "free-trade".

Real free trade requires the government do literally nothing. When the government touches anything, besides providing contract and private property protection, you can no longer call that free market.

NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO are not free trade.

Orion,

The “balloon payment” to which you refer, are you speaking of the Social Security deficit? Because if you’re referring to the Debt demand from the maturation of Governmental instruments then the continued purchasing of the self-same instruments will more than cover that ~ discounting any demand payment that the instrument could cause.

Long-term structural debt (thanks for throwing in the qualifier) is and will be dependent of the solidity of US currency; I don’t see any other problem in the servicing of this structure. Because you added the structure to the Debt, you are correct in the assessment that revenues are failing to keep up with obligations, remove the structured part and the servicing is non-problematic as lending to maintain the Debt is being reduced as the deficit closes, the market increases and investors continue to pour into our economy.

Will the day come when investors refuse to play our little game? I doubt it, but I can say that if and when that day comes it will be because of an overburdened tax base and a stifled economy. Watch for a dollar collapse and Carter-like interest rates. My crystal ball is on the fritz, but Wall Street doesn't see this as an eventuality, and my RoR is proof of the confidence in our markets.

Invade Canada? Would they even know it if we did?

"The Deficit is the difference between current revenues and *current* obligations." - Orion

Not exactly, deficit is only money borrowed from the public, intergovernmental borrowing doesn't count. When we spend government savings we count it as debt, but not in the deficit. If you want to know the diffrence between current revenue and obligations, use the treasury numbers, not the politicized white house numbers.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites." Ron Paul

Free Trade? Unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, you'd have to agree that free trade deals have to be worked out and enforced by Governments; what, do you think tariffs will disappear if Governments stop negotiating free trade deals? Paul’s naïveté will result in protectionist tariffs and trade wars.

Pay attention to everything he says, not just the platitudes to the libertarians.

Intergovernmental transfers are so-called "payments" from one government account to another; as in interest payments to trust funds and government "contributions" to trust funds. This isn't current in the accounting sense.

This is commonly referred to as recharging, and doesn’t affect borrowing because the amount isn’t income or expense.

You’re actually talking about the same thing as Orion when he speaks of the pending FICA liability. (That’s not the Fur Information Council of America).

"Free Trade? Unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, you'd have to agree that free trade deals have to be worked out and enforced by Governments; what, do you think tariffs will disappear if Governments stop negotiating free trade deals?" - Dasein Libsbane

You do realize that "Bureau of free trade" is like an oxymoron.

Your right, with unilateral free trade we cannot reduce someone else's tarrifs, only our own. But right now we are in these orginizations, and we still have tarrifs. Like I said, Hong Kong has unilateral free trade, and their import export buisness seems to do way more than OK. In fact I thinks compared to their GDP size it's one of the biggest in the world.

And joining world government is definitely a threat to our independance.

Also, I don't know if I would call myself anarchist, but I would definitely call my self an Austrian student, and am a huge fan of Mises, Hyeck, Rothbard, ect...

Hong Kong is a relatively small economy, and doesn't have divergent interests; it also shares a foreign trade policy with China making many markets closed to free trade. This gives Hong Kong actually nothing to bring potential trading partners into regional trade agreements; putting them at the mercy of trade wars with no recourse but to engage. (Aside from the threat China poses, of course.) A good friend of mine runs an Import-Export business in Hong Kong, china is the 800 pound gorilla in the living room to the HK free traders.

Mises is often quoted by Paul, but he (Paul) is much more of an isolationist than Mises ever advocated (non-interventionist in non-Capital matters.)

The problem with our long-term structural debt is that we "float" that debt by buying more bonds to cover the interest due. As long as we have more money going in than coming out we can do that. Hence the nod to Social Security, which is just ONE long-term structural debt that is going to explode in our faces in a few years. Some time between 2018 and 2025 expenditures exceed revenues and we have to convert those intergovernmental bonds to public bonds, making the long-term structural debt part of the Deficit. In effect we have to start backing Social Security checks with money we don't really have because the budget isn't in surplus.

The "Canada Option" is the traditional way for nations to solve this problem quickly and relatively painlessly. Just go steal it from somebody significantly weaker than you. Doesn't usually start by invading another country; Hitler started by robbing the German Jews and turning them into slave labor. Invasion is where it usually winds up because the problem almost always grows exponentially.

Orion,
It’s worse than that; the narrowing of the gap in the SS income deprives the government of interest free loans with which to meet current obligations. The robust economy has managed to put more $$ into the coffers and reduced the borrowing necessary, yet as the available funds from Social Security dry up, even before the outflows exceed the income the available capital to meet current needs will need to be borrowed; adding immediately to the deficit long before 2018.

If the SS problem isn’t addressed and the economy continues its slowdown (cyclical, not endemic) the capitalization of the Debt will be more than problematic. But, as I mentioned, as long as ours remains the best investment in the world, there won’t be a shortage of investors looking to harbor money in our instruments. China needs to float their currency, the Fed needs to strengthen the dollar even at the risk of driving inflation, and we need to invade Canada for their furs.

Actually, I can’t wait to see what creative financing options Congress lets fly in 10 years to kick this particular can down the road, again. As my Econ teacher used to say, “Silver will become the commodity of trade, and you’ll need a way to protect your assets. So, my advice is to buy silver bullets. Practical, easy to exchange, and if someone wants it bad enough to steal it, you can give it to them at six feet per second.

DL,

Six feet per second? Even I could catch a silver bullet between my teeth at six feet per second. Six feet per second is only about 4.09 miles per hour.

I would suggest perhaps giving it to them at a velocity of at least 600 feet per second, and even that is on the low end.

;-)

I would suggest perhaps giving it to them at a velocity of at least 600 feet per second, and even that is on the low end.

Yeah, I have a Crossman BB gun that's pretty close to 600 fps. I think THIS is what Kahn said he was sighting in the other day:

The .243 launches an 80 grain varmint bullet at a muzzle velocity (MV) of about 3,350 fps. This means that it shoots about as flat as a .22-250, only its 80 grain spitzer bullet has a BC of .365, compared to the 55 grain .22 spitzer's BC of .255. This is an enormous difference, and explains why the .24's are so much better than the .22's on windy days.

Now that's muzzle velocity!! Don't know whether or not they're available in silver, though.

Oh, wait; I didn't read far enough:

Winchester's Supreme 95 grain Ballistic Silvertip big game bullet is factory loaded to a MV of 3,100 fps with 2,021 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy (ME). If that load is zeroed to strike 2.5 inches high at 100 yards the bullet will then strike 3 inches high at 150 yards, 2.3 inches high at 200 yards, and 3 inches low at 300 yards. At 200 yards that bullet hits with 1,455 ft. lbs. of energy, and at 300 yards it still retains 1,225 ft. lbs. of energy. With this load so zeroed the .243 Winchester is about a 300 yard deer and antelope cartridge.

If you're simply trying to protect your hoard of silver bars under your bed, though, I'd much prefer a good ol' Remington pump 12 gauge. Just the sound of the slide in the dark is enough to make most burglars soil themselves.

Okay, so I didn’t think this through, I guess I so amused myself I forgot to have the joke make sense.

Bane,

Well, at least you can laugh at yourself, unlike most liberals I know. 6 FPS? Where the hell did you come up with that?

BTW, your discussion in this thread with Robert and Orion was fascinating. I always learn a thing or two in threads where you participate. I was reading Herb Greenberg's blog at MarketWatch earlier this evening. The comments are pretty revealing in that there is certainly no consensus among investers (or at least those investors who read his blog) as to what direction our economy or the market is headed. Even in my area of the Midwest, economic observations are all over the map. My business is up about 30% over this time last year. Some of my customers are also having great years while others are really hurting.

And while keeping us all safe from attack and fighting World War III. God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history. We love you President Bush because you mean what you say.

mmmm... economic short-sidedness... delicious...

The savings rate is negative right now... and I know you guys are going to give a breathless "so what?", but hear me out...

Saved money funds investment, because when money is put in to banks, those banks are able to lend it to businesses to invest in new capital. Personal and Government savings are both negative, so we are stifling the creation of investment in new capital, and thusly are reducing our future consumption (read up on the Solow model, it's imperfect, but it's generally correct). We, as a country, just need to stop being retarded about our borrowing habits (sub-prime mortgage crisis, anyone?) and start living within our means and perhaps even start a little nest egg. Government needs to do the same thing and stop acting like a drunk teenager with daddy's credit card.

Just so you know... weakening currency and a volatile stock market aren't that favorable of a crop of economic indicators...

Smoke and mirrors.

Libsbane what's the deficit now if you included the cost of running the Iraq War? I'll go ahead and call myself stupid or undedicated but I went to an Ivy League school [think Dartmouth really hard school] Mr. California State University educator this is like taking candy from a baby! Should I use small words so that republican pin head can understand?

There will be no surplus in 2012, period. End of discussion. Oh you want to know why well then I'll tell you why: The cost of the war in Iraq will be recalculated into the debt when Hillary Clinton is elected in November 2008 by OMB plain and simple. This will be Bush's last gasp at trying to have a legacy in those last few months. He'll be able to claim that the budgets for the next four years are wrecked and his surplus was destroyed by Hillary before she can take the oath. And none of said budgets really exist anyway THEY ARE PROJECTIONS.

The plans Bush put forth are shams but heck he would be three plus years out of office so what could he possibly care. The Housing bottom will not be felt until Summer 2008. The American economy is very weak where it counts in the pockets of the middle class. No amount of belt tightening will help people strapped into debt situations to make ends meet because the middle class have no bailout engine like the Fed to clean up their messes and take risk out of the equation.

Libsbane you got a degree but you lost your passion. Living in California and working with all those liberal thinkers must be really tough for someone like you. [Regent is always looking for good professors of revisionist economics for Christianists so is Patrick Henry College. We’ll leave Oral Roberts U out right now for obvious reasons] But what is that great old phrase that explains why you aren't out working for a hedge fund right now? Those who can do and those who can't . . . Now what is it that those who can't hack it on Wall Street do?

Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!

How ironic Repugs can feel good about four years of declining deficits. I preferred the four years of Clinton budget surpluses. This is all smoke and mirrors anyways; national debt under George Bush has climbed from 3 Trillion to 9 Trillion; an increase more than all previous administration combined.

The savings rate is negative right now...

Americans are "saving" by (involuntarily) investing 14.75% of their salaries in Social Security every year. In otherwords, the Federal government has precisely adjusted its turnip-squeezing pressure to equal the rate at which said turnips are capable of generating blood.

aren't the war costs "off budget"?

and the federal govt (dems & gop) has been dumping obligated SSN funds into unobligated general "revenues" in order to create the perception of a lessened deficit.

"ignore that man behind the curtain, dorothy"

Spook,
6 fps; I donno, faulty memory of the day Mr. McGinnis told us that story, I guess. Oddly, I never thought about the speed and none of my students ever questioned it. This came up as a discussion in my micro class in 1979; the price of precious metals was skyrocketing, the market was wavering, inflation was through the roof, unemployment was legion, and Mr. McGinnis said this, “When the American housewife spends 100% of her husband’s paycheck the day it arrives, the US economy is in its last throes.”

I thought about that a lot, chauvinism aside, the market boils down to the consumable goods you and I can purchase; the house manager knows the value of the dollar better than the economists; and sees the effects much quicker than Greenspan, Bernanke, or a host of experts. Consumer confidence is what we say when we’re asked; but purchases are we do with our money.

Wither the market? I look for expansion through the next month or two, I look for a slowing of the economy as the Fed tries to shore up the weak dollar, I see inflation heating up into the first quarter of next year but not serious enough to cause any real pain. I see the Bond market continued weakness and a leveling of equities. By next summer I see the trend starting over (roaring equities and flat Bonds). The housing market won’t amount to a hill of beans in another year, but the effects of sub-prime will linger for years to come. And I’d get out of emerging markets (far and near east) right about … now!

And I’d get out of emerging markets (far and near east) right about … now!

Actually, I bailed on the 4 emerging market funds I was in several months ago, and missed out on about an additional 20-30% on those 4 funds. I suspect you're right that they've about shot their wad for the near future, although I've read a number of articles that go both ways. Bottom line, no one has a working crystal ball.

Hey Spook, Note the intellectual pygmies trying to keep up, hysterical!

The War is included in the deficit, off-budget means it isn’t in the Budget, it doesn’t mean it isn’t spent, I work for the University of California, not California State University, Governmental Accounting doesn’t change with Administrations, Clinton never once submitted a balanced budget, there were no surpluses in the Federal Budget in the 1990’s, and you’re not a lawyer, just a liberal stooge in your mommy’s basement playing Dungeons and Dragons entirely too much, buffoon.

On emerging, we'll see. I dropped mine this week, maybe by EoY I'll be saying CRAP or WHEW! Either way I'll enjoy the ride. fortunatly, with the equities I upped my investments about the time 3moreyears started promising us breadlines and have a bag o'money to play with.

To quote Bogart as he left the goldmine, "Thanks, mountain!"

Gabrielle Deroscheres, OhioOrrin, the war cost are on the budget correctly. There is however trickery going on with using social security trust funds to close the deficit gap, but this is nothing new.

There are some war cost like increased vet benifits and maintenance that are not included in the current budget, but they are added to the long term structural debt(finaly got the term correct thanks to Orion), that's how you get the discrepency of war cost for 600 billion or 1.6 trillion, the first one's what we spend now, and the diffrence is what's added to the long term structural debt.

I allready said above, long term structural debt, which include the regular debt, has risen about 20 trillion dollars, from 50 to 70 trillion, under Bush.

If you'll notice, the war is actually pretty insignificant, it's only 1 of those trillion dollars, it's mostly the cradle to grave welfare state and central planning that Bush is so fond of that added all the debt.

This is why I don't understand all the liberals here complaining, we got higher tax revenue, even from the rich, more welfare, more central planning of our lives, and we're even planning what kind of government other nations have, that sounds like liberal utopia, what more could you possibly want?

Libsbane,

Sure the name calling is going to help your cause in the long run, but the facts are still the facts no matter what you think of little old me. Bush has done nothing close to participating in giovernment like a conservative. He has carved his own path and left all the allies behind. He leaves office in a bit over a year with 6 trillion in extra debt for the country to absorb by selling it to foreign nations. This could go on forever but you are an acolyte of the economic processes you know what happens eventually: ALL DEBTS MUST BE PAID; ALL BOOKS MUST BE BALANCED. Whether this is done by the cyclical forces of global expansion contraction or by the brute force of the belligerent arm of diplomacy sooner of later the world will call in the American debt it owes. Will you so haughty then when they come for your kind in Berkeley or will you run for your life like everyone else does when they hear explosions, see blood and bodies and know their "way of life" has just been turned upside down?

Your opinion of me is laughable since I have never played such a childish board game. I Libsbane play for keeps, the skins I earn have nothing to do with public education but much more private equity. But you can think what you like because you remind of that old woodchopper Aaron Jones who knew so much about conservatism and the ideals of your people that he was foolish enough to think he couldn't lose at anything. So this Nixon loving dolt decided to take his champion horse Miss Musket to race a horse called Chris Evert owned by the late great Carl Rosen [I know one of your tribe will have to Google the mensch so I'll give you a moment]. As a close friend conveyed to us it was supposed to be a challenge match for $100.000 but it turned out the betting got up to an estimated $2.4 million. Jones a noted anti Semite was already counting his dough as they broke the gates. In the end he could only sit in awe of the power of Chris Evert as she tore to a 50 length lead.

Rosen laughed all the way to the bank Jones ended up getting the shock of his life a few weeks later when his boy Nixon was forced to resign. Hang in there Libsbane you probably only have about fifteen years to go before retirement and then you can move to a nice conservative state like Mississippi and live out your days a la Byron DeLa Beckwith. But always keep in mind that just because you don't like to hear what someone has to say doesn't mean they are wrong or powerless to upset your applecart!