Politics: J'accuse!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But Bush lied.

And Clarke was out of the loop.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They haven't, but capital has a very reasonable expectation that they will and makes decisions based on that.

Most economists agree that Bush got lousy bang for his buck with this stimulus package, but since the important thing for him and you was the ideological commitment to cutting taxes for the rich, that's really not the point, is it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As a percentage of GDP it is at about historical levels.

You've said this before, and I've told you why you are wrong, and you just ignore it and continue to repeat this. The mistake on my part is thinking that you might care. Carry on.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As a percentage of GDP it is at about historical levels.

As a percentage of government receipts, I believe it is at about historical levels, but am not 100% sure.

I'm not sure how the raw dollar number is significant.

You're wrong about the first two, as Ty has pointed out before.


As to the third, "raw dollars" is perhaps a misnomer. But the debt will need to be paid off, and that is the measure of the repayment owed -- a measure that will not vary as GDP or gov't receipts grow or shrink in the future. I personally find it frightening that we've run up a half-trillion dollars in additional debt that will to be repaid by most of the people on this board, and their kids (similar to the way the Reagan/Bush I debts held down the Clinton surplus).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As a percentage of GDP it is at about historical levels.

As a percentage of government receipts, I believe it is at about historical levels, but am not 100% sure.

I'm not sure how the raw dollar number is significant.

I don't think it's the raw dollar number that has the most significance, although obviously that's going to get some play. Just like how gas prices are "at all-time highs," despite the fact that gas was about $2.80/gallon in the late 70s, in current dollars.

That said, my concern is not with the defiicit itself, its with its structural nature. Sure, we run deficits in war time and recession, and they're larger than these deficits. But Iraq is not WWII, so we can't blame that. And we can't blame the deficit on a recession, because there isn't one. My worry is that Bush has cut taxes without cutting spending, and without offering a coherent plan as to how to cut spending (in fact doing otherwise). A one-time $450b deficit is not of concern. An annual deficit of that amount is a concern. Even under Bush's projections the economy doesn't "grow" us out of the deficit for 4 more years, and that's without further tax cuts or amending the AMT. Under a more aggressive set of tax cuts, the deficit continues until the tax cuts are repealed in 2010, which they will not, in fact be. So it's a persistent deficit where revenues are well short of speding. And that disregards medicare.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've posted the link before, but if I recall correctly, it goes back a lot further than that. I want to say WWII, but it may go back even further.

If you scroll down this link to the table which lays out gross deficits as a percentage of gdp, you'll see that no year between 1946 and 1980 matched last year's deficit of 5.2%, and only one year was above 4%.
http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/deficits.html

I use the gross deficit number because it takes into account borrowings from SS and other trust funds, which eventually will have to be paid back just like other public debt. You may have chosen a different measurement when you made your earlier statements, I can't recall. But anyway, unless I'm reading all of this wrong it appears that last year's deficit was significantly higher than any year between WWII and '80.

Leaving aside for the moment the impending Social security day of reckoning, the biggest problem with W's deficits is that he's piling them on top of an already large national debt. The gross debt as a percentage of GDP has grown from 33% in 1980 to 62% last year.
http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/debt40.html

At some point a Dem has to get back into the WH and put our fiscal house in order. I'm hoping it's sooner rather than later.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You've said this before, and I've told you why you are wrong, and you just ignore it and continue to repeat this. The mistake on my part is thinking that you might care. Carry on.

You are going to have to do better than a journalist from Slate, my friend. Go to google and search deficet as a percentage of GDP. Nearly all of the hits back my position. The rest pertain to the deficets of foreign countries.

Again, just because you've posted it before does not make it true.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Most economists agree that Bush got lousy bang for his buck with this stimulus package, but since the important thing for him and you was the ideological commitment to cutting taxes for the rich, that's really not the point, is it?

Thanks, Ty Coulter.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If you scroll down this link to the table which lays out gross deficits as a percentage of gdp, you'll see that no year between 1946 and 1980 matched last year's deficit of 5.2%, and only one year was above 4%.
http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/deficits.html

I'm reading your chart, but it seems to support my position, not yours.

[sgtclub]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html

Scroll down to this chart.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
since the important thing for him and you was the ideological commitment to cutting taxes for the rich, that's really not the point, is it?

So Bush is a liar AND a thief?

So all we need for him to do now is to fuck an intern to become Bill Clinton.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html

Scroll down to this chart.

1) These numbers are for the '04 budget proposal, and I think we all know that the proposed expenditures have been well below the actual expenditure numbers for each of the last three years when the dust settles. As we see in Congress, the highway bill has already been increased by 10% above W's hold-the-line budget number. It'll be innerestin' to see how that turns out.

2) I think you are ignoring my point about gross vs. net deficits. Gross deficits take into account all the money that is borrowed to balance our national checkbook, including money borrowed from SS and other trust funds. Net deficits focus on the debt that is held in non-government hands. Like presidential advisors in a background briefing, Mr. Barry is using the net deficit numbers because that look the best for the WH's position. No harm there, I'm just trying to show you what that analysis leaves out.

In light of that gross vs. net deficit distinction, I'd be interested to hear why you think that chart I posted supports your position, that the current deficits are in line with pre-'80 deficits.

edited to clarify what was below what when the dust settled

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So Bush is a liar AND a thief?

So all we need for him to do now is to fuck an intern to become Bill Clinton.

Are your ESL classes not going well?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Are your ESL classes not going well?

Reading is Fundamental

[Tyrone Slothrop]