Voodoo versus Greenspan: wont work
tick
In article <4u52nf$d...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis
Drew) wrote:
> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> Stalemate.
Yes, yes. This has been rehashed ad nauseum, I can't believe
the GOP is peddling this pitch now. "Lower taxes mean increased
economic activity & more jobs." Uh, unemployment is at 5.4% right
now, which is why the Fed is concerned over inflation:
increased demand and reduced supply of labor -> increased
wages -> increased downstream costs of products (inflation)
Not to mention that only a few short months ago these
guys were prattling on about how the best way to put
money back in the people's pockets is to balance the budget
(reduce the debt) driving down interest rates on car,
house, & business loans. Now they are gambling the deficit
that a tax cut will expand growth (against Fed interest
rate pressures) sufficiently to offset the lost tax revenue.
Aaauuuggghh! Do they think we have the attention span of gerbils.
Just balance the damn budget to drive down long term interest
rates and let that further spur growth. If the economy begins to
slow or unemployment rises then consider a tax cut. Their
words of today just don't parse with their statements of
recent months. Electioneering at its ugliest.
-tick
Mr. Spark Chaser
Denis Drew wrote:
>
> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> yesterday.
>
> Denis Drew
If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
aside...
Greenspan only cooled things off when the economy rose too fast in the
SHORT TERM, like when Clinton tried all of his so-called "stimulus
packages". A massive tax cut will stimulate growth gradually, making a
long term rise possible. It will be in direct contrast to Clinton's Tax
hike, BTW the largest in the history of the USA.
Have you ever played "Sim City"? try hiking the taxes and see what
happens. Then give a tax cut and control your spending, THEN see what
happens. I know the actual economy is more complex, but the principles
are the same.
--
X-Signature: Sparkchaser
"You can twist perceptions..... Reality won't budge"
-Neil Peart/ Rush
Sparkchaser, esq. Springdale,Ark... AKA Poultry Hell
.
Alan Bomberger
> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
> yesterday.
The Fed claims to be more discrimating than that. As protector
of the currency they are supposed to be looking for factors that
devalue the currency through inflation. Economic growth can
happen without inflation.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Eleanor Rotthoff
dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis Drew) wrote:
>Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>activity which generates compensating tax revenues.
No. The Dole plan anticipates that only about 1/4 of the tax cuts
will be paid for by economic growth. You do concede, don't you, that
they will generate *some* economic growth?
Dole's first priority has always been, and remains, balancing the
budget. Anyone who heard his speech on Monday must recognize that
very clearly. After many months of evaluating the situation with a
group of eminent economists he believes, as do many others, that it is
perfectly possible to both balance the budget *and* give some tax
relief to hard-pressed middle income taxpayers. The answer to
achieving those twin goals, however, is anathema to Democrats --
reduce federal spending and downsize government. Spending reductions
of only 4-5% would be adequate to pay for the entire plan. Anyone out
there who thinks that the entire country would come to a halt if the
federal government were forced to reduce its spending by 4-5%?
> As we all know,
>the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
>interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
>Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
>yesterday.
>
>Denis Drew
Eleanor Rotthoff
"When people vote, they like to look into the future. But to
meet that need, Clinton would have to come up with an agenda.
I don't think we're going to get that."
Democratic strategist Brian Lunde
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/17/96
ZB
>The Fed claims to be more discrimating than that. As protector
>of the currency they are supposed to be looking for factors that
>devalue the currency through inflation. Economic growth can
>happen without inflation.
>--
>Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
>Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
>It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
If the growth can occur without excessive borrowing in either the
public or private sector. After looking a Dole's economic policy
announced yesterday, coming from a person who advocates a balanced
budget amendment is truly and oxymoron.
ZB
Pat Buchanan Virus - Your system works fine,but it
complains loudly about foreign software; inexplicably
defends racism and laughs like a wounded animal...
Author unknown
wlfmn
On Mon, 05 Aug 1996 20:03:40 -0700, "Mr. Spark Chaser"
<laug...@liberals.com> wrote:
>Denis Drew wrote:
>>
>> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
>> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
>> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
>> Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
>> yesterday.
>>
>> Denis Drew
>
>If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
>be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
>aside...
>
I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
sinker.
Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
on keeping spending in check.
During his 8 years we went from being the largest creditor nation to
the largest debtor one. We TRIPLED the national debt. We cut social
spending and increased military spending (remember the billions wasted
on the Star Wars Program). The rich had their taxes cut from the 80%+
to the 30% range. The middle class lost most of their tax deductions
and ended up paying more in taxes. The rich got very much richer and
the rest of us got poorer.
We face the same with Dole's plan except that the rich will get even
richer because a 15% reduction on $100,000 in taxes gives you back
$15,000 while for the middle class paying let's say $5,000 in taxes it
will only mean a decrease of $2250. Add to that cutting the capital
gains tax in half (where the rich pay their fair share) and the get
even wealthier.
Dole has tried to fool the public again but his plan get the rich even
more than the rest.
TRICKLE DOWN DIDN'T DURING REAGAN! It still won't happen now!
wlfmn
wlfmn
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 22:45:55 GMT, al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger)
wrote:
>In article <4u52nf$d...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis
>Drew) wrote:
>
>> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
>> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
>> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
>> Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
>> yesterday.
>
>The Fed claims to be more discrimating than that. As protector
>of the currency they are supposed to be looking for factors that
>devalue the currency through inflation. Economic growth can
>happen without inflation.
>
And that's exactly what's happening NOW under President Clinton!
wlfmn
wlfmn
>We face the same with Dole's plan except that the rich will get even
>richer because a 15% reduction on $100,000 in taxes gives you back
>$15,000 while for the middle class paying let's say $5,000 in taxes it
>will only mean a decrease of $2250. Add to that cutting the capital
>gains tax in half (where the rich pay their fair share) and the get
>even wealthier.
>
>Dole has tried to fool the public again but his plan get the rich even
>more than the rest.
>
>TRICKLE DOWN DIDN'T DURING REAGAN! It still won't happen now!
>
>
>wlfmn
I SPOKE AS A MATH MIDGET. THE REAL 15% OF $5000 IS ONLY $750!
wlfmn
eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
In article <3206B6...@liberals.com>, "Mr. Spark Chaser"
<laug...@liberals.com> wrote:
> Denis Drew wrote:
> >
> > Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> > activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> > the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> > interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> > Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
> > yesterday.
> >
> > Denis Drew
>
> If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
> be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
> aside...
Well actually Clinton's budgets are in balance EXCEPT for the need to
service the Reagan debt. If we hadn't spent the 80s quadrupling the
national debt under the 'free lunch party', we wouldn't be running the
deficit today and could more easily tackle the coming social security
crunch.
j
> .
Richard Gill
In article <3206f05f...@news.io.com>,
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis Drew) wrote:
>
>>Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>>activity which generates compensating tax revenues.
>
>will be paid for by economic growth. You do concede, don't you, that
>they will generate *some* economic growth?
>
>Dole's first priority has always been, and remains, balancing the
>budget. Anyone who heard his speech on Monday must recognize that
>very clearly. After many months of evaluating the situation with a
>group of eminent economists he believes, as do many others, that it is
>perfectly possible to both balance the budget *and* give some tax
>relief to hard-pressed middle income taxpayers. The answer to
>achieving those twin goals, however, is anathema to Democrats --
>reduce federal spending and downsize government. Spending reductions
>of only 4-5% would be adequate to pay for the entire plan. Anyone out
>there who thinks that the entire country would come to a halt if the
>federal government were forced to reduce its spending by 4-5%?
>
Good. If it is so easy, then balance the budget by reducing spending
and _then_ cut taxes.
BTW, just who's 4-5% do you propose cutting? Federal spending isn't
abstract, it appears in the form of checks to people and businesses
across the country. And each of those people (except DC residents)
votes for two senators and a representative who they expect to
protect (and expand) government funded projects and jobs. Both
democrat and republican representatives do that job with great zeal.
--
Dick Gill di...@gp.com
Gill & Piette Dick Gill @ Gill & Piette @ Notes Net
1568 Spring Hill Road, McLean, VA 22102 (703)761-1163
Growing old is the only way to live a long time. Dad 1906-
Lance Purple
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>
>Dole's first priority has always been, and remains, balancing the
to pay for the entire plan.
The current Federal Budget outlays are about $1.5 trillion. If we set aside
the "untouchables" (Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, defense, and interest
payments for the national debt), there is about $350 billion left. So, yes,
we WILL have to shut down the rest of the government to get a $500 billion
tax cut, OR let the current $100 billion/year deficit balloon up to $600 G.
No thanks, Bob. Could you do us economic conservative/social libertarians
a favor, and let Kemp or Weld have the nomination instead ? If not, I see
no real choice except to protest-vote for Browne.
------------------------------
L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)
Russ Anderson
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Alan Bomberger wrote:
> In article <4u52nf$d...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis
> Drew) wrote:
>
> > Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> > activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> > the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> > interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> > Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
> > yesterday.
>
> The Fed claims to be more discrimating than that. As protector
> of the currency they are supposed to be looking for factors that
> devalue the currency through inflation. Economic growth can
> happen without inflation.
Funny that's the same argument that Laura Tyson makes. Felix
Rohatan made that same argument, so Sen. Connie Mack (R-FL)
labled him "stagflation" and kept him off of the Fed Board.
Greenspan never put a 2.5% growth limit on during the Reagan
or Bush Administrations. He probably wouldn't on the Dole
Administration. It's only when a Democrat is in the White
House....
Russ Anderson
Mr. Spark Chaser
wlfmn wrote:
>
> I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
> sinker.
Is it really propaganda? Read on....
> Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
> Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
> on keeping spending in check.
For 1/2 of his first term? The dems had a lock on the house for the past
30 years, and for two years, the Republicans had only a marginal edge on
the Senate. Immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies in 1982, the
feeding frenzy on surplus cash began with a speed that could only be
described as horrific. It took time for the tax cuts to affect the
economy, and by the time they did, Capitol hill was full of those who
would lust for pork (Mostly dems, but there were a few republicans
scattered amongst them).
Also, The Soviet Union was still active, and the DoD's ability to put up
a credible defense was seriously under question. Or would you prefer to
see the USSR still active today as it was then?
> During his 8 years we went from being the largest creditor nation to
> the largest debtor one.
So which countries do we owe money to?
> We cut social
> spending and increased military spending (remember the billions wasted
> on the Star Wars Program).
Technology gained is never a case of wasted money. Also see above
concerning the DoD.
I'd like to see some proof that any social program actually lost income
in this period of time. The only direction the numbers seem to go as far
as allocations to entitlement programs are up.
> The rich had their taxes cut from the 80%+
> to the 30% range. The middle class lost most of their tax deductions
> and ended up paying more in taxes. The rich got very much richer and
> the rest of us got poorer.
Really? Why not ask the small businessman what it was like before and
after the tax cut? Everybody seems to be screaming about the rich getting
more....
An example: If you work an hourly job, as I used to before going on
salary, overtime pay is something to be feared (55 hrs./ wk or more total
work). Why? because theoretically, I became a "Rich Man" due to the
larger gross pay for that week, and as a result, the IRS saw fit to
deduct much more, to the point of actually LOSING money for working
overtime. It's not just the rich who will benefit form a tax cut......
> We face the same with Dole's plan except that the rich will get even
> richer... <snipped the math, read on to learn why> Add to that cutting
> the capital
> gains tax in half (where the rich pay their fair share) and the get
> even wealthier.
How about the homeowner who just sold his/her house? If they don't roll
that money over right away, they get stuck with the same % of tax. How
about the retiree who just cashed in his/her IRA or Stock investments?
Same deal. No wlfmn, It's not just the rich who get stuck with paying the
"fair share".
>
> Dole has tried to fool the public again but his plan get the rich even
> more than the rest.
Here's another question... what incentive is there for me to work harder
and try to make my financial situation better for myself and my family?
Apparently none at all now. If I make more money, the taxes just go up,
and I'll not spend as much time with my family to boot.... so why not
just quit working so hard, go back to an hourly job and work just 40
hrs/wk?
Hell, let's all do it! We (the Middle Class) will all just sit back and
let the rich pay for it all until the US is left with nothing but poor
people? Would that make us conservatives more "compassionate" in your
eyes?
Russ Anderson
On 5 Aug 1996, Denis Drew wrote:
> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
> yesterday.
Then again, Greenspan did not have a 2.5% GDP growth limit
when Reagan was in office (Greenspan became Fed Chairman in 1987)
or during the Bush Administration (*). It was only when the
economy picked up after Clinton took office that Alan Greenspan
first mention that the economy could not be allowed to grow
faster than 2.5%. If Dole is elected (**) Greenspan may just
decided that the 2.5% limit is no longer needed.
(*) not that he needed to, GDP averaged only 1.3% during the
Bush Administration.
(**) won't happen
Russ Anderson
Russ Anderson
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Mr. Spark Chaser wrote:
> Denis Drew wrote:
> >
> > Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> > activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> > the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> > interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> > Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
> > yesterday.
> >
> > Denis Drew
>
> If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
> be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
> aside...
>
> Greenspan only cooled things off when the economy rose too fast in the
> SHORT TERM, like when Clinton tried all of his so-called "stimulus
> packages".
Are you refering to the 1993 Budget that Phil Gramm and Dick Armey
said would cause a recession in 1994?
> A massive tax cut will stimulate growth gradually, making a
> long term rise possible.
The Supply Side Dogma says that tax cuts will produce IMEDIATE economic
growth.
> It will be in direct contrast to Clinton's Tax
> hike, BTW the largest in the history of the USA.
>
> Have you ever played "Sim City"? try hiking the taxes and see what
> happens. Then give a tax cut and control your spending, THEN see what
> happens. I know the actual economy is more complex, but the principles
> are the same.
Take an econ course. "Sim City" is not an econ course.
Russ Anderson
Eleanor Rotthoff
gar...@ibm.net (ZB) wrote:
>>The Fed claims to be more discrimating than that. As protector
>>of the currency they are supposed to be looking for factors that
>>devalue the currency through inflation. Economic growth can
>>happen without inflation.
>
>>--
>>Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
>>Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
>>It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
>
>If the growth can occur without excessive borrowing in either the
>public or private sector. After looking a Dole's economic policy
>announced yesterday, coming from a person who advocates a balanced
>budget amendment is truly and oxymoron.
I'm delighted to know that you are so concerned about balancing the
budget. Perhaps then you will be willing to email the White House to
urge Bill Clinton to accept the challenge which Dole offered him
yesterday -- persuade just two of the 6 Democrat Senators who reneged
on their campaign pledges and voted against the Balanced Budget
Amendment to change their positions. Then, in September, the Senate
will pass the BBA and send it to the President for signature. Dole is
perfectly content to have his economic plan operate within the
constraints of the BBA. Why isn't Clinton willing to do the same?
Could it possibly be because his FY 97 budget plan, according to CBO
is still $81 in deficit by the year 2002?
Eleanor Rotthoff
"The core Democratic constituencies -- the poverty warlords, the trial
lawyers, and the public employee unions -- are the dominant forces in the
White House and inside the policy-making infrastructure. There are no New
Democrats with positions of influence in the administration."
-- Joel Kotkin, Former member of the Democratic Leadership Council,
Investor's Business Daily, 4/5/96
Russ Anderson
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
> dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis Drew) wrote:
>
> >Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> >activity which generates compensating tax revenues.
>
> No. The Dole plan anticipates that only about 1/4 of the tax cuts
> will be paid for by economic growth. You do concede, don't you, that
> they will generate *some* economic growth?
Keynsian economic theory predicts that it would produce some
economic growth. I don't know if it would make up for 27% of
the foregone revenue.
> Dole's first priority has always been, and remains, balancing the
> budget. Anyone who heard his speech on Monday must recognize that
> very clearly. After many months of evaluating the situation with a
> group of eminent economists he believes, as do many others, that it is
> perfectly possible to both balance the budget *and* give some tax
> relief to hard-pressed middle income taxpayers. The answer to
> achieving those twin goals, however, is anathema to Democrats --
> reduce federal spending and downsize government. Spending reductions
> of only 4-5% would be adequate to pay for the entire plan. Anyone out
> there who thinks that the entire country would come to a halt if the
> federal government were forced to reduce its spending by 4-5%?
Don't forget that Dole excluded Social Security, Medicare, and
Defense from those cuts. Throw in interest on the debt and he's
excluded over 3/4 of Federal spending. So we're talking 15-20%
(or more) cut in undefined discressionary spending.
> > As we all know,
> >the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> >interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> >Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
> >yesterday.
No comment? I'd like to hear Dole's response to this question.
Russ Anderson
Alan Bomberger
> >The Fed claims to be more discrimating than that. As protector
> >of the currency they are supposed to be looking for factors that
> >devalue the currency through inflation. Economic growth can
> >happen without inflation.
>
> >--
> >Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
> >Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
> >It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
>
> If the growth can occur without excessive borrowing in either the
> public or private sector. After looking a Dole's economic policy
> announced yesterday, coming from a person who advocates a balanced
> budget amendment is truly and oxymoron.
>
Only if you don't believe you can cut spending
and only if you don't believe that lowering taxes increases
economic growth.
Excercise: Plot Income tax revenue as a % of GDP vs
top tax rates.
Hint: The rate don't matter you get about 20% of GDP
Conclusion: Lower rates are better because they make
voters happy and the GDP is higher ( 20% of a higher
number is.......... a higher number).
Mr. Spark Chaser
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Spark Chaser writes:
>
> Spark> wlfmn wrote:
> >>
> >> I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
> >> sinker.
>
>
> >> Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
> >> Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
> >> on keeping spending in check.
>
> Spark> 30 years, and for two years, the Republicans had only a marginal edge on
> Spark> the Senate. Immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies in 1982, the
>
> The GOP led the Senate from Jan 1981 to Jan 1987. That is six years.
> With the conservative democrats in the House (including Phil Gramm)
> forming a block with the GOP Reagan got just about everything he
> asked for, including the huge spending. Note that Congress passed,
> and Reagan signed, budgets that were smaller than those Reagan initially
> proposed.
>
> ah
A few questions....
how large was this lead? (in the senate) And if Reagan got just
about everything he asked for, then where was the House and what were
they doing at the time? Apparently keeping their pet projects fed, and
fed well, refusing to speak out lest the Big Bad Ronnie cut their pork
funding off.... BTW, I did look it up, and it was for 6 years, but I'm
interested in hearing the majority percentages from you.
This time, we have a chance to both increase the revenue and keep within
budget at the same time; but it will take time.
Alan Bomberger
In article <32079514...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, wl...@ix.netcom.com
(wlfmn) wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 22:45:55 GMT, al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4u52nf$d...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis
> >Drew) wrote:
> >
> >> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
> >> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
> >> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
> >> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
> >> Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
> >> yesterday.
> >
> >The Fed claims to be more discrimating than that. As protector
> >of the currency they are supposed to be looking for factors that
> >devalue the currency through inflation. Economic growth can
> >happen without inflation.
> >
> And that's exactly what's happening NOW under President Clinton!
Yeh! at 2.3% long term average. That is not enough to avoid
sinking real income for middle class voters. To the Clinton
crowd any positive growth is "vigorous".
Mark Hornberger
dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis Drew) wrote:
>In <tick-05089...@mphygrad8.tamu.edu> ti...@tamu.edu (tick)
>writes:
>>
>>Aaauuuggghh! Do they think we have the attention span of gerbils.
>>Just balance the damn budget to drive down long term interest
>>rates and let that further spur growth. If the economy begins to
>>slow or unemployment rises then consider a tax cut. Their
>>words of today just don't parse with their statements of
>>recent months. Electioneering at its ugliest.
>Want to drop the bottom out of the federal budget? A simple
>motivational ploy will work. Just adjust all federal tax rates monthly
>in step with the latest cuts or additions in spending. We wont build
>another court house for 50 years. People will pay so much attention to
>the federal budget process that the newspapers will have to put on an
>extra section. :-)
>Right now the people feel much too remote from the process. Interest
>in the size of their next month's take home pay will permanently glue
>their noses to the budgetary radar screen -- 260 million comptrollers.
>Denis Drew
I have a proposal, but it's powerful ugly. Do away entirely with
payroll taxes. Just have the IRS show up around April 15th to demand
the government's money, and lock up those who can't or won't pay,
forfeiting all their property. No compromise, no discussion. Tax
cuts will suddenly be more that a novelty election ploy. If people
were made aware, really aware, of how much money is coming out of
their pockets, apathy would be much rarer than it is today. And the
2nd Amendment would have much more support than it does today. :-)
Mark Hornberger
ZB
On Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:14:49 GMT, al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger)
wrote:
I suppose it all boils down to what you would prefer, the double digit
inflation of the late 70's followed by a deep recession or the slow
stable growth we have experienced over the last decade.
You can always artificially stimulate an economy in the short run, put
one must always pay the price at some point down the road.
gp
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely
regarded as a bad move..........Douglas Adams
Eleanor Rotthoff
lpu...@netcom.com (Lance Purple) wrote:
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dole's first priority has always been, and remains, balancing the
>>budget. [...] Spending reductions of only 4-5% would be adequate
>to pay for the entire plan.
>
>The current Federal Budget outlays are about $1.5 trillion. If we set aside
>the "untouchables" (Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, defense, and interest
>payments for the national debt), there is about $350 billion left. So, yes,
>we WILL have to shut down the rest of the government to get a $500 billion
>tax cut, OR let the current $100 billion/year deficit balloon up to $600 G.
Given your concern for the deficit (for which I whole-heartedly
applaud you), you will be relieved to know that a great many very
eminent economists think that the Dole economic plan is absolutely
doable with no increase in the deficit.
>No thanks, Bob. Could you do us economic conservative/social libertarians
>a favor, and let Kemp or Weld have the nomination instead ?
I am astounded that an "economic conservative" would be unaware that
Jack Kemp is much, much more of a "supply sider" than Bob Dole has
ever been. The development of the Dole economic plan has revolved
around Kemp (and his economists) being tempered by Dole (and his
economists) into a plan which applies a bit of supply side stimulus,
prudently and cautiously, while still attaching first priority to
balancing the budget.
Hard-pressed middle class families *can* be given some much-needed tax
relief without ballooning the deficit. The key is disciplined
presidential leadership and reducing federal spending. That last is
anathema to the Democratic Party and all of the major components of
its base -- the welfare industry, the public employees union, the
teachers unions, etc. -- but it is eminently doable for a GOP
president whose major constituency is taxpayers!
>If not, I see
>no real choice except to protest-vote for Browne.
Why would any "economic conservative/social libertarian" want to vote
for Bill Clinton?
Eleanor Rotthoff
Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Eleanor Rotthoff wrote:
>> dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis Drew) wrote:
>>
>> >Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>> >activity which generates compensating tax revenues.
>>
>> No. The Dole plan anticipates that only about 1/4 of the tax cuts
>> will be paid for by economic growth. You do concede, don't you, that
>> they will generate *some* economic growth?
>
>Keynsian economic theory predicts that it would produce some
>economic growth. I don't know if it would make up for 27% of
>the foregone revenue.
The lowest forecast of revenue feedback that I have seen from an
economist is 35%, with the supply-siders making estimates which are
much larger than that. That being the case, Dole's 27% estimate seems
very prudent and cautious. The reason this economic plan was so long
in the development was that deficit hawk Dole was insisting that the
supply siders prove every element of their case and satisfy him that
they were not creating rosy scenarios.
>> Dole's first priority has always been, and remains, balancing the
>> budget. Anyone who heard his speech on Monday must recognize that
>> very clearly. After many months of evaluating the situation with a
>> group of eminent economists he believes, as do many others, that it is
>> perfectly possible to both balance the budget *and* give some tax
>> relief to hard-pressed middle income taxpayers. The answer to
>> achieving those twin goals, however, is anathema to Democrats --
>> reduce federal spending and downsize government. Spending reductions
>> of only 4-5% would be adequate to pay for the entire plan. Anyone out
>> there who thinks that the entire country would come to a halt if the
>> federal government were forced to reduce its spending by 4-5%?
>
>Don't forget that Dole excluded Social Security, Medicare, and
>Defense from those cuts. Throw in interest on the debt and he's
>excluded over 3/4 of Federal spending. So we're talking 15-20%
>(or more) cut in undefined discressionary spending.
John Taylor of Stanford says he is "enthusiastic about the plan".
Nobel laureate Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago describes
it as "an excellent economic program". Martin Feldstein of Harvard
says, "I think the numbers are credible". And Nobel laureate Gary
Becker hailed the plan as "a bold one and a doable one that can raise
the growth rate of the economy........to well over 3 %." Finally,
Michael Boskin of Stanford University says it is "quite plausible and
reasonable". Do you think that all of these men would stake their
reputations on a plan which is merely (as the White House would have
us believe) "a desperate election year ploy"?
>> > As we all know,
>> >the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
>> >interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
>> >Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
>> >yesterday.
>No comment? I'd like to hear Dole's response to this question.
I can't give you Dole's, but I can give you mine. Alan Greenspan has
made quite clear that he believes the US economy is growing at the
fastest non-inflationary rate that it can *given current fiscal
policy*. If you will recall, he was quite explicit about the drop in
interest rates which could be expected if we actually balance the
budget. (And we've all seen interest rates rise since the defeat of
the Balanced Budget Amendment and the continuation of Clinton budgets
which don't balance.) A change in fiscal policy which involves *real*
fiscal responsibility and *genuine* balanced budgets (including the
passage of the BBA) would IMHO trigger a significant change in Fed
policy as well.
Eleanor Rotthoff
If AT&T workers could have lobbied to avoid downsizing,
they would surely have done so. Why are we surprised
when federal workers elect to do so? The tragedy is that
the former AT&T workers have to continue to pay high taxes,
with frequently lower incomes, so that their public sector
brethren will not have to share their fate.
john wierzbicki ec
In article <Dvrzx...@gp.com>, di...@gp.com (Richard Gill) writes:
|> In article <3206f05f...@news.io.com>,
|> >dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis Drew) wrote:
|> >
|> >>Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
|> >>activity which generates compensating tax revenues.
|> >
|> >No. The Dole plan anticipates that only about 1/4 of the tax cuts
|> >will be paid for by economic growth. You do concede, don't you, that
|> >they will generate *some* economic growth?
|> >
|> >budget. Anyone who heard his speech on Monday must recognize that
|> >very clearly. After many months of evaluating the situation with a
|> >group of eminent economists he believes, as do many others, that it is
|> >perfectly possible to both balance the budget *and* give some tax
|> >achieving those twin goals, however, is anathema to Democrats --
|> >reduce federal spending and downsize government. Spending reductions
|> >of only 4-5% would be adequate to pay for the entire plan. Anyone out
|> >federal government were forced to reduce its spending by 4-5%?
|> >
|>
|> and _then_ cut taxes.
|>
|> BTW, just who's 4-5% do you propose cutting? Federal spending isn't
|> abstract, it appears in the form of checks to people and businesses
|> across the country. And each of those people (except DC residents)
|> votes for two senators and a representative who they expect to
|> protect (and expand) government funded projects and jobs.
I sure as hell am not one who wants my reps to protect & expand them!
I want the idiotic ones and obsolete ones SLASHED AND BURNED!!!!
John
A. Scott Denning
Mr. Spark Chaser wrote:
>
> wlfmn wrote:
> >
> > I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
> > sinker.
>
>
> > Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
> > Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
> > on keeping spending in check.
>
If you are trying to say that the Reagan agenda never passed the US
Congress, then whence the term "Reaganomics" or "Reagan Revolution?"
Should we say that changes to US fiscal policy in the early 1980's were
entirely the result of the Democratic Congress?
Maybe we ought to call them the "Tip O'Neill Tax Cuts"?
You must be too young to remember.
Reagan passed nearly his entire fiscal agenda in 81 and 82.
Lance Purple
Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>
>I am astounded that an "economic conservative" would be unaware that
>Jack Kemp is much, much more of a "supply sider" than Bob Dole has ever been.
The last Kemp tax-cut plan was only $300 billion, and (I think optimistically)
was supposed to bring in 2x that much revenue via economic growth. Dole's plan
is $500 billion, and only pays for 1/4 of itself via economic growth. Moreover,
Kemp is willing to put the U.S back on a gold standard, which is the only way
the Federal Reserve is likely to *allow* any more economic growth.
>Hard-pressed middle class families *can* be given some much-needed tax
>relief without ballooning the deficit. The key is disciplined
>presidential leadership and reducing federal spending. That last is
Again, I ask you, CUT WHAT ? Abolishing foodstamps, NASA, VA, the FBI,
and every other discretionary program, adds up to less than $350 billion.
The ONLY possible $500 billion/year cut is from MIDDLE CLASS ENTITLEMENTS.
Now, I would applaud all day long if Dole got up on the podium next week
and called for an immediate needs test on Social Security, followed by a
phase-out over the next twenty years; but after seeing him cave in to the
Religeous Right on social issues, do YOU think he can stand up to the
Baby Boomers on entitlements ?!
>>I see no real choice except to protest-vote for Browne.
>Why would any "economic conservative/social libertarian" want to vote
>for Bill Clinton?
I don't know: why do "GOP conservatives" act as if third-party leaners
OWE you our votes? Bob Dole has to EARN my vote, and this ridiculous
tax plan is the last straw. I sat through my county's GOP convention
(Travis Co., TX), even though I knew the Christian Coalition would be
there in force, to stomp out any hint of a moderate social agenda.
(The low point was when they demanded, and got, a Creationism plank!)
I didn't really expect Dole to stand up to them in San Diego, either.
But I had at least hoped he would be willing to *do* something about
entitlements and the budget deficit. Yeah, right.
If there was a "None-of-the-above" button, that could start the whole
nominations process over, I'd press it until my fingertips bled...
------------------------------
L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)
Eleanor Rotthoff
di...@gp.com (Richard Gill) wrote:
>In article <3206f05f...@news.io.com>,
>Eleanor Rotthoff <erot...@io.com> wrote:
>>dd...@ix.netcom.com(Denis Drew) wrote:
>>
>>>Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>>>activity which generates compensating tax revenues.
>>
>>No. The Dole plan anticipates that only about 1/4 of the tax cuts
>>will be paid for by economic growth. You do concede, don't you, that
>>they will generate *some* economic growth?
>>
>>Dole's first priority has always been, and remains, balancing the
>>budget. Anyone who heard his speech on Monday must recognize that
>>very clearly. After many months of evaluating the situation with a
>>group of eminent economists he believes, as do many others, that it is
>>perfectly possible to both balance the budget *and* give some tax
>>relief to hard-pressed middle income taxpayers. The answer to
>>achieving those twin goals, however, is anathema to Democrats --
>>reduce federal spending and downsize government. Spending reductions
>>of only 4-5% would be adequate to pay for the entire plan. Anyone out
>>there who thinks that the entire country would come to a halt if the
>>federal government were forced to reduce its spending by 4-5%?
>>
>
>Good. If it is so easy, then balance the budget by reducing spending
>and _then_ cut taxes.
And just let hard-pressed middle income families continue to choke on
their record-setting tax burden in the meantime?
>BTW, just who's 4-5% do you propose cutting? Federal spending isn't
>abstract, it appears in the form of checks to people and businesses
>across the country. And each of those people (except DC residents)
>votes for two senators and a representative who they expect to
>protect (and expand) government funded projects and jobs. Both
>democrat and republican representatives do that job with great zeal.
Bob Dole has always recognized that balancing the budget is, first and
foremost, a matter of making difficult choices and then providing
leadership which will make those choices clear to the American people,
rather than trying to tell us that we can all keep on having
everything we want without making any sacrifices.
Not all senators refuse to cut spending that benefits their own
constituents. Dole was a leader in the struggle (over the anguished
screams of liberal Democrats in the Senate) to enact the Freedom To
Farm Act which phases out virtually all agricultural price supports in
spite of the fact that he comes from the farm state of Kansas. IMHO
that gives him a *ton* of credibility on the issue of reducing
spending to balance the budget.
Eleanor Rotthoff
"Everyone is a progressive by his own lights. That the
anointed believe that this label differentiates themselves
from other people is one of a number of symptoms of their
naive narcissism."
Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed.
Eleanor Rotthoff
al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) wrote:
>Yeh! at 2.3% long term average. That is not enough to avoid
>sinking real income for middle class voters. To the Clinton
>crowd any positive growth is "vigorous".
No, Alan, to the Clinton crowd any *Clinton* growth is "vigorous". It
could be in negative numbers, and they'd still be trying to tell the
American people that the economy is fine and dandy on the theory that
if you say it often enough, and loudly enough, the people (whom they
seem to regard as a bunch of ignorant boobs anyway) will believe it.
Amazing!
Eleanor Rotthoff
Modern American liberals seem to regard themselves as
Plato's philosopher kings (and queens). Modern American
conservatives regard their liberal brethren as more
nearly akin to the Eupatrid oligarchs.
Russ Anderson
On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Mr. Spark Chaser wrote:
> wlfmn wrote:
> >
> > I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
> > sinker.
>
> Is it really propaganda? Read on....
>
> > Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
> > Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
> > on keeping spending in check.
>
> For 1/2 of his first term?
The Repubicans controlled the Senate for Reagans first 6 years in
office. No budget could get through the Senate without Senate
Majority leader Bob Dole's aproval.
> The dems had a lock on the house for the past
> 30 years, and for two years, the Republicans had only a marginal edge on
> the Senate.
The Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years.
> Immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies in 1982, the
> feeding frenzy on surplus cash began with a speed that could only be
> described as horrific.
By January 1983 the deficit was already twice as big as when Reagan
took office (two years earlier).
Russ Anderson
Giovanni 8
> In article <eylerjs-0708...@129.59.196.38>,
>>> Dole's 15% tax cut...
>> If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
>> be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
>> aside...
> Well actually Clinton's budgets are in balance EXCEPT for the need to
> service the Reagan debt. If we hadn't spent the 80s quadrupling the
> national debt under the "free lunch party", we wouldn't be running the
> deficit today and could more easily tackle the coming social security
> crunch.
Yah. If it weren't for Reagan and the Democrat congress, and Carter and
the Democrat congress, and Ford, and Nixon, and LBJ, and Kennedy, and
Eisenhower, who spent the last 46 years exploding the federal debt in
one huge "free lunch orgy", we wouldn't be running such a huge debt today,
and could get on with eliminating the socialist insecurity abomination,
income extortion, and foreign adventurism.
=== 8 ==============
jgo "Valid FSU Card" is an oxymoron. Batman Forever
ot...@acns.fsu.edu http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~otto Triumphant
"Privacy?! I don't understand." --- "Betsy" Muhlenfeld & Maxwell Carraway
Giovanni 8
> In article <3207956e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> wl...@ix.netcom.com (wlfmn) wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Aug 1996 20:03:40 -0700, "Mr. Spark Chaser"
>> <laug...@liberals.com> wrote:
>> If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
>> be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
>> aside...
> Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
> on keeping spending in check.
The Repucrats had a majority in the Senate for 2 years of Reagan's 8.
Spending bills originate in the House, where the Demoblicans had a
controlling majority for all 8 years of Reagan's administration.
The Demoblican congress, during the Nixon years, eliminated the power
of the President, recognized & practiced since the founding, to refrain
from spending part of the funds appropriated by congress, thus opening
up the flood-gates even further than they had been up to that time.
"The mere fact that Congress, by the appropriations process, has made
available specified sums for the various programs and functions of the
government is not a mandate that such funds must be fully expended."
--- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)
Mr. Spark Chaser
Russ Anderson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Mr. Spark Chaser wrote:
> > wlfmn wrote:
> > >
> > > I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
> > > sinker.
> >
> > Is it really propaganda? Read on....
> >
> > > Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
> > > on keeping spending in check.
> >
>
> The Repubicans controlled the Senate for Reagans first 6 years in
> office. No budget could get through the Senate without Senate
> Majority leader Bob Dole's aproval.
>
> > The dems had a lock on the house for the past
> > 30 years, and for two years, the Republicans had only a marginal edge on
> > the Senate.
>
> The Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years.
*Sigh* I'm still retracting my timespan error :) But I have a
question... how big was that majority? Not very large...It couldn't have
been large enough to make much difference (there are always congressmen
who will not tow the party line, so if the majority isn't all that big,
then it is still ineffective).
> > Immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies in 1983, the
> > feeding frenzy on surplus cash began with a speed that could only be
> > described as horrific.
>
> By January 1983 the deficit was already twice as big as when Reagan
> took office (two years earlier).
Due to dealing with the aftershocks of the Carter economic troubles. This
time, there will be both an increase in income AND fiscal
conservatism.(this second part was noticably lacking) The voters are
paying quite a bit more attention these days.
Yes, I know Reagan was sworn in in January 1981. And spending initiated
by Reagan, especially towards the DoD, was badly needed. The ability of
the DoD to defend itself and keep it's obligations to NATO without
resorting to nukes was seriously in question, considering the USSR's
aggressive military procurements in the same period of time, and the
general ostracism of the US DoD by congressional budgeting committees
after the Vietnam War in the 70's.
Giovanni 8
> In article <tick-05089...@mphygrad8.tamu.edu>,
>> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
>> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
>> Stalemate.
[Keynesian voodoo deleted]
> Not to mention that only a few short months ago these
> guys were prattling on about how the best way to put
> money back in the people's pockets is to balance the budget
> (reduce the debt) driving down interest rates on car,
> house, & business loans. Now they are gambling the deficit
> that a tax cut will expand growth (against Fed interest
> rate pressures) sufficiently to offset the lost tax revenue.
>
> Aaauuuggghh! Do they think we have the attention span of gerbils.
> Just balance the damn budget to drive down long term interest
> rates and let that further spur growth. If the economy begins to
> slow or unemployment rises then consider a tax cut. Their
> words of today just don't parse with their statements of
> recent months. Electioneering at its ugliest.
It sure is!
Just balance the budget by cutting spending by a few hundred billion
(i.e. geometric cuts), start paying off the debt, and cut taxes linearly
until income extortion has been eliminated.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Mr. Spark Chaser (laug...@liberals.com) wrote:
: Andrew Hall wrote:
: >
: > >>>>> Spark Chaser writes:
: >
: > >>
: > >> I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
: > >> sinker.
: > Spark> Is it really propaganda? Read on....
: >
: > >> Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
: > >> Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
: > >> on keeping spending in check.
: > Spark> For 1/2 of his first term? The dems had a lock on the house for the past
: > Spark> 30 years, and for two years, the Republicans had only a marginal edge on
: > Spark> the Senate. Immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies in 1982, the
: >
: > The GOP led the Senate from Jan 1981 to Jan 1987. That is six years.
: > With the conservative democrats in the House (including Phil Gramm)
: > forming a block with the GOP Reagan got just about everything he
: > asked for, including the huge spending. Note that Congress passed,
: > and Reagan signed, budgets that were smaller than those Reagan initially
: > proposed.
: >
: > ah
: A few questions....
: how large was this lead? (in the senate) And if Reagan got just
: about everything he asked for, then where was the House and what were
: they doing at the time?
You never heard of the Boll Weevils? You know, those guys who used to be Democrats
but switched parties a few years ago?
: Apparently keeping their pet projects fed, and
: fed well, refusing to speak out lest the Big Bad Ronnie cut their pork
: funding off.... BTW, I did look it up, and it was for 6 years, but I'm
: interested in hearing the majority percentages from you.
: This time, we have a chance to both increase the revenue and keep within
: budget at the same time; but it will take time.
It will take time all right. When Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth
Fairy show up is when you will get tax cuts and a balanced budget at the same time.
--
Buddy K
ZB
On Wed, 7 Aug 1996 14:22:57 -0500, Russ Anderson
<and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>
>On 5 Aug 1996, Denis Drew wrote:
>
>> Dole's 15% taxcut will supposedly pay for itself via increased economic
>> activity which generates compensating tax revenues. As we all know,
>> the fed responds to any sign of increased economic activity by hiking
>> interest rates to cool off the economy and prevent inflation.
>> Stalemate. Newsweek's Johnathan Alter pointed this out on MSNBC,
>> yesterday.
>
>Then again, Greenspan did not have a 2.5% GDP growth limit
>when Reagan was in office (Greenspan became Fed Chairman in 1987)
>or during the Bush Administration (*). It was only when the
>economy picked up after Clinton took office that Alan Greenspan
>first mention that the economy could not be allowed to grow
>faster than 2.5%. If Dole is elected (**) Greenspan may just
>decided that the 2.5% limit is no longer needed.
>
>(*) not that he needed to, GDP averaged only 1.3% during the
>Bush Administration.
>
>(**) won't happen
>
>Russ Anderson
Greenspan may be the economies only hope should by some miracle Dole
were to win the election and implements this economic plan that has be
thoroughly proven not to work. Are their memories that short?
user...@prairie.lakes.com
"Mr. Spark Chaser" <laug...@liberals.com> wrote:
>Russ Anderson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Mr. Spark Chaser wrote:
>> > wlfmn wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook, line and
>> > > sinker.
>> >
>> > Is it really propaganda? Read on....
>> >
>> > > Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
>> > > Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
>> > > on keeping spending in check.
>> >
>> > For 1/2 of his first term?
>>
>> The Repubicans controlled the Senate for Reagans first 6 years in
>> office. No budget could get through the Senate without Senate
>> Majority leader Bob Dole's aproval.
>>
>> > The dems had a lock on the house for the past
>> > 30 years, and for two years, the Republicans had only a marginal edge on
>> > the Senate.
>>
>> The Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years.
> *Sigh* I'm still retracting my timespan error :) But I have a
>question... how big was that majority? Not very large...It couldn't have
>been large enough to make much difference (there are always congressmen
>who will not tow the party line, so if the majority isn't all that big,
>then it is still ineffective).
>> > Immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies in 1983, the
>> > feeding frenzy on surplus cash began with a speed that could only be
>> > described as horrific.
>>
>> By January 1983 the deficit was already twice as big as when Reagan
>> took office (two years earlier).
>Due to dealing with the aftershocks of the Carter economic troubles. This
>time, there will be both an increase in income AND fiscal
>conservatism.(this second part was noticably lacking) The voters are
>paying quite a bit more attention these days.
> Yes, I know Reagan was sworn in in January 1981. And spending initiated
>by Reagan, especially towards the DoD, was badly needed. The ability of
yup dod really had a need for them $600 toliet seats so some prima
dona didn't get a sliver in his ass
Giovanni 8
> In article <otto-09089...@hotline.acns.fsu.edu>,
> ot...@acns.fsu.edu (Giovanni 8) wrote:
>> In article <3207956e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>> wl...@ix.netcom.com (wlfmn) wrote:
>>> <laug...@liberals.com> wrote:
>>> If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
>>> be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
>>> aside...
>> Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
>> on keeping spending in check.
> The Repucrats had a majority in the Senate for 2 years of Reagan's 8.
My error: it was actually 6 years or 3/4 of his administration.
> Spending bills originate in the House, where the Demoblicans had a
> controlling majority for all 8 years of Reagan's administration.
> The Demoblican congress, during the Nixon years, eliminated the power
> of the President, recognized & practiced since the founding, to refrain
> from spending part of the funds appropriated by congress, thus opening
> up the flood-gates even further than they had been up to that time.
> "The mere fact that Congress, by the appropriations process, has made
> available specified sums for the various programs and functions of the
> government is not a mandate that such funds must be fully expended."
> --- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)
Eleanor Rotthoff
ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>>>>> Eleanor Rotthoff writes:
>
> >> Good. If it is so easy, then balance the budget by reducing spending
> >> and _then_ cut taxes.
>
> Eleanor> And just let hard-pressed middle income families continue to choke on
> Eleanor> their record-setting tax burden in the meantime?
>
>
>Please return to your more truthful past. The middle class is paying
>a lot less in Federal Taxes than they were just 16 years ago.
>What is the "record" you are talking about?
Your statement should read that individual federal income tax rates
for the middle class are lower than they were before they were reduced
in the early 80's. That hardly represents the sum total of their tax
burden. FICA taxes have increased. State taxes have increased (in
large part in response to unfunded mandates and the skyrocketing cost
of Medicaid). Gasoline and sales taxes have increased. Overall, Tax
Freedom Day -- the day to which the average taxpayer has to work just
to pay his taxes -- came this year on May 8, later than ever before.
It was May 1 in 1992, so the amount of time the average taxpayer has
to work to pay his taxes has increased by a week just in the last four
years. The average taxpayer now pays more in taxes than he does for
food, shelter and clothing combined. In short, the "record" I'm
talking about is the total tax burden -- the only thing the taxpayer
really cares about.
Eleanor Rotthoff
"When people vote, they like to look into the future. But to
meet that need, Clinton would have to come up with an agenda.
I don't think we're going to get that."
Democratic strategist Brian Lunde
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/17/96
Z
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:01:32 +0400, ot...@acns.fsu.edu (Giovanni 8)
wrote:
Spending (appropriation bills) do not originate in Congress but with
the White House. The majority, if not all of Reagan's budgets were
eventually trimmed by the democratic Congress.
F. Prefect
"Bob Dole never met a tax he didn't hike. When Bob
Dole talks about leadership for the future, he's the
man who led the fight for five major tax increases in
the past five years."
Jack Kemp, 2/11/88...Chief Designer of the Kemp/dole
Economic plan.
Are we seeing a new born again Bob?
Giovanni 8
> In article <320952...@liberals.com>,
>>>> I can see you bought the conservative propaganda...hook,
>>>> line and sinker.
>>> Is it really propaganda? Read on...
>>>> Look at the Reagan years. (Remember the Republicans controlled the
>>>> Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
>>>> on keeping spending in check.
>>> For 1/2 of his first term? The dems had a lock on the house for
>>> the past 30 years, and for two years, the Republicans had only
>>> a marginal edge on the Senate. Immediately after the swearing-in
>>> ceremonies in 1982, the
>> The GOP led the Senate from Jan 1981 to Jan 1987. That is six years.
Correct. I believe I introduced the error. As SC wrote, though,
the Repucrat majority in the Senate was not a very large one, and
they did not have a majority in the House, whence spending bills
originate.
>> With the conservative democrats in the House (including Phil Gramm)
>> forming a block with the GOP Reagan got just about everything he
>> asked for, including the huge spending. Note that Congress passed,
>> and Reagan signed, budgets that were smaller than those Reagan
>> initially proposed.
>> ah
> A few questions....
> how large was this lead? (in the senate) And if Reagan got just
> about everything he asked for, then where was the House and what
> were they doing at the time? Apparently keeping their pet projects
> fed, and fed well, refusing to speak out lest the Big Bad Ronnie
> cut their pork funding off...
From the beginning, the leftists in the media and the Demoblican party
were squealing. One cartoon really stands out. A huge tree, a truck
"Stockman's Tree Surgery", and he's out there with loppers snipping
off the tiniest twiglets, as the tree screams "Owwww! The CUTS!!!".
If you've looked at the budgets from the period, or read Stockman's
book _The Triumph of Politics_, you know that they didn't even try to
ask for many of the cuts they thought were necessary, let alone the
many others they would have liked. And then the momentum was gone
as Reagan's own appointees, settled into their own nests in the
bureaucracy, started lobbying for increases in their own domains like
old hands, playing the politics of calling a 25% increase a 10%
increase because it was only 10% above the previously planned 15%.
> BTW, I did look it up, and it was for 6 years, but I'm
> interested in hearing the majority percentages from you.
> This time, we have a chance to both increase the revenue and keep within
> budget at the same time; but it will take time.
It would be much better to cut the spending, then back off on the
extortions while the debt is being paid down.
> "You can twist perceptions..... Reality won't budge"
> -Neil Peart/ Rush
"Wheels within wheels in a spiral array,
a pattern so grand and complex.
Time after time we lose sight of the way,
our causes can't see their effects." --- Rush
Giovanni 8
> In article <320A68...@abyss.atmos.colostate.edu>,
> "A. Scott Denning" <sc...@abyss.atmos.colostate.edu> wrote:
> If you are trying to say that the Reagan agenda never passed the US
> Congress, then whence the term "Reaganomics" or "Reagan Revolution?"
No. The Reagan agenda never got out of the White House.
The term "Reaganomics" and all of the wailing from the press was
all propaganda, a fact that was obvious at the time.
> Should we say that changes to US fiscal policy in the early 1980's
> were entirely the result of the Democratic Congress?
No. The White House proposals probably had some small effects, but
not anything really worth writing home about. Government expanded
right along its pre-1980 trend line, as it continues to do.
> Maybe we ought to call them the "Tip O'Neill Tax Cuts"?
There were no tax cuts. There was a lot of blather about tax cuts,
and they played bizarre accounting games, but the extortions
increased throughout. The supposed 30% cut turned into a delayed
10% cut, to be followed by 10% of the remaining 90%, and the last 5%
got swallowed up in the next round of increases, which were followed
by yet another round of increases before the decade was over. The
delays served to obliterate the cut due to inflation in the interim.
About the only saving grace was indexing. But then all of the real
estate and other shelters got jerked around, as well as IRAs, generating
the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s, from which many of us
have yet to recover.
Giovanni 8
> In article <3210d41b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> gar...@ix.netcom.com (Z) wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:01:32 +0400,
>> ot...@acns.fsu.edu (Giovanni 8) wrote:
>>> In article <otto-09089...@hotline.acns.fsu.edu>,
>>> ot...@acns.fsu.edu (Giovanni 8) wrote:
>>>> In article <3207956e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>> wl...@ix.netcom.com (wlfmn) wrote:
>>>>> <laug...@liberals.com> wrote:
>>>>> If it weren't for a Democratic spend-hungry congress, folks today would
>>>>> be saying: "Clinton who?" , and there would be no deficit. But all that
>>>>> aside...
>>>> Senate and white House for 1/2 of his term thus giving them the edge
>>>> on keeping spending in check.
>>> The Repucrats had a majority in the Senate for 2 years of Reagan's 8.
>> My error: it was actually 6 years or 3/4 of his administration.
>>> Spending bills originate in the House, where the Demoblicans had a
>>> controlling majority for all 8 years of Reagan's administration.
>>> The Demoblican congress, during the Nixon years, eliminated the power
>>> of the President, recognized & practiced since the founding, to refrain
>>> from spending part of the funds appropriated by congress, thus opening
>>> up the flood-gates even further than they had been up to that time.
>>> "The mere fact that Congress, by the appropriations process, has made
>>> available specified sums for the various programs and functions of the
>>> government is not a mandate that such funds must be fully expended."
>>> --- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)
> Spending (appropriation bills) do not originate in Congress but with
> the White House. The majority, if not all of Reagan's budgets were
> eventually trimmed by the democratic Congress.
OK I've made a couple embarrassing mistakes in a row, here.
I was thinking of article 1 section 7 paragraph 1 "All bills for
raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but
the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."
So it is the expropriations process that begins in the House. The
president can only "recommend to their consideration such measures
as he shall judge necessary & expedient" (article 2 section 3).
As I understand it, the full employment act of 1946 formalized this
process as regards recommending a budget. But, the bills still
originate within congress.
As regards "Reagan's budgets": they were fattened up in the negotiations
between the OMB, the cabinet members, and the congresscritters, before
before being submitted for consideration by the critters. Some things
the critters wanted were trimmed from the recommendations by those
within the White House. The critters put nearly all of these back in.
Some things the White House people wanted were trimmed by the critters.
Stockman's alleged meat-axe was more of a polishing compound rubbed
lightly on the surface.
> F. Prefect
> "Bob Dole never met a tax he didn't hike. When Bob
> Dole talks about leadership for the future, he's the
> man who led the fight for five major tax increases in
> the past five years."
> Jack Kemp, 2/11/88...Chief Designer of the Kemp/dole
> Economic plan.
> Are we seeing a new born again Bob?
Nawwww. He's still the same old Bob "on the" Dole. BTW, I noted
the same about Pat Wright, Tom Foley, & Dan Rostenkowski: None of
them has seen a new scheme to extort from people he didn't like.
(And you can take that either way "from people he didn't like" or
a "scheme he didn't like".)