The Lockbox
Chris Williamson
> February 10 2003
>
> It was easy to laugh at the lockbox.
There never was a lock box. The revenue in the Social
Security Trust Fund can be used for anything Congress wants to
use it for, and they've always used it, no matter which party is in
power. Dems have been hungry for free revenue as have Repubs.
--
Life is not a problem to be solved; it is an adventure to be lived.
- John Eldredge, "Wild at Heart"
Lars Eighner
<3E48B15C...@erols.com>,
the lovely and talented Chris Williamson
broadcast on alt.politics:
> Mark Cresky wrote:
>> February 10 2003
>>
>> It was easy to laugh at the lockbox.
> There never was a lock box. The revenue in the Social
> Security Trust Fund can be used for anything Congress wants to
> use it for, and they've always used it, no matter which party is in
> power. Dems have been hungry for free revenue as have Repubs.
That's right. And that is why the lockbox was a good idea.
Most voters thought so too. Unfortunately, the Supreme
Court thought it knew better.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Why is it not so glorious to live for peace as to die at war?
Chris Williamson
> In our last episode,
> <3E48B15C...@erols.com>,
> the lovely and talented Chris Williamson
> broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> > Mark Cresky wrote:
>
> >> February 10 2003
> >>
> >> It was easy to laugh at the lockbox.
>
> > There never was a lock box. The revenue in the Social
> > Security Trust Fund can be used for anything Congress wants to
> > use it for, and they've always used it, no matter which party is in
> > power. Dems have been hungry for free revenue as have Repubs.
>
> That's right. And that is why the lockbox was a good idea.
> Most voters thought so too. Unfortunately, the Supreme
> Court thought it knew better.
Most voters believed the lie. They thought the money was actually
being put in a lock box. I've run into many people who were duped.
"You mean the Trust Fund isn't there?"
It's a gimmick.
David
<cdw...@erols.com> wrote:
>Lars Eighner wrote:
>
>> In our last episode,
>> <3E48B15C...@erols.com>,
>> the lovely and talented Chris Williamson
>> broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>> > Mark Cresky wrote:
>>
>> >> February 10 2003
>> >>
>> >> It was easy to laugh at the lockbox.
>>
>> > There never was a lock box. The revenue in the Social
>> > Security Trust Fund can be used for anything Congress wants to
>> > use it for, and they've always used it, no matter which party is in
>> > power. Dems have been hungry for free revenue as have Repubs.
>>
>> That's right. And that is why the lockbox was a good idea.
>> Most voters thought so too. Unfortunately, the Supreme
>> Court thought it knew better.
>
>Most voters believed the lie. They thought the money was actually
>being put in a lock box. I've run into many people who were duped.
>"You mean the Trust Fund isn't there?"
>
>It's a gimmick.
WHAT??? A liberal tell a lie? Tell me it ain't so! : )
Roedy Green
wrote or quoted :
>That would allow government to devote the Social Security surplus
>solely to paying down the national debt. And that would substantially
>reduce the federal government's annual interest costs, leaving
>Washington more money to help pay for Social Security and Medicare
>when the baby boomers begin retiring at the end of this decade.
The other "lockbox" Bush raided was the fund that guarantees private
pension funds. It had a heathy cushion. Now it is bankrupt. The
loser are those people for example who worked for Asbestos companies
whose pension plans went bust along with the company.
Bush Jr. squandered huge surpluses. he has racked up record deficits,
even larger than those of Reagan and Bush Sr. He has slashed
essential services. He has bankrupted funds. He has starved the
states. What has he got to show for positive for all this pain, but a
bunch of fat cats with huge tax refunds?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, contract programming for $35 US per hour or fixed price.
For rapid answers to Java questions, see the glossary at http://mindprod.com/jgloss.html
George of the Jungle
news:pdeh4vca9p5fntgkf...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:48:27 GMT, Mark Cresky <hap...@opermail.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >That would allow government to devote the Social Security surplus
> >solely to paying down the national debt. And that would substantially
> >reduce the federal government's annual interest costs, leaving
> >Washington more money to help pay for Social Security and Medicare
> >when the baby boomers begin retiring at the end of this decade.
>
> The other "lockbox" Bush raided was the fund that guarantees private
> pension funds. It had a heathy cushion. Now it is bankrupt. The
> loser are those people for example who worked for Asbestos companies
> whose pension plans went bust along with the company.
>
> Bush Jr. squandered huge surpluses. he has racked up record deficits,
> even larger than those of Reagan and Bush Sr. He has slashed
> essential services. He has bankrupted funds. He has starved the
> states. What has he got to show for positive for all this pain, but a
> bunch of fat cats with huge tax refunds?
>
At least Bush isn't trying to murder SUV and grocery shoppers owners like
you.
--
Ann Coulter writes that liberals are "savagely cruel bigots who hate
ordinary Americans and lie for sport." So true. Just read the hate speech
spewing from this "liberal", Mark Cresky:
"You piece of traitorous shit. My mother is dead and she was a proud Liberal
Democrat, you fucking immigrant Cossack bastard.
My family has been here for 10 generations and built this country and you
come here and shit all over it with your Nazi treason.
winter
news:3e48c6de$0$9594$4c41...@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net:
> "Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
> news:pdeh4vca9p5fntgkf...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:48:27 GMT, Mark Cresky
>> <hap...@opermail.com> wrote or quoted :
>> Bush Jr. squandered huge surpluses. he has racked up record
>> deficits, even larger than those of Reagan and Bush Sr. He has
>> slashed essential services. He has bankrupted funds. He has
>> starved the states. What has he got to show for positive for
>> all this pain, but a bunch of fat cats with huge tax refunds?
>>
>
> At least Bush isn't trying to murder SUV and grocery shoppers
> owners like you.
georgie's seems to have been taking
lessons in reasoning from g.w.b.
:)
rgrds,
King Pineapple
news:TtydnQ_fm4m...@news.io.com...
>. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court thought it knew better.
Sorry, Lard, we're not talking about the Floriduh Supreme Court's
installation of Bush as President.
"You can change the outcome of any election you want" -Bill Clinton
B. B. Buckley
"Mark Cresky" <hap...@opermail.com> wrote in message
news:vhah4v8es1dfmi5vr...@4ax.com...
: February 10 2003
:
: It was easy to laugh at the lockbox.
: But now that it's gone -- blasted to bits by President Bush's federal
: budget -- it's worth pausing to consider what the lockbox represented.
It represented a box full of bullshit, used by politicians to fool a bunch
of dumbasses.
--
My friends call me Buzzard Breath
Others call me Long Distance
B. B. Buckley
Billy Wang
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >That would allow government to devote the Social Security surplus
> >solely to paying down the national debt. And that would substantially
> >reduce the federal government's annual interest costs, leaving
> >Washington more money to help pay for Social Security and Medicare
> >when the baby boomers begin retiring at the end of this decade.
>
> The other "lockbox" Bush raided was the fund that guarantees private
> pension funds. It had a heathy cushion. Now it is bankrupt. The
> loser are those people for example who worked for Asbestos companies
> whose pension plans went bust along with the company.
Blame trial lawyers like John Edwards for getting very wealthy of
bogus asbestos litigation. Many companies went broke and jobs were
lost thanks to these blood suckers backed by all the Democrats in the
Senate.
> Bush Jr. squandered huge surpluses.
You are a liar and you are stupid. There was no huge surplus. It was
a projection that disappeared as soon as Clinton's stock bubble
started bursting in 2000 while Clinton was still in office.
Revenues/taxes dried up as stocks started to plummet. Nothing Bush
could do to stop the market dropping. The market goes overboard on
the upside then overshoots on the downside.
Reset of ignorant Canadian rant snipped!
bnichols
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >That would allow government to devote the Social Security surplus
> >solely to paying down the national debt. And that would substantially
> >reduce the federal government's annual interest costs, leaving
> >Washington more money to help pay for Social Security and Medicare
> >when the baby boomers begin retiring at the end of this decade.
>
> The other "lockbox" Bush raided was the fund that guarantees private
> pension funds. It had a heathy cushion. Now it is bankrupt. The
> loser are those people for example who worked for Asbestos companies
> whose pension plans went bust along with the company.
>
> Bush Jr. squandered huge surpluses. he has racked up record deficits,
> even larger than those of Reagan and Bush Sr. He has slashed
> essential services. He has bankrupted funds. He has starved the
> states. What has he got to show for positive for all this pain, but a
> bunch of fat cats with huge tax refunds?
And he did it all in less than two years, with virtually 0 in the way
of results. If you or I squandered company resources like that with
no return, our butts would have been history over a year ago.
Bill
bnichols
> "Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
> news:pdeh4vca9p5fntgkf...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:48:27 GMT, Mark Cresky <hap...@opermail.com>
> > wrote or quoted :
> >
> > >That would allow government to devote the Social Security surplus
> > >solely to paying down the national debt. And that would substantially
> > >reduce the federal government's annual interest costs, leaving
> > >Washington more money to help pay for Social Security and Medicare
> > >when the baby boomers begin retiring at the end of this decade.
> >
> > The other "lockbox" Bush raided was the fund that guarantees private
> > pension funds. It had a heathy cushion. Now it is bankrupt. The
> > loser are those people for example who worked for Asbestos companies
> > whose pension plans went bust along with the company.
> >
> > Bush Jr. squandered huge surpluses. he has racked up record deficits,
> > even larger than those of Reagan and Bush Sr. He has slashed
> > essential services. He has bankrupted funds. He has starved the
> > states. What has he got to show for positive for all this pain, but a
> > bunch of fat cats with huge tax refunds?
> >
>
>
> At least Bush isn't trying to murder SUV and grocery shoppers owners like
> you.
Can't answer his point, huh? <eg>
B
bnichols
The man from Singapore pontificates on US economics, & then chastises
someone from Canada.... <lol>
B
Chris Williamson
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:44:20 -0500, Chris Williamson
> <cdw...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Most voters believed the lie. They thought the money was actually
> >being put in a lock box. I've run into many people who were duped.
> >"You mean the Trust Fund isn't there?"
>
> That's a lie.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/socsec.htm
>
> The Social Security tax has been raising more money than is needed to
> pay for current benefits, in order to build up a surplus to help
> finance the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. All of this
> surplus is lent to the U.S. Treasury when the Social Security Trust
> Fund buys bonds from it. The money is then used to finance the federal
> deficit, just like any other money the government borrows. The bonds
> held by the fund pay the same interest as bonds held by the public.
> These bonds are every bit as real (or as much of a fiction) as the
> bonds held by banks, corporations, and individuals. Throughout U.S.
> history the federal government has always paid its debts. As a result,
> government bonds enjoy the highest credit ratings and are considered
> one of the safest assets in the world. Thus the fund has very real and
> secure assets.
I see you also are promoting the gimmick. Very liberal of you.
The bonds get their ratings from ability to pay. The reason the US
can pay is because it's borrowing from the Trust Fund!
And twenty years from now, when the US has the baby boomers to
pay for and no Trust Fund to borrow from, what then? Where will
Congress borrow to pay for its liability?
George of the Jungle
"winter" <win...@winter.winter> wrote in message
news:3e48de95$1...@news.teranews.com...
For those who haven't bothered to go to his website, the asshole who calls
himself "Roedy Green" thinks George Bush planned and executed the 9/11
attacks. From his website: 'As folk singer Ferron said in a concert here
in Victoria, "I think Bush did it."'
And beyond meddling in US politics (which as a CANADIAN citizen he has NO
right to do), he feels he can criticize our Constitution, our system of
elections, our trade policies (except when it comes to US tourists visiting
his little "Island Paradise" with our greenbacks), our judicial system, and
most everything else uniquely American.
He stand for: "Spray painting slogans on SUVs to tease the owners for trying
to bolster their masculinity by purchasing such a vehicle. Drilling small
holes in the vehicles and inserting foul-smelling mercaptans to make the
vehicles unusable."
"In the dead of night, dumping several tons of McDonald's litter in the
culprit's front yard. Sending a photo of the original crime to the local
newsmedia so they wake up the occupants early in the morning for a comment."
"Breaking into the culprit's house, and destroying his wine and brandy
collection by inserting dead fish into each bottle and resealing them."
"Taking pesticide sprayers and spraying the culprit's house and grounds with
a fine mist of oil. Pouring crude oil over the interiors of his
automobiles."
"Harpooning a human whale sacrificer to a tree in a similar burst of ancient
religious revival spirit." [Here he's actively advocating the MURDER of
Native Canadians -- so he's a RACIST too]
"Burying some valuable object owned by the fish farmer in salmon feces."
"Removing a poacher's gall bladder and feeding it to a bear as he watches to
see if the reverse is also true." [A "poacher" is anyone who hunts, in his
opinion]
"Throwing packets of cow feces wrapped to ressemble meat into the freezers
of supermarkets that carry that packer's products." [Here he's advocating
the poisoning of innocent supermarket shoppers in the name of animal
rights.]
Further, you Gorons ought to know that he even hates your hero, Al Gore.
[All direct quotes are from his website as of 1/11/2003]
Only American Citizens are "entitled" to criticize American politics and
politicians -- it's our "family" after all.
I hope his website and comments here are remembered by the government the
next time he visits the USA.
George of the Jungle
"bnichols" <to...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:12974278.03021...@posting.google.com...
You been to his web site, moron?
Do you agree with what he believes about America?
Let me paste some it in....
[All direct quotes are from his website as of 1/11/2003]
By the way, you Gorons ought to know that he even hates your hero, Al Gore.
The answer to his hatred of Bush, SUV owners, hunters, fishermen, etc., is
to expose his hate speech and label him for what he is..
John Tibbs
> "bnichols" <to...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:12974278.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3e48c6de$0$9594$4c41...@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...
> > > "Roedy Green" <ro...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
> For those who haven't bothered to go to his website, the asshole who calls
Oh, George, that's just the liberal way of showing their caring nature
to the world. BTW, they have so little they grasp for 'spinning'
straws when and wherever they can. They're just what Karl Marx
refered to as "Useful Idiots"
when talking about the dimwits that will carry the communist agenda
without realizing they are being duped.
jt
Chris Williamson
> Maybe you thugs should stop mis- using it then.
Why resort to denigration? Just answer the question, please.
joe_mama
wrote:
>Maybe you thugs should stop mis- using it then.
>
>
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/bd030499.htm
It's Official: Clinton Budget Raids Social Security and
Reduces Debt Less Than Doing Nothing Would
Congress' Official Estimators Hammer Clinton Budget
Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its
preliminary reestimate of the White House budget. This follows the
Joint Committee on Taxation's (JCT) reestimate of the Clinton White
House's tax provisions last week. Together, CBO and JCT are Congress'
official estimators -- nonpartisan entities that Clinton himself
promised to use when he first took office back in 1993.
President Clinton has promised to protect Social Security, to reduce
the debt to the maximum extent possible, to control spending, and
reduce taxes. But, Congress' official estimators show that on all four
counts, the President's budget fails. Instead, Clinton's budget raids
the Social Security trust fund for $158 billion in five years, it
artificially erases the surplus, it lowers the public debt less than
doing nothing would, it increases spending, and it raises taxes by
$89.7 billion over the 1999-2009 period.
Clinton Raids Social Security: According to CBO, Clinton spends $40
billion of the Social Security surplus in his budget's first year
(2000) and $158 billion over the first five years (2000-2004).
This is the same Social Security surplus that he has promised to save
in its entirety.
Clinton Reduces the Surplus: According to CBO, Clinton's budget
actually reduces the overall surplus by $436 billion from 2000-2004
and by $1.168 trillion from 2000-2009.
bnichols
<strettttch> Ah, yes, another day, another poster who reacts to
honest questions with personal insults; some things never change.
<chuckle>
As it happens, no, but that's not really all that relevant with regard
to this. He asked a question & you tried to sidestep it. If the two
of you have a history, fine, but shouldn't it be in e-mail & not
messing things up out here in the city park? <grin> Even if you hate
his guts, his question actually did have a point. If you dodge it,
guess who the one is who looks bad? :)
B
Josh Rosenbluth
Are you saying Clinton's performance on the debt was bad? Maybe so.
Maybe not. Why don't we compare Clinton's performance to say
Reagan's, or BushI's, or BushII's (to date and projected) and
determine who is mostly responsible?
Before we explore the numbers, a quick aside. Let's say I was in debt
$10K in 1985 and I earned $30K a year. Today I find myself $20K in
debt but earn $80K a year. Which debt is greater, the 1985 debt or
today's, and why? Based on this example, how should we measure the
national debt across different years so that we can make meaningful
comparisons?
Josh Rosenbluth
joe_mama
wrote:
>Brought to you by the Republucan Policy Committee.
>
>I can dismiss it on the face of it as hackneyed partisan lies.
Then refute it with cold hard facts.
joe_mama
wrote:
I am pointing out the FACT that clintoon used the Trust Fund to make
his budget look better than it was and what Marky is attempting to
claim to be a Republican ploy.
> Maybe so.
>Maybe not. Why don't we compare Clinton's performance to say
>Reagan's, or BushI's, or BushII's (to date and projected) and
>determine who is mostly responsible?
Why? Conditions were different. Can you say "dot bomb" or "irrational
exuberance?" Sure, I knew ya could.
>
>Before we explore the numbers, a quick aside. Let's say I was in debt
>$10K in 1985 and I earned $30K a year. Today I find myself $20K in
>debt but earn $80K a year. Which debt is greater, the 1985 debt or
>today's, and why? Based on this example, how should we measure the
>national debt across different years so that we can make meaningful
>comparisons?
>
Do tell.
joe_mama
wrote:
>Your "facts" are the spin of partisans, I suggest you made the
>assertions, it's your job to provide cites from independent sources.
The "facts" where developed by the CBO. You remember -
"CBO and JCT are Congress' official estimators -- nonpartisan entities
that Clinton himself promised to use when he first took office back in
1993."
Seems bubba thought highly of them... at least until he needed to cook
the books.
>
>Barring your ability to do that, I feel no compulsion to spend the day
>unraveling what are on the face of it, partisan spin.
Translation: "Hey asshole if you're going to present facts I'm outta
here."
>
>In short, not my job to teach you how to support an argument.
Yet another task for which you are seriously unqualified.
Josh Rosenbluth
I agree that most everybody has the used the Lockbox to make budgets
look better. Do you agree however that Clinton's budgets, even when
accounting for this ploy, are much better than BushII's, or BushI's,
or Reagan's? Which would mean Clinton is relying on the ploy a whole
lot less, right?
> > Maybe so.
> >Maybe not. Why don't we compare Clinton's performance to say
> >Reagan's, or BushI's, or BushII's (to date and projected) and
> >determine who is mostly responsible?
>
> Why? Conditions were different. Can you say "dot bomb" or "irrational
> exuberance?" Sure, I knew ya could.
Then you agree that debt performance under Clinton was markedly better
than the others.
> >Before we explore the numbers, a quick aside. Let's say I was in debt
> >$10K in 1985 and I earned $30K a year. Today I find myself $20K in
> >debt but earn $80K a year. Which debt is greater, the 1985 debt or
> >today's, and why? Based on this example, how should we measure the
> >national debt across different years so that we can make meaningful
> >comparisons?
> >
> Do tell.
The debt in 1985 is greater because 10/30 is greater than 20/80.
Nominal debt has no meaning. It has to be placed into context.
Josh Rosenbluth
joe_mama
wrote:
What criteria are we to use for the comparison?
> Which would mean Clinton is relying on the ploy a whole
>lot less, right?
"A whole lot less"? No.
>
>> > Maybe so.
>> >Maybe not. Why don't we compare Clinton's performance to say
>> >Reagan's, or BushI's, or BushII's (to date and projected) and
>> >determine who is mostly responsible?
>>
>> Why? Conditions were different. Can you say "dot bomb" or "irrational
>> exuberance?" Sure, I knew ya could.
>
>Then you agree that debt performance under Clinton was markedly better
>than the others.
What magical influence did clinton have on this... other than his
co-oping Republican positions on welfare reform and living under a
balanced budget? Most of the so-called budget surplus <snicker> came
as a result of the unusually high levels of capital investment in the
high tech sectors including internet schemes, and communications
hardware.
>
>> >Before we explore the numbers, a quick aside. Let's say I was in debt
>> >$10K in 1985 and I earned $30K a year. Today I find myself $20K in
>> >debt but earn $80K a year. Which debt is greater, the 1985 debt or
>> >today's, and why? Based on this example, how should we measure the
>> >national debt across different years so that we can make meaningful
>> >comparisons?
>> >
>> Do tell.
>
>The debt in 1985 is greater because 10/30 is greater than 20/80.
>Nominal debt has no meaning. It has to be placed into context.
>
Of course the GDP hasn't grown at the rate used in your example, has
it? Try comparing the actual rate of growth in the GDP with that of
the national debt. While you're doing that consider the fact that
clintoon was fortunate enough to preside over a period of over active
investment, which had nothing to do with his budgets, and I think
you'll agree there was no magic, just smoke and mirrors.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdpfeint.xls
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Joe
Josh Rosenbluth
How about on-budget deficit (that is the deficit when we exclude
Social Security revenue and outlays, otherwise known as the deficit
without using the Lockbox to make it look better) as a % of GDP?
> > Which would mean Clinton is relying on the ploy a whole
> >lot less, right?
>
> "A whole lot less"? No.
If you agree that on-budget deficit as a % GDP is the right criterion,
then let's look at the numbers and see if it is a "whole lot less".
Fair enough?
> >> > Maybe so.
> >> >Maybe not. Why don't we compare Clinton's performance to say
> >> >Reagan's, or BushI's, or BushII's (to date and projected) and
> >> >determine who is mostly responsible?
> >>
> >> Why? Conditions were different. Can you say "dot bomb" or "irrational
> >> exuberance?" Sure, I knew ya could.
> >
> >Then you agree that debt performance under Clinton was markedly better
> >than the others.
>
> What magical influence did clinton have on this... other than his
> co-oping Republican positions on welfare reform and living under a
> balanced budget? Most of the so-called budget surplus <snicker> came
> as a result of the unusually high levels of capital investment in the
> high tech sectors including internet schemes, and communications
> hardware.
You didn't answer my question. Do you agree that debt performance
under Clinton was markedly better than the others (Reagan, BushI and
BushII)? You are of course free to speculate about cause and effect,
but first how about dealing with the facts rather than opinion?
> >> >Before we explore the numbers, a quick aside. Let's say I was in debt
> >> >$10K in 1985 and I earned $30K a year. Today I find myself $20K in
> >> >debt but earn $80K a year. Which debt is greater, the 1985 debt or
> >> >today's, and why? Based on this example, how should we measure the
> >> >national debt across different years so that we can make meaningful
> >> >comparisons?
> >> >
> >> Do tell.
> >
> >The debt in 1985 is greater because 10/30 is greater than 20/80.
> >Nominal debt has no meaning. It has to be placed into context.
>
> Of course the GDP hasn't grown at the rate used in your example, has
> it? Try comparing the actual rate of growth in the GDP with that of
> the national debt. While you're doing that consider the fact that
> clintoon was fortunate enough to preside over a period of over active
> investment, which had nothing to do with his budgets, and I think
> you'll agree there was no magic, just smoke and mirrors.
>
> http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdpfeint.xls
> http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
My numbers were exemplary only to make the point and you got the point
by asking to compare how fast debt grew compared to GDP. I think that
is a very reasonable way to comapre debt performance.
In the Reagan years (1982-89, I chose to lag the effect of his
policies by one year since he is responsible for budget proposals
Fiscal Years 1982-89), GDP grew from 3.13T (1981, last pre-Reagan
year) to 5.49T, or 75%. Debt grew from 994B to 2.87T, or 189%. Doing
the same for the others gives:
President GDP Growth Debt growth
Reagan 75% 189%
BushI 21% 52%
Clinton 52% 33%
BushII 18% 36% (proj through 2005)
Now, who stands out with debt growth less than GDP? And who has debt
growing over twice the rate of GDP?
Josh Rosenbluth
joe_mama
wrote:
This whole discussion began with Mark's claim that using the Trust
Fund was strictly a Republican practice. If I read you correctly, you
agree that that is not true. Having agreed to that, let's continue.
Can you provide non-partisan cites for the figures we would compare?
It would help if those cites include figures for both "on-budget" and
total spending.
>
>> > Which would mean Clinton is relying on the ploy a whole
>> >lot less, right?
>>
>> "A whole lot less"? No.
>
>If you agree that on-budget deficit as a % GDP is the right criterion,
>then let's look at the numbers and see if it is a "whole lot less".
>Fair enough?
Sure.
>
>> >> > Maybe so.
>> >> >Maybe not. Why don't we compare Clinton's performance to say
>> >> >Reagan's, or BushI's, or BushII's (to date and projected) and
>> >> >determine who is mostly responsible?
>> >>
>> >> Why? Conditions were different. Can you say "dot bomb" or "irrational
>> >> exuberance?" Sure, I knew ya could.
>> >
>> >Then you agree that debt performance under Clinton was markedly better
>> >than the others.
>>
>> What magical influence did clinton have on this... other than his
>> co-oping Republican positions on welfare reform and living under a
>> balanced budget? Most of the so-called budget surplus <snicker> came
>> as a result of the unusually high levels of capital investment in the
>> high tech sectors including internet schemes, and communications
>> hardware.
>
>You didn't answer my question. Do you agree that debt performance
>under Clinton was markedly better than the others (Reagan, BushI and
>BushII)?
I didn't mean to be evasive, but to me the term "performance" implies
cause and effect. Perhaps you'd like to leave that for another
discussion?
> You are of course free to speculate about cause and effect,
>but first how about dealing with the facts rather than opinion?
That the economy affects the "performance" of the budget is a fact not
opinion. But let's stay the course of the discussion and stick to
numbers.
>
>> >> >Before we explore the numbers, a quick aside. Let's say I was in debt
>> >> >$10K in 1985 and I earned $30K a year. Today I find myself $20K in
>> >> >debt but earn $80K a year. Which debt is greater, the 1985 debt or
>> >> >today's, and why? Based on this example, how should we measure the
>> >> >national debt across different years so that we can make meaningful
>> >> >comparisons?
>> >> >
>> >> Do tell.
>> >
>> >The debt in 1985 is greater because 10/30 is greater than 20/80.
>> >Nominal debt has no meaning. It has to be placed into context.
>>
>> Of course the GDP hasn't grown at the rate used in your example, has
>> it? Try comparing the actual rate of growth in the GDP with that of
>> the national debt. While you're doing that consider the fact that
>> clintoon was fortunate enough to preside over a period of over active
>> investment, which had nothing to do with his budgets, and I think
>> you'll agree there was no magic, just smoke and mirrors.
>>
>> http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdpfeint.xls
>> http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
>
>My numbers were exemplary only to make the point and you got the point
>by asking to compare how fast debt grew compared to GDP. I think that
>is a very reasonable way to comapre debt performance.
Thank you. Is it possible to get a cite for your numbers. I presented
cites for both the GDP and debt, but these cites don't go as far back
as you wish to compare. I'd like to be working with a common set of
numbers. Also, don't take this the wrong way, but can the cites be
non-partisan.
>
>In the Reagan years (1982-89, I chose to lag the effect of his
>policies by one year since he is responsible for budget proposals
>Fiscal Years 1982-89), GDP grew from 3.13T (1981, last pre-Reagan
>year) to 5.49T, or 75%. Debt grew from 994B to 2.87T, or 189%. Doing
>the same for the others gives:
>
>President GDP Growth Debt growth
>Reagan 75% 189%
>BushI 21% 52%
>Clinton 52% 33%
>BushII 18% 36% (proj through 2005)
>
>Now, who stands out with debt growth less than GDP? And who has debt
>growing over twice the rate of GDP?
I've run the numbers using my sources and they don't match up with the
ones you've posted here. Example: My source shows the GDP under
clinton as going from 7.0T in 1993 to 9.2T in 2001. Yet you calculate
a growth of 52%? Perhaps my numbers are wrong? Posting your cite would
help.
Joe
Josh Rosenbluth
> On 14 Feb 2003 19:41:47 -0800, jrose...@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth)
> wrote:
>
> >Joe Mama wrote in message news:<3e4d604f...@news.newshosting.com>...
> >> On 14 Feb 2003 13:02:49 -0800, jrose...@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Joe Mama wrote in message news:<3e4d03ec...@news.newshosting.com>...
> >> >> On 13 Feb 2003 13:25:25 -0800, jrose...@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth)
> >> >>
> >> >> I am pointing out the FACT that clintoon used the Trust Fund to make
> >> >> his budget look better than it was and what Marky is attempting to
> >> >> claim to be a Republican ploy.
> >> >
> >> >I agree that most everybody has the used the Lockbox to make budgets
> >> >look better. Do you agree however that Clinton's budgets, even when
> >> >accounting for this ploy, are much better than BushII's, or BushI's,
> >> >or Reagan's?
> >>
> >> What criteria are we to use for the comparison?
> >
> >How about on-budget deficit (that is the deficit when we exclude
> >Social Security revenue and outlays, otherwise known as the deficit
> >without using the Lockbox to make it look better) as a % of GDP?
>
> This whole discussion began with Mark's claim that using the Trust
> Fund was strictly a Republican practice. If I read you correctly, you
> agree that that is not true. Having agreed to that, let's continue.
> Can you provide non-partisan cites for the figures we would compare?
> It would help if those cites include figures for both "on-budget" and
> total spending.
My point was that Republican budget policy has used the Lockbox much
more than Democratic policy to hide the deficit mess. You post
implied both sides are equally at fault. In fact, it isn't even
close.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2
My source for GDP is the same as yours. You quoted inflation-adjusted
GDP (expressed in 1996 dollars). I used nominal GDP figures
(1993=6.6T, 2001=10.1T) because the debt totals are also in nominal
dollars (we must use either only one of inflation-adjusted or nominal
dollar for both GDP and debt).
The source for debt is
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=35949315300+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve.
This table actually can stand on its own without the GDP information
because it shows Debt as a % of GDP, even as projected by the Bush
budget (the source of the table is the Whitehouse/OMB's historical
budget tables).
The Debt/GDP is very clear when comparing Reagan, BushI, Clinton and
BushII. Clinton successfully lowered Debt/GDP and the Republicans who
talk a good game show the exact opposite performance.
Josh Rosenbluth