Clinton's Options ( Pearl Harbor was a cakewalk )

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Broward Horne

unread,
Feb 11, 1993, 12:43:05 PM2/11/93
to

Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:
( hold on to your hats, pals )

Reprinted without permission from Associated Press

" In the face of such daunting figures, the budget office's options
show that deficit-reduction pain would have to be borne by more
than just the rich:

X Boosting the top income-tax rate for individuals from its
current 31 percent to 33 percent would raise $24 Billion
over the next four years. Clnton is expected to try to
raise the top rate, paid by the most affluent Americans,
to 36 percent

X Raising the top rate on corporations from 34 percent to 35
percent would garner $11.3 Billion for the government over
four years. Clinton is considering a 36 percent upper rate.

X Increasing the alternative minimum tax paid by the wealthy
from 24 perent to 28 percent would raise $17.1 Billion over
four years.

X Reduce the current $1 Million cap on mortgages on which
taxpayers can deduct interest to $300,000: $9 Billion [raised]

X Tax employer-paid health insurance premiums exceeding $400
per month for families and $165 monthly for individuals:
$79 Billion [raised]

X Higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Doubling the
24 cent-per-pack cigarette tax would raise $14.3 Billion.
The government could raise $17.9 Billion by increasing the
tax on a six-pack of beer from 33 cents to 81 cents, the tax
on a bottle of wine from 21 cents to 70 cents, and the tax on
a bottle of hard liquor from $2.14 to $2.54.

X Energy taxes. A 5 percent tax on energy would raise $71.4
Billion.

X Scale back nuclear weapons research and halt testing:
$600 Million

X Reduce from 14 to 10 the number of aircraft carrier battle
groups: $8.4 Billion

X Reduce military aid and economic foreign aid: $1.2 Billion

X Cancel the space station and superconducting super collider:
$9.7 Billion

X Reduce anti-drug law enforcement efforts: $6.8 Billion

X Reduce deficiency payments to farmers: $7.1 Billion

X Reduce federal interest subsidies for Stafford loans to
college students: $7.4 Billion

X Increase the montly premium Medicare recepients pay for
doctors' services by 5 percent: $20.1 Billion "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay. Add 'em all up. I make it around $350 Billion over four years,
either in increased revenues or decreased spending. At current
deficit levels, our total deficit over 4 years will be $300 Billion
* 4 years = $1.2 Trillion.

Okay. So enacting ALL of these options would cut the deficit by
25%. Let's give the benifit of the doubt. Make it FIFTY percent.

Now. Look over each item.

Example: Shutting down carrier groups. More people laid off
and less Federal revenues.

Energy taxes - Carter proposed a similar idea in the late 70s.
Studies suggest that economic growth would be slowed, due to
higher energy costs by 1/2 to 1% of GDP. Result: Less Federal
revenues through taxes.

Reduce anti-drug law enforcement. Result: More layoffs, less
Federal revenue.

And I'm SURE that these estimated "tax enhancement measures" assume
a static economy that won't react. Like people buying WAY less
gasoline. Or selling that $500K house to move to Omaha, Neb.

I'm highly interested to hear what President Clinton has to say
on Febuarary 17, 1993.

Russ Anderson

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 12:23:32 PM2/12/93
to

In GCTH...@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:

> Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:

[...]


> X Reduce anti-drug law enforcement efforts: $6.8 Billion

[...]


> Now. Look over each item.

[...]


> Reduce anti-drug law enforcement. Result: More layoffs, less
> Federal revenue.

Hopefully, it will result in fewer arrests, saving ~$30,000 per prisoner.

Not nearly as much as could be saved by ending the War on Drugs (which
has doubled the prison population (or new tax revenue by legalizing
and taxing drugs), but it is a step in the right direction...

--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Not a Boomer

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 1:34:02 PM2/12/93
to
In article <930211180...@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTH...@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
> Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:
...

> X Boosting the top income-tax rate for individuals from its
> current 31 percent to 33 percent would raise $24 Billion
> over the next four years. Clnton is expected to try to
> raise the top rate, paid by the most affluent Americans,
> to 36 percent

I think I'll mail a copy of "The Growth Experiment" to Clinton.
Doesn't he realize that when you raise taxes people will shelter their income?
It would raise $24 Billion *if* nothing changed, but it's been shown that
people actually react to tax changes. Imagine that! :)

> X Raising the top rate on corporations from 34 percent to 35
> percent would garner $11.3 Billion for the government over
> four years. Clinton is considering a 36 percent upper rate.

Watch corporations pay out more money in pre-tax areas. This, of
course, means less for "investment" areas. But hey, who said Clinton & Co. had
to be consistent on that "investment" thing?

> X Increasing the alternative minimum tax paid by the wealthy
> from 24 perent to 28 percent would raise $17.1 Billion over
> four years.

Heh heh. If only *I* could release tax-free bonds :(.

> X Reduce the current $1 Million cap on mortgages on which
> taxpayers can deduct interest to $300,000: $9 Billion [raised]

Can anyone say "boat industry shutdown II"?

> X Tax employer-paid health insurance premiums exceeding $400
> per month for families and $165 monthly for individuals:
> $79 Billion [raised]

Sayonora to employer provided health care as a "benefit".

> X Higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Doubling the
> 24 cent-per-pack cigarette tax would raise $14.3 Billion.
> The government could raise $17.9 Billion by increasing the
> tax on a six-pack of beer from 33 cents to 81 cents, the tax
> on a bottle of wine from 21 cents to 70 cents, and the tax on
> a bottle of hard liquor from $2.14 to $2.54.

At least fewer people will smoke--store bought cigarettes. I hear
there is already a pretty efficient black market in NY serving Canada. I guess
we can expect it to move into the US further :).

> X Energy taxes. A 5 percent tax on energy would raise $71.4
> Billion.

Can you say "manufactured shorage" and "windfall profits"?

> X Scale back nuclear weapons research and halt testing:
> $600 Million

Now if only they could get local Democrats to shut down the local
nuclear trigger plant.

> X Reduce from 14 to 10 the number of aircraft carrier battle
> groups: $8.4 Billion

Not a bad idea, but what are you going to do with those 100,000
sailors?

> X Reduce military aid and economic foreign aid: $1.2 Billion

Gasp! An actual, bona-fide good idea. Ack! Where's the crash cart!!

> X Cancel the space station and superconducting super collider:
> $9.7 Billion

It's funny that Clinton will not shut down the V-22 because of
"spin-offs" but will cancel the Space Station, which actually does have real
spin-off technology. And the icing on the cake is that the military doesn't
want the V-22 but NASA wants Freedom. Go figure.

> X Reduce anti-drug law enforcement efforts: $6.8 Billion

Cool, now all he has to do is legalize.

> X Reduce deficiency payments to farmers: $7.1 Billion

Hopefully that includes tobacco.

> X Reduce federal interest subsidies for Stafford loans to
> college students: $7.4 Billion

Heaven forbid anyone go to college for free or at low cost :).

> X Increase the montly premium Medicare recepients pay for
> doctors' services by 5 percent: $20.1 Billion "

Soak the elderl--err--rich? :)

...


> Okay. Add 'em all up. I make it around $350 Billion over four years,
> either in increased revenues or decreased spending. At current
> deficit levels, our total deficit over 4 years will be $300 Billion
> * 4 years = $1.2 Trillion.

Well, he won't get the revenue from taxes and most of those cuts will
get stalled in congress, so I make the actual deficit about $400 billion each
year.

...


> I'm highly interested to hear what President Clinton has to say
> on Febuarary 17, 1993.

I'm even more interested to hear what he will have to say on February
17th, 1994.

And when will this "beat Reagan" fixation end? Don't the Democrats
know they never did beat him, so trying him in absentia is a bit...crazy?

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction." Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.

Peter Nelson

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 12:00:26 PM2/12/93
to
In article <930211180...@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTH...@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
> Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:
> ( hold on to your hats, pals )

And your wallets. You might need your hats - ever see pictures
from the 1930's of hundreds of people on the unemployment lines
and soup-kitchen lines? They all had hats.

[ list deleted for brevity ]

> Example: Shutting down carrier groups. More people laid off
> and less Federal revenues.

Right. And The New York Times says each DoD job has a
"multiplier" of 2.1. But any spending cuts will cost
jobs one way or the other. The fact remains that by running
a $325 billion budget deficit we are artificially making the
economy $325 billion bigger than it would be otherwise.
Eliminating the deficit will take $325 billion out of the
economy that really was never there in the first place.
It's like living off your credit cards -- you can live like
a much wealthier man than you really are FOR A WHILE.

So the deficit has to be eliminated. And this will hit
the economy, especially jobs. There's no way to make the
arithmetic come out any other way. But we hope in the
long run it will be worth it.

Meanwhile the question is how. The Democrats seem to be leaning
on tax increases, whereas I would propose spending cuts.


> Energy taxes - Carter proposed a similar idea in the late 70s.
> Studies suggest that economic growth would be slowed, due to
> higher energy costs by 1/2 to 1% of GDP. Result: Less Federal
> revenues through taxes.

Right again.

And just look at the effect of the taxes in general -- every
extra dollar I have to pay in taxes is a dollar I can't spend
on some product or service. Taxes are a kind of friction -
they slow economies down.

Then there's the empirical argument -- every tax increase in
recent decades has been followed by even BIGGER spending
increases. Moreover the tax *decreases* in recent decades
have ben followed by substantial revenue *increases*.


> I'm highly interested to hear what President Clinton has to say
> on Febuarary 17, 1993.

I'm not. I think we all know exactly what he's going to say.

---peter


Jim Howe

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 2:09:34 PM2/12/93
to
In article <C2CHw...@apollo.hp.com>, nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> In article <930211180...@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTH...@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
|> >
|> > Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:
|> > ( hold on to your hats, pals )
|>
|> And your wallets. You might need your hats - ever see pictures
|> from the 1930's of hundreds of people on the unemployment lines
|> and soup-kitchen lines? They all had hats.
|>

While I don't think Clintonomics will bring on a depression, I do think
that things are going to get worse, not better.

|>
|> > Example: Shutting down carrier groups. More people laid off
|> > and less Federal revenues.
|>
|> Right. And The New York Times says each DoD job has a
|> "multiplier" of 2.1. But any spending cuts will cost
|> jobs one way or the other. The fact remains that by running
|> a $325 billion budget deficit we are artificially making the
|> economy $325 billion bigger than it would be otherwise.
|> Eliminating the deficit will take $325 billion out of the
|> economy that really was never there in the first place.

I disagree (mostly). When the U.S. government runs a deficit, the
money does not come out of thin air (unless the deficit is monetized),
it comes from additional borrowing. This is simply sucking money that
would have gone elsewhere into the big government machine. This is
really not much different than taxation. If the government weren't
running a deficit, the money would be used elsewhere, probably more
efficiently. The national economy would probably be larger than it
currently is, simply because government borrowing, like taxation, creates
'friction' (as you mention below). The problem we have currently
is the transition. How do we wean ourselves off of deficit spending.
Quickly cutting the deficit is likely to be more harmful than it
needs to be. Reduction needs to occur more gradually so that the
non-government economy has a chance to absorb the extra capital and
put it into productive use. In addition, simply holding down spending
would let the natural growth of the economy catch up to the level of
government spending. As the economy grows, tax revenues increase
without the need for increased taxes (or higher tax rates).

|> [...]

|>
|> Meanwhile the question is how. The Democrats seem to be leaning
|> on tax increases, whereas I would propose spending cuts.
|>

I agree completely. Tax increases will likely result in higher spending
and a slower economy and will likely result in lower revenues. Simply
look at recent history as to the effectiveness of tax increases in
fixing the deficit.

|> Then there's the empirical argument -- every tax increase in
|> recent decades has been followed by even BIGGER spending
|> increases. Moreover the tax *decreases* in recent decades
|> have ben followed by substantial revenue *increases*.
|>

Clinton and his advisors seem to want to ignore this bit of information.

|>
|> > I'm highly interested to hear what President Clinton has to say
|> > on Febuarary 17, 1993.
|>
|> I'm not. I think we all know exactly what he's going to say.
|>

Agreed. A depressing prospect.


James W. Howe internet: j...@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943

Peter Nelson

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 3:01:33 PM2/12/93
to
In article <1lgsle...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> j...@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <C2CHw...@apollo.hp.com>, nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <930211180...@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTH...@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>|> >
>|> > Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:
>|> > ( hold on to your hats, pals )
>|>
>|> And your wallets. You might need your hats - ever see pictures
>|> from the 1930's of hundreds of people on the unemployment lines
>|> and soup-kitchen lines? They all had hats.
>|>
>
>While I don't think Clintonomics will bring on a depression, I do think
>that things are going to get worse, not better.

Eliminating the deficit will, somehow or other, require spending
$325 billion dollars a year less than we're spending now. You
either cut that much in spending or increase that much in taxes
(or some combination). Take it out in taxes and that's $325
billion less that people have to spend on other stuff (cars,
movies, housing, whatever). Do it in spending cuts and it's
still $325 billion less planes, tanks, uniforms, or Medicaid-funded
surgery, student-loan funded college classrooms, etc, which amounts
to same same thing in loss of jobs, loss of spending. At $39K average
US wage either way it's over 8 million jobs, NOT counting multipliers.
I'd say that's depression categoy. Naturally I hope they make
spending cuts instead of tax increases, but I can't see any way to
make the arithmetic come out to deficit eliminantion == depression,
at least in the short term.


>|> jobs one way or the other. The fact remains that by running
>|> a $325 billion budget deficit we are artificially making the
>|> economy $325 billion bigger than it would be otherwise.
>|> Eliminating the deficit will take $325 billion out of the
>|> economy that really was never there in the first place.
>
>I disagree (mostly). When the U.S. government runs a deficit, the
>money does not come out of thin air (unless the deficit is monetized),
>it comes from additional borrowing.

True, but in immediate terms this may be a distinction without
a difference. That is, if we WERE getting the money out of thin
air and suddenly it stopped the economy would shrink by $325
billion. On the other hand if after years of running a massive
deficit we suddenly decide to pay if off the economy also shrinks
by that much. Either way you get a sudden contraction of the
economy.

Now in the long run we are probably agreed that paying off the
deficit and reducing the role of government in our lives and in
the economy will be good for economic growth, my point is that
during the process of doing this, if we do it seriously, it will
be impossible to avoid massive economic hardship. And if we don't
do it seriously we'll keep adding to the national debt to the
point where the economy will collapse under the demands of debt
service.

>needs to be. Reduction needs to occur more gradually so that the
>non-government economy has a chance to absorb the extra capital and
>put it into productive use.

But there ISN'T any extra capital until we're already fairly
far along the curve since the *existing* debt is funded at
approx 7-8% and that means that the interest on that debt
plus the new debt added every year (remember a $150 billion
deficit reduction means we're still adding $175 billion of
NEW debt every year) will swamp whatever relief the capital
markets enjoy from the deficit reduction.

This is the big flaw in the Democrat's model - they think that
cutting the deficit in half (say) will result in a kind of
fiscal stimulus to the economy. But all it will do is prevent
things from being worse than they otherwise might be; it will
still be worse than it is now. That's not what I call a stimulus.


---peter

Mark Wilson

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 6:13:55 PM2/12/93
to

But eliminate the deficit and you also eliminate $325 billion in government
borrowing every year. This will cause a drop in interest rates which
will cause business activity to pick up.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

michael jensen

unread,
Feb 13, 1993, 8:01:24 PM2/13/93
to

> This is the big flaw in the Democrat's model - they think that
> cutting the deficit in half (say) will result in a kind of
> fiscal stimulus to the economy. But all it will do is prevent
> things from being worse than they otherwise might be; it will
> still be worse than it is now. That's not what I call a stimulus.
>---peter

I'm confused. I'm reading criticism saying, roughly, "it can't be
done, the deficit is too big, any change will create economic
upheaval, and it'll be Clinton's fault that it isn't fixed."

Hunh? Wasn't it the last twelve years that more than tripled the
deficit? We finally have a President who is serious about making
significant changes in the way we're treating the national credit
card, and he's blamed for not being able to perform miracles? We're
paying more in interest on the debt than we're paying for the military.
Who's to blame for that? Clinton?

Get real. The supply-siders had a big party, and now they're
complaining because somebody's asking them to clean up their mess.
The so-called "conservatives" don't want to have their "entitlement"
teat taken away from them.

Quit whining, you big babies. We've still got a better life than we
deserve. It's just dumb luck we were born in America instead of
Russia or Ethiopia.

Yeah, Clinton will have a hard time. Yeah, he'll make mistakes. But so
far, he's the first President to actually try to face up to the
stupidities and corruptions of the past, and try to change a slowly
suicidal status quo.

Michael Jensen
jen...@unlinfo.unl.edu standard disclaimers apply.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Democracy in the electronic age requires a nation of watchdogs,
each of us unfenced and unleashed. -- B. McDonnell

Broward Horne

unread,
Feb 14, 1993, 5:29:39 PM2/14/93
to

In a previous article, r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:

>
>In GCTH...@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>

>> Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:

>[...]


>> Reduce anti-drug law enforcement. Result: More layoffs, less
>> Federal revenue.
>

>Not nearly as much as could be saved by ending the War on Drugs (which
>has doubled the prison population (or new tax revenue by legalizing
>and taxing drugs), but it is a step in the right direction...


Hmmm. You must have missed Clinton's latest attempt
to nuke Wall Street. First, drug companies, now
Health Care stocks.


I swear, if I didn't know better, I'd swear that
Clinton was a Soviet mole, like in Telefon. HIs
mission is to destroy the U.S. as quickly as
possible on becoming president.

If I had MAPPED out a plan to destroy all credibility
in the government, total the economy, and create riots,
I couldn't have done as well. It's like he's taking
this course of maximum destruction.


I just can't believe it. Cut military spending, piss off
the military leaders, then dump them into Bosnia.


I'm halfway expecting a coup now.

Broward Horne

unread,
Feb 14, 1993, 4:20:11 PM2/14/93
to

In a previous article, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:

>In <C2CqA...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>

>| Eliminating the deficit will, somehow or other, require spending
>| $325 billion dollars a year less than we're spending now. You
>| either cut that much in spending or increase that much in taxes
>| (or some combination). Take it out in taxes and that's $325
>| billion less that people have to spend on other stuff (cars,
>| movies, housing, whatever). Do it in spending cuts and it's
>| still $325 billion less planes, tanks, uniforms, or Medicaid-funded
>| surgery, student-loan funded college classrooms, etc, which amounts
>| to same same thing in loss of jobs, loss of spending. At $39K average
>| US wage either way it's over 8 million jobs, NOT counting multipliers.
>| I'd say that's depression categoy. Naturally I hope they make
>| spending cuts instead of tax increases, but I can't see any way to
>| make the arithmetic come out to deficit eliminantion == depression,
>| at least in the short term.
>

>But eliminate the deficit and you also eliminate $325 billion in government
>borrowing every year. This will cause a drop in interest rates which
>will cause business activity to pick up.


Mark has (subconsciously?) forgotten about the much-vaunted
money muliplier effect, touted as our 'friend', but about to
become a two-edged sword. He's also forgotten about the
latest rage in world politics, capitalism. Why on earth
would that "freed-up" money stay HERE, in the U.S., to
pay fat and lazy Americans to move ASCII characters and
burger patties around, when it could go to Russia, or China,
South America, or even Germany?

Broward Horne

unread,
Feb 14, 1993, 4:44:27 PM2/14/93
to

In a previous article, jen...@unl.edu (michael jensen) says:

>
>I'm confused. I'm reading criticism saying, roughly, "it can't be
>done, the deficit is too big, any change will create economic
>upheaval, and it'll be Clinton's fault that it isn't fixed."


Yep. Exactly. Clinton wanted to be a 'famous' president, and
he's just about guaranteed to get his wish now. Bill "Herbert
Hoover" Clinton. :)

>
>Hunh? Wasn't it the last twelve years that more than tripled the
>deficit? We finally have a President who is serious about making
>significant changes in the way we're treating the national credit
>card, and he's blamed for not being able to perform miracles? We're
>paying more in interest on the debt than we're paying for the military.
>Who's to blame for that? Clinton?


OUR GOVERNMENT IS! Man, isn't ANYBODY thinking anymore? It's
not about republicans, it's not about democrats, it's our GODDAMN
goverment. They are

COMPLETELY

TOTALLY

UNDENIABLE

out of touch with reality. Vitrtually NONE of them have hard,
quantitative science backgrounds. If they say a thing is so,
then it's so. They believe they can legislate prosperity, create
resources and initiative from thin paper words.

Read last week's U.S. Today, where Vince Fazio claims that
congressional salaries aren't out of line. " Just look at
what entertainers and atheletes make ", he exclaims.

>
>Get real. The supply-siders had a big party, and now they're
>complaining because somebody's asking them to clean up their mess.


Hey, I hate to tell you this, but the REAL conservatives have
suffered far more than you think. Virtually noone in my
immediate family is doing well, because we were brought up to
not borrow ourselves in oblivion, while everyone else did.

I have no children, because I couldn't AFFORD to. What I
should have done was just fuck women all over America, and
dump in the government, right?

Now, all the borrowers are whining for free stuff, because they
STUPIDLY didn't forsee the consequences of their actions, and
*I* am supposed to help clean up? Forget it. Let it blow.

Nope, it's time for ME to be selfish too, and get my freebies.

Come on, Bill. BLOW THE HELL out of this economy! YES!!!!


>Yeah, Clinton will have a hard time. Yeah, he'll make mistakes. But so
>far, he's the first President to actually try to face up to the
>stupidities and corruptions of the past, and try to change a slowly
>suicidal status quo.


He's a bald-face liar in a bad situation.
I can't believe that anybody still believes anything he says. :)
It's true. There's one born every minute.

Broward Horne

unread,
Feb 14, 1993, 5:21:14 PM2/14/93
to

In a previous article, nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:

>In article <930211180...@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTH...@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>

>> Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:
>> ( hold on to your hats, pals )
>

> And your wallets. You might need your hats - ever see pictures
> from the 1930's of hundreds of people on the unemployment lines
> and soup-kitchen lines? They all had hats.


Soup-kitchens are for people who believe the government can
create wealth from air. Got my own soup-kitchen. Hats too. :)

>
> have ben followed by substantial revenue *increases*.

>> I'm highly interested to hear what President Clinton has to say
>> on Febuarary 17, 1993.
>

> I'm not. I think we all know exactly what he's going to say.
>

No, no. I'm looking forward to it. He's going to give the
American people the tax DICKING of ALL TIME. He has to. He
doesn't want to have to come back for more before the 1994 or
1996 elections, now does he?


It's going to be a WHOPPER. I figure around $500 per middle-
class taxpayer. That should polish off the economy for a
few more years, eh? :)

He'll have to come back again, for another dicking, when they
realize that revenues are plummeting. It should be great.

You can't BUY this kind of comedy. :)

>
>---peter
>
>
>

Joseph Askew

unread,
Feb 15, 1993, 6:27:12 PM2/15/93
to

>But eliminate the deficit and you also eliminate $325 billion in government
>borrowing every year. This will cause a drop in interest rates which
>will cause business activity to pick up.

Not necessarily. If interest rates are cut and the fundamental problems
in the economy are not fixed before hand it may make things worse. If
noone *wants* to invest because of structural weakness in the US economy
then such a cut will only fuel consumer demand and hence make the trade
deficit worse. This can be a vicious circle. Arguably George Bush kept
interest rates low during the lead up to the election to provide some
good economic statistics for political reasons. This has done nothing
for the US economy and has caused Japan to post a record trade surplus.
This is because the cheap money has not gone to GM or any other productive
investment but onto the credit cards of thousands of Americans. It has
caused more people to borrow more to buy houses, cars, take holidays
in Bermuda and so has only made things worse. This was a big problem
in Britain where the Conservativbe party would lower interest rates in
the lead up to an election and it was because of this sort of cheap
political stunt that the Tory party now wants an Independent Central
Bank - to stop them from doing it in the future!

Joseph Askew

--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32 Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.

Patrick J. McGuinness

unread,
Feb 15, 1993, 11:11:37 PM2/15/93
to
In article <1lk5l4...@crcnis1.unl.edu> jen...@unl.edu (michael jensen) writes:
>Hunh? Wasn't it the last twelve years that more than tripled the
>deficit?
No.

" Wasn't it the last election that Clinton told us a pack of lies?"
Yes.
" Wasn't it the Congressional Democrats who called the tax increase in 1990
a 'success' and promised that the tax increases would suffice to 'control'
the deficit?"
Yes.
" Wasn't Reagan's last deficit, as a percentage of GNP, virtually identical
to the deficit of Jimmy Carter when he left office, and doesn't this
disprove the myth that Reagan should be blamed for the current deficit?"
Yes.

>We finally have a President who is serious about making
>significant changes in the way we're treating the national credit

WHAT!?! Bill Clinton is proposing MORE OF THE SAME:
More taxes - just like in 1990 - and gimmicks for "spending cuts",
while actual spending CONTINUES TO RISE WITHOUT LIMIT.

>card, and he's blamed for not being able to perform miracles? We're
>paying more in interest on the debt than we're paying for the military.
>Who's to blame for that? Clinton?

No, his fellow Democrats in the Congress who refused to pass the
balanced budget amendment, resisted real spending cuts, gutted Gramm-Rudman,
forced Bush into a disastrous "compromise" Budget deal in 1990 that
worsened the situation by raising taxes, and then insisted on further
breaking the limits of the agreement. Spending increased
enormously in the 1970s, slowed down under Reagan, and
re-accelerated under Bush.

Clinton proposes to give the fiscally irresponsible Congress more rope
(ie taxes) with which to hang the American economy.

In the last few weeks, we've been teased every day with tax hike 'balloons'.
The one thing *nobody* is mentioning is the projected levels of
spending that Clinton is proposing. Guess what folks?
They're going higher - higher that even Bush's bloated proposals.
Higher, in the name of "stimulus" we don't need now (especially
given the state of the deficit), and higher in the out years,
because Clinton is letting Bush's 'spending cap' proposals die
a quiet death.

To hide the truth about spending, Clinton has made widely publicized
moves to cut staff. Alas, many of the White House cuts
involved shifts in assignments - the 'savings' are illusionary there. More
meaningful is the 100K cut in the total Government payroll
(actually through attrition) over four years. It will amount, claim the
newspapers, to a savings, four years from now, that is less than 0.6% of the
total budget. A very small step, albeit in the right direction.
Meanwhile, there will be "rebuilding" of HUD, increases for
"infrastucture", etc. that will wipe out these savings and
add yet more spending.
Add it up: (BIG increase) - (small savings) => higher spending.
Throw in tax increases that will backfire and you get:
slow revenue growth. Which leads to - higher deficits.

>Get real. The supply-siders had a big party, and now they're

Get real yourself.
The "party" helped America expand by one third during the 1980's,
created 18 million new jobs, and improved the lives of most Americans.
The tax revenue changes, ie tax rate cuts, brought in MORE revenue,
expecially from upper income taxpayers, at lower rates, while the income tax
burden was reduced for those at the bottom end of the income scale.
Both in terms of tax "fairness" and its stimulative economic effect,
supply side economics was proven correct.

Tax and spend, in the 1970's and early 1990's was proven a
failure. So what does Bill do? He attempts to reclaim failed
policies and reverse successful ones.

>The so-called "conservatives" don't want to have their "entitlement"
>teat taken away from them.

No silly. The so-called "liberals" don't want to have their "entitlement"
teat taken away from them. So they will take the hard-earned
dollars away from taxpayers. Real conservatives are fighting to downsize
Government.

>Quit whining, you big babies. We've still got a better life than we
>deserve. It's just dumb luck we were born in America instead of
>Russia or Ethiopia.

Ahem. "Love it or leave it" attitudes have been long discredited
in political debates. Maybe *you* have a better life that you deserve,
but most of us work hard for what we have, and don't want it taken
away by the stupidities of Clinton-era political elite.
yes, it *was* your dumb luck you lived under Reagan, and not under
Gorby, but you apparently didn't learn much from the experience.

>Yeah, Clinton will have a hard time. Yeah, he'll make mistakes. But so

He already *has* made mistakes. His economic proposals are
quite mistaken indeed.

>far, he's the first President to actually try to face up to the
>stupidities and corruptions of the past, and try to change a slowly
>suicidal status quo.

No. *Reagan* attempted to change the suicidal status quo - America's
slippage into the slothful, bloated welfare state.
Reagan's faced up to the stupidities and corruptions that Carter and
previous administrations had left him. He was mostly successful,
but the size of Government was hard to control.

Clinton is ready to reverse most of Reagan's successes,
and America stands to lose much from it.

Pat,

PS, Words to the wise -
Follow the "Broward Horne" investment strategy:
telebras, bolivia power, telephonos de chile, Brazil equity fund ...

Don M. Gibson

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 3:44:46 PM2/16/93
to
In article 21...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au, jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>In article <91...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>In <C2CqA...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>But eliminate the deficit and you also eliminate $325 billion in government
>>borrowing every year. This will cause a drop in interest rates which
>>will cause business activity to pick up.
>
>Not necessarily. If interest rates are cut and the fundamental problems
>in the economy are not fixed before hand it may make things worse. If
>noone *wants* to invest because of structural weakness in the US economy
>then such a cut will only fuel consumer demand
how's that? how does this "noone" prevent increased consumer borrowing with
lower interest rates?

> and hence make the trade
>deficit worse.

increased consumer demand does not "worsen the trade deficit".

> This can be a vicious circle. Arguably George Bush kept
>interest rates low during the lead up to the election to provide some
>good economic statistics for political reasons. This has done nothing
>for the US economy and has caused Japan to post a record trade surplus.

on the contrary, lower intererst rates makes for a weaker dollar and
and that improves the trade deficit.

>This is because the cheap money has not gone to GM or any other productive
>investment but onto the credit cards of thousands of Americans. It has
>caused more people to borrow more to buy houses, cars, take holidays
>in Bermuda and so has only made things worse. This was a big problem

how does that make things worse? debt is good!

>in Britain where the Conservativbe party would lower interest rates in
>the lead up to an election and it was because of this sort of cheap
>political stunt that the Tory party now wants an Independent Central
>Bank - to stop them from doing it in the future!

sounds like a british problem.


Peter Nelson

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 8:43:03 AM2/17/93
to
In article <1993Feb12....@desire.wright.edu> de...@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:

Most of an insightful commentary on Clinton's proposed tax increases
deleted for brevity.

>> X Tax employer-paid health insurance premiums exceeding $400
>> per month for families and $165 monthly for individuals:
>> $79 Billion [raised]
>
> Sayonora to employer provided health care as a "benefit".

But note that this would help Clinton, Rodham & Co. promote their
national health care agenda.

---peter

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages