Liberalism (was: Discrimination...)
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet wrote:
>: The question that ought to matter when a government considers a form
>: of environmental protection is, "do we understand what the
>: environmental measure costs and is it worth it?". Note that one of
>: the major themes of my posts on Liberalism is that Liberals do not
>: know how to ask this question; for Liberals, everything is either
>: costless, or can be financed by the rich (and the rich only).
>
>Keep the flip side in mind. What is the cost of doing nothing?
It is not clear to me that you are talking about an issue that I have
neglected. What does the appeal, "understand whether it is worth it"
mean to you? To me, it asks the reader to consider carefully the
benefits of the proposed program, and compare it with the risks and the
costs. What does the word "benefits" mean to you? To me, the "benefits"
of a program are the negative of the oppotunity costs of not implementing
the program. Where do we disagree?
>The sea otter population on the west coast was almost destroyed for
>economic reasons, the fur pelts. I suppose you would suggest no
>regulation on otter hunting because of the cost to the fur industry.
I would suggest a sales tax on the products of the firm industry; the tax
would rise as the population of the sea otters would fall. If the demand
for pelts were still high enough to cause the fur industry to destroy the
population, then maybe the extinction of that race was necessary after all.
The problem is that the supply of sea otters is not responsive to price,
that is, the sea otters do not choose to have more babies as the price of
the pelts increases; in fact, here is a case of rising prices actually
reducing the long-run supply; so the scarcer are the sea otters, the more
intensely they will be hunted; it is a vicious circle, that will end with
the extinction of the race. A good solution is one that will reduce the
quantity demanded of the product; a sales tax would fill the bill.
A sales tax has the additional advantage of helping to generate a number that
answers the question, "how much is the society willing to pay to stave off
the extinction of the sea otters"; such a figure could be useful in
predicting the enthusiasm of the public for other environmental protection
schemes.
>This case is more complicated than just destroying a population.
>Because the otters were gone, sea urchins destroyed the kelp beds and
>that decimated the coastal fishing. The loss of fishing costs far
>more than the pelts ever gained.
>
Give some of the proceeds from the tax to the fishing industry, if this
externality really exists; or better yet, lock the representatives of the
fishermen and the otter hunters in a room, and let them sort out their
own compensation scheme.
>Or you could take the example of the urban sprawl that graces
>California. Have you tried to drive down 880 south in the morning?
>Or driven by miles and miles of suburbs and malls that all look the
>same? That has a cost. You can probably even give an economic cost
>to it by estimating how many companies, say engineering companies,
>relocate and expand in places with less suburban hell, say Oregon and
>Washington.
I do not understand what your point is with this example. Where would
you have people live? Are the people happy with their shopping malls?
How many trees is such happiness worth? Do you know how to ask this
question? My policy recommendation is to set aside some of the
undeveloped land as a reserve; tax very heavily the development of land
that is in the reserve. Do not block development entirely; do not leave
environmental protection entirely in the hands of some bureaucrats.
Give people a chance to figure out how much they REALLY want to
develop the land.
>You seem to suggest looking only at short term, single causal link,
>costs in deciding on governmental action. That's nice in theory, but
>the world is more complex than that. Eventually the long term costs
>will win. I suppose, though, if we follow your ideology the country
>will end up paved and subdivided into condos and shopping malls and a
>huge patchs of land where only one crop is grown: wheat, corn, douglas
>firs, and then when you've culled all the complexity then world will
>be as simple as you imagine.
You are describing a situation where (apparently) much more of the
nation's natural resources would have been turned into wealth, than has
been the case thus far. The country would probably be living at a much
higher standard of living than it is today; the citizenry would be better
off.
Please remember that development explicitly means exchanging trees for
condos, shopping malls and jobs. The Americans ought to consider explicitly
the way that it wants that equation to be implented. I criticize
Liberalism for neglecting this equation. I invite you to consider the
movement to remove styrofoam from McDonalds as an example of sloppy and
careless cost accounting by Liberals.
Thank you for reading.
ALfredo B. Goyburu
"Liberalism is a poor substitute for understanding."
"The Tenth Amendment is dead; get over it."
>Scott Ferguson | "All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished
Robert Reed
|
|I would suggest a sales tax on the products of the firm industry; the tax
|would rise as the population of the sea otters would fall. If the demand
|for pelts were still high enough to cause the fur industry to destroy the
|population, then maybe the extinction of that race was necessary after all.
|
|The problem is that the supply of sea otters is not responsive to price,
|that is, the sea otters do not choose to have more babies as the price of
|the pelts increases; in fact, here is a case of rising prices actually
|reducing the long-run supply; so the scarcer are the sea otters, the more
|intensely they will be hunted; it is a vicious circle, that will end with
|the extinction of the race. A good solution is one that will reduce the
|quantity demanded of the product; a sales tax would fill the bill.
|
|A sales tax has the additional advantage of helping to generate a number that
|answers the question, "how much is the society willing to pay to stave off
|the extinction of the sea otters"; such a figure could be useful in
|predicting the enthusiasm of the public for other environmental protection
|schemes.
Unfortunately, there is a factor you're not considering here, the cost and
timeliness of your feedback loop. While with some threatened species (e.g.,
various species of salmon), getting an accurate count with little harm to them
is easy because you can just videotape their passage through fish ladders.
For other species, just the effort to get accurate numbers could be threatening
to the population, or the time it takes to do an accurate survey destroys the
responsiveness of the tax. Take for example the marbled murrelet, a seabird
which spends most of its life out to sea except when procreating, when it flies
as much as 10 miles inland to find a nice, large, flat branch in an old growth
Douglas fir on which to hatch its eggs. This seabird is only a recent addition
to environmentalist's concerns about population declines because it is so
secretive.
A tax such as you're suggesting requires timely information about such
populations to be an effective regulator.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed Home Animation Limited 503-656-8414
home: rob...@slipknot.rain.com West Linn, OR 97068
work: rob...@metheus.com 503-690-1550 x7284
I remember coaching my wife during childbirth, "Breathe, honey, breath!"
You have this myth that you're sharing in the birth experience--BULLSHIT!
Unless you're passing a bowling ball, I don't think so!
Unless you're circumcising yourself with a chainsaw, I don't think so!
Unless you're opening an umbrella up your ass, I don't think so!
You're not doing diddly squat! You're along for the ride!
--Robin Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
B. Scott Ferguson
: In article <Pine.A32.3.91a.94101...@homer10.u.washington.edu>, Christopher McKenzie <can...@u.washington.edu> writes:
: |> We have yet to see the
: |> practical application of this. It was tried during the early '80's, but
: |> while it was nice to cut back on taxes, nobody made the connection that
: |> spending is based upon revenue. Spending still went up (particularily on
: |> the military to fight the "Evil Red Empire"), and revenue went down.
: THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. in 1981 revenue to the Federal
: Government was 500 billion. When Reagan left office in 1988
: it was over 900 billion dollars. This can be verified through
: the department of labor and statistics.
Okay, I'll bite.
All the data is from gopher://sunny.stat-usa.gov. For some reason,
the constant dollars are from 1987.
Receipts Outlays Deficit
$$ 1987 $$ %GDP $$ 1987 $$ %GNP %GNP
1976 298 585 17.7 372 729 22.1 4.4
1980 517 728 19.6 591 832 22.3 2.8
1984 666 730 18.0 852 934 23.1 5.0
1988 910 878 18.9 1,064 1,027 23.2 3.2
1992 1,090 894 18.4 1,381 1,132 23.3 4.9
Looks to me like spending went up, revenues went down, and the deficit
ballooned.
[snip]
: And
: |> people these days wonder where are $4.6 trillion dollar debt came from.
: 1. increased social spending
: 2. failed savings and loans
: 3. military spending
Here are the outlays as a %GNP. The SS + Federal retirement and the
medical are already included in the social spending.
As % of GNP
Defense Social (SS+Ret Medical) Physical Interest Total
1976 5.3 12.1 5.7 1.9 2.3 1.6 22.1
1980 5.1 11.9 5.8 2.2 2.5 2.0 22.3
1984 6.2 11.7 6.2 2.5 1.6 3.0 23.1
1988 6.0 11.1 5.8 2.7 1.4 3.2 23.2
1992 5.0 13.0 6.1 3.7 1.3 3.4 23.3
It looks to me like the main problems are:
1. medical costs +1.8
2. interest on the debt +1.8
3. military spending
Oh, but I forget, "there is no health care problem in America."
Sounds like we need someone like Huffington to get in there and do
nothing about the growth of medical spending.
: You really need to stop spreading these unsubstantiated rumors. Oh
: but that's what liberals do. Now I understand.
I suppose I shouldn't have put the numbers in. Unsubstantiated liberal
rumors are much more fun, and facts have no place on USENET.
Wasn't part of the idea of supply side economics that the social
spending would automatically decrease because of the expected booming
economy? That certainly didn't happen.
--
Scott Ferguson | "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can
------------------+ make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
John Iacoletti
|> All the data is from gopher://sunny.stat-usa.gov. For some reason,
|> the constant dollars are from 1987.
It looks to me like your numbers match exactly what Kurt said: "in 1981
revenue to the Federal Government was 500 billion. When Reagan left office in
1988 it was over 900 billion dollars"
|> Looks to me like spending went up, revenues went down, and the deficit
|> ballooned.
Revenues went up -- both in real dollars and constant dollars -- by your own
figures.
|> It looks to me like the main problems are:
|> 1. medical costs +1.8
|> 2. interest on the debt +1.8
|> 3. military spending
The table you posted has to be missing quite a bit. Interest on the debt
doesn't go up all by itself without corresponding increases in spending, above
and beyond the revenue increases. Your numbers don't add up. Social spending
supposedly went down, but the components of it either stayed the same or
increased? What is "Physical"? How were these categories defined?
|> Oh, but I forget, "there is no health care problem in America."
|> Sounds like we need someone like Huffington to get in there and do
|> nothing about the growth of medical spending.
No, all we need is for the government to stop spending money on medical care.
|> Wasn't part of the idea of supply side economics that the social
|> spending would automatically decrease because of the expected booming
|> economy? That certainly didn't happen.
Of course not. Social spending increases were fixed into law before Reagan
took the presidential oath. The economy had nothing to do with them.
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Esta noche presentamos con mucho gusto informacion interesante acerda de LAS
LLAMAS" -- MPFC
B. Scott Ferguson
: In article <fergieCy...@netcom.com>, fer...@netcom.com (B. Scott Ferguson) writes:
: It looks to me like your numbers match exactly what Kurt said: "in
: 1981 revenue to the Federal Government was 500 billion. When Reagan
: left office in 1988 it was over 900 billion dollars"
: |> Looks to me like spending went up, revenues went down, and the deficit
: |> ballooned.
: Revenues went up -- both in real dollars and constant dollars -- by
: your own figures.
But not as a % of GNP. Kurt's numbers are accurate but misleading, as
they are intended to be. Revenues have gone up in constant dollars
since at least the 60's and probably before. So the fact that the
revenues went up during Reagan-Bush says nothing about the efficacy of
Reaganomics. As a % of GNP the revenues went down and the outlays
went up, causing the deficit and the increased debt.
The debt as a %GNP has gone down steadily since the debt from WWII
until the Reagan-Bush years where it climbed back. Do you really want
to embrace that legacy of Reagan-Bush?
Receipts Outlays Deficit Debt - SS surplus Debt
1976 17.7 22.1 4.4 28.3 37.3
1980 19.6 22.3 2.8 26.8 34.4
1984 18.0 23.1 5.0 35.2 42.3
1988 18.9 23.2 3.2 42.6 54.1
1992 18.4 23.3 4.9 50.5 67.4
: |> It looks to me like the main problems are:
: |> 1. medical costs +1.8
: |> 2. interest on the debt +1.8
: |> 3. military spending
: The table you posted has to be missing quite a bit. Interest on the
: debt doesn't go up all by itself without corresponding increases in
: spending, above and beyond the revenue increases. Your numbers don't
: add up. Social spending supposedly went down, but the components of
: it either stayed the same or increased? What is "Physical"? How were
: these categories defined?
The national debt as a %GNP almost doubled during Reagan-Bush, and
the interest more than doubled. So we can blame 1.8 %GNP of the
annual deficit on the Reagan-Bush era. That's more than half the
deficit.
I wanted to make the social spending table smaller, so I didn't list
all the social components. From 1976 to 1988 the other social
spending dropped: unemployment -0.8 %GNP + student grants -0.3 %GNP +
welfare -0.2 %GNP = -1.3%GNP. They came back in 1992 by +0.7 %GNP.
Physical = dept of energy + natural resources + commerce & housing credit.
I assume this includes things like agricultural & mining subsidies.
You can look all this up in gopher://sunny.stat-usa.gov.
: |> Oh, but I forget, "there is no health care problem in America."
: |> Sounds like we need someone like Huffington to get in there and do
: |> nothing about the growth of medical spending.
: No, all we need is for the government to stop spending money on
: medical care.
That's one possible solution, but I doubt either party will propose
cutting medicare. Aren't the Republicans attacking Clinton on the
Rivlin memo? The increase is scary enough (1% GNP in 4 years)
that _something_ has to be done. This will make some apoplectic, but
Clinton was absolutely right that the main budget problem is health
care. It will not go away by itself as the Republicans in Washington
seem to think.
The "Republican Contract with America" is bogus. It would result in a
much higher debt that would drag the budget down for years to come.
The Republican claim of being the party of fiscal responsibility lacks
a sliver of credibility.
--
Scott Ferguson | "Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare said.
fer...@netcom.com | "I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least - at least I
| mean what I say -- that's the same thing, you know."
B. Scott Ferguson
: In article <fergieCy...@netcom.com>, fer...@netcom.com (B. Scott Ferguson) writes:
: >ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet wrote:
: >: The question that ought to matter when a government considers a form
: >: of environmental protection is, "do we understand what the
: >: environmental measure costs and is it worth it?". Note that one of
: >: the major themes of my posts on Liberalism is that Liberals do not
: >: know how to ask this question; for Liberals, everything is either
: >: costless, or can be financed by the rich (and the rich only).
: >
: >Keep the flip side in mind. What is the cost of doing nothing?
: It is not clear to me that you are talking about an issue that I have
: neglected. [snip] Where do we disagree?
Okay, I didn't make my point well. My concern is that the
liberal/environmental costs are often discounted because they are much
harder to calculate and some of costs are ignored entirely.
o The cost is likely to be well in the future. It was easy for the
placer gold miners in the 19th century to discount the future value of
the agricultural land they destroyed.
o The causes and effects are less well known. Did the anyone know in
the 19th century that wiping out the otters would decimate the
fisheries? How could they possibly estimate the damage?
o The facts are harder to find. Robert mentioned the example of
counting the marbled murrelet population.
o Secondary benefits are often ignored. How much can you attribute the
high-tech expansion in Oregon/Washington to the remaining forests?
What is the value of that? What is the cost to the bay area of
building houses on all the hills? What is the economic value of
Golden Gate Park to San Francisto?
o Many things which destroy the environment are irreversible or
costly to reverse. Jurassic Park excepted, an extinct species cannot
be brought back. Fixing the damage due to the placer mining would
cost much more than the present value of the gold extracted. It takes
over 50 years for the kelp beds and fisheries to recover after otters
are reintroduced, and it's hard to reintroduce otters.
So I'm not disagreeing with you fundamentally about analyzing the cost
of environmental measures, but it's more likely for the long-term
benefits to get the short stick than the quick development gains.
Besides, the developers are more likely to get their point across
since they have more money to spend on lobbying.
: >The sea otter population on the west coast was almost destroyed for
: >economic reasons, the fur pelts. I suppose you would suggest no
: >regulation on otter hunting because of the cost to the fur industry.
: I would suggest a sales tax on the products of the fir industry; the
: tax would rise as the population of the sea otters would fall. If the
: demand for pelts were still high enough to cause the fur industry to
: destroy the population, then maybe the extinction of that race was
: necessary after all.
Another possibility is to sell off hunting rights for the population
above a sustainable population. This could be done for fishing rights.
One problem is that the estimates for a minimum sustainable population
are increasing, so you run the risk of setting that number too low.
I'm afraid I didn't explain the otter example very well. The otters
were hunted out long ago. The point of the example is to show
environmental causes are complicated and often unknown when regulation
would do any good. It also shows that the damage is sometimes hard to
reverse.
: >Or you could take the example of the urban sprawl that graces
: >California. Have you tried to drive down 880 south in the morning?
: I do not understand what your point is with this example. Where would
: you have people live? Are the people happy with their shopping malls?
: How many trees is such happiness worth? Do you know how to ask this
: question? My policy recommendation is to set aside some of the
: undeveloped land as a reserve; tax very heavily the development of land
: that is in the reserve. Do not block development entirely; do not leave
: environmental protection entirely in the hands of some bureaucrats.
: Give people a chance to figure out how much they REALLY want to
: develop the land.
I more or less agree. Halting development entirely is nonsense, but
why can't it be restricted to the already developed areas? The
_Economist_ pointed out that the size of the Chicago suburbs has
increased by 20% while the population has only increased by 4%. Why
chew up all that open space? When I was in Oregon (near Aloha) there
was still much farm land and open spaces, but also lots of
development. Will they keep any of that open space or turn the area
into another Orange County?
I wonder if the tradeoffs are really always jobs vs trees. Does
staring hard at the cost comparison blind us to solutions which
benefit both?
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>I more or less agree. Halting development entirely is nonsense, but
>why can't it be restricted to the already developed areas? The
>_Economist_ pointed out that the size of the Chicago suburbs has
>increased by 20% while the population has only increased by 4%. Why
>chew up all that open space? When I was in Oregon (near Aloha) there
>was still much farm land and open spaces, but also lots of
>development. Will they keep any of that open space or turn the area
>into another Orange County?
I am not really answering your post here, because you actually made
a lot of points, to which I cannot do justice, except after a few days
of thinking.
I throw two quibbles at you. One, I want the citation for the Economist
article; I do not really doubt you, I just figure that the same article
is likely to contain other interesting information.
Two, the statistic which you present is potentially deceptive if not
adorned with context. What if the sixteen percent of disparity of
growth were made up of shopping malls? Then the statistic would not
really be supporting the story that you are telling me.
>Scott Ferguson | "Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare said.
>fer...@netcom.com
Thank you for reading.
ALfredo B. Goyburu
"Liberalisn is a poor substitute for understanding."
John Iacoletti
|> : Revenues went up -- both in real dollars and constant dollars -- by
|> : your own figures.
|> But not as a % of GNP. Kurt's numbers are accurate but misleading, as
|> they are intended to be.
Not at all. He made no statement with respect to GNP. You have to explain
why this is relevant, other than the fact that it was in the table you found.
The reason he brought up revenue specifically is because of the Democrat
mantra that those tax rate cuts caused the deficit. This is demonstrably
false. You also have to account for the effect of the lower tax rates on
the GNP itself (ie more jobs).
|> The debt as a %GNP has gone down steadily since the debt from WWII
|> until the Reagan-Bush years where it climbed back. Do you really want
|> to embrace that legacy of Reagan-Bush?
In what universe does the president of the U.S. control how much is spent?
|> The national debt as a %GNP almost doubled during Reagan-Bush, and
|> the interest more than doubled. So we can blame 1.8 %GNP of the
|> annual deficit on the Reagan-Bush era.
More specifically, the House of Representatives DURING the Reagan-Bush era, and
actually before.
|> That's one possible solution, but I doubt either party will propose
|> cutting medicare.
It's a bad move politically. Old farts want their entitlements, and they
vote in large percentages.
|> Aren't the Republicans attacking Clinton on the
|> Rivlin memo?
Probably more for the hypocrisy than the cuts themselves. In fact, Clinton
rushed to disavow any connection to the Rivlin memo.
|> The increase is scary enough (1% GNP in 4 years)
|> that _something_ has to be done. This will make some apoplectic, but
|> Clinton was absolutely right that the main budget problem is health
|> care.
Only if you assume that the government has to pay for it, no matter what the
cost. If they would get the hell out of health care, the MARKET would control
the prices.
|> It will not go away by itself as the Republicans in Washington
|> seem to think.
You ignore 7 different Republican-proposed bills. Of course Tom Foley did
his best to keep you from finding out about them.
|> The "Republican Contract with America" is bogus. It would result in a
|> much higher debt that would drag the budget down for years to come.
This is Democrat misinformation. The Contract calls for a balanced budget
amendment. On the other hand, who tried to enact a health care bill without
any way to pay for it, and a "crime" bill without any way to pay for it?
Which party rejected the Penny-Kasich bill which would have actually CUT
spending this year, rather than just spouting off rhetoric ABOUT the need to
cut spending?
Bob Breivogel
(...)
>|> The debt as a %GNP has gone down steadily since the debt from WWII
>|> until the Reagan-Bush years where it climbed back. Do you really want
>|> to embrace that legacy of Reagan-Bush?
>In what universe does the president of the U.S. control how much is spent?
The fact of the matter is that they did not even *propose* a balanced
budget, which was within their power. If they did this, then congress could,
with more justification, be given total responsibility for the deficit.
Reagan's real interest was "fighting Communism" (a holdover to his Glory
days) and cutting taxes for for his friends. He was willing to spend whatever
it took to accomplish this.
Bob Breivogel
Aloha, OR
<std_disclosure>
Robin Wilson
|> : Revenues went up -- both in real dollars and constant dollars -- by
|> : your own figures.
|> But not as a % of GNP. Kurt's numbers are accurate but misleading, as
|> they are intended to be.
Boy this is a _dangerous_ philosphy to support! "Revenues" as a percentage of
GNP should go up? This is _exactly_ wrong. The sum-total of the dollars taken
out of the economy by the government should _always_ fall relative to the GNP!
If not, you are advocating that the government should take a larger (and
larger) portion of the economy away from the citizens.
The _fact_ is, "revenues" went up. Period. They went up faster than
inflation. Period. They went up faster than the population increased.
Period. By all "reasonable" measures -- this is a _good_ thing. By equating
revenues as a percentage of GNP, you are tying federal spending to a percentage
of our economy. Tying the _deficit_ to a percentage of GNP is a drastically
different subject, since it is a reflection of how much the government borrows
-- versus future income.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** These are my opinions... Mine! All Mine! Minemineminemineminemine! ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin D. Wilson ro...@pencom.com Pencom Software
701 Canyon Bend Dr. 9050 Capital of Texas Hwy
Pflugerville, TX 78660 Austin, TX 78759
Tracy Monaghan
> In article <fergieCy...@netcom.com>, fer...@netcom.com (B. Scott
> Ferguson) writes:
>
> |> The "Republican Contract with America" is bogus. It would result in a
> |> much higher debt that would drag the budget down for years to come.
>
> This is Democrat misinformation. The Contract calls for a balanced budget
> amendment.
>
Calling for a balance budget and actually producing one are two very
different things. The Congressional Budget Office (which even Dole
calls non-partisan) estimates the Republican "contract" will come short
of a balanced budget by about $1 trillion!
According to Newt himself, there is no plan to balance the budget. Newt
believes once the balance budget amendment is passed, Congress will find
some way to balance the budget.
According to Dole, you can not balance the budget without addressing into
entitlements. Where in this wunder-contract are entitlements addressed?
Promising what they believe people want without facing the realities is
bogus.
Tracy <mona...@cac.washington.edu>
Information Highway Worker
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
(Hey, Newt! If you want term limits, retire!)
B. Scott Ferguson
: |> John Iacoletti (joh...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
: |> : Revenues went up -- both in real dollars and constant dollars -- by
: |> : your own figures.
: : <attribution was deleted>
: |> But not as a % of GNP. Kurt's numbers are accurate but misleading, as
: |> they are intended to be.
: Boy this is a _dangerous_ philosphy to support! "Revenues" as a
: percentage of GNP should go up? This is _exactly_ wrong. The
: sum-total of the dollars taken out of the economy by the government
: should _always_ fall relative to the GNP! If not, you are advocating
: that the government should take a larger (and larger) portion of the
: economy away from the citizens.
If you re-read what I said, you'll notice that I never promoted
increasing revenues as a %GDP. I do think that budget comparisons
only make sense as a %GDP.
The point is that revenues dropped rather severely during Reagan's
first term. The people who give the 1982-1989 revenue increases try
to deny this fact. (Did anyone else notice that the Reagan fans
believe Reagan was president for only 7 years?)
Granted, the decrease in revenues was not the only reason for the
Reagan debt. More military spending, increases in SS/Medicare, and
higher payments on the interest were at least as important.
Reagan era comparisons aside, the military, SS and interest payments
are moot. The main budget problem today is the rising health care
costs. Everything else is just lame political rhetoric.
--
Scott Ferguson | "That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said.
fer...@netcom.com | "When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said
| Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."
John Iacoletti
|> Calling for a balance budget and actually producing one are two very
|> different things.
If there were an amendment, they would HAVE TO produce one -- or have no
budget.
|> The Congressional Budget Office (which even Dole calls non-partisan)
It's not. It's run by Democrats.
|> estimates the Republican "contract" will come short of a balanced budget by
|> about $1 trillion!
Then it made some pretty big assumptions that aren't in the contract.
|> According to Newt himself, there is no plan to balance the budget. Newt
|> believes once the balance budget amendment is passed, Congress will find
|> some way to balance the budget.
Are you saying that the Democrats should have no say in how to balance the
budget, or is your point that Democrats love deficit spending, so they have
no intention of balancing the budget?
|> According to Dole, you can not balance the budget without addressing into
|> entitlements. Where in this wunder-contract are entitlements addressed?
You misunderstand the purpose of the contract. Republicans were always taking
heat about being "negative" about all the stupid Democrat ideas. They were
always hearing "it's easy to nay-say -- what do you stand for?". This is what
they stand for: a positive list of things they promise to bring to the floor
for debate should they get a majority. Remember, the Democrats have blocked
any discussion of Republican-originated issues. They won't even let any of
their ideas be debated. It is to the Republicans' *credit* that they don't
say how everything will be accomplished, because this cannot be done in a
vacuum.
The Democrats are outright LYING about what's in this contract to try to
scare votes out of people. It's shameful.
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Practice senseless acts of randomness"
John Iacoletti
|> increasing revenues as a %GDP. I do think that budget comparisons
|> only make sense as a %GDP.
Make up your mind: GNP or GDP?
Even if you think that's the only way they "make sense", you haven't explained
why, and this doesn't entitle you to lie about what other people say.
|> The point is that revenues dropped rather severely during Reagan's
|> first term.
They didn't. They went up:
In billions of dollars:
year receipts
==== ========
1982 617.8
1985 734.1
Stop lying.
|> The people who give the 1982-1989 revenue increases try
|> to deny this fact. (Did anyone else notice that the Reagan fans
|> believe Reagan was president for only 7 years?)
1982 was the first fiscal year budget that Reagan signed. 1989 was the last.
|> The main budget problem today is the rising health care costs. Everything
|> else is just lame political rhetoric.
This is not true. The inflation in health care costs has slowed down and is
around 5% a year now. What is lame political rhetoric is that these costs
will go down if the governemnt takes over the industry.
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
John Iacoletti
|> The fact of the matter is that they did not even *propose* a balanced
|> budget, which was within their power
This is true, but irrelevant. Congress in under no obligation to even READ
the OMB proposal, much less use any of it. And in fact they proclaimed most
(if not all) of the Reagan-Bush proposals "dead on arrival".
|> Reagan's real interest was "fighting Communism" (a holdover to his Glory
|> days) and cutting taxes for for his friends. He was willing to spend whatever
|> it took to accomplish this.
His "friends" paid more total taxes than they did before, so he didn't have to
spend anything on that. As for fighting Communism, he did a damn good job in
retrospect. Was it worth it in the long run? Your buddies in Congress spent
twice as much fighting poverty, and poverty is now at an all time high. You
tell me who wasted money in the 1980s.
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
B. Scott Ferguson
: In article <fergieCy...@netcom.com>, fer...@netcom.com (B. Scott Ferguson) writes:
: |> If you re-read what I said, you'll notice that I never promoted
: |> increasing revenues as a %GDP. I do think that budget comparisons
: |> only make sense as a %GDP.
: Make up your mind: GNP or GDP?
The reports say GDP, but I'm used to saying GNP. Mea Culpa.
: Even if you think that's the only way they "make sense", you haven't
: explained why, and this doesn't entitle you to lie about what other
: people say.
Well, %GDP indicates how much of a drag the taxes are on the economy,
how much of a stimulus the spending is, and how much of a drag the
debt really is. The numbers you gave below don't even take inflation
into account, and the constant dollar numbers ignore the effects of
population growth.
If you want to reduce the role of the government in the economy, then
the size of the government should shrink as a %GDP. That's fine, but
it's not okay to increasing the size of the government by borrowing
from the future.
I don't see where I've misrepresented anyone's views. I'm just
pointing out that whether "revenues increased" depends on your metric
for revenues. We're using the term differently. Where have I called
anyone a liar?
: |> The point is that revenues dropped rather severely during Reagan's
: |> first term.
: They didn't. They went up:
: In billions of dollars:
: year receipts
: ==== ========
: 1982 617.8
: 1985 734.1
Receipts
year $$ $1987 %GDP
==== ===== ===== ====
1982 617.8 738.2 19.8
1985 734.1 777.6 18.5
(from gopher://sunny.stat-usa.gov in budget85/historical)
My numbers match yours. Where am I calling you a liar?
Just for fun, here's the breakdown in outlays for those years as %GDP.
year Mil Health Medicare Welfare SS Interest Other Total Deficit Debt
==== === ====== ======== ======= === ======== ===== ===== ======= ====
1982 5.9 0.9 1.5 3.5 5.0 2.7 4.4 23.9 4.1 29.4
1985 6.4 0.9 1.7 3.2 4.7 3.3 3.7 23.9 5.4 37.8
In the years you picked, defense spending increased while the
"liberal" programs decreased. Does this mean that if the Reagan
deficits were due to spending it's still Reagan's fault?
(Why did Reagan beat up on education? It's a tiny part of the budget,
and it's got to have a good ROI. Certainly better than SS+Medicare.
Don't the Republicans support upward mobility?)
: Stop lying.
Where have I lied?
: |> The people who give the 1982-1989 revenue increases try
: |> to deny this fact. (Did anyone else notice that the Reagan fans
: |> believe Reagan was president for only 7 years?)
: 1982 was the first fiscal year budget that Reagan signed. 1989 was
: the last.
Yes. So if you're computing the average _growth_ in real GDP for the
Reagan years you've got to subtract the 1981 GDP from the 1989 GDP.
How would your method determine if Reagan's first budget raised
revenues?
: |> The main budget problem today is the rising health care costs. Everything
: |> else is just lame political rhetoric.
: This is not true. The inflation in health care costs has slowed down and is
: around 5% a year now. What is lame political rhetoric is that these costs
: will go down if the governemnt takes over the industry.
year Health Medicare SS Total Spending
==== ====== ======== === ==============
1990 1.1 1.8 4.5 22.9
1991 1.3 1.8 4.7 23.3
1992 1.5 2.0 4.9 23.3
1993 1.6 2.1 4.8 22.4
1994est 1.7 2.2 4.8 22.3
I don't have the actual 1994 numbers. I assume you mean to say that
the health and Medicare numbers remained constant or got better this
year? Do you have any data?
You can suggest any proposal for solving this you want; I'm not tied
to any particular solution. Digging our heads in the sand, however,
is unlikely to be a particularly effective solution.
--
Scott Ferguson | "All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished
fer...@netcom.com | quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and
| ending with the grin...
John Iacoletti
|> Well, %GDP indicates how much of a drag the taxes are on the economy,
|> how much of a stimulus the spending is, and how much of a drag the
|> debt really is. The numbers you gave below don't even take inflation
|> into account, and the constant dollar numbers ignore the effects of
|> population growth.
This is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with whether "revenues
increased".
|> I don't see where I've misrepresented anyone's views. I'm just
|> pointing out that whether "revenues increased" depends on your metric
|> for revenues. We're using the term differently.
No. Revenues increased. Revenues as a percentage of the GDP decreased. So
if you say "revenues decreased" and nothing else, you are wrong.
|> In the years you picked, defense spending increased while the
|> "liberal" programs decreased.
Again, something is being left out because the defense increase doesn't
account for all of the debt increase.
|> Does this mean that if the Reagan
|> deficits were due to spending it's still Reagan's fault?
No. Congress writes the budgets.
|> (Why did Reagan beat up on education? It's a tiny part of the budget,
He did? Define "beat up". By the way, education is almost entirely funded
at the state and local levels. The feds provide funds for disabled
students and school lunch programs.
|> How would your method determine if Reagan's first budget raised
|> revenues?
Ummm.....
If Revenue(fiscal 1982) > Revenue (fiscal 1981)
then revenue was raised.
|> I don't have the actual 1994 numbers. I assume you mean to say that
|> the health and Medicare numbers remained constant or got better this
|> year? Do you have any data?
No, just hearsay from the newspapers. Obviously there can't be final data
from 1994 until 1994 is over.
B. Scott Ferguson
: In article <fergieCy...@netcom.com>, fer...@netcom.com (B. Scott Ferguson) writes:
: |> I don't see where I've misrepresented anyone's views. I'm just
: |> pointing out that whether "revenues increased" depends on your metric
: |> for revenues. We're using the term differently.
: No. Revenues increased. Revenues as a percentage of the GDP
: decreased. So if you say "revenues decreased" and nothing else, you
: are wrong.
(see .sig)
: |> In the years you picked, defense spending increased while the
: |> "liberal" programs decreased.
: Again, something is being left out because the defense increase doesn't
: account for all of the debt increase.
Defense didn't account for all of the increase. The tax cuts,
increased interest payments, and a medicare increase helped.
Everything else declined. That hardly sounds like the liberal agenda
was the major cause of the deficit growth.
Where the increased deficit came from. 1982 to 1985 as %GDP
revenues: 1.3
interest: .6
military: .5
medicare: .2
income security: -.3
social security: -.3
other (liberal?): -.7
---------------------
deficit 1.3 (This matches the increase from 1982 to 1985).
: |> Does this mean that if the Reagan
: |> deficits were due to spending it's still Reagan's fault?
: No. Congress writes the budgets.
In the years you picked, savings in "liberal programs" almost offset
the losses from the tax cuts. Interest, defense and medicare
increased. Savings came from the "liberal programs" and costs came
from Reagan's programs. Or do you want to blame congress for the
defense buildup?
: |> (Why did Reagan beat up on education? It's a tiny part of the budget,
: He did? Define "beat up". By the way, education is almost entirely funded
: at the state and local levels. The feds provide funds for disabled
: students and school lunch programs.
The payments to individuals for education dropped from $10.9 billion
to $10.1 billion from 1981 to 1989 in $1987. As a %GDP that's 0.29
to 0.20.
The feds also run the Pell grant, Perkin's loan and Stafford loan
programs which help lower income students pay for college. I said
"beat up" because I remember some rhetoric that the student loans
should be cut because "college students are using these loans to buy
new stereos." Isn't education spending one of those nasty liberal
programs that's causing the federal deficit? The result was to tax
grad student stipends and take 60% of summer earnings, which after
taking out rent and food leaves 0% left for working the whole summer.
Of course the states pay more for education. That's why I'm more
angry at Pete Wilson about education than Reagan.
: |> How would your method determine if Reagan's first budget raised
: |> revenues?
: Ummm.....
: If Revenue(fiscal 1982) > Revenue (fiscal 1981)
: then revenue was raised.
Yay! So in calculating revenue increases and GDP increases you need
to compare 1989 to _1981_ not 1982.
--
Scott Ferguson | "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make
------------------+ words mean so many different things."
Richard Wojcik
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
[responding to Tracy Monaghan's comment]
>|> Calling for a balance budget and actually producing one are two very
>|> different things.
>
>If there were an amendment, they would HAVE TO produce one -- or have no
>budget.
Too bad that we could not have seen the effect such an amendment would have
had on Reagan's "supply-side" budget proposals back in the 80's. We
wouldn't be in such a fix now if someone had hammered some fiscal
responsibility into the dunces who came up with the idea of reducing
revenues and increasing expenditures. I truly do understand why the people
who sold that snake oil to the American public are the very same ones who
sing the virtues of a balanced budget amendment now. They understand
themselves very well. ;-)
But fiscal snake oil is still snake oil. Now we are told that forcing the
government to hamstring its budget will cure our ills. The problem with
that idea is that the federal budget is not the same as a household budget.
The federal budget is a tremendous cash engine that drives the economy.
That is why Keynesian deficit spending methods work in the short term. A
balanced budget would certainly put an end to deficit spending, but the
price would be economic suicide. Politicians (especially Republican
politicians) love to offer up this latest gimmick as a smokescreen to cover
up past ineptitude, but God help us all if they screw up and actually
implement the idea. You think voters are angry now? Wait until they
balance the budget. Then you will see voters looking for real revenge.
And guess who will get blamed. Right. The liberals. %)
--
Rick Wojcik ri...@eskimo.com Seattle (for locals: Bellevue), WA
http://www.eskimo.com/~rickw/
The Grey Man
If we wanted every politics newsgroup to have the same posts in it, we would
only have one political news group. The fact that there are
newsgroups for different states should give you a clue as to their
intent. Information about evil liberals, evil conservatives, stupid
libertarians and other political ignorami in Oregon, California, Washington,
Texas, Colorado and New York are of no real interest to me. We've got plenty
of our own here in New Jersey. If they were of interest to me, I would
seek out the newsgroups where information about them exists. I don't
need for it to seek me out.
Sadly, discussion of the various congressional races as well as local races
for Freeholder and council positions has been buried under this rubbish.
Charlie Armstrong
Cape May County, New Jersey
John Iacoletti
Excuse me, but you're the one practicing humpty-ism here. "An increase is
really a decrease. You just have to divide by the right number!"
|> In the years you picked, savings in "liberal programs" almost offset
|> the losses from the tax cuts.
I think your categories are cooked. What about other entitlements?
|> Interest, defense and medicare
|> increased. Savings came from the "liberal programs" and costs came
|> from Reagan's programs.
Interest is a Reagan program? Who left him the 20% interest rates?
Medicare is a Reagan program?
|> The payments to individuals for education dropped from $10.9 billion
|> to $10.1 billion from 1981 to 1989 in $1987. As a %GDP that's 0.29
|> to 0.20.
What kind of "payments to individuals", and what for?
|> The result was to tax
|> grad student stipends and take 60% of summer earnings, which after
|> taking out rent and food leaves 0% left for working the whole summer.
So the federal government should give people free money without getting
anything in return?
John Iacoletti
|> wouldn't be in such a fix now if someone had hammered some fiscal
|> responsibility into the dunces who came up with the idea of reducing
|> revenues and increasing expenditures.
Supply-side doesn't do either. You're picking on the wrong dunces.
|> The federal budget is a tremendous cash engine that drives the economy.
|> That is why Keynesian deficit spending methods work in the short term.
Short term? This country has been deficit spending as long as it's been a
country.
|> A
|> balanced budget would certainly put an end to deficit spending, but the
|> price would be economic suicide.
So let me see if I understand the Wojcik way to economic prosperity. Continue
to deficit spend and just don't worry about it?
|> You think voters are angry now? Wait until they
|> balance the budget. Then you will see voters looking for real revenge.
They can't have it both ways. We have to get past this notion of "what can
the government give me?".
boydk
understand why so many).
On Tue, 8 Nov 1994, John Iacoletti wrote:
> In article <Cyuz9...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
[good point deleted]
>
> |> The federal budget is a tremendous cash engine that drives the economy.
> |> That is why Keynesian deficit spending methods work in the short term.
>
> Short term? This country has been deficit spending as long as it's been a
> country.
I hope we're goin' for hyperbole here, certainly the US never had a
"deficit" in it's begining years.
> |> A
> |> balanced budget would certainly put an end to deficit spending, but the
> |> price would be economic suicide.
>
> So let me see if I understand the Wojcik way to economic prosperity. Continue
> to deficit spend and just don't worry about it?
I think maybe rick is confusing the effects of a zero debt policy with a
zero deficit policy. Erasing the debt in one pesidential term would
surely collapse the currency (we can agree on this, right?) but erasing
the deficit is doable with a little uncomfortable belt tightening.
Erasing the deficit has got to be done, we cannot go on pouring the
country's productivity into _interest_ payments on debt and balancing
the budget is the first step to dealing with that.
All that said, the Repub contract is to _discuss_ a BB amendment, if
they actually passed it I would be bummed. Think we're ever going to
have a major war without debt? Think we'd survive major natural disaster
without federal debt? Just like when you buy a house or car, there _are_
economically healthy times for the Federal govt to run a debt, just not
_all_ the time.
> |> You think voters are angry now? Wait until they
> |> balance the budget. Then you will see voters looking for real revenge.
>
> They can't have it both ways. We have to get past this notion of "what can
> the government give me?".
Very well said. You can continue having your social security taxes upped
and used to make the deficit _look_ smaller then it is or you can survive
some cuts in social programs. You can continue to see ever larger
portions of the economy glommed onto by debt service or you can weather a
little more taxation. Let's do this before it becomes a matter of
economic triage.
> --
> John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
> My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
> "Practice senseless acts of randomness"
-Boyd Kneeland who's opinions are his own.
Tracy Monaghan
[selected snips for brevity]
> Just jumping in mid thread here, so I didnt edit groups (though I don't
> understand why so many).
ditto
> On Tue, 8 Nov 1994, John Iacoletti wrote:
>
> > In article <Cyuz9...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
> [good point deleted]
> >
> > |> The federal budget is a tremendous cash engine that drives the economy.
> > |> That is why Keynesian deficit spending methods work in the short term.
> >
> > Short term? This country has been deficit spending as long as it's been a
> > country.
> I hope we're goin' for hyperbole here, certainly the US never had a
> "deficit" in it's begining years.
It did. One of the first acts of the first Congress was to assume the
debt incurred by the states during the war of independence.
[snip]
>
> All that said, the Repub contract is to _discuss_ a BB amendment, if
> they actually passed it I would be bummed. Think we're ever going to
> have a major war without debt? Think we'd survive major natural disaster
> without federal debt? Just like when you buy a house or car, there _are_
> economically healthy times for the Federal govt to run a debt, just not
> _all_ the time.
Most discussions about a balanced budget amendment include exceptions
for war, disasters, etc. It's the "etc." which critics claim will cause
the BB to go the way of Gramm-Rudman and other half-hearted attempts to
a) placate the voters, and b) reduce the deficit.
[snip]
> > --
> > John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
> > My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
> > "Practice senseless acts of randomness"
> -Boyd Kneeland who's opinions are his own.
>
>
Richard Wojcik
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <Cyuz9...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> wouldn't be in such a fix now if someone had hammered some fiscal
>|> responsibility into the dunces who came up with the idea of reducing
>|> revenues and increasing expenditures.
>
>Supply-side doesn't do either. You're picking on the wrong dunces.
Unfortunately, those who raised the supply-side banner had to implement the
ideals in the real world. It was their rhetoric, if not their ideas, that
led us into this mess. One could easily defend communism on the grounds
that nobody ever *really* implemented it. Perhaps we should have another
go at it, eh? ;-)
>|> The federal budget is a tremendous cash engine that drives the economy.
>|> That is why Keynesian deficit spending methods work in the short term.
>
>Short term? This country has been deficit spending as long as it's been a
>country.
Not really. But Reagan sure was right when he said "You ain't seen nothin'
yet." Too true. Put all the past big spenders to shame. The marvel is
that the public still hangs the "big spender" sign on the Democrats.
Borrowing money just doesn't seem like spending real money, does it? Just
give 'em the little plastic strip, and don't worry about it. And what a
dandy little freebie that "star wars" program was, right?
>|> A
>|> balanced budget would certainly put an end to deficit spending, but the
>|> price would be economic suicide.
>
>So let me see if I understand the Wojcik way to economic prosperity. Continue
>to deficit spend and just don't worry about it?
Not at all. The problem is that almost all of our revenues would be needed
immediately to pay off the Reagan debt. Massive layoffs and economic chaos
are not necessarily good tradeoffs for instant solvency. BTW, wealth does
not exist independently of economic activity. You need to build capital
constantly in order to maintain your economic health. Clinton's aim is to
bring the debt down gradually while trying to build more capital. He uses
the "grow the economy" expression to get this idea across. Unfortunately,
people still see wealth as a limited, fixed resource that never expands or
contracts. In the naive view, it is just a question of who has the money,
not how the money supply grows or shrinks. Ironically, Clinton is a bigger
capitalist than the Republicans, even though his image seems the opposite.
John Iacoletti
|> Not really. But Reagan sure was right when he said "You ain't seen nothin'
|> yet." Too true. Put all the past big spenders to shame. The marvel is
|> that the public still hangs the "big spender" sign on the Democrats.
Gee I wonder why? Let's see.....
Article I, sections 7-8, U.S. Constitution:
Sect. 7. 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.
Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the
debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of
the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States.
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Now which party has controlled the House of Representatives for the last
40 years? Reagan didn't spend a dime, and you know it.
|> Clinton's aim is to
|> bring the debt down gradually while trying to build more capital.
Oh sure. 16 million for economic "stimulus", 30 BILLION to "address" crime,
90 BILLION for socialized medicine, investing the public debt in short term
bonds which will have to be renewed at higher rates in 6 years. That's
what I call bringing the debt down.
NOT.
John Iacoletti
|> I hope we're goin' for hyperbole here, certainly the US never had a
|> "deficit" in it's begining years.
No hyberbole. The federal government ran an average $59,000 annual deficit
between March 4, 1789 and Dec. 31, 1800.
Janos Szamosfalvi
boydk (bo...@wrq.com) wrote:
: I didnt make myself clear in my first message here, but I thought I had
: with this one. I wasnt claiming that we've never had high debts before, I
: am saying that they weren't large and continuing like this. Please correct
: this if I'm wrong.
: Nonetheless my point is it seems like several peole in seattle.politics
: have been arguing that large long term debts are either beneficial (as
: stimulus) or at least not detrimental. This is _wrong_. It ain't
: Keynesian, maybe it's Monahagnian or Wojnickian economics but Keynes it
: isnt. Keynes argued for the short term use of fiscal & public policy to
: stimulate at the bottom of a depression. Someone please show me where he
: said continuing public debt was desirable.
Actually, it depends on the growth rate of the econonomy.
If the economy can grow faster than deficit and this growth
is sustained by borrowing, then long term deficit is not
bad. But if the economy can't grow as fast as the deficit,
then long term debth is clearly detrimental.
Ben Miller
>In article <Cyuz9...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> You think voters are angry now? Wait until they
>|> balance the budget. Then you will see voters looking for real revenge.
>
>They can't have it both ways. We have to get past this notion of "what can
>the government give me?".
I've already resigned myself to never getting anything from the govt. I just
hope they don't take away what I have got too quickly. Why do we have to get
past that notion? We give them money, they give us services.
Ben
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>In article <CyzG5...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> Not really. But Reagan sure was right when he said "You ain't seen nothin'
>|> yet." Too true. Put all the past big spenders to shame. The marvel is
>|> that the public still hangs the "big spender" sign on the Democrats.
>Now which party has controlled the House of Representatives for the last
>40 years? Reagan didn't spend a dime, and you know it.
>|> Clinton's aim is to
>|> bring the debt down gradually while trying to build more capital.
>
>Oh sure. 16 million for economic "stimulus", 30 BILLION to "address" crime,
>90 BILLION for socialized medicine, investing the public debt in short term
>bonds which will have to be renewed at higher rates in 6 years. That's
>what I call bringing the debt down.
>
>NOT.
You folks are really starting to test my patience with this rubbish.
Now which is it? Is the President at least a little bit responsible for
the budgets that are enacted on his watch or not? Apparently, when the
result is "bad" and you like the President, the fault is with the Democratic
House of Representatives. But when you dislike the President, and the
proposed budget is "bad", the fault is with the Democratic President
(I note that you forgot to give credit to the Democratic House of
Representatives for shooting down President Clinton's original budget).
Ladies and Gentlemen, look at the referenced post closely. You see
above, the work of a Conservatoid. A Conservatoid is a fellow who
proposes Conservative programs, and supports them with sloppy
Liberal-type reasoning. Rush and other Conservatoids will succeed in
destroying Conservatism for generations to come, unless their efforts
to disgrace the Conservative movement are halted expeditiously.
>--
>John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
ALfredo B. Goyburu
"Liberalism is a poor substitute for understanding."
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
You are correct about the National Debt. In fact, the National Debt actually
predates the Republic. How do you think that they paid for the Revolutionary
War?
It is scary to think that there are folks who know not even this much about the
National Debt, folks who (apparently) have never heard of the tremendous
debts that the Continental Congress ran in order to pay for the American
Revolution. It is even more frightening to think that some of these same
folks claim to understand enough about the National Debt, that they can
"see" the "danger" that it poses to the American economy. Oi Vey.
Jim Pritchett
> The "Republican Contract with America" is bogus. It would result in a
> much higher debt that would drag the budget down for years to come.
> The Republican claim of being the party of fiscal responsibility lacks
> a sliver of credibility.
Please explain how a "contract" that promises to have open House debate and
a floor vote on 10 issues can "drag the budget down for years..."
Scott's credibility is lacking here.
Would you hysterical liberals out there PLEASE read the "contract" before
posting this drivel?
Jim Pritchett
UUCP: rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp "For with God nothing shall
be impossible." Luke 1:37
Evan Hunt
So joh...@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) says:
>In article <CyzG5...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> The marvel is
>|> that the public still hangs the "big spender" sign on the Democrats.
[Constitution quotes snipped]
>Now which party has controlled the House of Representatives for the last
>40 years? Reagan didn't spend a dime, and you know it.
And then he says:
>|> Clinton's aim is to
>|> bring the debt down gradually while trying to build more capital.
>
>Oh sure. 16 million for economic "stimulus", 30 BILLION to "address" crime,
>90 BILLION for socialized medicine, investing the public debt in short term
>bonds which will have to be renewed at higher rates in 6 years. That's
>what I call bringing the debt down.
I perceive a cake-eating/cake-having situation here. If it's Clinton's
fault that money is being spent now (and the deficit _is_ decreasing
relative to the Bush administration projections, please do note), then
why _wasn't_ it Reagans fault that money was being spent in the eighties
(with deficits that got bigger and bigger each year)?
--
"The wages of sin are death. But after taxes
are taken out, it's just a sort of tired feeling." - Paula Poundstone
boydk
group names get up there??
Okay, _I_ am the person who made the ignorant statement above and I have
NEVER claimed to see any danger in carrying a national debt. I have
questioned what level is safe and pointed out that Keynes (who is the best
known economist to call _for_ debts) didnt see them as a permanent fixture.
IMPORTANTLY-> I _also_immediately_ sent a message to the group clarifying
what I had meant to say & admitting my mistake. I don't appreciate messages
getting chopped up (w/out indication[snip]), attributions getting
ignored and group editing getting undone. Yeesh, ya go away for a week
and come back to find you've been turned into the myth du jour.
-Boyd (my opinions disclaimed, they're brought by the opinion faery)
(an> ALfredo B. Goyburu > > "Liberalism is a poor substitute for understanding."
Indeed
Tracy Monaghan
>In article <CyzG5...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> The marvel is
>|> that the public still hangs the "big spender" sign on the Democrats.
>Now which party has controlled the House of Representatives for the last
>40 years? Reagan didn't spend a dime, and you know it.
>
Which party controlled the Senate from 1981-1987 while the deficit grew
and grew and grew and ... ?
Phil Ronzone
>Which party controlled the Senate from 1981-1987 while the
>deficit grew and grew and grew and ... ?
Doesn't matter since appropriations originate in the House.
And guess which party controlled the House then.
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
David L. Cathey
The notion goes beyond that. The problem is that too many people
think they should get more than they give. While some always will, not
everyone can.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
John Iacoletti
|> Which party controlled the Senate from 1981-1987 while the deficit grew
|> and grew and grew and ... ?
It doesn't matter. The Senate can't originate a spending bill.
John Iacoletti
|> Ladies and Gentlemen, look at the referenced post closely. You see
|> above, the work of a Conservatoid. A Conservatoid is a fellow who
|> proposes Conservative programs, and supports them with sloppy
|> Liberal-type reasoning.
You're the one with sloppy reasoning, my friend (or at least an inability to
read). There's no inconsistency here. The claim was made that Clinton's
"aim" was to reduce spending. None of his agenda has the slightest thing
to do with reducing spending. Yes, it's Congress's fault for implementing
his agenda.
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
John Iacoletti
|> I perceive a cake-eating/cake-having situation here. If it's Clinton's
|> fault that money is being spent now (and the deficit _is_ decreasing
|> relative to the Bush administration projections, please do note), then
|> why _wasn't_ it Reagans fault that money was being spent in the eighties
|> (with deficits that got bigger and bigger each year)?
It's the House's fault in both cases, but read again what I was responding
to: "Clinton's aim is to reduce the debt". Proposing scads of new spending
does not equate to an "aim to reduce debt". Reagan's aims were to restore
the military, and reduce tax rates. His aims were NOT to increase entitlement
spending by 2 trillion.
Robert Cerpa
The Constitution says that all bills for raising REVENUE shall
originate in the House. It doesn't say anything about where spending
bills originate. Is there some Congressional tradition that I am
unaware of that says the Senate cannot propose a spending bill?
If not, then it seems both parties share blame for the deficit.
The Republicans and Democrats seem to exert alot of effort passing
the buck on this issue...if the line-item veto is instituted, at
least final responsibility for the budget will rest with the
President.
Robert Cerpa
ce...@cgl.ucsf.edu
Tracy Monaghan
|> In article <Pine.ULT.3.91a.94111...@red3.cac.washington.edu>, mona...@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
|> |> Which party controlled the Senate from 1981-1987 while the deficit grew
|> |> and grew and grew and ... ?
|>
|> It doesn't matter. The Senate can't originate a spending bill.
|>
Denial (n) refusal to admit the truth or reality.
Bob Cmar
: Please explain how a "contract" that promises to have open House debate and
: a floor vote on 10 issues can "drag the budget down for years..."
I'll believe it when I see it. Ron promised a balanced budget for 8 yrs --
all he gave was excuses when it didn't happen. Sure, you can blame the dem
congress, but Ron was, in theory, leader of the country.
Funny how the term limit item fell by the wayside only one day after the GOP
won.
: Scott's credibility is lacking here.
: Would you hysterical liberals out there PLEASE read the "contract" before
: posting this drivel?
Jim, you'll get lots more respect if you don't call everyone who disagrees
with you "hysterical." -- It's just too remisent of the old USSR, who
referred to the US Rep. party as the party of "hysterical" reaction. I kid
you not -- that's the term they used.
: Jim Pritchett
: UUCP: rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp "For with God nothing shall
: be impossible." Luke 1:37
I always liked John best. But he was a democrat.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Cmar
in New York City's beautiful and historic Lower East Side
(bc...@panix.com)
John Iacoletti
|> Denial (n) refusal to admit the truth or reality.
What, I'm in denial because I don't fall for your ignorant rhetoric? Try
again.
John Iacoletti
|> I'll believe it when I see it. Ron promised a balanced budget for 8 yrs --
|> all he gave was excuses when it didn't happen. Sure, you can blame the dem
|> congress, but Ron was, in theory, leader of the country.
But the president cannot create a balanced budget amendment, no matter how
much he wants one. Only Congress can do that. That's the difference: this
time the people making the promise actually have the power to fulfill it.
Karin Pack
It's more like, we give them too much money and they give us too many
services (if you would like to call them services!)
--
Standard disclaimer stuff...
Tracy Monaghan
> In article <3agb1i$r...@news.u.washington.edu>, mona...@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
> |> Denial (n) refusal to admit the truth or reality.
>
> What, I'm in denial because I don't fall for your ignorant rhetoric? Try
> again.
Your statement (which you've conveniently deleted) was that control of
the presidency and the Senate by the Republican party from 1981-1987 didn't
matter in the budget process.
You are implying the Republican President and the Republican Senate
merely rubber-stamped whatever the Democratic House passed.
By extrapolation, you seem to claim that the President and the Senate
have no affect on the budget process.
Would you prefer naive instead of denial?
Richard Wojcik
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <3ah1kp$m...@panix.com>, bc...@panix.com (Bob Cmar) writes:
>|> I'll believe it when I see it. Ron promised a balanced budget for 8 yrs --
>|> all he gave was excuses when it didn't happen. Sure, you can blame the dem
>|> congress, but Ron was, in theory, leader of the country.
>
>But the president cannot create a balanced budget amendment, no matter how
>much he wants one. Only Congress can do that. That's the difference: this
>time the people making the promise actually have the power to fulfill it.
The balanced budget amendment is a great gimmick. There is no chance that
the people who are seeking to pass it will have to actually try to balance
the budget anytime soon. It is a way to appear to be fiscally responsible
while doing nothing at all to solve the problems we face now. By the time
it takes effect, most of the people who passed it probably won't even be
around to face the consequences.
Meanwhile, let's have another good idea from the Republican Contract on
America. A tax cut. Right. Sounds incredible doesn't it? How will we
pay for it? To paraphrase Rose Perot, it's simple. Just borrow the money
from the Social Security fund. We'll have to pay it all back (with
interest) at some point, but that problem will be solved by the balanced
budget amendment. It's so good to have the Republicans back again. Borrow
and spend is so much less painful than tax and spend.
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>It's the House's fault in both cases, but read again what I was responding
>to: "Clinton's aim is to reduce the debt". Proposing scads of new spending
>does not equate to an "aim to reduce debt". Reagan's aims were to restore
>the military, and reduce tax rates. His aims were NOT to increase entitlement
>spending by 2 trillion.
American politics scientists generally agree that (in spite of the system
of checks and balances) the power of the Executive branch has increased
tremendously since the founding of the Republic, compared to the power of
the other branches.
Conservatoids present a novel and quite amusing twist to the theory: the
Executive is devoid of power (and of responsibility), especially when a
Republican is the sitting president. This theory strongly implies that
Ronald Reagan was a sitting duck from day one of Presidency!!
>John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
Oi Vey.
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>In article <CzG1y...@austin.ibm.com>,
>John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>>But the president cannot create a balanced budget amendment, no matter how
>>much he wants one. Only Congress can do that. That's the difference: this
>>time the people making the promise actually have the power to fulfill it.
Oi Vey, this Conservatoid political football again. For twelve years,
Mario Cuomo fought against the reinstitution of the death penalty, and
fought for life without parole for formerly capital crimes; Mario would say,
we can fight about the death penalty later, but at least we can agree on
this issue right? of course the Senate never budged on this issue, for
the explicit purpose of being able to use the death penalty issue against
the governor; and now we have to learn how to pronounce the word, "Patacki".
It is the same sad story here. The Reagan administration was always
blaming the Congress for not considering a balanced budget amendment;
meanwhile, the Reagan administration never considered a balanced budget.
One more time, please. How many balanced budgets did the President
propose to Congress?
(Conservatoid silence)
I thought so.
>The balanced budget amendment is a great gimmick. There is no chance that
>the people who are seeking to pass it will have to actually try to balance
>the budget anytime soon. It is a way to appear to be fiscally responsible
>while doing nothing at all to solve the problems we face now. By the time
>it takes effect, most of the people who passed it probably won't even be
>around to face the consequences.
Actually, there is nothing bad about today's Congress proposing rules
that future Congresses would have to follow, as long as the rules are good
ones.
The real problem is that a balanced budget amendment would never
get past the states; ESPECIALLY the ones that have balanced budget
amendments themselves. You see, most of the states "balance" their own
budgets, only with the help of lots and lots of Federal aid. Once the
balanced budget amendment should pass in America, the other states
stand to lose lots of money in Federal aid.
One economist (Robert Eisner, Northwestern University) has proposed
subtracting every state's surplus from the Federal budget deficit
every year; this neat accounting trick would help to give a more honest
picture of how much overspending is really taking place.
>Rick Wojcik ri...@eskimo.com Seattle (for locals: Bellevue), WA
I admonish you all to be careful. These looney gooney "the goverment is bad
when a Democrat is President, but powerless when a Republican is President"
types do not represent the Conservative movement. The political product that
they offer is a sham; their product is not the result of deliberation and
understanding. These Conservatoid types react, do not think. They seek
scapegoats, not solutions. Does the description sound familiar? That is
because the same description applies to Liberals. What Consrvatoids and
Liberals have in common is blazing fast patellar reactions, somewhat slower
cerebral actions.
ALfredo B. Goyburu
"Liberalism is a poor substitute for deliberation and understanding."
John Iacoletti
|> Your statement (which you've conveniently deleted)
Only "convenient" in the sense of preserving bandwidth. Anyone can presumably
go back and *look* at any of my statements.
|> was that control of
|> the presidency and the Senate by the Republican party from 1981-1987 didn't
|> matter in the budget process.
Apparently YOU need to go back and look, because I didn't make any statement
of the kind. The president doesn't create the budget, the Senate doesn't
create the budget. Get used to it.
|> You are implying the Republican President and the Republican Senate
|> merely rubber-stamped whatever the Democratic House passed.
No, that's what you inferred. All I said was that it doesn't matter what
the president and the Senate want, they are at the mercy of the House. All
they can do is disagree -- they can't write a new budget.
|> Would you prefer naive instead of denial?
I don't know -- how about "precise"? "Accurate"? "Reality"? Sorry if that
doesn't fit in with your "Reagan as evil incarnate" agenda...
John Iacoletti
|> the people who are seeking to pass it will have to actually try to balance
|> the budget anytime soon. It is a way to appear to be fiscally responsible
|> while doing nothing at all to solve the problems we face now. By the time
|> it takes effect, most of the people who passed it probably won't even be
|> around to face the consequences.
But there is a time limit. It will have to be balanced by 2000 or so. Would
you agree that a balanced budget next year would have serious economic
repercussions? Any balanced budget would have to be arrived at gradually.
The problem is that the status quo is giving us ever-increasing deficits.
Can Congress handle money responsibly without being forced into it? It
doesn't appear that they can.
|> Meanwhile, let's have another good idea from the Republican Contract on
|> America. A tax cut. Right. Sounds incredible doesn't it? How will we
|> pay for it?
One thing that both John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both understood (and proved)
is that cutting marginal tax rates *increases* the revenue going into the
treasury. So the answer to your question is that there's nothing to pay for --
as long as spending doesn't increase faster.
John Iacoletti
|> American politics scientists generally agree that (in spite of the system
|> of checks and balances) the power of the Executive branch has increased
|> tremendously since the founding of the Republic, compared to the power of
|> the other branches.
This is what's known as argument by generic authority. It is also quite
irrelevant to the discussion.
|> Conservatoids present a novel and quite amusing twist to the theory: the
|> Executive is devoid of power (and of responsibility), especially when a
|> Republican is the sitting president.
Since I didn't say this, I have to assume that you've chosen to bestow your
stupid little aphorism on someone else: in this case a rather transparent
straw-man.
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
John Iacoletti
|> Oi Vey, this Conservatoid political football again. For twelve years,
|> Mario Cuomo fought against the reinstitution of the death penalty, and
|> fought for life without parole for formerly capital crimes;
Personally I don't give a damn about your impotent ex-governor.
|> It is the same sad story here. The Reagan administration was always
|> blaming the Congress for not considering a balanced budget amendment;
|> meanwhile, the Reagan administration never considered a balanced budget.
|> One more time, please. How many balanced budgets did the President
|> propose to Congress?
You know what amazes me, Alfredo? You wouldn't know a clue if it smacked
you in the butt. You are either a miserable failure at reading comprehension,
or you're deliberately misrepresenting what other people say in order to
make yourself feel important. This has happened too many times for it to be
written off as inadvertant error. You're like a little fly buzzing around:
"notice me, notice me!"
One more time, Alfredo:
I don't care about Ronald Reagan's partisan remarks. It doesn't have anything
to do with what I said. Neither does the number of balanced budgets he
proposed. It's an old tired technique: pretend I said something different
and then argue with that. Or should I come up with a cute little name for
it? The president cannot amend the Constitution. He has to beg Congress
to initiate it. Now Congress is going to try to initiate it for the first
time. And yes it does make a difference.
|> The real problem is that a balanced budget amendment would never
|> get past the states; ESPECIALLY the ones that have balanced budget
|> amendments themselves.
Well, we'll see how much they're willing to walk the talk. Regardless of that,
we HAVE to try.
|> I admonish you all to be careful. These looney gooney "the goverment is bad
|> when a Democrat is President, but powerless when a Republican is President"
|> types do not represent the Conservative movement.
*You're* the only "looney gooney" who has said that here. I certainly hope
your brand of "logic" doesn't reflect the Conservative "movement" (whatever
that is). I personally think the government is bad, no matter WHO is
president.
|> The political product that
|> they offer is a sham; their product is not the result of deliberation and
|> understanding. These Conservatoid types react, do not think. They seek
|> scapegoats, not solutions. Does the description sound familiar? That is
|> because the same description applies to Liberals.
What I don't see you offering is much of anything except for banality,
obfuscation, and empty imitations of reason. Do you have any actual ideas,
or do you want to go on buzzing? Your choice.
Tracy Monaghan
> In article <Pine.ULT.3.91a.94111...@red4.cac.washington.edu>, mona...@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
> |> Your statement (which you've conveniently deleted) was that control of
> |> the presidency and the Senate by the Republican party from 1981-1987 didn't
> |> matter in the budget process.
>
> Apparently YOU need to go back and look, because I didn't make any statement
> of the kind. The president doesn't create the budget, the Senate doesn't
> create the budget. Get used to it.
I went back and looked at your post. You wrote "It doesn't matter".
You are obviously unfamiliar with how the budget process actually works.
>
> |> You are implying the Republican President and the Republican Senate
> |> merely rubber-stamped whatever the Democratic House passed.
>
> No, that's what you inferred. All I said was that it doesn't matter what
> the president and the Senate want, they are at the mercy of the House. All
> they can do is disagree -- they can't write a new budget.
See below.
>
> |> Would you prefer naive instead of denial?
>
> I don't know -- how about "precise"? "Accurate"? "Reality"? Sorry if that
Precise? Reality? Perhaps your "accuracy" can come to grips with the
BTU tax. What BTU tax? The BTU tax passed by the House, supported by
Clinton, but rejected by that other group in Congress that "doesn't matter".
> doesn't fit in with your "Reagan as evil incarnate" agenda...
What "Reagan as evil incarnate agenda"? Are you starting some new lies to
get off this topic?
Richard Wojcik
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <CzIxv...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> The balanced budget amendment is a great gimmick. There is no chance that
>|> the people who are seeking to pass it will have to actually try to balance
>|> the budget anytime soon. It is a way to appear to be fiscally responsible
>|> while doing nothing at all to solve the problems we face now. By the time
>|> it takes effect, most of the people who passed it probably won't even be
>|> around to face the consequences.
>
>But there is a time limit. It will have to be balanced by 2000 or so. Would
>you agree that a balanced budget next year would have serious economic
>repercussions? Any balanced budget would have to be arrived at gradually.
>The problem is that the status quo is giving us ever-increasing deficits.
>Can Congress handle money responsibly without being forced into it? It
>doesn't appear that they can.
I think that Clinton was doing a creditable job of working down the debt
until the voting public kicked him in the stomach. The trick is to keep
the economy growing at the same time that you bring down deficits. I agree
with you that Congress cannot stop themselves from overspending, especially
a Republican Congress. About the most irresponsible thing you can do at
this point is to propose a tax cut. Unfortunately, Clinton seems willing
to go along with Republican pandering to the middle class. The voting
public is in denial, and there are few politicians left who are willing to
do the right thing.
>|> Meanwhile, let's have another good idea from the Republican Contract on
>|> America. A tax cut. Right. Sounds incredible doesn't it? How will we
>|> pay for it?
>
>One thing that both John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both understood (and
>proved) is that cutting marginal tax rates *increases* the revenue going
>into the treasury. So the answer to your question is that there's nothing
>to pay for -- as long as spending doesn't increase faster.
Kennedy was not anywhere in Reagan's league when it came to deficit
spending. He did not give use the humongous federal debt that Reagan left
us with. At this point, the Republicans are again mouthing supply-side
nonsense. Cut revenues and you can just borrow as much as you need. What
idiocy. Most of the entitlements that a "balanced budget" would force us
to reduce are entitlements that middle class voters benefit from--the
natural constituency of whoever holds power. Don't expect the Republicans
to do anything that the Democrats wouldn't. They are worse, if anything.
John Iacoletti
|> I went back and looked at your post. You wrote "It doesn't matter".
|> You are obviously unfamiliar with how the budget process actually works.
I am *very* familiar with how it works. You apparently are not.
|> Precise? Reality? Perhaps your "accuracy" can come to grips with the
|> BTU tax. What BTU tax? The BTU tax passed by the House, supported by
|> Clinton, but rejected by that other group in Congress that "doesn't matter".
Sigh. One more time... The Senate cannot create a BTU tax. All they can do
is say "no". This is a non-sequitor. The thing I said "doesn't matter" was
with repect to how much is spent. Your little example is irrelevant (expect
perhaps to your ability to pull words out of their context). The Senate
cannot create a tax. The Senate cannot spend a dime.
|> What "Reagan as evil incarnate agenda"? Are you starting some new lies to
|> get off this topic?
You're trying desperately to blame the national debt on the Republicans and
exonerate the people most responsible for it (presumably because they share
your political ideology). Maybe *you* can explain it.
John Iacoletti
|> I think that Clinton was doing a creditable job of working down the debt
|> until the voting public kicked him in the stomach.
Huh? The debt is not any lower, and he continues to propose billions in new
spending. The voting public "kicked him in the stomach", because they are fed
up with him saying one thing and doing another.
|> The trick is to keep
|> the economy growing at the same time that you bring down deficits. I agree
|> with you that Congress cannot stop themselves from overspending, especially
|> a Republican Congress. About the most irresponsible thing you can do at
|> this point is to propose a tax cut.
Why? As we have seen, cutting tax rates does exactly what you want: it
grows the economy, and it brings down deficits by increasing the amount of
tax money going into the treasury (as an effect of the growth). The economy
is growing now, but it's not anything Bill Clinton has done. He caught the
high end of the cycle. In fact his policies have served to *limit* the amount
of growth that would have otherwise occurred if anything.
|> Kennedy was not anywhere in Reagan's league when it came to deficit
|> spending. He did not give use the humongous federal debt that Reagan left
|> us with.
The only spending increase that Reagan wanted was in defense. You can thank
the 1979 Congress (and president) for leaving us the legacy of current
services budgeting, and entitlement spending on auto-pilot.
|> At this point, the Republicans are again mouthing supply-side
|> nonsense. Cut revenues and you can just borrow as much as you need.
It DOSN'T CUT REVENUES. Every time it's been tried, it has increased
revenues. How can you continue to spout this nonsense?
|> What
|> idiocy. Most of the entitlements that a "balanced budget" would force us
|> to reduce are entitlements that middle class voters benefit from--the
|> natural constituency of whoever holds power.
Sorry, but the middle class gets the fewest amount of entitlements. I
challenge you to name one.
Anton Sherwood
: >One thing that both John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both
Richard Wojcik <ri...@eskimo.com> says:
: Kennedy was not anywhere in Reagan's league when it came
: to deficit spending. . . .
Non sequitur.
--
disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
no surprises: Burton (D*) 66797, Wing (R) 22827, Sherwood (L) 4707
Anton Sherwood
: The balanced budget amendment is a great gimmick. There is no chance that
: the people who are seeking to pass it will have to actually try to balance
: the budget anytime soon. It is a way to appear to be fiscally responsible
That may be. Does it mean we shouldn't balance the budget?
By the way, I have a procedural scheme to balance budgets, which I
offer free of charge to any politician who happens to be listening
(all I ask is credit):
Each member of the House proposes an amount for each budget item.
Arrange the amounts in a table, a row for each legislator and a column
for each budget item. In each column, arrange the amounts from
highest to lowest.
The middle row of the table contains amounts such that a majority of
the House has approved at least that much spending on the item. Add
up the middle row. Is the sum within revenues? If not, step down to
the next row . . . until you find a row that adds up to a balanced
budget.
This procedure - which amounts to requiring a variable supermajority
for spending - protects broadly popular programs while clipping off
those with only narrow support, so it needn't have any special
exceptions to protect sacred cows. The usual trick of inflating the
preliminary numbers, so that a smaller increase looks like a cut, is
pointless. Logrolling ("I'll vote for your honey subsidy if you'll
vote for my teddybear research institute") becomes a good way to
endanger one's own pet porkbarrel.
Anton Sherwood
: . . . . Ron promised a balanced budget for 8 yrs --
: all he gave was excuses when it didn't happen. . . .
Jimmy Carter also promised to balance the budget.
Anton Sherwood
: |> . . . . By the time it takes effect, most of the people who
: |> passed it probably won't even be around to face the consequences.
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> says:
: But there is a time limit. It will have to be balanced by 2000 or so.
: Would you agree that a balanced budget next year would have serious economic
: repercussions? Any balanced budget would have to be arrived at gradually.
Is there any assurance that the gradual approach will be made, and not
put off like next month's homework to be done the night before it's due?
Richard Wojcik
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <CzpFA...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> the economy growing at the same time that you bring down deficits. I agree
>|> with you that Congress cannot stop themselves from overspending, especially
>|> a Republican Congress. About the most irresponsible thing you can do at
>|> this point is to propose a tax cut.
>
>Why? As we have seen, cutting tax rates does exactly what you want: it
>grows the economy, and it brings down deficits by increasing the amount of
>tax money going into the treasury (as an effect of the growth). The economy
>is growing now, but it's not anything Bill Clinton has done. He caught the
>high end of the cycle. In fact his policies have served to *limit* the amount
>of growth that would have otherwise occurred if anything.
Actually, it is the fed that has been limiting growth by raising interest
rates. Their motto: Stop inflation no matter what the cost. Cutting tax
rates does pump money into the economy, but the immediate effect is to take
money out of the treasury and force the government to borrow more to make
up the shortfall. Most of our taxes already go towards paying the interest
on the debt that accrued from the last time the Republicans (with
Democratic complicity) foisted this idea on the public. The money went
into bad investments: military programs, not infrastructure. That is the
kind of "investment" that you get from Republicans.
>|> Kennedy was not anywhere in Reagan's league when it came to deficit
>|> spending. He did not give use the humongous federal debt that Reagan left
>|> us with.
>
>The only spending increase that Reagan wanted was in defense. You can thank
>the 1979 Congress (and president) for leaving us the legacy of current
>services budgeting, and entitlement spending on auto-pilot.
I notice that you do not (and cannot) deny the fact that Reagan left us
with a humongous debt. Recall that his "supply-side" scheme led to just
one result: tax hikes to offset the damage of his tax cuts. Meanwhile, the
government had to borrow from our Social Security fund in order to have
money to spend. How's that for magic? The next time you need money, just
lend it to yourself. Then scream your head off when the bill comes due.
>Sorry, but the middle class gets the fewest amount of entitlements. I
>challenge you to name one.
Who collects farm subsidies? Is it welfare mothers or farmers from Dole's
home state? Which group is likely to be considered middle class? Which
group is likely to have their "entitlements" cut by the next Congress?
Doesn't take a rocket scientist.
Tracy Monaghan
I suggest you read:
The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips
America: What Went Wrong? by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
Dead Right by David Frum
Who knows? You might LEARN something.
John G. Wilkinson
> This bickering back and forth is worthless.
>
> I suggest you read:
> The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips
I second this particular suggestion. Phillips is one of the architects
of Reaganism, for those not familiar with him. An excellent book that
provides a palliative for the too-easy pointing of fingers by either
Democrats or Republicans. Also should provide some food for calm
reflection by those cheering the current current change of parties in
charge of our legislative process.
==============================================================================
John Wilkinson ____ There's more to love
jw...@eskimo.com \ / than "boy meets girl"
Seattle, Washington \/ -- Jimmy Somerville
John Iacoletti
|> Actually, it is the fed that has been limiting growth by raising interest
|> rates. Their motto: Stop inflation no matter what the cost.
This is definitely a factor. I often wonder if Greenspan isn't trying to
sabotage Clinton's presidency, because he doesn't even wait for there to
BE some inflation before reacting to it.
|> Cutting tax
|> rates does pump money into the economy, but the immediate effect is to take
|> money out of the treasury and force the government to borrow more to make
|> up the shortfall.
Let's look at the actual numbers the last time this was tried:
In billions of dollars (%GNP):
year receipts outlays deficit debt
==== =========== ============ ========= ======
1980 517.1 590.9 73.8 914.3
1981 599.3 678.2 78.9 1003.9
1982 617.8 745.7 127.9 1147.0
1983 600.6 808.3 207.8 1381.9
1984 666.5 851.8 185.3 1576.7
1985 734.1 946.3 212.3 1827.5
1986 769.1 989.8 220.7 2129.5
1987 854.1 1002.1 148.0 2354.3
1988 909.0 1064.1 155.1 2614.6
1989 990.8 1142.8 152.0 2881.1
[Source: Statistical Abstract of the US]
As we can see, receipts did indeed go down slightly from 1982 to 1983 after
the top marginal tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%, but look at the increase
in outlays for the same period! You can't possibly blame the debt on
decreased revenues. Also note that the receipts jumped right back up (and
then some) the following year.
|> Most of our taxes already go towards paying the interest
|> on the debt that accrued from the last time the Republicans (with
|> Democratic complicity) foisted this idea on the public.
As we can know see, it was the Democratic-controlled House doing the foisting
(with complicitly from the president, to be sure. He could have vetoed).
However this is not an indictment of supply-side economics, which the 80s
revisionists would lead you to believe.
|> The money went
|> into bad investments: military programs, not infrastructure. That is the
|> kind of "investment" that you get from Republicans.
I can't let this remark pass. How much money will we save in the long run,
not having to maintain Mutually Assured Destruction with the Soviet Union?
How much has poverty been reduced after 30 years of "Great Society" social
programs? Let's face it, between defense, entitlements, and interest on the
debt, there's nothing left for "infrastructure" (whatever you mean by that).
|> I notice that you do not (and cannot) deny the fact that Reagan left us
|> with a humongous debt.
I cannot deny the fact that we accumulated a "humongous debt" during his
presidency. I doubt you can attribute much of it to any Reagan agenda.
Certainly not tax *rate* cuts (not tax cuts). Defense spending contributed
some, but Current Services Budgeting and double-digit interest rates
contributed the lion's share.
|> Meanwhile, the
|> government had to borrow from our Social Security fund in order to have
|> money to spend. How's that for magic? The next time you need money, just
|> lend it to yourself.
I won't argue with the foolishness of this, but I caution you to remember
which branch of government decides what is off and on budget.
|> Who collects farm subsidies?
Farmers?
|> Is it welfare mothers or farmers from Dole's
|> home state? Which group is likely to be considered middle class?
I would say that agriculture subsidies mostly go to the wealthy.
John Iacoletti
Xref: trib.apple.com ca.politics:57047 tx.politics:22568 co.politics:3494 or.politics:5066
Organization: IBM Austin
Followup-To: ca.politics,tx.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,or.politics,seattle.politics,wash.politics
Lines: 21
3425A-...@red3.cac.washington.edu>
Organization: IBM RISC System/6000 Division, Austin, TX
Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
In article <Pine.ULT.3.91a.94112...@red3.cac.washington.edu>, mona...@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
|> This bickering back and forth is worthless.
|> I suggest you read:
|> The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips
|> America: What Went Wrong? by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
|> Dead Right by David Frum
I'd be glad to. I just hope you realize that an appeal to authority is not
an argument. If these authors are so convincing, I would think you'd
be able to succinctly argue their points.
Robert Cerpa
>
>Sigh. One more time... The Senate cannot create a BTU tax. All they can do
>is say "no". This is a non-sequitor. The thing I said "doesn't matter" was
>with repect to how much is spent. Your little example is irrelevant (expect
>perhaps to your ability to pull words out of their context). The Senate
>cannot create a tax. The Senate cannot spend a dime.
>
> My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
> "Practice senseless acts of randomness"
Why exactly can't the Senate "spend a dime" ?
Robert Cerpa
ce...@cgl.ucsf.edu
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>In article <CzpFA...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> I think that Clinton was doing a creditable job of working down the debt
>|> until the voting public kicked him in the stomach.
>
>Huh? The debt is not any lower, and he continues to propose billions in new
>spending. The voting public "kicked him in the stomach", because they are fed
>up with him saying one thing and doing another.
The National Debt will never get any lower until Federal Government starts
to run a surplus; how can you hold Clinton responsible for failing to turn a
three hundred billion dollar deficit into a surplus in merely two years?
>|> The trick is to keep
>|> the economy growing at the same time that you bring down deficits. I agree
>|> with you that Congress cannot stop themselves from overspending, especially
>|> a Republican Congress. About the most irresponsible thing you can do at
>|> this point is to propose a tax cut.
>
>Why? As we have seen, cutting tax rates does exactly what you want: it
>grows the economy, and it brings down deficits by increasing the amount of
>tax money going into the treasury (as an effect of the growth). The economy
>is growing now, but it's not anything Bill Clinton has done.
This is correct, the press have been excessively hard on George Bush on
this point. The recession ended in March 1991, but don't tell the media
that.
>He caught the
>high end of the cycle. In fact his policies have served to *limit* the amount
>of growth that would have otherwise occurred if anything.
This is probably true, but the reason is that the Federal government has
cut its growth in spending under Clinton. Most analysts predicted a
negative real growth rate in Federal spending for 1995, even before the
election (a decline in the area of five percent). This slowdown certainly
has had the effect of slowing down the economy from the growth level which
it would otherwise have reached.
>|> Kennedy was not anywhere in Reagan's league when it came to deficit
>|> spending. He did not give use the humongous federal debt that Reagan left
>|> us with.
>
>The only spending increase that Reagan wanted was in defense. You can thank
>the 1979 Congress (and president) for leaving us the legacy of current
>services budgeting, and entitlement spending on auto-pilot.
Prevailing Conservatoid theory (as I understand it) implies that Presidents
Reagan and Bush were incapable of attacking the entitlements beast, because
they were both Republicans and therefore were powerless.
>Sorry, but the middle class gets the fewest amount of entitlements. I
>challenge you to name one.
This is (in part) an empirical question. I am sure that a study would
find the correct answer. As for middle class entitlements, how about
Medicaid, interest on mortgages tax deduction, student loan programs,
farm subsidies, and Social Security retirement benefits?
>--
>John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
Thank you for reading.
I hope that you all had a good Thanksgiving vacation.
ALfredo B. Goyburu
"Liberalism is a poor substitute for understanding."
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>In article <Pine.ULT.3.91a.94112...@red2.cac.washington.edu>, mona...@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
>|> I went back and looked at your post. You wrote "It doesn't matter".
>|> You are obviously unfamiliar with how the budget process actually works.
>
Maybe there is a semantic problem here. You both probably have the same
understanding of how the budget process works.
>John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
ALfredo B. Goyburu
John Iacoletti
|> The National Debt will never get any lower until Federal Government starts
|> to run a surplus; how can you hold Clinton responsible for failing to turn a
|> three hundred billion dollar deficit into a surplus in merely two years?
I don't. Richard claimed that Clinton's plans have somehow reduced the debt,
and I was simply pointing out that the debt has not been reduced.
I also fault Clinton for calling a reduction in the growth of the deficit a
"deficit cut".
|> Prevailing Conservatoid theory (as I understand it) implies that Presidents
|> Reagan and Bush were incapable of attacking the entitlements beast, because
|> they were both Republicans and therefore were powerless.
No, you don't understand Current Services Budgeting or what the Tax Reform Act
of 1979 imposed on the budget process. It has nothing to do with what party
the president is.
|> As for middle class entitlements, how about
|> Medicaid,
Only the poor are eligible for Medicaid.
|> interest on mortgages tax deduction,
This is not an entitlement.
|> student loan programs,
Perhaps, but they are certainly means-tested.
|> farm subsidies,
Probably go mostly to the wealthy.
|> and Social Security retirement benefits?
Not an entitlement until you get back more than you put in. Certainly not
restricted to the middle class, anyway.
--
John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
John Iacoletti
|> Why exactly can't the Senate "spend a dime" ?
The final budget originates in the House of Representatives. The Senate
and the president have to approve it, but they can't change it. They have
to convince the House to make changes.
--
Bill Campbell
....
: I notice that you do not (and cannot) deny the fact that Reagan left us
: with a humongous debt. Recall that his "supply-side" scheme led to just
: one result: tax hikes to offset the damage of his tax cuts. Meanwhile, the
Federal revenue doubled during the Reagan years (from around $400
billion to around $900 billion) as a result of the tax cuts.
Unfortunately spending more than doubled resulting in the larger
deficit. Congress is the only organization that can authorize
spending, not the President, and who controlled the Congress?.
: government had to borrow from our Social Security fund in order to have
: money to spend. How's that for magic? The next time you need money, just
: lend it to yourself. Then scream your head off when the bill comes due.
Government has been stealing from the SS ``trust fund'' ever since it
was formed under FDR. It has always been a Ponzi Scam.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 8545 SE 68th Street
http://www.celestial.com/ Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Larry Caldwell
>Who collects farm subsidies? Is it welfare mothers or farmers from Dole's
>home state? Which group is likely to be considered middle class? Which
J. R. Simplot grazes 11 million acres of federal lands. I don't think
anybody in the world considers Simplot to be middle class. :)
--
Larry Caldwell lar...@teleport.com
Larry Caldwell
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>Why? As we have seen, cutting tax rates does exactly what you want: it
>grows the economy, and it brings down deficits by increasing the amount of
>tax money going into the treasury (as an effect of the growth). The economy
>is growing now, but it's not anything Bill Clinton has done. He caught the
>high end of the cycle. In fact his policies have served to *limit* the amount
>of growth that would have otherwise occurred if anything.
That is both simplistic and inaccurate. Tax rates are only one factor in
economics. Availability of markets is also a factor, and Clinton has
done more to stimulate trade than any other president. Do the acronyms
NAFTA and GATT ring a bell?
Reagan's tax cuts may have stimulated the economy, but the rollback in
interest rates due to easing of inflationary pressures had a lot more to
do with it. Clinton's budget cuts have allowed the Fed to keep interest
rates low longer than anyone anticipated. Remember, the role of the Fed
is to keep money from turning into toilet paper, and it's set up so that
even congress and the president together can't tell the Fed Chairman what
to do. That's how important it is. You cut taxes and you raise interest
rates. Either you pay it in interest and inflation or you pay it in
taxes, but there's no way to get out of the game.
--
Larry Caldwell lar...@teleport.com
Larry Caldwell
Bill Campbell <bi...@camco1.celestial.com> wrote:
>Federal revenue doubled during the Reagan years (from around $400
>billion to around $900 billion) as a result of the tax cuts.
No, no, no. First, $900 billion in 1988 was about equivalent to 550
billion in 1980 dollars. Second, there was no tax cut, except in the
sense that the higher income tax brackets were removed. The only
alternative was indexing. However, before the "tax cut" it was possible
to deduct all your medical expenses, all your dental expenses, all your
interest payments for all purposes, and dozens of other expenses. There
was a drop in the maximum rate, balanced by a widening of the tax base.
It's not obvious that Packwood's tax reform was a cut. It's not obvious
what impact it had on the economy, if any. It was referred to as "voodoo
economics" at the time, and it still is.
--
Larry Caldwell lar...@teleport.com
Tracy Monaghan
> Richard Wojcik (ri...@eskimo.com) wrote:
> ....
> : I notice that you do not (and cannot) deny the fact that Reagan left us
> : with a humongous debt. Recall that his "supply-side" scheme led to just
> : one result: tax hikes to offset the damage of his tax cuts. Meanwhile, the
>
> Federal revenue doubled during the Reagan years (from around $400
> billion to around $900 billion) as a result of the tax cuts.
> Unfortunately spending more than doubled resulting in the larger
> deficit. Congress is the only organization that can authorize
> spending, not the President, and who controlled the Congress?.
>
>
According to Kevin Phillips and David Frum, Republicans and conservative
Democrats.
Along party lines, the Democrats controlled the House and the Republicans
controlled the Senate.
What's your point? That's there's enough blame to go around? That the
bums we threw out were replaced by bums of a different party?
Tracy Monaghan
>
> |> I suggest you read:
> |> The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips
> |> America: What Went Wrong? by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
> |> Dead Right by David Frum
>
> I'd be glad to. I just hope you realize that an appeal to authority is not
> an argument. If these authors are so convincing, I would think you'd
> be able to succinctly argue their points.
>
I'll believe them before I believe you.
Tracy Monaghan
> In article <Czxt3...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>
> |> Cutting tax
> |> rates does pump money into the economy, but the immediate effect is to take
> |> money out of the treasury and force the government to borrow more to make
> |> up the shortfall.
>
> Let's look at the actual numbers the last time this was tried:
>
> In billions of dollars (%GNP):
> year receipts outlays deficit debt
> ==== =========== ============ ========= ======
> 1980 517.1 590.9 73.8 914.3
> 1981 599.3 678.2 78.9 1003.9
> 1982 617.8 745.7 127.9 1147.0
> 1983 600.6 808.3 207.8 1381.9
> 1984 666.5 851.8 185.3 1576.7
> 1985 734.1 946.3 212.3 1827.5
> 1986 769.1 989.8 220.7 2129.5
> 1987 854.1 1002.1 148.0 2354.3
> 1988 909.0 1064.1 155.1 2614.6
> 1989 990.8 1142.8 152.0 2881.1
>
As the economy grew out of the recessions, receipts increased.
A different picture is painted if you look at receipts/outlays/deficits
as a percentage of GDP:
Surplus/
YEAR GDP Receipts Outlays Deficit (-)
1970......... 985.4 19.6 19.9 -0.3
1971......... 1,050.9 17.8 20.0 -2.2
1972......... 1,147.8 18.1 20.1 -2.0
1973......... 1,274.0 18.1 19.3 -1.2
1974......... 1,403.6 18.8 19.2 -0.4
1975......... 1,509.8 18.5 22.0 -3.5
1976......... 1,684.2 17.7 22.1 -4.4
TQ........... 445.0 18.3 21.6 -3.3
1977......... 1,917.2 18.5 21.3 -2.8
1978......... 2,155.0 18.5 21.3 -2.7
1979......... 2,429.5 19.1 20.7 -1.7
1980......... 2,644.1 19.6 22.3 -2.8
1981......... 2,964.4 20.2 22.9 -2.7
1982......... 3,122.2 19.8 23.9 -4.1
1983......... 3,316.5 18.1 24.4 -6.3
1984......... 3,695.0 18.0 23.1 -5.0
1985......... 3,967.7 18.5 23.9 -5.4
1986......... 4,219.0 18.2 23.5 -5.2
1987......... 4,452.4 19.2 22.5 -3.4
1988......... 4,808.4 18.9 22.1 -3.2
1989......... 5,173.3 19.2 22.1 -2.9
1990......... 5,481.5 18.8 22.9 -4.0
1991......... 5,673.3 18.6 23.3 -4.8
1992......... 5,937.2 18.4 23.3 -4.9
1993......... 6,294.8 18.3 22.4 -4.0
As even you should be able to see, receipts as a percentage of GDP did
not grow as much as you would have us believe.
Doug Andersen
>....
>: I notice that you do not (and cannot) deny the fact that Reagan left us
>: with a humongous debt. Recall that his "supply-side" scheme led to just
>: one result: tax hikes to offset the damage of his tax cuts. Meanwhile, the
>
>Federal revenue doubled during the Reagan years (from around $400
>billion to around $900 billion) as a result of the tax cuts.
>Unfortunately spending more than doubled resulting in the larger
>deficit. Congress is the only organization that can authorize
>spending, not the President, and who controlled the Congress?.
Let me get this logic straight. Congress is the only one who can
authorize spending, therefore they are responsible for the increase in
spending. But when it comes to changes in the tax laws, which created
this growth in revenue that you're so proud of, suddenly Congress gets
no credit? Was the President given some special ability to change the
tax laws without Congress? Either Congress gets the credit/blame for
changing the tax laws and increasing spending, or they don't get the
credit/blame for either.
Personally I think any party that signed the legislation (House, Senate and
President) shares the blame and the credit. You can't put your signature
on a budget and then pretend you had nothing to do with it, as a lot of
Republicans like to do for Reagan/Bush.
Just in the interest of nit picking, revenues didn't double under Reagan,
they went from about $600 billion to about $900, an impressive increase
but not a doubling. (Source: World Almanac)
--
Doug Andersen
do...@eskimo.com
"Civilization is a limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities"
- Mark Twain
John Iacoletti
|> Availability of markets is also a factor, and Clinton has
|> done more to stimulate trade than any other president. Do the acronyms
|> NAFTA and GATT ring a bell?
Yep. The only part of the Clinton agenda that I agree with. And I'm more
than happy to give him credit for promoting free trade.
|> Reagan's tax cuts may have stimulated the economy, but the rollback in
|> interest rates due to easing of inflationary pressures had a lot more to
|> do with it.
Fine. What, then eased inflationary pressures but the increased production
resulting from tax relief? It's all interdependant.
|> Clinton's budget cuts have allowed the Fed to keep interest
|> rates low longer than anyone anticipated.
What budget cuts?
|> You cut taxes and you raise interest
|> rates. Either you pay it in interest and inflation or you pay it in
|> taxes, but there's no way to get out of the game.
Federal Reserve Board Discount Rates:
1981 (just before marginal tax rate cut): 14.0%
1990 (just after tax increase): 6.5%
It looks to me like tax rates were cut AND interest rates went down.
Tracy Monaghan
|> Organization: IBM Austin
|> Followup-To: ca.politics,tx.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,or.politics,seattle.politics,wash.politics
|> Lines: 21
|>
|> 3425A-...@red3.cac.washington.edu>
|> Organization: IBM RISC System/6000 Division, Austin, TX
|> Distribution:
|> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
|>
|> In article <Pine.ULT.3.91a.94112...@red3.cac.washington.edu>, mona...@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
|> |> This bickering back and forth is worthless.
|>
|> |> I suggest you read:
|> |> The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips
|> |> America: What Went Wrong? by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
|> |> Dead Right by David Frum
|>
|> I'd be glad to. I just hope you realize that an appeal to authority is not
|> an argument. If these authors are so convincing, I would think you'd
|> be able to succinctly argue their points
I can give you succinct:
Kevin Phillips: The Reagan years were a repeat of the previous Republican
heydays, the Gilded Age and the Roarin' 20s, except Reagan left us with
US$3 trillion additional debt.
David Frum: The Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress passed
everything Reagan asked for, but the Reagan gamble (tax cuts without
spending cuts) failed.
John Iacoletti
|> As the economy grew out of the recessions, receipts increased.
Now ask yourself how the economy grew out of the recessions and why it ended
up being the longest peacetime economic expansion in US history. Just a
lucky accident, or did it have something to do with tax-rate cuts pumping
more immediate capital into the economy?
|> A different picture is painted if you look at receipts/outlays/deficits
|> as a percentage of GDP:
|> . . .
|> As even you should be able to see, receipts as a percentage of GDP did
|> not grow as much as you would have us believe.
As I recall, I was responding to a claim that tax-rate cuts took money
out of the treasury and resulted in a significant *loss* in revenue. This
isn't true even if you DO normalize to GDP.
John Iacoletti
|> But when it comes to changes in the tax laws, which created
|> this growth in revenue that you're so proud of, suddenly Congress gets
|> no credit?
Sure they get credit. We're just recognizing the man who came up with the
idea in the first place. Reagan campaigned on getting Congress to lower
tax rates, and he managed to convince them to do it -- a mean feat for a
president of the opposite party.
Robert Cerpa
I can see that the Constitution requires the House to originate
all bills for raising revenues, but I don't see any such requirement
for spending revenues. Does the final budget originate in the House
because of statute or because of tradition?
Robert Cerpa
ce...@cgl.ucsf.edu
Graduate Group in Biophysics, UC San Francisco
Richard Wojcik
Right. It doesn't hurt the spirit of what I was saying to point this out.
The main point is that the beneficiaries of many so-called "entitlements"
are either middle or upper class--i.e. the very people who voted in the
current slate of representatives and senators. Cutting welfare is not
going to solve the problem, and it may even hurt us all in the long run. I
would maintain that the well-off in our society ultimately pay more when
you have a large population of poor, uneducated people to deal with. You
pay for the jails, the emergency care, the lack of a skilled workforce, the
need to pay for security against rising crime rates, the underground
economy, etc. So go ahead and throw people off welfare. That is not going
to strengthen our country or our economy in the long run. Cutting
entitlements for the upper and middle classes is the only answer, and that
won't come easy with a Republican Congress. Their constituency is even
less likely than that of the Democrats to tolerate cuts in benefits for the
well-off. Instead, they make fantastic proposals such as the current
lunatic idea to cut 20% off of income taxes for middle and upper
incomes. At least the perpetrators can rest easy in the knowledge that the
idea won't go much further than the Crazy House.
Richard Wojcik
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <D01w2...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, ce...@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert
Cerpa) writes:
>|> Why exactly can't the Senate "spend a dime" ?
>
>The final budget originates in the House of Representatives. The Senate
>and the president have to approve it, but they can't change it. They have
>to convince the House to make changes.
Technically, the House proposes the budget. In reality, the President has
a big say in setting priorities. Unlike that of a solitary Senatorj his
approval or disapproval is automatically a majority vote. Reagan had good
control over the Congressional agenda during his years of hegemony. Not
only was he very popular, but he had the help of a lot of conservative
Democracts, many of whom have now been replaced by conservative
Republicans.
Deborah Kilgore
>In article <3bfb7g$h...@rebecca.albany.edu>, ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet (ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet) writes:
>|> interest on mortgages tax deduction,
>This is not an entitlement.
It depends how you look at it. It certainly assists the real estate industry
tremendously over other industries. I would call it an entitlement to RE
agents :)
>|> student loan programs,
>Perhaps, but they are certainly means-tested.
Not much anymore. A student can get a stafford loan, even having had a middle
class income in the previous year (~$35K) - this kind of loan is where the
govt picks up the interest payments while the student is in school. Free
money!
The other kind of loan that is simply guaranteed, but the govt does not pick
up interest payments, is not really means tested (at least I am aware that
a student who made more than $70K in the previous year could get
this kind of loan) But if the student pays back the loan, then it doesn't
cost anything.
In general, though, I would imagine that most govt gifts end up in the hands
of the wealthy.
- deb
Patrick Powers
To summarize, you are basically correct but some details would bear
correction.
The history of tax reform is in "Showdown at Gucci Gulch". I do not
remember it as clearly as I would like, but the basic thrust
was that the revisions in the tax code be revenue neutral, with the
main goal being simplification. Revenue neutral meaning that the
various economic groups were projected to supply the same revenues
as before, but that less energy would go into dodging taxes.
I seem to recall that there was some shifting of the tax burden to
corporate tax from personal income tax, but I'm really not sure.
The issue was complicated by the tax reform of 1981 which everyone
involved seemed to agree was a botched job as it accidentally provided
huge, silly tax breaks to businesses. I think they were just undoing
this damage. As a final note, Packwood was one of the primary
obstacles to tax reform, and only gave in under pressure.
To compare with contemporary issues, one of the main tax breaks
taken from the rich was the capital gains deduction, traded to
get lower overall tax rates for the rich. Now, "they" are trying
to get the capital gains cut back but keep the lower rates. By
the way, the 1993 tax rate increase for the very rich did not
apply to capital gains, which are still taxed at the same rate
as before.
Voodoo economics was that Laffer curve stuff, which was something else.
Larry Caldwell
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>Fine. What, then eased inflationary pressures but the increased production
>resulting from tax relief? It's all interdependant.
I doubt that it had much to do with taxes. The primary cause of reduced
inflationary pressure was the collapse of the OPEC cartel and declining
energy costs worldwide. If you want to argue that Reagan had something
to do with this, fine, but his "tax cuts" were part of the "trickle down
economics" package. Americans eventually learned that the only thing
that runs downhill is shit.
>What budget cuts?
Have you forgotten the budget cutting fervor of the 92 congress? Clinton
proposed a budget incorporating major spending cuts, and everyone climbed
on the bandwagon. Unlike most earlier presidential budgets, portions of
Clinton's budget actually survived the congressional debates.
>Federal Reserve Board Discount Rates:
>
>1981 (just before marginal tax rate cut): 14.0%
>1990 (just after tax increase): 6.5%
>
>It looks to me like tax rates were cut AND interest rates went down.
Just because you justapose two facts doesn't mean they are related. The
1981 discount rate was high because the dollar was losing half its value
every three years. The Fed acted stringently to reduce the dollar
supply, and stabilized the dollar at the cost of the deepest recession
since the great depression. Relating the discount rate to tax cuts is
equivalent to relating it to sunspots.
I had two points:
1) It is not possible for congress to cut taxes without corresponding
budget cuts. The massive budget and trade deficits of the US have been
supported by binding agreements with the international financial
community. In essence, the US no longer owns the dollar. Congress has
budget guidelines, and if congress violates them the rest of the world
will quit supporting the dollar.
2) Previous economic response to a tax cut was accompanied by incredible
deficit spending, and occurred at a time when there were many other major
influences on the US economy. Proposing that a tax cut "caused" anything
is pure voodoo.
--
Larry Caldwell lar...@teleport.com
John Iacoletti
|> I can see that the Constitution requires the House to originate
|> all bills for raising revenues, but I don't see any such requirement
|> for spending revenues.
As far as I know, they are always done withing the same bill.
|> Does the final budget originate in the House
|> because of statute or because of tradition?
I believe it's by statute, but it doesn't make much difference, because the
Congress writes the statutes too.
John Iacoletti
Followup-To: ca.politics,tx.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,or.politics,seattle.politics,wash.politics
4l$4...@news.u.washington.edu>
Organization: IBM RISC System/6000 Division, Austin, TX
Distribution: world
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
In article <3bj14l$4...@news.u.washington.edu>, mona...@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:
|> I can give you succinct:
|> Kevin Phillips: The Reagan years were a repeat of the previous Republican
|> heydays, the Gilded Age and the Roarin' 20s, except Reagan left us with
|> US$3 trillion additional debt.
|> David Frum: The Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress passed
|> everything Reagan asked for, but the Reagan gamble (tax cuts without
|> spending cuts) failed.
Those are succinct, all right, but vacuous. I only hope the books themselves
are more substantive.
John Iacoletti
|> Right. It doesn't hurt the spirit of what I was saying to point this out.
|> The main point is that the beneficiaries of many so-called "entitlements"
|> are either middle or upper class
Wait a minute. You claimed that the middle class get all the entitlements.
When you were asked what entitlements the middle class get, you said "farm
subsidies". So if that's not true then what entitlements do the middle class
get?
|> I would maintain that the well-off in our society ultimately pay more when
|> you have a large population of poor, uneducated people to deal with. You
|> pay for the jails, the emergency care, the lack of a skilled workforce, the
|> need to pay for security against rising crime rates, the underground
|> economy, etc.
That's odd. Why were none of these things absolutely rampant before 1964?
Why have 3 trillion dollars in transfer payments to the poor since then NOT
done a thing to curb any of them?
|> So go ahead and throw people off welfare. That is not going
|> to strengthen our country or our economy in the long run. Cutting
|> entitlements for the upper and middle classes is the only answer,
Cut entitlements for EVERYBODY. I'll go along with cutting farm subsidies.
Anything else?
|> Instead, they make fantastic proposals such as the current
|> lunatic idea to cut 20% off of income taxes for middle and upper
|> incomes.
I'll assume you mean capital gains taxes, not income taxes. Were you aware
that only 3% of the people making more than $100,000 a year in income
report capital gains? Were you aware that less available capital means
fewer available jobs for those people you supposedly want to have jobs?
John Iacoletti
|> Technically, the House proposes the budget. In reality, the President has
|> a big say in setting priorities.
This depends on whether Congress chooses to pay attention to him. Congress
paid little attention to Jimmy Carter and George Bush. More to Ronald Reagan
and Bill Clinton (until now).
John Iacoletti
|> I doubt that it had much to do with taxes. The primary cause of reduced
|> inflationary pressure was the collapse of the OPEC cartel and declining
|> energy costs worldwide. If you want to argue that Reagan had something
|> to do with this, fine,
Then you have to explain why JFK's tax rate cut had the same effect 20 years
earlier.
|> but his "tax cuts" were part of the "trickle down economics" package.
As if applying the term "trickle-down" somehow discredits anything.
|> Americans eventually learned that the only thing that runs downhill is shit.
That's why raising luxury taxes caused the luxury boat and automobile
market to plummet and the workers to lose their jobs. That's why repealing
the luxury tax caused the industries to rebound. That's why Mario Cuomo
tried to lure Mercedes Benz to New York with tax exemptions. This notion
that taxes are "different" from any other business expense is pure liberal
fantasy.
|> Have you forgotten the budget cutting fervor of the 92 congress?
I remember them fervently paying lip service. I also remember that nothing
was actually cut. By the way, outside of Washington, a *cut* means that you
spend less this year than you did last year.
|> Clinton
|> proposed a budget incorporating major spending cuts, and everyone climbed
|> on the bandwagon.
Name one.
|> Just because you justapose two facts doesn't mean they are related. The
|> 1981 discount rate was high because the dollar was losing half its value
|> every three years.
You need to make up your mind what you're arguing. You said that you cannot
have lower interest rates and lower tax rates at the same time. Arguing about
causation doesn't change the fact that we had both at the same time in the 80s.
|> The Fed acted stringently to reduce the dollar
|> supply, and stabilized the dollar at the cost of the deepest recession
|> since the great depression.
Oh please. You must have really creative definition of "deep". Funny how it
took 8 years (and a tax increase in 1990) for that recession to hit. Funny
how the recession was over 6 months before Bill Clinton whined about the
"worst economy in 50 years".
|> 1) It is not possible for congress to cut taxes without corresponding
|> budget cuts.
What do you mean it's not possible? Isn't that exactly what happened in 1981?
I wish you had let Congress in on this impossibility sooner -- we wouldn't
be in such a mess.
|> 2) Previous economic response to a tax cut was accompanied by incredible
|> deficit spending, and occurred at a time when there were many other major
|> influences on the US economy. Proposing that a tax cut "caused" anything
|> is pure voodoo.
Proposing that a tax rate cut doesn't have any effect on the economy is pure
ignorance. Sure there are other influences, but if tax cuts don't cause
anything then why are we wasting all this time on NAFTA and GATT? Why
mess with luxury tax rates and capital gains rates, if doing so doesn't
cause anything to happen? Is it just some sort of mass hallucination?
Richard Wojcik
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <D042J...@eskimo.com>, ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>|> Right. It doesn't hurt the spirit of what I was saying to point this out.
>|> The main point is that the beneficiaries of many so-called "entitlements"
>|> are either middle or upper class
>
>Wait a minute. You claimed that the middle class get all the entitlements.
>When you were asked what entitlements the middle class get, you said "farm
>subsidies". So if that's not true then what entitlements do the middle class
>get?
This is almost a complete distortion of what I really said. I said that
most real "entitlements" were for the middle class, citing farm subsidies
as an example (after you had denied that any entitlements went to the
middle class). I was corrected by someone who pointed out that the bulk of
farm subsidies probably go to richer people. I don't know that for a fact,
but my point was that they sure didn't go to poor people. As for other
entitlements, someone else posted other good examples--social security,
medicare, mortgage deductions, etc. I favor means tests for these rather
than a cut in benefits to the needy. Republicans, in general, would rather
stiff the neediest segments of society.
>|> I would maintain that the well-off in our society ultimately pay more when
>|> you have a large population of poor, uneducated people to deal with. You
>|> pay for the jails, the emergency care, the lack of a skilled workforce, the
>|> need to pay for security against rising crime rates, the underground
>|> economy, etc.
>
>That's odd. Why were none of these things absolutely rampant before 1964?
>Why have 3 trillion dollars in transfer payments to the poor since then NOT
>done a thing to curb any of them?
What makes you think that there were no problems before 1964? Stories
about poverty, racial discrimination, poor education, etc., were rampant.
Those social programs helped to transform society. Clarence Thomas himself
would never have had an educaton without them. You may think all of it was
for nothing, but you don't seem to have any idea of what things were like
back then. A lot of that money has more than paid us back in terms of
tax-paying, productive, healthy citizens. The difference was that the
middle class of that era was more generous and more sympathetic to the
plight of the needy.
>Cut entitlements for EVERYBODY. I'll go along with cutting farm subsidies.
>Anything else?
I guess I'm just an old Democrat. Rather than cut more, I think it would
be better to levy a surtax on middle and upper incomes to pay off the debt.
That would be the responsible thing to do, but I don't fool myself that
that could happen. These are meaner times, and politicians know better
than to try.
>|> Instead, they make fantastic proposals such as the current
>|> lunatic idea to cut 20% off of income taxes for middle and upper
>|> incomes.
>
>I'll assume you mean capital gains taxes, not income taxes. Were you aware
>that only 3% of the people making more than $100,000 a year in income
>report capital gains? Were you aware that less available capital means
>fewer available jobs for those people you supposedly want to have jobs?
I don't oppose a sensible capital gains cut--one that stimulates capital
growth. Save the silly statistics for the rubes. The question is not how
many people stand to gain *something* from a capital gains cut, but whether
the bulk of the gain is spread across a large base or concentrated in a
small percentage. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't really trickle down to
the rest of us.
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>In article <3bfb7g$h...@rebecca.albany.edu>, ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet (ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet) writes:
>|> Medicaid,
>
>Only the poor are eligible for Medicaid.
Poverty can (often enough) be arranged. Think of the fellow who gets to have
Medicaid pay for his nursing home stay by giving all of his assets away to his
children, and then claiming that he owns nothing.
>|> interest on mortgages tax deduction,
>
>This is not an entitlement.
Why not?
>|> student loan programs,
>
>Perhaps, but they are certainly means-tested.
>|> farm subsidies,
>
>Probably go mostly to the wealthy.
>|> and Social Security retirement benefits?
>
>Not an entitlement until you get back more than you put in. Certainly not
>restricted to the middle class, anyway.
I did not understand that you were thinking of entitlements that were
restricted to the middle class.
>--
>John Iacoletti IBM RISC System/6000 Division joh...@austin.ibm.com
ALfredo B. Goyburu
"Liberalism is a poor substitute for understanding."
John G. Wilkinson
> |> Kevin Phillips: The Reagan years were a repeat of the previous Republican
> |> heydays, the Gilded Age and the Roarin' 20s, except Reagan left us with
> |> US$3 trillion additional debt.
>
> Those are succinct, all right, but vacuous. I only hope the books themselves
> are more substantive.
The Phillips book is _exhaustive_. In chapter four, "Wealth and
Favoritism: The Specifics of Federal Policy and Income Redistribution
During the Reagan Era," he examines the means by which the income gap
was widened in America. Specifically, he explores tax bracket reduction,
federal budget policy, deregulation, and monetary and debt policies as
"redistributive levers." In earlier chapters, the author explores the
similarities between the 80s and earlier capitalist heydays as
background for his assertion that the 80s represented a pendulum swing
that has a long history in the U.S, specifically the Gilded Age of the
late nineteenth century and the pre-crash 1920s, during which the upside
of boom and speculation was matched by a downside of collapsed farmland
values, industrial decay and recurrent homelessness.
Phillips is the author of the prescient 1967 book, "The Emerging
Republican Majority," and served as chief political analyst for the
1968 Republican presidential campaign. He's seen as one of the
architects of the Reagan years. He's served as assistant to the Attorney
General, and continues to be seen as one of the most insightful pundits,
especially because he, as a Republican, remains unafraid of applying
unalloyed analysis to both Democratic and Republican policies.
I haven't time before work to go further into the specifics of Phillips'
book. I do recommend this dense 250-page book highly, however.
==============================================================================
John Wilkinson ____ There's more to love
jw...@eskimo.com \ / than "boy meets girl"
Seattle, Washington \/ -- Jimmy Somerville
Tracy Monaghan
> Why have 3 trillion dollars in transfer payments to the poor
Where did you come up with this figure? Yes, Reagan left us with an
additional debt of 3 trillion dollars, but very little of it went to the
poor. Kevin Phillips (_The Politics of Rich and Poor_) maintains that
the 1980s was a period of redistribution of wealth upwards to the
wealthiest Americans.
Tracy Monaghan
John Iacoletti <joh...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I'll assume you mean capital gains taxes, not income taxes. Were you aware
> that only 3% of the people making more than $100,000 a year in income
> report capital gains?
Where do you come up with these bizarre numbers?
I don't suppose you would like to give a reference or two.