|
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace, your post #39 on this thread....a PR piece from the white house that falsely touts spending cloaked in "off-budget" machinations as "deficit reduction", was thoroughly debunked in my post #31, on your thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105663
.....4 months ago, when you tried to "offer it" here, the last time. |
I don't like "off budget" items, never have, never will. Has the CBO changed the way the do accounting for "off budget" items? The data in OP did not adjust for "off budget". Now it is the basis for you to stop the discussion?
We continually get new data. Tax revenues are at the highest point in history - inspite of the Bush tax cuts. The economy is strong, inflation and unemployment low and the economy is creating new jobs. There are some problem areas. The economy has never been perfect.
Quote:
|
These points in the OP, IMO, put the points in your last post, in proper context:
|
Please explain. I agree the overall 5 year numbers are poor, however the more recent numbers are good - showing a positive direction. I don't see the conflict, nor do I understand "proper context"
Quote:
|
ace, anybody....even incompetent management.....can "increase" GDP (or....revenue) by 75 cents for every 1.15 dollars of combined "true" deficit spending and Mortgage Equity Extraction, added to the economy annually....
|
I don't know where to start with this one. I will simply say that - perhaps the same applied to Clinton and the dot com boom.
I understand. Somtimes it is easier to run, than to defend a position.
Quote:
|
......ace, when the Bush administration came into office, it brought an agenda that included two major "to do" items: ....removing Saddam from power in Iraq, and reversing the tax burden of it's wealthy patrons.
|
What about his oil buddies?
What about his buddies in the defense industry?
What about his religious right wing buddies?
I thought his agenda included those folks too.
Quote:
We see the results....dual fiascos... in Iraq, and in federal spending. Just as the stable and cost effective system of containing Saddam with a "no fly zone" and sanctions strategy had cost no downed aircraft in 12 years of allies "no fly zone" enforcement, and by Wolfowitz's estimate to congress in early 2003, about $30 billion.
The following table must be posted again, because it contains the federal treasury annual debt total....(that is why I call it "total") actually accrued.
The marketwatch PR piece that you posted in #39 here, continues part of the debt and some excuses. The following uses the same criteria for the last four presidents...."total debt".
It displays a parallel to what happened since 2001 in Iraq. A budget and taxation regimen that had produced a downward trend in deficits, from 1993 to 2000.... ($360 billion annual deficit, down to $18 billion, annually), and still afforded satisfactory GDP growth, was "revised" by the incoming Bush administration, and the results are similar to the "results" in Iraq:
IMO, ace, the Bush II era tax cuts have been a fiscal disaster, much like the decision to discontinue the "no fly zone" and sanctions to keep Saddam in what Cheney described in 2001, as "a box", and replace that policy with invasion and occupation.
MEW and a smaller deficit would, without budget busting tax cuts, have supported GDP growth. Temporary and more progressively designed tax cuts, (as in the 1993 tax cut compromise between Clinton and republicans in congress) in response to severe recession....which, thanks to the ramping of the housing bubble, never happened, should have been saved, along with large federal deficit spending, until an actual GDP decline, emergency.
What recession fighting "weapons" are left for the next presidential administration, ace? The one that took office in january 2001, had three key options available.... the option to lower interest rates, easy because there was no predicament of huge federal borrowing needs that forced higher interest rates to attract potential foreign treasury bond purchasers....
...the option to increase deficit spending for it's stimulative effect on GDP growth, either by temporarily cutting taxes, or investment in capital projects as the Japanese officials have done since 1990....or....when oil prices starting rising...by funding R&D and tax incentives for alternative energy investment, as Carter had done in the late 1970's.....
ace, you get the idea, I'm sure. The next administration has only one option,
lowering interest rates. Cutting taxes and increasing deficit spending are harder to do now than in 2001....before five years of vigorous tax cutting and when the deficit was no higher than $32 billion annually..........
It they try to lower interest rates, they run into the problem of how to attract buyers of $500 billion in annual treasury bill issuance, vs. just $32 billion in 2001. They also have the gnawing, deficit aggravating problem of servicing the interest on existing debt of $8500 billion, compared to only $5674 billion on Sept. 30, 2001.
They've fucked this up so badly, ace...compared to the tools and options that they inherited, just 5 years and 9 months ago, that it is amazing that the opposition party would even been willing to attempt to reverse this disaster, or that anyone would seriously try to mount an obfuscatory argument in defense of what they've "accomplished", in less than 6 years...
...it also reminds me of this:
....and this, today:
ace, <b>You're defending a system of "one party rule" that does only two things well.....destroy critics by hounding them.....ala Ken Starr in his 6 year, $71 million "witch hunt", and now....in this attack of the already confessed and cleared, Sandy Berger....a recently vocal critic of the Bush admin., in defense of Clinton's policies and actions....the other "thing", ace....is a penchant for doing the opposite of whatever Clinton did....and we're now reaping the expense and the security impact of this "anti Clinton" agenda, as governing policy......</b>
|
[/QUOTE]
I only do this as an occasional diversion. It is better to hit me with bite size points - one at a time - if you want to keep my interest.
See you in about 3 or 4 months when the topic comes up again - with new and improved results further going counter to your premise. One thing we know is that time will prove who has been right and who has been wrong
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|