From Federal Budget Surplus, to Disaster, in Just Six Years - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 10-12-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

There are both immediate and long term impacts of tax and spending policies.

But.....

I don't know if I should take that to mean yes you agree or no you don't agree. I won't make an assumption or read into what you wrote.

Quote:

Much of Bush I's budget deficit and contribution to the national debt was the result of excessive spending....the primary reason why Perot ran in 1992. The downward trend in deficits/gdp under Clinton came four years into his term and as a result of spending limits that he and the Repub Congress agreed to. Show me any data that suggests it was in any way the impact of Bush I tax/spending policies.

Under Clinton, tax revenues were the hightest in US history and spending was frozen for many domestic programs. The Bush II contribution to the debt is coming more in his second term (and beyond) than the first. Again, show me how the disciplined tax and spending policies of the late 90s is contributing to the exponential growth in the national debt.

The biggest reason for the "low" deficit number is that borrowing from the Social Security trust fund is "off-budget". All reason Presidents have used the SS trust fund to pay for current programs and put an IOU in the trust fund.

But no recent president has raided the SS trust fund anywhere near the level that Bush has.

I will say what I said previously....the annual deficit is not the real issue....it is the accumulated national debt that is the concern of most economists and fiscal analysts. And no president has added to the national debt as much as Bush, with no indicators of any draw down on the debt in the foreseeable future.

Spending increased during Clinton's term, I am not aware of any administration that had spending reductions.

In '92 revenues increased 3.4%
In '93 +5.7%
In '94 +9% and stayed above 7% and peaked at 10% in 2000. In 2001 there was a 1.6% decline in revenues.

Who gets the credit or blame for the decline?
Who gets credit or blame for the above norm growth in revenue during the mid and late '90's?

The reasons deficit spending is important is that it lays the foundation for discussion on the debt in my view. Shouldn't finish one topic before starting another? And the OP was about the deficit.

dc_dux · 10-12-2006, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't know if I should take that to mean yes you agree or no you don't agree. I won't make an assumption or read into what you wrote.

Spending increased during Clinton's term, I am not aware of any administration that had spending reductions.

In '92 revenues increased 3.4%
In '93 +5.7%
In '94 +9% and stayed above 7% and peaked at 10% in 2000. In 2001 there was a 1.6% decline in revenues.

Who gets the credit or blame for the decline?
Who gets credit or blame for the above norm growth in revenue during the mid and late '90's?

The reasons deficit spending is important is that it lays the foundation for discussion on the debt in my view. Shouldn't finish one topic before starting another? And the OP was about the deficit.

As I said, I agree that tax and spending policies have both a short term and long term effect.

And as I also said, looking at the numbers and trends, I dont give Bush I policies much credit for the decrease in the annual deficit EVERY YEAR during the Clinton adminstration. It was primarily due to controlled spending (about 4%/year as opposed to 7%/year for Bush II) by Clinton and a policy that spending increases had to be matched by revenue increases ("pay as you go")

I also agree revenues fell in 2001 as a result of the mild recession and that is something Bush II inherited. But revenues continued to drop for the next 3 years, and I attribute that more to the 2001 tax cut and the 7%/year increase in spending by Bush , much as I attribute the rise in the annual deficit by Bush for four years.

You can see the numbers for revenues, outlays and debt for the years covered (see table 459)

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...ent/fedgov.pdf

aceventura3 · 10-12-2006, 07:28 AM

I agreed that spending is out of control.

In regard to Bush's tax cuts -

In '04 revenues increased 5.4%
In '05 revenues increased 14.5%
In '06 revenues increased 11.8%

I am sure the '06 numbers are still subject to revision. As I look at the numbers I can not conclude that the tax cuts have been the cause of the deficits during Bush's term. However, I can support orther causes: 1) Recession 2) War on terror (including homeland security issues) 3) Spending

host · 10-12-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I agreed that spending is out of control.

In regard to Bush's tax cuts -

In '04 revenues increased 5.4%
In '05 revenues increased 14.5%
In '06 revenues increased 11.8%

I am sure the '06 numbers are still subject to revision. As I look at the numbers I can not conclude that the tax cuts have been the cause of the deficits during Bush's term. However, I can support orther causes: 1) Recession 2) War on terror (including homeland security issues) 3) Spending

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.

These points in the OP, IMO, put the points in your last post, in proper context:

Quote:

GDP growth 2000-2005, 27% total, 4.9%/year.
Revenue growth 2000-2005, 6.3% total, 1.2%/year.
Spending growth 2000-2005, 38% total, 6.7%/year.

Quote:

So, combined MEW and deficit stimulus to the economy of $1,153 billion, only increased GDP by $753 billion in 2005. Receding housing prices will result in huge decreases in economic stimulus from MEW, as "cashout" refinancing disappears, and with a deficit forecast to decline, what will be left to "prop up "GDP? IMO, it won't be possible to raise tax rates without further strain on a GDP that needed an $1,153 billion input in 2005, to effect a $753 billion, 2005 GDP increase.

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....

ace, this will probably be my last post related to our discussion here....the message that you telegraph to me in post #39 is a repeat of this, on the last post on your thread of four months ago:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105663

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I've demonstrated that in the 48 months prior to Sept. 28, 2001, federal deficit spending of $394,317,400,802.72 combined with "MEW" of $797.8 billion, totalled $1.192 trillion, and in the 48 months after Sept. 28, 2001, federal deficit spending of $2,125246,249,523.44 combined with "MEW" of $1823.9 billion, totalled $3.948 trillion.

My point is that I see no point to the core premise of this thread, because, on average, the increase in fiscal stimulation that was added to the economy, via increased federal deficit spending, combined with increased "MEW", in the 48 months after Sept. 30, 2005, was $2.756 trillion greater than in the 48 month period before Sept. 28, 2001. The effect of Bush era "tax cut" policy, diluted by a $2.756 trillion spending "injection", in the four year period, should produce a positive effect on federal revenue streams from personal income and corporate taxes, but it seems disingenuous and rather one sided to try to "credit" the same folks who managed our treasury into a huge new deficit amount, for increases in the amount of taxes collected in the same period, or with deficit "reduction" that simply places part of the increasing debt, "off budget".

This week, the news media reported that there have been 9 "off budget" appropriations approved by our elected federal officials for war expenses and disaster relief. There were also defeated proposals to actually budget for Pentagon war expenses. If that happened, it would be impossible for claims to be made that falsely imply that the rate of new federal borrowing is "dropping"....the actual increase in total debt proves that this is not true.

Did you think Bush's tax cuts would lead to less total tax dollars collected? Or did you think the cuts would have no impact at all because of the other factors as you point to? If you say no impact, why not support lower taxes?

......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.

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:

Quote:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
<a href="http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm">09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23</a>
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980______930,210,000,000.00

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:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001285.html
In Search of a North Korea Policy

By William J. Perry
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A19

......The Clinton administration declared in 1994 that if North Korea reprocessed, it would be crossing a "red line," and it threatened military action if that line was crossed. The North Koreans responded to that pressure and began negotiations that led to the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework did not end North Korea's aspirations for nuclear weapons, but it did result in a major delay. For more than eight years, under the Agreed Framework, the spent fuel was kept in a storage pond under international supervision.

Then in 2002, the Bush administration discovered the existence of a covert program in uranium, evidently an attempt to evade the Agreed Framework. This program, while potentially serious, would have led to a bomb at a very slow rate, compared with the more mature plutonium program. Nevertheless, the administration unwisely stopped compliance with the Agreed Framework. In response the North Koreans sent the inspectors home and announced their intention to reprocess. The administration deplored the action but set no "red line." North Korea made the plutonium.

The administration also said early this summer that a North Korean test of long-range missiles was unacceptable. North Korea conducted a multiple-launch test of missiles on July 4. Most recently, the administration said a North Korean test of a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable. A week later North Korea conducted its first test........

....and this, today:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ews+%2F+Nation
GOP leaders seek probe of Berger papers

By Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer | October 11, 2006

......Ten lawmakers, led by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said in a letter they wanted the House Government Reform Committee to investigate.

They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger......

........In a letter to Davis, Waxman wrote that the Berger incident is not new and has been reviewed by committee staff. He noted Berger gave a television interview Tuesday criticizing the Bush administration's policies on North Korea.

"It would be regrettable if the letter from Republican members that you received today and your own letter to NARA (National Archives and Records administration) were prompted by Mr. Berger's criticism of the administration," Waxman wrote. "It would be equally regrettable if the sudden calls for an investigation were part of an organized effort to divert attention from the war in Iraq and other pressing national issues."

Davis' spokesman had no immediate response.

ace, 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......
[/quote]

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr1.html
Berger Is Likely to Face Fine

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 2, 2005; Page A08

The Justice Department said yesterday there was no evidence that former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger was trying to conceal information when he illegally took copies of classified terrorism documents out of the National Archives in 2003.....

.....Noel L. Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, said Berger "did not have an intent to hide any of the content of the documents" or conceal facts from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But he did hide the document copies in his coat jacket as he left the archives after two visits in September and October 2003. "As a former high-ranking government official, he knew and understood that what he did was wrong," Hillman said.....

.......Hillman noted that Berger only had copies of the documents -- not the originals -- and so was not charged with the more serious crime of destroying documents.....

aceventura3 · 10-12-2006, 10:59 AM

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.

Quote:

ace, this will probably be my last post related to our discussion here....the message that you telegraph to me in post #39 is a repeat of this, on the last post on your thread of four months ago:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105663

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, 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......

[/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

shakran · 10-12-2006, 11:36 AM

Well. . I'll tell ya where I'm confused. I'm really confused based on present and past statements of Republican "economists."

See, back when Reagan got elected he started this "cut taxes and increase spending and we'll all get rich" idea. It's a concept, by the way, that his vice president called "voodoo economics" until he was picked as Reagan's running mate, at which point suddenly Bush the Elder was rabidly behind it.

So anyway, 8 years of Reagan and 4 more years of Bush 1 to try out voodoo economics and the voodoo just wasn't doin' it. We were mired in a recession, which has a lot to do with why Bill Clinton got elected.

In 8 years Clinton seemed to have turned it around. We were on track to paying off the debt, people were prosperous, and everything seemed to be working well.

Here's where it gets entertaining. The Republicans came out and said "Hold on wait a minute, that's not Clinton! It takes 8 to 12 years for a president's economic policies to have an effect! It was Reagan all along that's why everyone's doing so well!"

The logic already began to break down, btw, because by that logic we shouldn't have been in a recession at all in 1992 after 12 years of Voodoo. And yet, strangely enough, we were!

But it gets better! Bush 2 got elected and promptly set out to undo all the damage Clinton had supposedly done to the economy. Within a few months, we're back in the ol' recession again, and that was all Clinton's fault.

Now, by the logic of the Republicans' earlier statements, we should continue to stay in financial difficulties for at least another 2 years - possibly 6, in order to fill out the "8 to 12 year" deadline for a president's economic policies to have an effect.

And yet miraculously enough after only 6 short years, Bush 2 and his cronies are taking credit for the supposed good news that this year's deficit is lower than last year's (frankly I don't think spending $248 billion more than you earned is good news, especially when you calculate that by subtracting $300 billion coming in from social security which we're not supposed to count as a liquid asset).

How can this be? Can Bush possibly have done what his fellow Republicans declared impossible? The man's either a certified genius (and one minute of any one of his speeches will tell you that ain't it) or a letterman in the varsity bullshit league.

Aceventura3 says the current numbers are good because they (on paper, after financial trickery) look better than last year's. I'd say the comparison would be akin to saying "well last year my 3 year old was eaten by a crocodile. This year it only chewed off my leg."

Pretending that running a 1/4 TRILLION dollar deficit in a single year is "positive" is absurd to the point of laughability.

Currently if we wanted to pay off the national debt we'd have to invest between $25,000 and $30,000 PER PERSON, including children. That's bad enough but when you add a million dollars to that number every 45 seconds, that's just plain irresponsible.

ratbastid · 10-12-2006, 11:45 AM

Yes, well, since when have facts ever been important to politicians?

aceventura3 · 10-12-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well. . I'll tell ya where I'm confused. I'm really confused based on present and past statements of Republican "economists."

See, back when Reagan got elected he started this "cut taxes and increase spending and we'll all get rich" idea. It's a concept, by the way, that his vice president called "voodoo economics" until he was picked as Reagan's running mate, at which point suddenly Bush the Elder was rabidly behind it.

Bush I was correct based on what you stated above. The original premise of Supply Side Economics was to cut excessive tax rates and reduce spending. Reagan cut excessive tax rates and increased spending. I think this had something to do with the cold war.

Quote:

So anyway, 8 years of Reagan and 4 more years of Bush 1 to try out voodoo economics and the voodoo just wasn't doin' it. We were mired in a recession, which has a lot to do with why Bill Clinton got elected.

Bush I did not stay the course. He raised taxes. I did not vote for him. As I recall Clinton's economic policies were middle of the road, with a hostile republican congress. This combination worked, I don't and have never disputed that.

Quote:

In 8 years Clinton seemed to have turned it around. We were on track to paying off the debt, people were prosperous, and everything seemed to be working well.

Everything worked well until people invested in technology lost 80 to 90% of their portfolio.

Quote:

Here's where it gets entertaining. The Republicans came out and said "Hold on wait a minute, that's not Clinton! It takes 8 to 12 years for a president's economic policies to have an effect! It was Reagan all along that's why everyone's doing so well!"

Here we go again. Example: Clinton signed welfare reform legislation. What was the impact of that legislation the year it was signed, the year after, 5 years after, on the federal budget?

Example: Reagan reduced long-term capital gains rates - what was the impact of that in year 1, year 5, year 10?

Example: bush II Perscription Drug Plan for seniors? I am scared to think about the long-term costs. But when the costs peak - Bush will be a distant memory. I pity the President 15 years from now.

Quote:

The logic already began to break down, btw, because by that logic we shouldn't have been in a recession at all in 1992 after 12 years of Voodoo. And yet, strangely enough, we were!

Business cycles are greater than the President in the fact that noone has ever figured out how to prevent economic slow downs after periods of above normal growth.

Quote:

But it gets better! Bush 2 got elected and promptly set out to undo all the damage Clinton had supposedly done to the economy. Within a few months, we're back in the ol' recession again, and that was all Clinton's fault.

Not all Clinton, but not all Bush either.

Quote:

Now, by the logic of the Republicans' earlier statements, we should continue to stay in financial difficulties for at least another 2 years - possibly 6, in order to fill out the "8 to 12 year" deadline for a president's economic policies to have an effect.

Begining to loose me here.

Quote:

And yet miraculously enough after only 6 short years, Bush 2 and his cronies are taking credit for the supposed good news that this year's deficit is lower than last year's (frankly I don't think spending $248 billion more than you earned is good news, especially when you calculate that by subtracting $300 billion coming in from social security which we're not supposed to count as a liquid asset).

How can this be? Can Bush possibly have done what his fellow Republicans declared impossible? The man's either a certified genius (and one minute of any one of his speeches will tell you that ain't it) or a letterman in the varsity bullshit league.

Aceventura3 says the current numbers are good because they (on paper, after financial trickery) look better than last year's. I'd say the comparison would be akin to saying "well last year my 3 year old was eaten by a crocodile. This year it only chewed off my leg."

Pretending that running a 1/4 TRILLION dollar deficit in a single year is "positive" is absurd to the point of laughability.

Currently if we wanted to pay off the national debt we'd have to invest between $25,000 and $30,000 PER PERSON, including children. That's bad enough but when you add a million dollars to that number every 45 seconds, that's just plain irresponsible.

I just pointed to the trend. The trend is your friend. When the trend is up - join the fun. When the trend is down - get out while you can.

If Bush's policies where harmful why would the trend reverse on his watch?

dc_dux · 10-12-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush I was correct based on what you stated above. The original premise of Supply Side Economics was to cut excessive tax rates and reduce spending. Reagan cut excessive tax rates and increased spending. I think this had something to do with the cold war.

If Bush's policies where harmful why would the trend reverse on his watch?

Bush cut excessive tax rates and increased domestic spending (an average of 7%/yr for discretionary non-defense, non-homeland security)

Why do you think this voodoo economics is any more successful than it was under Reagan?

Bush is reversing the trend? The national debt is increasing faster than any time in history, and the worst of the Bush tax cut impacts havent kicked in yet. Bush will likely need to raise the debt ceiling again in '07, the 4th time in six years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't like "off budget" items, never have, never will.

The bulk of the cost of the Iraq war has been off-budget since its inception because as Rumsfeld said in March '03:

"It makes no sense to try" to come up with cost estimates for a war in Iraq because the variables "create a range that simply isn't useful."

"We have no idea how long the war will last. We don't know to what extent there may or may not be weapons of mass destruction used," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference. "We don't have any idea whether or not there would be ethnic strife. We don't know exactly how long it would take to find weapons of mass destruction and destroy them."

"Until someone decides that there has to be a conflict and that the conflict's over, you're not going to know the answer,"

The cost of the war has been met, for the most part, with "emergency" supplemental appropriations, rather than direct budget allocations in each of the last four budget cycles, primarily by pillaging the SS trust fund in each year, like no president before him.

* FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom), made in March 2003, was for $74.8 billion. Passed within a month of the request, the final allocation amounted to $78.5 billion, at least $54.4 billion of which was for the war in Iraq.
* FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction, for $87 billion, was submitted in September 2003 and passed Congress in November 2003. The final allocation amounted to $87.5 billion, of which $70.6 billion was for Iraq.
* Budget Amendment: $25 Emergency Reserve Fund (Department of Defense - Iraq Freedom Fund) was made in May 2004 and was passed by Congress as part of the Department of Defense appropriations bill in July 2004. Based on Iraq War spending, of the $25 billion appropriated, about $21.5 billion was for the war in Iraq.
* Estimate #1 - Emergency Supplemental (various agencies): Ongoing Military Operations in the War on Terror; Reconstruction Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction; and Other Purposes - 2/14/05 was made in February 2005 and passed by Congress in April 2005. The final allocation amounted to $82 billion, of which about $58 billion was for the Iraq War.
* Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2006 (i.e. war funding not initiated by a supplemental request) included $50 billion in a 'bridge fund' for war funding. Based on past Iraq War spending, approximately $40 billion of that can be counted for the Iraq War.
* Estimate #3—FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental (various agencies): Ongoing Military, Diplomatic, and Intelligence Operations in the Global War on Terror; Stabilization and Counter-Insurgency Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan; and Other Humanitarian Assistance—2/16/06 was for $72.4 billion, of which about $60 billion war for the Iraq War.
* Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007: War funding was initiated by a "placeholder" of $50 billion in the administration's budget released in February. Congress passed $70 billion in a 'bridge fund' for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

WIth two exceptions which were included in the Defense Dept. apppropriation bills, more than $250 billion (and counting) is "off budget"

aceventura3 · 10-12-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Bush cut excessive tax rates and increased domestic spending (an average of 7%/yr for discretionary non-defense, non-homeland security)

Why do you think this voodoo economics is any more successful than it was under Reagan?

How many times do I need to state that I think spending is out of control.

If you re-read what I have been writing I think you will find my position reasonable. I have been calling it like I see it. I just don't buy in to the Bush bashing, I like the tax cuts, I think the economy is strong and getting stronger and I think Presidents get too much credit and too much blame for things outside of their control when it comes to the economy.

I can see how any defense of Bush makes me a Kool-aid drinker in the eyes of many - but I think objective thinkers can see the points.

Quote:

Bush is reversing the trend? The national debt is increasing faster than any time in history, and the worst of the Bush tax cut impacts havent kicked in yet. Bush will likely need to raise the debt ceiling again in '07, the 4th time in six years.

Somtimes we are talking about the deficit and sometimes the debt. In this thread I have been trying to focus on the deficit. Perhaps a new thread on the debt is in order, but I am not going to start it - I am a simpleton or whatever.

dc_dux · 10-12-2006, 03:22 PM

When you posted the chart in #30, which projects a steady increase in the national debt through 2010, according to Bush's OMB I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

Quote:

I just don't buy in to the Bush bashing

I wouldnt characterize critcism of a president's policies as "bashing", particularly when you have the same criticisms: you think "spending is out of control" and you "don't like off budget items, never have, never will."

The only difference between your position on these issues and many other people here is that I (and they) attribute them to Bush directly while you seem to prefer to couch your objections in general policy terms.

Yes, I can see why some might describe your position as being "a Kool-aid drinker" for Bush.

10-12-2006, 07:28 AM	#43 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I agreed that spending is out of control. In regard to Bush's tax cuts - In '04 revenues increased 5.4% In '05 revenues increased 14.5% In '06 revenues increased 11.8% I am sure the '06 numbers are still subject to revision. As I look at the numbers I can not conclude that the tax cuts have been the cause of the deficits during Bush's term. However, I can support orther causes: 1) Recession 2) War on terror (including homeland security issues) 3) Spending __________________ "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."

10-12-2006, 11:36 AM	#46 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Well. . I'll tell ya where I'm confused. I'm really confused based on present and past statements of Republican "economists." See, back when Reagan got elected he started this "cut taxes and increase spending and we'll all get rich" idea. It's a concept, by the way, that his vice president called "voodoo economics" until he was picked as Reagan's running mate, at which point suddenly Bush the Elder was rabidly behind it. So anyway, 8 years of Reagan and 4 more years of Bush 1 to try out voodoo economics and the voodoo just wasn't doin' it. We were mired in a recession, which has a lot to do with why Bill Clinton got elected. In 8 years Clinton seemed to have turned it around. We were on track to paying off the debt, people were prosperous, and everything seemed to be working well. Here's where it gets entertaining. The Republicans came out and said "Hold on wait a minute, that's not Clinton! It takes 8 to 12 years for a president's economic policies to have an effect! It was Reagan all along that's why everyone's doing so well!" The logic already began to break down, btw, because by that logic we shouldn't have been in a recession at all in 1992 after 12 years of Voodoo. And yet, strangely enough, we were! But it gets better! Bush 2 got elected and promptly set out to undo all the damage Clinton had supposedly done to the economy. Within a few months, we're back in the ol' recession again, and that was all Clinton's fault. Now, by the logic of the Republicans' earlier statements, we should continue to stay in financial difficulties for at least another 2 years - possibly 6, in order to fill out the "8 to 12 year" deadline for a president's economic policies to have an effect. And yet miraculously enough after only 6 short years, Bush 2 and his cronies are taking credit for the supposed good news that this year's deficit is lower than last year's (frankly I don't think spending $248 billion more than you earned is good news, especially when you calculate that by subtracting $300 billion coming in from social security which we're not supposed to count as a liquid asset). How can this be? Can Bush possibly have done what his fellow Republicans declared impossible? The man's either a certified genius (and one minute of any one of his speeches will tell you that ain't it) or a letterman in the varsity bullshit league. Aceventura3 says the current numbers are good because they (on paper, after financial trickery) look better than last year's. I'd say the comparison would be akin to saying "well last year my 3 year old was eaten by a crocodile. This year it only chewed off my leg." Pretending that running a 1/4 TRILLION dollar deficit in a single year is "positive" is absurd to the point of laughability. Currently if we wanted to pay off the national debt we'd have to invest between $25,000 and $30,000 PER PERSON, including children. That's bad enough but when you add a million dollars to that number every 45 seconds, that's just plain irresponsible.

10-12-2006, 11:45 AM	#47 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Yes, well, since when have facts ever been important to politicians?