all things considered, I like the OTHER Grover better.
Elect Mitt Romney and you make Grover Norquist's ultimate wet dream come true.
J.P.:Grover Nordquist is an anarchist and a humbug.
J.P.: Or douchbag if you prefer
J.M.: Grover Cleavland was a Congressman (the only sitting member of the US House to be elected President) President, AND then later Cheif Justice of the Suppreme Court. But the thing that most history books mention is that he was a big guy and wanted a man's size bathtub installed in the whitehouse. Presidents with facial hair were a manly lot.
J.S.: I finally understand why Romney got the nomination over Paul. He does look good holding a pen.
Me: I don't particularly like Norquist. But if you actually listen to his speech, his point is that with a conservative congress a conservative president isn't crucial. He asserts that Obama is nothing more than a pen wielder himself. His speech is 23 minutes, which is probably 22:30 more than most liberals have actually heard from him: http://www.blogforiowa.com/2012/02/22/grover-norquist-at-cpac-republicans-dont-need-someone-who-can-think/
R.S.: It's hard to believe that only a dozen or so years ago, the federal government had a budget surplus. What on earth happened?
J.P.: Two wars and a medicare expansion simultaneous with a massive regressive tax cut and very bad finance deregulation -- all promoted by the GOP. Hey let's put them back in the White House!
Me: Never was a clinton surplus, sorry...
J.P.: Actually, based on multiple data sources including the US Treasury, there was a Federal budget surplus that began in 1997 and ended just prior to 2002. It peaked at 2.3% of GDP in 2000 just as GW Bush (R) came into office -- GW Bush gets credit for a year of surplus :) -- 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Those who say there was no Clinton (D) surplus either claim that the GOP majority in Congress was responsible or they exclude payroll tax from Federal revenue. Since WWII, Truman (D) ran the largest (4.3% of GDP at it's peak) and most sustained surpluses (5 of 8 years: there was an astonishing amount of red ink in WWII), Eisenhower (R) was a mixed bag but ran a significant surplus (more than 1%) for about 3 years of 8, LBJ (D) ran a snipet of a surplus for a single year. Clinton (3 years of 8) and Bush (1 year of 8) were the last POTUS's to run a Federal surplus. That recent surplus was only surpassed by Truman. Prior to the Great Depression, it was common to run a small surplus or deficit of 1% to 2% in a fluctuating manner. The only large deficit excursions were major wars (Civil, WWI, WWII largest by far, Iraq/Afghanistan). The largest recent deficit occured right at the beginning of 2009 (right as Obama came into office because of two wars and a collapse of GDP and tax revenue with it) it was 10% and is expected to shrink to about 5% by 2014 based on nonpartisan CBO projections. Reagan's (R) peacetime deficits exceeded that of the Vietnam war period rising as high as 6% in his 3rd year in office. Reagan and GHW Bush (R) stabilized the deficit below 5% till Clinton, partially by raising taxes (which was the political end of GHWB because of the namesake of this thread). Clinton drove the deficit down in a linear path from 1993 to 2000 from 4% deficit to 2.3% surplus. I argue the linear reduction negates the common GOP argument that the GOP Congress made Clinton reduce the deficit. Clinton reduced the deficit by roughly and equal amount every year he was in office.
J.P.: Another curious thing is that Clinton raised taxes significantly over the tax increases of GHW Bush. This allowed the large and consistent deficit reductions and at the same time the US economy grew like gang busters. I made a ton of money and kept most of it despite the dot bomb implosion at the end of the Clinton Administration. I paid lots of taxes but my personal wealth far outran anything since GW Bush came to the White House. The market has been doo doo ever since. My anecdotal experience is that economic growth and real wealth in the upper middle class brackets are not that sensitive to marginal tax rates (most of us don't exclusively pay the top income, dividend and capital gains rates). What is sensitive to marginal rates is the deficit. Higher rates, less deficit spending. What caused the economic collapse was poor deregulation of the finance industry. In fact, it was a total disaster. It's not directly linked to the deficit at this point. That could change if we emerge from this deflationary period and don't tame the red ink. I argue by raising $2 trillion in taxes to pay for two wars that we charged on credit. It's irresponsible to charge wars on a credit card, no? T-bill rates might rise and that will cause a significant problem. Defaulting on the debt would have forced the linkage immediately and could have collapsed the economy into full blown depression as T-bill rates could have gone to junk bond status, preventing the government from floating the economy in the midst of economic crisis.
Me: Sorry, J.P., you are wrong, despite your many words to the contrary: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
J.P.: Annual changes in the government net worth is more complicated than looking up the number of total government instruments in circulation. Gee, that's even true for little old me. Even you prefer that simplistic accounting, far fewer additional government instruments went into circulation under Clinton than any since Truman. So much for Reagan and the new Republicans.
J.P.: My point is, the Democrats have a slightly better record of keeping the books than the Republicans. It's hard to keep one's finances together when you quit all your revenue streams. No surprises there.
Me: So you admit there was no surplus? Good.
I really don't care who has the not-quite-as-bad record on finances. Both parties have violated the public trust, both parties have wasted trillions of dollars, both parties are guilty of the worst kind of deliberate malfeasance.
Revenue, by the way, has not been the problem. Spending has.
Elect Mitt Romney and you make Grover Norquist's ultimate wet dream come true.
J.P.:Grover Nordquist is an anarchist and a humbug.
J.P.: Or douchbag if you prefer
J.M.: Grover Cleavland was a Congressman (the only sitting member of the US House to be elected President) President, AND then later Cheif Justice of the Suppreme Court. But the thing that most history books mention is that he was a big guy and wanted a man's size bathtub installed in the whitehouse. Presidents with facial hair were a manly lot.
J.S.: I finally understand why Romney got the nomination over Paul. He does look good holding a pen.
Me: I don't particularly like Norquist. But if you actually listen to his speech, his point is that with a conservative congress a conservative president isn't crucial. He asserts that Obama is nothing more than a pen wielder himself. His speech is 23 minutes, which is probably 22:30 more than most liberals have actually heard from him: http://www.blogforiowa.com/2012/02/22/grover-norquist-at-cpac-republicans-dont-need-someone-who-can-think/
R.S.: It's hard to believe that only a dozen or so years ago, the federal government had a budget surplus. What on earth happened?
J.P.: Two wars and a medicare expansion simultaneous with a massive regressive tax cut and very bad finance deregulation -- all promoted by the GOP. Hey let's put them back in the White House!
Me: Never was a clinton surplus, sorry...
J.P.: Actually, based on multiple data sources including the US Treasury, there was a Federal budget surplus that began in 1997 and ended just prior to 2002. It peaked at 2.3% of GDP in 2000 just as GW Bush (R) came into office -- GW Bush gets credit for a year of surplus :) -- 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Those who say there was no Clinton (D) surplus either claim that the GOP majority in Congress was responsible or they exclude payroll tax from Federal revenue. Since WWII, Truman (D) ran the largest (4.3% of GDP at it's peak) and most sustained surpluses (5 of 8 years: there was an astonishing amount of red ink in WWII), Eisenhower (R) was a mixed bag but ran a significant surplus (more than 1%) for about 3 years of 8, LBJ (D) ran a snipet of a surplus for a single year. Clinton (3 years of 8) and Bush (1 year of 8) were the last POTUS's to run a Federal surplus. That recent surplus was only surpassed by Truman. Prior to the Great Depression, it was common to run a small surplus or deficit of 1% to 2% in a fluctuating manner. The only large deficit excursions were major wars (Civil, WWI, WWII largest by far, Iraq/Afghanistan). The largest recent deficit occured right at the beginning of 2009 (right as Obama came into office because of two wars and a collapse of GDP and tax revenue with it) it was 10% and is expected to shrink to about 5% by 2014 based on nonpartisan CBO projections. Reagan's (R) peacetime deficits exceeded that of the Vietnam war period rising as high as 6% in his 3rd year in office. Reagan and GHW Bush (R) stabilized the deficit below 5% till Clinton, partially by raising taxes (which was the political end of GHWB because of the namesake of this thread). Clinton drove the deficit down in a linear path from 1993 to 2000 from 4% deficit to 2.3% surplus. I argue the linear reduction negates the common GOP argument that the GOP Congress made Clinton reduce the deficit. Clinton reduced the deficit by roughly and equal amount every year he was in office.
J.P.: Another curious thing is that Clinton raised taxes significantly over the tax increases of GHW Bush. This allowed the large and consistent deficit reductions and at the same time the US economy grew like gang busters. I made a ton of money and kept most of it despite the dot bomb implosion at the end of the Clinton Administration. I paid lots of taxes but my personal wealth far outran anything since GW Bush came to the White House. The market has been doo doo ever since. My anecdotal experience is that economic growth and real wealth in the upper middle class brackets are not that sensitive to marginal tax rates (most of us don't exclusively pay the top income, dividend and capital gains rates). What is sensitive to marginal rates is the deficit. Higher rates, less deficit spending. What caused the economic collapse was poor deregulation of the finance industry. In fact, it was a total disaster. It's not directly linked to the deficit at this point. That could change if we emerge from this deflationary period and don't tame the red ink. I argue by raising $2 trillion in taxes to pay for two wars that we charged on credit. It's irresponsible to charge wars on a credit card, no? T-bill rates might rise and that will cause a significant problem. Defaulting on the debt would have forced the linkage immediately and could have collapsed the economy into full blown depression as T-bill rates could have gone to junk bond status, preventing the government from floating the economy in the midst of economic crisis.
Me: Sorry, J.P., you are wrong, despite your many words to the contrary: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
J.P.: Annual changes in the government net worth is more complicated than looking up the number of total government instruments in circulation. Gee, that's even true for little old me. Even you prefer that simplistic accounting, far fewer additional government instruments went into circulation under Clinton than any since Truman. So much for Reagan and the new Republicans.
J.P.: My point is, the Democrats have a slightly better record of keeping the books than the Republicans. It's hard to keep one's finances together when you quit all your revenue streams. No surprises there.
Me: So you admit there was no surplus? Good.
I really don't care who has the not-quite-as-bad record on finances. Both parties have violated the public trust, both parties have wasted trillions of dollars, both parties are guilty of the worst kind of deliberate malfeasance.
Revenue, by the way, has not been the problem. Spending has.
J.P.: I admit no such thing. We are talking about two different things. You're talking about the total number of federal instruments in play in a given year (they are listed in your table). I'm talking about the deficits and surpluses on the federal budget. They are not the same thing nor have they been -- ever. The Treasury is responsible for things beyond the federal budget. For example, some "minor issues" such as the US currency and, in cooperation with the Fed, control of the money supply through the reserve banking system. The Treasury can retire debt instruments through buy backs using either surplus cash or with new debt instruments (generally at lower interest rates). Such things are not part of the federal goverment operating budget (descretionary plus entitlements, etc.). Moreover, there are smoke and mirror categories that are "off-budget" that have been used both legitimately and when politically convienient (Bush ran many of his war approps through those mechanisms rather than increase taxes I seem to recall). Personally, I think the budgeting system could be reformed to make it honest, but it is what it is and I'm not in charge of that. In terms of the official definitions, Clinton ran a federal budget surplus and so did GWB and the others I mentioned. In the universe I live in, economies have two uber dimensions: supply and demand. Finance has two uber dimensions: revenue and spending. I don't live in a one dimensional world dominated only by expenses. In my read of the history of empire and technology, no great thing has been done to change the world for the better by penny pinchers. Big things are done by nations that tax and spend. What's killing us is borrow and spend -- a Reagan doctrine that has taken over our entire system. Antigens, like Grover Nordquist are backstopping that process of national destruction. If we don't quit doing that, Grover's dream will come true: 1) the US will go bankrupt, or 2) the US will contract into an unimportant former world power. Taxes will not be the end of us, but mass stupidity could be.
Me: You can blow all the smoke you want, and you can pretend how sophisticated the issue is, but it is simple: If the amount of debt increases in subsequent years, there is no surplus. I really don't care how you frame it. I don't care who you blame or give credit to. I don't care if you think it's a good thing to spend oodles of money. None of that matters. The national debt has increased every year for decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment