Discussion:
D.C. deficit math doesn't add up.
(too old to reply)
Harry Hope
2006-09-15 03:12:11 UTC
Permalink
From NEWSWEEK, Sept. 18, 2006 issue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek

D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up

By Allan Sloan
Newsweek


Next month the White House and its congressional allies will be taking
victory laps when the deficit for fiscal 2006 is announced.

The stated deficit for the year, which ends Sept. 30, will be $260
billion or so.

That will be down $58 billion from 2005 and a whopping $77 billion
below what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted in
January.

The White House says this is happening largely because tax revenues
have surged--which they have.

It sure sounds great.

But let me share a dirty little secret with you:

the real federal deficit isn't $260 billion.

It's more than double that.

And when you calculate what I consider the real deficit--hold on to
your hats, it's $558 billion--you come out with slightly more than
last year's real deficit, which I put at $551 billion.

Revenue surge, shmevenue surge.

Things are getting worse, not better.

To be sure, that $558 billion is better than the $635 billion implied
by January's CBO numbers.

But it's nothing to crow about, considering that not long from now,
baby boomers will begin to retire en masse and put huge pressure on
the budget.

We know that numbers in Washington tend to be big and sometimes murky.

But how can the official deficit be only $260 billion while mine is
$558 billion?

Am I taking strange pills?

Drinking funny water?

Nope.

It's the difference between Washington Math--the unique way that the
federal government accounts for itself--and real-world math.

Here's the deal.

The stated deficit is the difference between the cash that the
government takes in and the cash it spends.

That's $260 billion--the number most analysts use to measure the
deficit.

But Uncle Sam will also borrow almost $300 billion from federal trust
funds:

$177 billion from Social Security, and an additional $121 billion from
"other government accounts" such as federal-employee pension funds.

Some $78 billion of this total comes from the Treasury's taking Social
Security's cash surplus this year and spending it.

Most of the rest comes from the government's paying what it owes the
trust funds--primarily for interest on their $3.6 trillion of Treasury
securities--with I.O.U.s, not cash.

(All my numbers, by the way, are based on public budget documents.)

If a company tried to keep books this way, its accountants would
scream faster than you can say Sarbanes-Oxley.

But we're playing by the rules of Washington Math.

_______________________________________________________

Harry
kirtland
2006-09-15 06:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
By Allan Sloan
Newsweek
Next month the White House and its congressional allies will be taking
victory laps when the deficit for fiscal 2006 is announced.
The stated deficit for the year, which ends Sept. 30, will be $260
billion or so.
That will be down $58 billion from 2005 and a whopping $77 billion
below what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted in
January.
The White House says this is happening largely because tax revenues
have surged--which they have.
It sure sounds great.
the real federal deficit isn't $260 billion.
It's more than double that.
And when you calculate what I consider the real deficit--hold on to
your hats, it's $558 billion--you come out with slightly more than
last year's real deficit, which I put at $551 billion.
Revenue surge, shmevenue surge.
Things are getting worse, not better.
To be sure, that $558 billion is better than the $635 billion implied
by January's CBO numbers.
But it's nothing to crow about, considering that not long from now,
baby boomers will begin to retire en masse and put huge pressure on
the budget.
We know that numbers in Washington tend to be big and sometimes murky.
But how can the official deficit be only $260 billion while mine is
$558 billion?
Am I taking strange pills?
Drinking funny water?
Nope.
It's the difference between Washington Math--the unique way that the
federal government accounts for itself--and real-world math.
Here's the deal.
The stated deficit is the difference between the cash that the
government takes in and the cash it spends.
That's $260 billion--the number most analysts use to measure the
deficit.
But Uncle Sam will also borrow almost $300 billion from federal trust
$177 billion from Social Security, and an additional $121 billion from
"other government accounts" such as federal-employee pension funds.
Some $78 billion of this total comes from the Treasury's taking Social
Security's cash surplus this year and spending it.
Most of the rest comes from the government's paying what it owes the
trust funds--primarily for interest on their $3.6 trillion of Treasury
securities--with I.O.U.s, not cash.
(All my numbers, by the way, are based on public budget documents.)
If a company tried to keep books this way, its accountants would
scream faster than you can say Sarbanes-Oxley.
But we're playing by the rules of Washington Math.
Almost like Enron's 'creative' accounting....
Post by Harry Hope
_______________________________________________________
Harry
David Hartung
2006-09-15 10:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
Almost like Enron's 'creative' accounting....
Don't look now, but Washington is using the same accounting methods that they
used during the Clinton administration, when we supposedly had a "balanced" budget.
zzpat
2006-09-15 17:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by kirtland
Almost like Enron's 'creative' accounting....
Don't look now, but Washington is using the same accounting methods that
they used during the Clinton administration, when we supposedly had a
"balanced" budget.
But if there were no Clinton surpluses then Bush lied when he said we
had trillions to give away in tax cuts? So, even if we assume there
were no Clinton surpluses (your argument not mine), it proves Bush and
every republican in Congress lied when they cut taxes.

Clinton cut the deficit every year of his presidency. No republican
president has been able to do that. He's also the only president to have
given us four budget surpluses.

The problem is interest on the debt. This year alone it'll be over $400
billion (or at this rate $1.2 trillion every three years). We can't grow
fast enough to finance the debt much less pay for everything else. GDP
simply doesn't grow $1.2 trillion every three years.
--
Pat
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/

Articles of Impeachment
Center for Constitutional Rights
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/april_2006/articles_of_impeachment.html
garbonzo
2006-09-16 13:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by kirtland
Almost like Enron's 'creative' accounting....
Don't look now, but Washington is using the same accounting methods that
they used during the Clinton administration, when we supposedly had a
"balanced" budget.
But if there were no Clinton surpluses then Bush lied when he said we had
trillions to give away in tax cuts? So, even if we assume there were no
Clinton surpluses (your argument not mine), it proves Bush and every
republican in Congress lied when they cut taxes.
Clinton cut the deficit every year of his presidency. No republican
president has been able to do that. He's also the only president to have
given us four budget surpluses.
I think it might be more accurate to say that the defict was cut each year
of Clinton;'s presidency. I don't believe that HE was responsible for that.
Something about Congress having some responsibility for budgeting and
spending and the fact that tax revenues went through the roof because of the
Internet Bubble.
r***@comcast.net
2006-09-16 16:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by garbonzo
I think it might be more accurate to say that the defict was cut each year
of Clinton;'s presidency. I don't believe that HE was responsible for that.
Something about Congress having some responsibility for budgeting and
spending and the fact that tax revenues went through the roof because of the
Internet Bubble.
Well you could inspect his proposed budgets or read the history of how
hard he battled his own party leadership to get deficit reductions
from his very first budget. Read Woodward's "Maestro" for a full
account of the fight.

Then you'd begin to have an informed base from which to make your
pronouncements.

________________
I am human; nothing in humanity is alien to me.
Terence
ccr
2006-09-17 00:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by garbonzo
Post by zzpat
Clinton cut the deficit every year of his presidency. No republican
president has been able to do that. He's also the only president to have
given us four budget surpluses.
I think it might be more accurate to say that the defict was cut each year
of Clinton;'s presidency. I don't believe that HE was responsible for
that. Something about Congress having some responsibility for budgeting
and spending and the fact that tax revenues went through the roof because
of the Internet Bubble.
No, you don't think, that's your problem. You don't "believe" because you
don't want to look at the facts. Every year of Clinton's terms the deficit
was reduced. He didn't have an Internet bubble the whole 8 years. He didn't
suffer a Repug congress for all eight years.

Instead of being a clueless clown spouting nonsense on the Internet, why
don't you spend some time looking at each of Clinton's budget proposals.
They all were designed to reduce the deficit. And they were all passed
virtually intact despite Repuglican whining. Clinton did exactly what he
said he would do in the 1992 campaign. The major credit goes to Bill Clinton
for the reductions in the US budget deficits.
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
r***@comcast.net
2006-09-17 01:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by ccr
No, you don't think, that's your problem. You don't "believe" because you
don't want to look at the facts. Every year of Clinton's terms the deficit
was reduced. He didn't have an Internet bubble the whole 8 years. He didn't
suffer a Repug congress for all eight years.
And in fact when you compare his term to what happened when the GOP
solidly got control of both houses and the Presidency you can't help
but note the difference.

________________
I am human; nothing in humanity is alien to me.
Terence
ccr
2006-09-15 19:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by kirtland
Almost like Enron's 'creative' accounting....
Don't look now, but Washington is using the same accounting methods that
they used during the Clinton administration, when we supposedly had a
"balanced" budget.
Hartung, you are a clueless twit. You can't let go of the "balanced budget"
canard. Clinton used the budget guidelines passed during the red ink Reagan
administration written by "conservative" Republican Phil Gramm.

The fact is Bill Clinton SIGNIFICANTLY CHOPPED the deficits in EVERY YEAR OF
HIS TWO TERMS. Every year! None of your lying Repug heroes has come close to
that.
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
r***@comcast.net
2006-09-15 20:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ccr
Post by David Hartung
Post by kirtland
Almost like Enron's 'creative' accounting....
Don't look now, but Washington is using the same accounting methods that
they used during the Clinton administration, when we supposedly had a
"balanced" budget.
Hartung, you are a clueless twit. You can't let go of the "balanced budget"
canard. Clinton used the budget guidelines passed during the red ink Reagan
administration written by "conservative" Republican Phil Gramm.
The fact is Bill Clinton SIGNIFICANTLY CHOPPED the deficits in EVERY YEAR OF
HIS TWO TERMS. Every year! None of your lying Repug heroes has come close to
that.
In fact they inflated deficits - no matter which way you care to
measure them.

________________
I am human; nothing in humanity is alien to me.
Terence
David Hartung
2006-09-16 02:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ccr
Post by David Hartung
Post by kirtland
Almost like Enron's 'creative' accounting....
Don't look now, but Washington is using the same accounting methods that
they used during the Clinton administration, when we supposedly had a
"balanced" budget.
Hartung, you are a clueless twit. You can't let go of the "balanced budget"
canard. Clinton used the budget guidelines passed during the red ink Reagan
administration written by "conservative" Republican Phil Gramm.
I never claimed otherwise.
Post by ccr
The fact is Bill Clinton SIGNIFICANTLY CHOPPED the deficits in EVERY YEAR OF
HIS TWO TERMS. Every year! None of your lying Repug heroes has come close to
that.
I am not saying that the deficit did not go down during the Clinton administration.

What I am saying is that our government has been cooking the books for most, if
not all, of my life. Clinton is merely one of many who has used the government's
"creative accounting" to his benefit.
David Hartung
2006-09-15 10:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
And hasn't for most of my life, *including* during the Clinton Administration.
kirtland
2006-09-15 14:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
And hasn't for most of my life, *including* during the Clinton Administration.
Can you discuss this?
David Hartung
2006-09-16 02:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by kirtland
Post by David Hartung
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
And hasn't for most of my life, *including* during the Clinton Administration.
Can you discuss this?
We have been, for several days.
wcb
2006-09-15 21:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
And hasn't for most of my life, *including* during the Clinton
Administration.
The fact of the matter is, Clinton gave us a balanced budget.


You are an ignorant far right lout.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?

Cheerful Charlie
r***@comcast.net
2006-09-15 21:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by wcb
Post by David Hartung
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
And hasn't for most of my life, *including* during the Clinton Administration.
The fact of the matter is, Clinton gave us a balanced budget.
You are an ignorant far right lout.
Well the Clinton balanced budgets were done using the same accounting
as in these articles. That said, he still trimmed 100s of billions off
the budgets and increased revenues to result in the best fiscal
picture since before Reagan.

Hartung and his ilk have to desperately grab on to some technical
claim to keep from looking at the whole picture. Because Clinton's
surplus reflected SS revenues they can pretend to ignore the overall
fiscal improvements Clinton pulled off and try to pretend things were
nearly as bad as Bush's policies have caused them to be.

It's dishonest and despicable. But hey that's why and how they support
THE Party.

________________
I am human; nothing in humanity is alien to me.
Terence
David Hartung
2006-09-16 02:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by wcb
Post by David Hartung
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
And hasn't for most of my life, *including* during the Clinton Administration.
The fact of the matter is, Clinton gave us a balanced budget.
You are an ignorant far right lout.
Then explain why we still had to borrow money to make ends met.
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-16 02:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by wcb
Post by David Hartung
Post by Harry Hope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14756403/site/newsweek
D.C.'s Deficit Math Doesn't Add Up
And hasn't for most of my life, *including* during the Clinton Administration.
The fact of the matter is, Clinton gave us a balanced budget.
You are an ignorant far right lout.
Then explain why we still had to borrow money to make ends met.
Explain why Bush says he inherited a budget surplus
that you claim never existed.



Mitchell Holman

"My plan returns about one of every four dollars of
the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created
the surplus in the first place"
George Bush, Feb 21, 2001




U.S. budget surplus shrinks
October 29, 2001

NEW YORK (CNNmoney) - The U.S. government's budget surplus
shrank in 2001, the Treasury Department reported Monday,
dragged down by a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue and
the impact of last month's terror attacks. The Treasury
Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year,
which ended on Sept. 30, of $127 billion, compared with $237
billion a year ago.
money.cnn.com/2001/10/29/economy/budget/



"The 2001 Budget forecasts surplus for decades to come, if
we maintain the policy of fiscal discipline and strategic
investments in the American people."
www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html


"According to the most recent budget surplus projections
for 2002-2011 from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
last year's estimate of a $5.6 trillion surplus has dwindled
to just $336 billion"
www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1599.cfm
Day Brown
2006-09-17 06:11:19 UTC
Permalink
In any case, I saw David M. Walker, Comptroller of the USA, speak to a
national meeting of CPAs. He said the debt is 8.4 trillion, or 147,000$
for each citizen. He added that given the debt each kid is born with,
its "no wonder newborn babies cry."

He asked the CPAs to 'educate' their associates and voters in their home
districts. Which would be nice, but I dont see that happening.

Whatever Clinton or Bush did, or didnt, we are where we are, which is
heading for a train wreck. We got lucky this year.

Sure there were more hurricanes, but they hit China instead, and the
crop failures mean that they will be importing more American grain. They
wont be able to stop supporting the dollar until they can get their own
agriculture going at a higher productivity level. Which may happen when
the Three Gorges irrigation project comes in next year.

Its no longer up to the politicians in DC, but the transnational banks
who hold most of the 8.4 trillion. If any of them panic, and start
trying to dump dollars, it may well be unstoppable. That would make the
1929 debacle look like a fender bender.

As if entitlements were not bad enough already, it was *BUSH* and the
GOP that pushed thru prescription drugs. The GOP never wouldda done that
for Clinton. Ergo, Bush made it worse than Clinton ever could have.

Any bets on what the result of the crash will look like?
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-17 13:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
In any case, I saw David M. Walker, Comptroller of the USA, speak to a
national meeting of CPAs. He said the debt is 8.4 trillion, or 147,000$
for each citizen. He added that given the debt each kid is born with,
its "no wonder newborn babies cry."
He asked the CPAs to 'educate' their associates and voters in their home
districts. Which would be nice, but I dont see that happening.
Whatever Clinton or Bush did, or didnt, we are where we are, which is
heading for a train wreck. We got lucky this year.
Sure there were more hurricanes, but they hit China instead, and the
crop failures mean that they will be importing more American grain. They
wont be able to stop supporting the dollar until they can get their own
agriculture going at a higher productivity level. Which may happen when
the Three Gorges irrigation project comes in next year.
Its no longer up to the politicians in DC, but the transnational banks
who hold most of the 8.4 trillion. If any of them panic, and start
trying to dump dollars, it may well be unstoppable. That would make the
1929 debacle look like a fender bender.
As if entitlements were not bad enough already, it was *BUSH* and the
GOP that pushed thru prescription drugs. The GOP never wouldda done that
for Clinton. Ergo, Bush made it worse than Clinton ever could have.
Any bets on what the result of the crash will look like?
The GOP is more interested in blaming problems on
Clinton than actually solving them.
Day Brown
2006-09-18 01:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
The GOP is more interested in blaming problems on
Clinton than actually solving them.
True, but we are where we are, and I dont see the Democratic program as
an adequate response to the coming difficulties. The money to support
the entitlements has been *stolen*.

We could try to raise the taxes on the rich, but the rich can afford
airfare, and will take themselves, and their assets, to wherever they
think they can get a better deal.

The Liberals extended the voting franchise to the poor and minorities,
thinking that they could educate those people as to what was in their
own best self interest. They didnt see the demagogues of the Right
coming to pander to their ethic and religious sensibilities, and how
that has, in fact, resulted in the GOP control of congress and Bush in
the White House.

Read Gibbon. the aristocracy did the same thing to enrich themselves,
but in so doing, undermined the monetary support of the government,
which lead to economic crisis, the fall of the Roman republic, and tyranny.

Even if the Democrats took over congress & impeached Bush, they'd still
have that 8.4 trillion national debt to manage, with an economy that is
not all that stable to do it with. I think it will take solutions with
rather more innovation and creativity than I've seen from the Democrats
so far. It may, ultimately, require a tyrant.

got anyone you'd care to nominate?
l***@yahoo.com
2006-09-17 20:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
In any case, I saw David M. Walker, Comptroller of the USA, speak to a
national meeting of CPAs. He said the debt is 8.4 trillion, or 147,000$
for each citizen. He added that given the debt each kid is born with,
its "no wonder newborn babies cry."
He asked the CPAs to 'educate' their associates and voters in their home
districts. Which would be nice, but I dont see that happening.
Whatever Clinton or Bush did, or didnt, we are where we are, which is
heading for a train wreck. We got lucky this year.
Sure there were more hurricanes, but they hit China instead, and the
crop failures mean that they will be importing more American grain. They
wont be able to stop supporting the dollar until they can get their own
agriculture going at a higher productivity level. Which may happen when
the Three Gorges irrigation project comes in next year.
Its no longer up to the politicians in DC, but the transnational banks
who hold most of the 8.4 trillion. If any of them panic, and start
trying to dump dollars, it may well be unstoppable. That would make the
1929 debacle look like a fender bender.
As if entitlements were not bad enough already, it was *BUSH* and the
GOP that pushed thru prescription drugs. The GOP never wouldda done that
for Clinton. Ergo, Bush made it worse than Clinton ever could have.
Any bets on what the result of the crash will look like?
"Look like"??? Rethugs (like Hartung) will convince voters the
"Greater" Depression is the fault of the Democrat-led House. And that
all that is required are tax cuts to get the economy running again. So
in 2008, the rethug campaign solgan will "Tax Cuts in '09 Equals
Prosperity In '10!"
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-17 22:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Day Brown
In any case, I saw David M. Walker, Comptroller of the USA, speak to a
national meeting of CPAs. He said the debt is 8.4 trillion, or 147,000$
for each citizen. He added that given the debt each kid is born with,
its "no wonder newborn babies cry."
He asked the CPAs to 'educate' their associates and voters in their home
districts. Which would be nice, but I dont see that happening.
Whatever Clinton or Bush did, or didnt, we are where we are, which is
heading for a train wreck. We got lucky this year.
Sure there were more hurricanes, but they hit China instead, and the
crop failures mean that they will be importing more American grain. They
wont be able to stop supporting the dollar until they can get their own
agriculture going at a higher productivity level. Which may happen when
the Three Gorges irrigation project comes in next year.
Its no longer up to the politicians in DC, but the transnational banks
who hold most of the 8.4 trillion. If any of them panic, and start
trying to dump dollars, it may well be unstoppable. That would make the
1929 debacle look like a fender bender.
As if entitlements were not bad enough already, it was *BUSH* and the
GOP that pushed thru prescription drugs. The GOP never wouldda done that
for Clinton. Ergo, Bush made it worse than Clinton ever could have.
Any bets on what the result of the crash will look like?
"Look like"??? Rethugs (like Hartung) will convince voters the
"Greater" Depression is the fault of the Democrat-led House. And that
all that is required are tax cuts to get the economy running again. So
in 2008, the rethug campaign solgan will "Tax Cuts in '09 Equals
Prosperity In '10!"
When the economy is doing well, we need tax cuts
"to return the surplus to the people". When it is
doing poorly, we need tax cuts "to stimulate the
economy". Whatever the season, there is a rationale
for a tax cut to go with it.
Day Brown
2006-09-18 03:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
When the economy is doing well, we need tax cuts
"to return the surplus to the people". When it is
doing poorly, we need tax cuts "to stimulate the
economy". Whatever the season, there is a rationale
for a tax cut to go with it.
And as a result, the government, rather than taxing the people who
actually have the money to pay taxes, *borrows* it from them. And, of
course, to encourage them to lend, does so at interest.

Which attracts foreign investors as well. But as Machiavelli noted, at
some point some creditor will see that the remaining tax base will no
longer service the debt, much less pay it off, and refuse to lend any
more money. At which point there is economic panic, and then revolution.

Which is what the next crash could lead to.
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-18 04:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mitchell Holman
When the economy is doing well, we need tax cuts
"to return the surplus to the people". When it is
doing poorly, we need tax cuts "to stimulate the
economy". Whatever the season, there is a rationale
for a tax cut to go with it.
And as a result, the government, rather than taxing the people who
actually have the money to pay taxes, *borrows* it from them. And, of
course, to encourage them to lend, does so at interest.
Which attracts foreign investors as well. But as Machiavelli noted, at
some point some creditor will see that the remaining tax base will no
longer service the debt, much less pay it off, and refuse to lend any
more money. At which point there is economic panic, and then revolution.
Which is what the next crash could lead to.
Harken back to the 1950's, when the majority of
taxes were paid by corporations and the economy boomed.
Then the lobbyists got in act, corporation shift the
tax burden to individuals, who then demand tax cuts
of their own, and now the government is financed by
borrowing.

"We can grow our way out of debt"

Yeah, right...........


Mitchell Holman

"Our children are ultimately going to have to pay for it"
- GOP Senator Bill Frist, responding to a question about the
massive debts being run up by Congress and President Bush,
9/23/05
David Hartung
2006-09-18 10:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mitchell Holman
When the economy is doing well, we need tax cuts
"to return the surplus to the people". When it is
doing poorly, we need tax cuts "to stimulate the
economy". Whatever the season, there is a rationale
for a tax cut to go with it.
And as a result, the government, rather than taxing the people who
actually have the money to pay taxes, *borrows* it from them. And, of
course, to encourage them to lend, does so at interest.
Which attracts foreign investors as well. But as Machiavelli noted, at
some point some creditor will see that the remaining tax base will no
longer service the debt, much less pay it off, and refuse to lend any
more money. At which point there is economic panic, and then revolution.
Which is what the next crash could lead to.
Harken back to the 1950's, when the majority of
taxes were paid by corporations and the economy boomed.
Then the lobbyists got in act, corporation shift the
tax burden to individuals, who then demand tax cuts
of their own, and now the government is financed by
borrowing.
What is your source for this information?
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-18 11:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mitchell Holman
When the economy is doing well, we need tax cuts
"to return the surplus to the people". When it is
doing poorly, we need tax cuts "to stimulate the
economy". Whatever the season, there is a rationale
for a tax cut to go with it.
And as a result, the government, rather than taxing the people who
actually have the money to pay taxes, *borrows* it from them. And, of
course, to encourage them to lend, does so at interest.
Which attracts foreign investors as well. But as Machiavelli noted, at
some point some creditor will see that the remaining tax base will no
longer service the debt, much less pay it off, and refuse to lend any
more money. At which point there is economic panic, and then
revolution.
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Day Brown
Which is what the next crash could lead to.
Harken back to the 1950's, when the majority of
taxes were paid by corporations and the economy boomed.
Then the lobbyists got in act, corporation shift the
tax burden to individuals, who then demand tax cuts
of their own, and now the government is financed by
borrowing.
What is your source for this information?
One superior to your repeated claim that
Saddam was backing the 9/11 hijackers.


Mitchell Holman

"Iraq was providing support to Al-Qaida"
David Hartung, unproven claim, 5/27/06

"we have been attacked by terrorists who
were being supported by Saddam"
David Hartung, unproven claim, 5/27/06
David Hartung
2006-09-18 13:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
What is your source for this information?
One superior to your repeated claim that
Saddam was backing the 9/11 hijackers.
Would it be asking to much for you to share it with me?
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-18 13:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
What is your source for this information?
One superior to your repeated claim that
Saddam was backing the 9/11 hijackers.
Would it be asking to much for you to share it with me?
David, we agreed on your lack of qualifications
to ever question anyone about their sources after
you ran away rather than post yours for your claims,
didn't we?


Mitchell Holman

"Iraq was providing support to Al-Qaida"
David Hartung, unproven claim, 5/27/06

"we have been attacked by terrorists who
were being supported by Saddam"
David Hartung, unproven claim, 5/27/06
David Hartung
2006-09-18 13:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
What is your source for this information?
One superior to your repeated claim that
Saddam was backing the 9/11 hijackers.
Would it be asking to much for you to share it with me?
David, we agreed on your lack of qualifications
to ever question anyone about their sources after
you ran away rather than post yours for your claims,
didn't we?
Was my question unreasonable, or did I ask it in an unreasonable manner? if not,
what harm would it do for you to reveal your source? Perhaps you have made this
up? Or perhaps this is an opinion, and not fact?

When I express an opinion, I tell yo it is an opinion, you have the habit of
expressing an opinion as fact, and then refusing to support your claim. If you
have a problem with my style, fine, but realize that you are no better.
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-18 13:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
What is your source for this information?
One superior to your repeated claim that
Saddam was backing the 9/11 hijackers.
Would it be asking to much for you to share it with me?
David, we agreed on your lack of qualifications
to ever question anyone about their sources after
you ran away rather than post yours for your claims,
didn't we?
Was my question unreasonable, or did I ask it in an unreasonable manner?
if not, what harm would it do for you to reveal your source? Perhaps you
have made this up? Or perhaps this is an opinion, and not fact?
When I express an opinion, I tell yo it is an opinion, you have the
habit of expressing an opinion as fact, and then refusing to support
your claim. If you have a problem with my style, fine, but realize that
you are no better.
No, David, the claims you made were statements
of fact. That is why you keep deleting them rather
than back them up.

Or is this a case where all your claims are
"opinions"?



Mitchell Holman

"Iraq was providing support to Al-Qaida"
David Hartung, unproven claim, 5/27/06

"we have been attacked by terrorists who
were being supported by Saddam"
David Hartung, unproven claim, 5/27/06
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-18 13:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Sarbanes-Oxley Tutorial.
What is Sarbanes-Oxley Act ?, Sarbanes Oxley Training, Sarbanes-Oxley
Overview, Sarbanes Oxley Sections 302,906,404, SOX Compliance 404
ineffective?

http://flying-rugs.com/sarbanes-oxley-compliance/
Morton Davis
2006-09-18 12:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mitchell Holman
When the economy is doing well, we need tax cuts
"to return the surplus to the people". When it is
doing poorly, we need tax cuts "to stimulate the
economy". Whatever the season, there is a rationale
for a tax cut to go with it.
And as a result, the government, rather than taxing the people who
actually have the money to pay taxes, *borrows* it from them. And, of
course, to encourage them to lend, does so at interest.
Which attracts foreign investors as well. But as Machiavelli noted, at
some point some creditor will see that the remaining tax base will no
longer service the debt, much less pay it off, and refuse to lend any
more money. At which point there is economic panic, and then revolution.
Which is what the next crash could lead to.
And yet, tax revenues are up after the tax cuts and the stock market is
about to hit a new historical high.
Mitchell Holman
2006-09-18 13:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mitchell Holman
When the economy is doing well, we need tax cuts
"to return the surplus to the people". When it is
doing poorly, we need tax cuts "to stimulate the
economy". Whatever the season, there is a rationale
for a tax cut to go with it.
And as a result, the government, rather than taxing the people who
actually have the money to pay taxes, *borrows* it from them. And, of
course, to encourage them to lend, does so at interest.
Which attracts foreign investors as well. But as Machiavelli noted, at
some point some creditor will see that the remaining tax base will no
longer service the debt, much less pay it off, and refuse to lend any
more money. At which point there is economic panic, and then revolution.
Which is what the next crash could lead to.
And yet, tax revenues are up after the tax cuts and the stock market is
about to hit a new historical high.
The stock market tripled under Reagan. The stock market
again tripled under Clinton. Under Bush it has managed a
paultry 1,000 gain and conservatives call it "historical".

Amazing.
ccr
2006-09-18 20:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
And yet, tax revenues are up after the tax cuts and the stock market is
about to hit a new historical high.
Moron, you keep posting this bullshit. Do you think other people here are as
dumb as you? They'd have to be to believe anything you post.

Tax revenues are way down. The share of GDP has fallen dramatically.
Adjusted for inflation, it's even worse. The growth in GDP and inflation
raises the cost of necessary government operations. Tax revenues falling in
relation to those spell disaster.

The stock markets are barely above where they were in mid-2001. That is
pathetic for a 5 year period, especially one where right wing imbeciles like
you have been crowing about the "great economy". Again, adjusted for
inflation, the markets have been a net loser under Bush. Just like the US of
A.
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...