Bush's deficits and the coming crunch.

[DanS]

You're waxing lyrical about a fund that's been in existence for 5 years?

Really, I have no problem with Canada's system from the details that you have told me. I still think an index fund defined contribution plan is the way to go in our circumstances for the reasons mentioned.

[Patroklos]

So one of the "indices" available is actually...a managed government fund?

We are talking about increasing the amount of investors involved in the fund by 250 times. That is a beast, and better served by a simple process with guarunteed returns.

Thrift Savings Plan

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Ed Henry's numbers don't seem quite right. As an illustration, the federal deficit is at $320 billion rather than $375 billion.

The real place to look for this is the "Net Borrowing" figure from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 3.2, Line 45.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=85&FirstYear=2003&LastYear=2005&Freq=Qtr

Sum the figures for the last 4 quarters and divide by 4. Through the second quarter of this year, we're running at $395 billion net borrowings against $470 billion a year ago.

Back when we made the bet the inflation adjusted number was $420billion now you are claiming the unadjusted number is $470 billion? I smell a rat.

[DanS]

Anyway, are you going to come get your comeuppence in the other thread?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139872

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
You're waxing lyrical about a fund that's been in existence for 5 years?

Really, I have no problem with Canada's system from the details that you have told me. I still think an index fund defined contribution plan is the way to go in our circumstances for the reasons mentioned.

Lyrical my ass.

Simply put, the proposed American system lacks imagination and is based on this inexplicable fear of yours. It's better than the current ass-raping, which cannot continue indefinitely, but not by much.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
guarunteed returns

None of the funds other than the government paper fund has anything which can even be closely described as a guaranteed return.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't see why the fund shouldn't simply be managed as a Crown corporation.

Because this is the US?

[KrazyHorse]

Call it a TRIPLEPLUSGOODBALDEAGLENASCARDONTMESSWITHTEXAS corporation then.

[Dinner]

Sorry, I went out drinking with Loinburger last night and that's why I wasn't around. I get off work at 5pm and I'll respond then but I can't at work since they've started a policy of blocking internet access.

[Dinner]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4343814.stm

BBC is reporting that the deficit did shrink however it is the third highest ever and it is likely to be revised upwards by $30 billion dollars so I lost by about $60 billion. Sadly only about $4 billion got spent on disaster relief before September ran out so next year is going to see a nice fat $90 billion charge for disaster relief.

I do feel the politicians are playing accounting games to hide their deficits (examples: shoving Katrina relief into 2006's budget even though most of the upfront costs were in 2005 plus they're counting Social Security as part of their budget when the reality is they're writing IOUs to SSI but not counting those IOUs as part of the deficit).

[DanS]

and it is likely to be revised upwards by $30 billion dollars

That's $30 billion of spending in the current fiscal year -- i.e., fiscal year 2006.

Nothin's helping you. The numbers are in. You're $100 billion off.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Ed Henry's numbers don't seem quite right. As an illustration, the federal deficit is at $320 billion rather than $375 billion.

The real place to look for this is the "Net Borrowing" figure from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 3.2, Line 45.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=85&FirstYear=2003&LastYear=2005&Freq=Qtr

Sum the figures for the last 4 quarters and divide by 4. Through the second quarter of this year, we're running at $395 billion net borrowings against $470 billion a year ago.

Your own link says net borrowing for 2004 was $452.6 billion. Just clik on annual and 2004 in your link. It doesn't yet say the net amount for 2005 but I truest the BBC when it says it went down by $60 billion.

[DanS]

You lost huge either way, dude.

[MrFun]

I want to see another drunk thread made by DanS.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
You lost huge either way, dude.

Lost but not big.