Tweet
These next 2 years are going to be great.
-
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!" -
Originally posted by TCO
The closing of the deficit was almost entirely a result of the good economy in the 90s. Part of that genuine, but much bubble related.
This is the first I've heard that MOST of the economic growth in the 90's was bubble related, and that Congress's pay-as-you-go rule had almost no effect on closing the deficit.
Comment
-
Think you've got a problem misreading "much" as "most" there, dude.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
true
Comment
-
The closing was mostly the result of higher tax revenues which occurred because of the better economy, NOT from higher rates. That you are too stupid the read the WSJ and just follow DKOS homilies is not my problem.Originally posted by Zkribbler
This is the first I've heard that MOST of the economic growth in the 90's was bubble related, and that Congress's pay-as-you-go rule had almost no effect on closing the deficit.
Comment
-
Well, if you are too stupid to acknowledge the effects of budgetary discipline, let me explain.
Treasury taking in more money than Congress is spending = surplus
Treasury taking in less money than Congress is spending = deficit.
Anything else you don't understand, feel free to ask.Comment
-
True. But let us presume, for a second, that congress holds spending roughly constant. Then tax receipts are the cause of the budget surplus. The economy did well, therefore without higher rates, tax receipts went up. This seems to be what TCO is arguing.
But the main point is, surely if tax receipts go up, the PAYG rule means that spending can then increase. So the surplus was caused not by adhering to the PAYG rule, which just stops deficits, but actually going beyond it and spending less.
TCO: if you're going to claim people are "too stupid the read the WSJ" at least use proper English to do so
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - KuciwalkerComment
-
I understand that fine. You on the other hand are too stupid to even know where you're stupid.Originally posted by Zkribbler
Well, if you are too stupid to acknowledge the effects of budgetary discipline, let me explain.
Treasury taking in more money than Congress is spending = surplus
Treasury taking in less money than Congress is spending = deficit.
Anything else you don't understand, feel free to ask.Comment
-
Sorry Drogue. I have rather poor grammar, spelling, and handwriting skills. I just figure the sheer brilliance of my points and my shining rectitude should compensate for those other important things.Comment
-
A big thing we are spending money on, a fifth to a fourth of our total annual budget IIRC, is interest on our huge debt. That is A LOT of money and absolutely a waste. Government spending pisses me off, but paying interest on debt means that we are spending twice as much for wars and welfare than it actually costs. That pisses me off even more.Originally posted by DanS
The level of spending dwarfs the deficit/debt in importance.
So I think the debt is a very important issue.Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - RahComment
-
That's what Roland said at the time too.Originally posted by TCO
The closing of the deficit was almost entirely a result of the good economy in the 90s. Part of that genuine, but much bubble related.DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Check corporate tax revenues.Originally posted by Zkribbler
This is the first I've heard that MOST of the economic growth in the 90's was bubble related, and that Congress's pay-as-you-go rule had almost no effect on closing the deficit.
DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
I don't know that to be true, dude. As we've discussed several times, if unadjusted, the effective tax rate increases every year in a good economy due to bracket creep. Also, Alternative Minimum Tax and other tax features creep.Originally posted by TCO
The closing was mostly the result of higher tax revenues which occurred because of the better economy, NOT from higher rates.
As I understand it, the brackets are now adjusted to inflation, but in a good economy, incomes increase faster than inflation.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Given the concept of the time-value of money, you aren't spending twice as much for wars and welfare than it actually costs. The problem with spending money that you don't have isn't that you have to pay interest. Rather, the problem is that at most times governments piss away any cash that they have in their coffers.Originally posted by OzzyKP
A big thing we are spending money on, a fifth to a fourth of our total annual budget IIRC, is interest on our huge debt. That is A LOT of money and absolutely a waste. Government spending pisses me off, but paying interest on debt means that we are spending twice as much for wars and welfare than it actually costs. That pisses me off even more.
So I think the debt is a very important issue.Last edited by DanS; January 6, 2007, 12:17.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Here's the spending and revenue chart for the past business cycle. The congress and Clinton lost their way on spending in ~ fiscal year 2000. And then the congress and Bush lost their way on spending concurrent with Iraq. They haven't since corrected the spending increases. 4 years and counting.
It's my opinion that basically, the blue line isn't the important part of the chart, as it volatile due in large part to corporate income taxes. The red line tells the relevant story. With our economy, if you keep the spending increases at most times less than about 5% nominal per annum, you will eventually have a budget that is roughly in balance. This squares with common sense -- our economy grows about 5% nominal per annum.Attached FilesLast edited by DanS; January 6, 2007, 12:12.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Comment