I wonder what our 3.3 trillion dollar national debt increase under George Bush works out to per second.

robert

I wonder what our 3.3 trillion dollar national debt increase under George Bush works out to per second.

Matt, I'm afraid I didn't get the memo. Could you maybe let us in on what you're talking about -- or is it a big secret?

Oh, I think I know -- it's about Iraq.

... no, on second thought, the numbers are way too low.

Wait, I know! It's about CHIPS! The child health insurance program. Is that right?

Boy Rico, you're a fiesty one lately...go get em tiger...LOL!

navydad: Boy Rico, you're a fiesty one lately...

Yeah, I've had some time to burn lately, so why not? In this case, no context was offered... so I supplied a little of my own. Lol!

Also in regard to our debt, not too long ago we reached a cool point where
GDP * GDP growth rate This means the republican "pro-growth" camp can no longer use the arguement that the debt is no big deal and we can simply grow our way out. We cannot pay off debt anymore withour debasing the currency so much that it wrecks our credit and our economy or by taking a reduction in standard of living.
I'm not sure why Bush supporters don't understand that if you cut taxes while running a deficit, it's not a tax cut, it's a tax deferment with interest. If you increase spending while running a deficit then your passing a tax on future generations and should be regarded as a tax raiser.

ah my less that got eaten, I meant
GDP * GDP growth rate is less than national debt * interest rate

I wonder what our 3.3 trillion dollar national debt increase under George Bush works out to per second.

It works out to robert, and his boyfriend, WVO, being dumbasses every second...

Yeah... 40% increase in spending in the first four years of the Bush presidency, not counting the Iraq War... and now he takes issue with spending? Hypocrite...

I don’t know why "robert" thinks a cut in tax rates is a tax cut. Or why he believes that increased revenue to the Federal Government in the form of taxes is somehow a deferral of tax liability. Or why he doesn’t understand that the interest on the debt is included in the Debt. I don’t understand why he thinks that raising revenues and reducing the deficit will lower the interest on the Debt. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t understand GDP; or maybe it’s because he doesn’t understand the Debt. Either way, his fallacious formula is meaningless; what he is trying to claim, albeit badly, is that the Debt as a function of GDP is getting worse, but … whoopsie … he’s three months late; GDP increased in the second quarter to 3.4%.

I guess I don’t understand how anyone that pays attention to the economy would still buy into the liberals load-‘o-crap!

"It works out to robert, and his boyfriend, WVO, being dumbasses every second..."

PWND!!!1

Rana,
When was it that the Congress wanted to spend more than Bush’s Budget in the first 4 years?

Btw, the Federal Budget as submitted in 2001 for 2002, Bush’s first Budget was $2.1 trillion, the Federal Budget in 2005 was $2.4 trillion; a 14.28% increase. Clinton’s budgets from 1996 to 2001 increased by 25%.

DL, get 'em!!!

I have no expertise in economics; in fact, I'm dumber than a Donkaroach when it comes to economics. I guess that's why my debt is up there in the stratosphere...

I guess the far left has decided that it would rather talk about anything else.

I notice that the subject of this post has never been confirmed. Is it CHIPS or not? What are we talking about?

"I don’t know why "robert" thinks a cut in tax rates is a tax cut."

I don't know the diffrence, please enlighten me, I even wikipediad the term because of this and can't find any diffrence.

"Or why he believes that increased revenue to the Federal Government in the form of taxes is somehow a deferral of tax liability."

Are you refering to some sort of laffer curve type argument? I'm pretty sure any American economist would tell you that we are on the left side of the laffer curve.

"Or why he doesn’t understand that the interest on the debt is included in the Debt."

We roll the debt over constantly, we pay like 20% of the federal budget in interest payments because of this(hundreds of billions). You can't not roll the debt over without paying it off, duh. And even if we had the means to pay off the debt immediately, doing so would suck so much liquidity out of the economy it would wreck it. Even if we where paying it off(which we're not), we could not pay very quickly.

"I don’t understand why he thinks that raising revenues and reducing the deficit will lower the interest on the Debt."

Do you know the diffrence between deficit and debt? Yes lowering the deficit will still raise interest payments, any deficit at all will raise interest payments.

"Maybe it’s because he doesn’t understand GDP; or maybe it’s because he doesn’t understand the Debt. Either way, his fallacious formula is meaningless; what he is trying to claim, albeit badly, is that the Debt as a function of GDP is getting worse, but … whoopsie … he’s three months late; GDP increased in the second quarter to 3.4%."

What are you talking about, debt as a percentage of GDP has gone from about 60% of GDP to 70% since Bush took office. That's also not what I was trying to claim, I was trying to claim that the argument that we can just grow our way out of debt without any sort of negative consequences became invalid officially a couple of months ago(of course this was always fallacious due to opportunity cost), thanks to George Bush.

"I guess I don’t understand how anyone that pays attention to the economy would still buy into the liberals load-‘o-crap!"

This isn't liberal crap, this is fiscally responsible crap, not endorsed by liberals. This is the crap endorsed by Reagan Goldwater type conservatives, that are jumping ship because of Bush. Us real fiscal conservatives are pissed and do not support Bush in the least.

Us real fiscal conservatives are pissed and do not support Bush in the least.

Guess you didn't have to take English in college...

Does anyone know if the following are still true under final version of the Democrat's "children's" health insurance bill?

Is it true that the Democrat's changes to State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) defines a "child" as anyone 25 years of age or under?

Is it true that a 24-year-old father with a 22-year-old mother and a couple of kids would qualify as a family of "children" under the Democrat's "child" healthcare?

Is it true that under the Democrat's SCHIP, a family of four with an income of $82,000 a year can qualify for taxpayer funded "child" health insurance?

Is it true that Democrats removed the requirement to verify American citizenship as a requirement to qualify for taxpayer funded "child" health insurance, effectively supporting illegal aliens and enhancing the incentive for illegal aliens to enter the United States?

Is it true that the elderly will be hurt by the Democrat's program as money is taken from Medicare and Medicaid to support 25-year old illegal aliens as "American children"?

Is it true that 25-year-old college students and 25-year-old illegal workers could qualify for government subsidized health insurance as "children"?

AAR

AAR, wellllll thats what we call socialism!

"Is it true that the Democrat's changes to State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) defines a "child" as anyone 25 years of age or under?"

Anyone under 25 that is making less than 200% above the poverty line.

"Is it true that a 24-year-old father with a 22-year-old mother and a couple of kids would qualify as a family of "children" under the Democrat's "child" healthcare?"

Not true.

"Is it true that under the Democrat's SCHIP, a family of four with an income of $82,000 a year can qualify for taxpayer funded "child" health insurance?"

Not true.

"Is it true that Democrats removed the requirement to verify American citizenship as a requirement to qualify for taxpayer funded "child" health insurance, effectively supporting illegal aliens and enhancing the incentive for illegal aliens to enter the United States?"

The program has been expanded to cover legal aliens. The verification of citizenship has been removed.

"Is it true that the elderly will be hurt by the Democrat's program as money is taken from Medicare and Medicaid to support 25-year old illegal aliens as "American children"?"

It is true that the money is coming from the Medicare and Medicaid. The CBO projected that the costs could be covered within those two programs.

"Is it true that 25-year-old college students and 25-year-old illegal workers could qualify for government subsidized health insurance as "children"?"

A 25 year old college student could be covered.

Also, if we where spending at 2000 levels, we could do alot more than a 5% cut to the top rate, we could completely abolish the IRS and the income tax(even with Iraq added). Do you think that we could not reduce spending to 2000 levels? Are you receiving anything from the government that you didn't in 2000?

Let me make my original point clear. I am 100% for any tax cut at all. But people have some fundamental misunderstandings about the Bush tax cuts.

If you cut taxes, and the revenue lost causes you to borrow money, then you did not really cut taxes, you simply defered them with interest.

If you borrow money to spend, then you must pay it back eventually, this revenue will be collected in the form of taxes or we can reduce the debt with inflation which acts as a tax, so by your spending you also guarantee a tax on future generations, thus you are a tax raiser.

George Bush = Tax Raiser

The taxes might not come until 2030, but they will be because of George Bush.

If you don't understand this, I would advise you to never own a credit card.

robert,

The Bush Tax Plan as implemented called for a reduction in the tax rates; this has had the effect of increasing proceeds to the Treasury through increased tax revenue. There were no Bush Tax cuts; that’s a misnomer perpetuated by the style-over-substance elitists in the media and on the political left. Just for grins, can you cite the Clinton Economic Plan? didn't think so, no one can; there was none.

The only “fundamental misunderstanding" here is your over-simplistic view of taxation. Reducing the rate of taxation increases revenue to the Government, it doesn’t “cause you to borrow more money”, operating a Government causes borrowing. But at what rate, and for what reason? So, yes, Bush is a tax raiser; just like Reagan and Kennedy.

Nice that you can reference Laffer, I wonder; do you know anything about him? No, the increase in receipts to the Government are what we in the financial biz call payments. Because the payments have been accelerated over the past few years there is no deferral of liability; that is the gaping hole in the Keynesians “debt our children must pay” argument, even of your children start paying in 2030.

Other than the renowned Paul Krugman, who would proffer the idea that receipts to the government are less as a result of the reduction of tax rates? The most current numbers show that receipts continue their upward trajectory. If we were at a point of diminishing returns I would accept your argument.

Servicing the debt costs 1/3 of our Budget; this is a fluid debt, not static. You make the mistake of comparing it to your household debt (Thanks Ross Perot), it doesn’t work remotely like your debt. The interest on the Debt is partly contingent on the Debt itself and the deficit which requires further borrowing and changes the ratio of payments to interest. The bulk of the “borrowed” money comes from the Treasury which receives the funds from a variety of sources. Additionally, part of the Debt is financed through the Social Security money. Those debts are paid from the receipts immediately which is why there was never a surplus during the 1990’s. An accounting trick.

The ratio of Debt to GDP, just so you don’t have to make up numbers, currently is 64.83% (I calculated it as of this morning.) During the 1990’s it rose from 56.8% to the high of 67.3% in 1996. So you can stop throwing around this “GDP has gone from about 60% of GDP to 70% since Bush took office.” Crap. The ratio has fluctuated throughout our history but never once during the past 6 years has it exceeded the 67.3% of the 1996 fiscal year. AND, that includes the Clinton dot-com bust recession of 2001, attacks on our largest city, two wars and incessant prattling from Keynesians that think we need more government intrusion in the marketplace.

“That's also not what I was trying to claim, I was trying to claim that the argument that we can just grow our way out of debt without any sort of negative consequences became invalid officially a couple of months ago(of course this was always fallacious due to opportunity cost), thanks to George Bush.”

Frankly, I don’t think you know what you’re saying. When the GDP slowed in the first quarter, gloom-and-doomers were claiming that the growth rate of the economy could no longer sustain the Debt. Since then the economy has heated up again (thank you George Bush and your tax cuts [/sarcasm]) the Debt ratio remains acceptable. AND, foreign investors continue to look to our economy for stability in spite of the robust worldwide economic news.

If you truly are a fiscal conservative, which I doubt because you’re bleating like a liberal sheep, you would support the privatization of Social Security; write to your Congress Critters and demand they address the issue NOW! In 5 years it will be too late; we can take advantage of the current economic situation to begin weaning people off of the pay in-pay out nonsense.

Am I receiving anything from the Government that I didn't in 2000?
Uh ... yeah; my salary.

" Do you think that we could not reduce spending to 2000 levels? Are you receiving anything from the government that you didn't in 2000? "

This is a bit misleading because there has been inflation and population growth since 2000. Even if the government reduced services to 2000 levels right now inflation and population growth would make the cost substantially higher. Of course this is assuming that the government didnt make any efficency gains ( not a bad assuption, unlike buisness governments seem to get less efficent as time goes on not more ).

However this doesnt really matter because George Bush has increased government spending by 40% (well above population growth and inflation )

Am I the only one that sees the humor in Kiefer's reply?

"Guess you didn't have to take English in college..."

I told you before Kiefer, you may want to take a course in grammar. You started with a verb transitive and we all know you need a direct object.

At least that is what google told me.

You haven't changed one bit Kiefer.
;)

Dasein Libsbane,

"Servicing the debt costs 1/3 of our Budget"

How has that varied over the last 50 yrs?

steve,

The percentage is not the issue; I pointed it out because robert inaccurately guessed the service to be 20% of the Budget.

But, since you asked, a high was reached during the Carter Administration of 45% mostly due to Nixon’s Phase Two and the staggering double digit inflation. Carter wasn’t able to generate revenue because he raised taxes (sound familiar?) during a time of high unemployment and high inflation. By contrast, Nixon was able to get away with a 15% service because Congress insisted on including the Vietnam war in the Budget. When Economic conditions fell apart in the early 1970’s Ford paid the price and had to actually do something to assist the economy. A shame that Carter didn’t continue that.

Reagan had increased revenue so dramatically during the 1980’s that the interest on the Debt fell in equally dramatic form. The amount in raw dollars to service the Debt rose exponentially during the Reagan years, but because the Budget was growing faster than revenues, servicing the debt was relatively small as a percentage.

Oh, and keefer is speaking in the vernacular which is correct; usage. His admonition to Robert on the incorrect use of the objective “Us” stands.

steve,

The percentage is not the issue; I pointed it out because robert inaccurately guessed the service to be 20% of the Budget.

But, since you asked, a high was reached during the Carter Administration of 45% mostly due to Nixon’s Phase Two and the staggering double digit inflation. Carter wasn’t able to generate revenue because he raised taxes (sound familiar?) during a time of high unemployment and high inflation. By contrast, Nixon was able to get away with a 15% service because Congress insisted on including the Vietnam war in the Budget. When Economic conditions fell apart in the early 1970’s Ford paid the price and had to actually do something to assist the economy. A shame that Carter didn’t continue that.

Reagan had increased revenue so dramatically during the 1980’s that the interest on the Debt fell in equally dramatic form. The amount in raw dollars to service the Debt rose exponentially during the Reagan years, but because the Budget was growing faster than revenues, servicing the debt was relatively small as a percentage.

Oh, and keefer is speaking in the vernacular which is correct; usage. His admonition to Robert on the incorrect use of the objective “Us” stands as it doesn't reflect its function.

Well, there's absolutely no way on earth that any republicans could be attaching benchmarks, is there? Nope. And there's no way that cutting taxes pushes us into a deficit. Of course not: getting less money into the government means it gets more money....according to republicans.

Also, there is no way that there's this huge sinkhole called Iraq that's going to end up costing more than $1 trillion in the long run (post war stuff included, like vet benefits).

Your republican logic is simply asinine.

And, do remember, when did we last have a surplus?

Oh, yes, under Clinton.

When was that surplus destroyed?

Oh, yes, under Bush. And a republican congress.

So, wait until the facts are on your side before you start making stupid little claims....but that would take forever, so I guess you guys are just doomed to this endless cycle of stupidity forever.

ThELefTYFoOL

Although I still don't know for sure what the topic of this thread is supposed to be about (and thus anything anyone says about anything could be OT), I will hazard to stroll into the fray -- if for no other reason than I like to argue with Dasein.

I'm not an economist. And I suspect that at this point I know just enough to be dangerous -- both to myself and to others. I should be locked up! Lol! Seriously though -- on just about any issue a person passes through the "dangerous" area along the path between complete ignorance and sufficient knowledge. And that's how I feel about my own position: I don't know what to think at this point. But I'm not exactly ignorant. And I am fairly good with numbers. So with that caveat in mind...

First of all, I wasn't aware that Bush's various "reductions in tax rates" constituted some sort of cohesive "Bush Tax Plan" any more than any of the policies Clinton endorsed that affected the economy could be construed as a unified "plan". In light of that, it seems to me the concept of a "Bush Tax Plan" is something of a straw dog.

Second, you assume, yet fail to prove, that Bush's "reductions in tax rates" had a causative effect on increases in GDP. It's possible, but by no means certain. And certainly, the various "reductions in tax rates" would be very hard to construe as uniformly effective. Said in another way, some of them were intended more for their political impact than their financial impact.

Third, my understanding is that, historically, there is a stronger relationship between short term interest rates and growth in GDP than there is between tax rate fluctuations and growth in GDP. Apparently Greenspan understood that. But the problem is that it's looking like he overplayed his hand. Normally long term interest rates are lower than short term interest rates. When I heard they were inverted (as they were in early 2006), I figured it was time to get out of the real estate market. Apparently I was right -- and I timed it perfectly. But I suspect that was more luck than acumen. After all, in many of my previous investments I didn't detect the peak quite so perfectly. But, generally speaking, I did ok. More than ok, actually.

But I digress...

Fourth, I'm pretty sure you are correct in saying that household debt doesn't work like the national debt. And despite my limited knowledge, I'm pretty sure there are very different pressures involved in each. But you haven't made clear why we shouldn't be concerned about the pressures weighing on the national debt. It seems to me that they are considerable -- and growing. But again, I'm a neophyte. If you could guide me on that issue, it'd be much appreciated.

Fifth, with regard to social security, it seems to me that there is a middle road between tying the interest to GDP growth (which I understand is essentially the current formula -- but correct me if I'm wrong), and releasing it to market pressures as they are determined individually. It seems to me that the social security account is best construed as a kind of national mutual fund, distributed under the guidance of some kind of independent collection of financial advisors, and -- most importantly -- OUTSIDE THE PROVINCE OF GOVERNMENT. I totally agree with what you say about the fact that part of the debt is financed with Social Security interest. My further understanding is that BS started in the Johnson administration, and it's gotten progressively worse since.

Dasein Libsbane, do you really think that cutting the rate from 30% to 25% will cause a rise in revenue(yes I know revenue has risen, but is it because of this)? That's just silly, to argue that is to misinform people. BTW I meant to 30% of our budget is interest payments(that would have only helped my arguement). But, I don't think you understand that if we don't actually start paying the debt off, we have to roll it over, yea we have different sources that we pay different rate to but no one will lend you money for some set amount of interest and say just pay it back whenever you feel like it.

If you are a true fiscal conservative why don't you write the president about our policies of

Centrally planned agriculture(massively increased by bush)
Centrally planned banking(bush is a big fan)
Massive increase of protectivism(by bush)
Our huge welfare state(medicare part D by bush)
The department of energy being a R&D arm of the energy sector(massively increased under bush)
Any sort of government mandated pensions(well bush has talked about this)
2/3 of our military commited to foriegn ops(massively increased by bush)

Ricorun, the debt is about 9 tril, divided by 300 mil that is 30 grand per person. That's payable over a lifetime surely, so it's not like we're fucked. Now the big problem is that if you include unfunded liabilities then the debt is more like 60 trillion or like 200 grand per person, so like Dasien said, if your really worried, that's whats gonna fuck us. Bush isn't really that bad compared to the people that put us into the unfunded liability problem, but he's no small government conservative either.

Ricorun, (Mr. Verbose, meet Mr. Verbiage)

First, the Bush Economic plan was proposed in 2001 and mostly adopted by Congress, it included the rate reductions, incentives and economic stimuli that have proven effective; for more information on the plan, go to White House . org for the layout and the results. Clinton never presented an economic plan at any time during his presidency, so no straw canines here. Clinton proposed tax hikes in 1992 that were made retroactive to January 1992; although they generated increased revenue to the Government in the short run, they slowed the growth of the economy from what Clinton called the “worst economy since the Great Depression”; a growth of 4.2% to 2.6%. The economy then continued its historic rise in 1995, then by 2000 GDP contracted by 0.6%. I'll explain that later ...

Second, the Bush economic plan has had a “causative effect” on the economy Res ipsa loquitur. You are mistaking the increase in GDP as a leading indicator, it is not, it is indicative of what has happened in the economy and the relative output as a result of that economy. Has the Bush Plan been good for the economy, including the tax rate reductions? The robust economy has answered that. Has the Bush Plan contributed to the increases in GDP? Much more subjective, but history will prove the equation; economic growth = increase in economic output.

Third, you’re right, you digress. Your observation on short term interest rates makes my point; and disqualifies you for Keynesian of the Year; you’ll be summarily dismissed at your next meeting. Interest rates have the same effect on GDP as taxation; we’ve discussed this before in that tight money supply, prohibitive taxation or punitive interest rates cool investment in business and spur trading in Bonds. A loose money supply and ability to garner capital for needed business expansion will cause or at least precede a growth in GDP. It only makes sense; as industry capitalizes for expansion as opposed to capital investment for short term returns, the output of the economy has to grow. Note when that capitalization was used in the manner of the 1990’s; specifically investment in junk bonds and derivatives (see: Bob Citron~ Orange County). Short term capitalization with no output of goods and services will cause, or at least proceed long term slowing of the growth of GDP. Clear? Now, explain derivatives.

Forth, the Debt should be of great concern, the fact that it is high as a % of GDP is transitory considering the war and shouldn’t cause consternation, but the discretionary spending by this and the last Congress is cause to fire the bastards! The biggest concern of all is Social Security; this is reaching the point of critical mass at an alarming rate.

Think of the Government Budget as an ever changing river meandering along a rain forest; as small tributaries (or tributes, ha) enter the river it deepens as well as widens, and it picks up speed. The boatmen (Congress) assume that more tributaries are ahead, so they bring out longer oars; as long as their predictions are accurate the boat moves forward at an ever increasing rate. The boatmen can actually change the course and flow of the river ahead of them by re-mapping as they go. If the tributaries dry up, no problem wire ahead and ask the people down river to pour their water in for you; the down-river people have to decide if they’re going to get the water from someone else (foreign investment) or just promise to pour water when the boat gets closer, if the predictions are accurate, no problem, if not the down river people just ask the boatmen to change course and try another route (Sell Bonds). Oh, and robert if you’re still awake; as long as the economy continues growing there are ever increasing tributaries, the down river people won’t have to sell their children to pay for the water.

Because the boatmen can change the river by changing the map (increase or decrease money supply) there is never a reason to slow the boat or prepare for a crash. Your personal budget requires that you accurately anticipate the river ahead, and that you make plans for floods and drought. If you run aground, you have few choices because the amount of water ahead of you is set by income, investments and the grace of Government. Your river is straight and predictable, the Government’s goes where they want it to go. Right this minute, my branch of government is operating without a budget, when my budget is approved; I’ll re-write the budget for July and August to match what I spent; ain’t life in Government grand?

It is our responsibility to throw the bums out so they at least aim the river somewhere we want to go.

Fifth, you have accurately assessed Social Security privatization; like a mutual fund for Government workers a private entity makes the investment decisions and we buy into their fund. Some have risk, some are safe. What they tell you in your investment planning meetings when you sign up is very note-worthy; the best investment for long term growth involve few risks and small gain on investment, the higher the gain potential the higher the risk. Duh!

Oddly, when the State of California administered our retirement fund the return was so good, they were able to give a “bonus” to participants in the form of a one time deposit to our retirement at a time when the State had a freeze on salary increases and a freeze on hiring. Since it’s been privatized, the rate of return has been 3-5%. Whoopee!

robert, pay attention; you might slip up and learn something. Meanwhile, of the trade deficit with China, how much belongs to you and how are you planning on paying off your part?

Dasien, you never anwsered how the national debt is some kind of different debt that dosen't require interest payments when you roll over those expired bonds, or that you don't pay interest to foreign lenders.

Or why when the majority of tax cuts which where a 5% rate cut of people that make over 200k per year, which tend to be manager, engineers, and buisness owners would cause a massive flood of revenue. These kind of people won't drastically change their work habits because of a 5% decrease. The main reason your gonna get a marginal gain is because those people will have less deductions, less non cash bonuses, and hire less tax accountants. This is obviously a boon to the economy as these are all government created inefficiencies, but are you really with only a 5% diffrence, actually going to recieve tons more total money? Your misrepresenting the severity of the laffer curve.

Also, in regards to spending, you are blaming congress? Who submits the budget report?? This original post proves democrats are worse, but what about the previous 6 years?

As much of the Chinese trade deficit belongs to mem, is how much of my cash balance I wanted to trade for chinese goods, of course I can't do this forever because I'll run low on cash and high on chinese goods eventually, at that point I bet some Chinese would be willing to trade their excess cash balanced(built up from me) for some of my American goods, at that point I'll start paying off my part. I think this method is called the free market.

Also with your whole pools of water/river thing, isn't that just advocating that government is supposed to own some certian percentage of the economy, and that it should spend that however it sees fit.
I guess that's where our disagreement comes from, I think that the government should define it's functions then figure out it's budget, as opposed to you thinking the government should figure out it's budget, based off how much it can take without causing too much fuss, and from that define it's functions.

robert,
you've spouted off so many Dailykos talking points now that you've lost what little credibility you started with. As an example, don’t use phrases you don’t understand Unfunded Liability just means debt. And protectivism isn’t a word; Military commited to foriegn ops (God save me from morons without spell-check®) has as much to do with this discussion as the Departments of Energy’s policy of technocracy. Get it? Remember Spook’s first rule of Holes.

Bonds don’t expire they don’t spoil, they don’t get all soft and mushy; they mature. Trading in Bonds is a lucrative avocation, unless the economy is roaring along, like say … NOW!

5% of your income may not be enough to influence capital investment or job creation; but 5% of Sam Walton’s family income most certainly will, and has. Maybe you should actually read Laffer.

Here’s one final clue for you; you don’t actually owe any part of the trade deficit. Nor do you owe any part of the Debt. Remember that “Hole” thing, if you don’t know the answer, don’t try to bullshit your way out of answering.

Vis-à-vis the Budget; I guess you’re right. Government should just figure out what it should do and budget accordingly; then, when New Orleans is under water, just tell them sorry … no budget. When we’re attacked, its sorry … can’t defend ourselves, hit me again, this time in Chicago; I never liked that city anyway. When the Stock Market fails, sorry … can’t change money policy, you’re all screwed. When the Universities ask for funds for research in curing AIDS Congress can say sorry … we’re not in the R&D business, go ask Venezuela.

Btw, what color is the sky in your world?

I told you before Kiefer, you may want to take a course in grammar. You started with a verb transitive and we all know you need a direct object.

I do what I do on purpose, asshat--you do what you do because you think it's correct.

You haven't changed one bit Kiefer.
;)

You haven't either, whoever you are, and used to be. But I've never spelled my name "Kiefer."

disclaimer: this post was in no way, shape, or form intended to be a threat to stev-o-pussified.
I'm a non-violent person who hates stupid libs--and grandpa stev-o qualifies...

I actually don't know 'Spook’s first rule of Holes' I even tried to look it up. But if you could tell me that would be cool.

An unfunded liability is a promise to pay money, debt is borrowed money, there is a slight diffrence. An expired bond is a term for like if you buy a 5 year bond, in 5 years it's called an expired bond, and sorry I can spell.

But I don't see how government spending on all sorts of non-esential things has nothing to do with the debt, in fact I think it's at the heart of the matter.

As for what I owe for my trade balance, I was trying to say that a diffrence of trade balances is nothing but a diffrence of the goods in stock compared to cash balance, I've never understood how it's bad, I've never worried about by cash to goods balance to the grocery store.

But please tell me how the debt is going to get payed off without some sort of taxes or some sort of debasement of the currency? That's not going to affect me? Last I checked I payed taxes.

You understand that if you know your going to get a raise, so you start buying groceries with your credit card, and your raise will be more than the interest payments, you didn't magically pay nothing for the credit card interest because you recieved no losses. This is what the government is doing. You obviously know something about economics or finiance, you should know that a gain not realized is a loss, that's opportunity cost.

If Bush was just increasing spending or borrowing money for stuff like in your last post, I wouldn't be complaining. But he's increased non-defence spending by like 40+%. Every single government program is for promoting health/education/security/economy/general welfare ect... sure all these are good causes, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and Bush is drawing it higher every year, he's obviously not happy with the amount of government and wants more, I personaly want less.

First Rule of Holes;
When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

robert … stop digging! I mean … seriously!

The definitions provided are not acceptable; you can’t just redefine financial/accounting terms to suit some odd affliction you have with using the correct nomenclature. An unfunded liability is a debt, a debt is a liability, funded or not; bonds mature, no one trades “expired bonds” I think you’ve been drinking expired milk.

Your argument may be a “debasement” but currency cannot be humiliated.

The Government does not incur “opportunity cost", the costs involved are real costs, opportunity costs apply to investment.

I’ve already blown that 40% number out of the water, you haven't advanced the argument.

But, (sheesh) if the government spend 60% on "essential" expendatures, and 40% on "non-essential" and there is a 15% deficit, from which one is the deficit made?

Answer, Both!

Dasein:
First, the Bush Economic plan was proposed in 2001 and mostly adopted by Congress, it included the rate reductions, incentives and economic stimuli that have proven effective; for more information on the plan, go to White House . org for the layout and the results.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean WhiteHouse.org. You mean WhiteHouse.gov, lol! Anyway, I'm not sure where to look on WhiteHouse.gov. Would it be this?

The economy then continued its historic rise in 1995, then by 2000 GDP contracted by 0.6%. I'll explain that later ...

It doesn't appear you did. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. I'll explain later, lol!

Second, the Bush economic plan has had a “causative effect” on the economy Res ipsa loquitur.

Using this logic to "rationalize" Bush's economic plan makes it even more imperative that you explain what you said you would explain later. In the mean time, what exactly is an "historic rise"? And how does that explain one expansion and not the other?

You are mistaking the increase in GDP as a leading indicator, it is not, it is indicative of what has happened in the economy and the relative output as a result of that economy.

I meant GDP exactly how you say I should mean it. That's where the rubber hits the road, no? And any "indicators" of a "robust economy" are just that if they don't effect the GDP. Isn't that true? If not, precisely what IS your measure of a "robust economy"? And why is it relevant?

Third, you’re right, you digress.

I often do, lol!

Your observation on short term interest rates makes my point; and disqualifies you for Keynesian of the Year;

I guess that's good. I never did understand how I qualified as a Keynesian in the first place. But I digress...

Interest rates have the same effect on GDP as taxation; we’ve discussed this before in that tight money supply, prohibitive taxation or punitive interest rates cool investment in business and spur trading in Bonds.

While what you say is true in general. But what I'm suggesting is that history suggests a tighter relationship between interest rates and GDP than tax rates and GDP. In the Bush years, both went down. And that calls into question your Res ipsa loquitur argument.

And by the way (another digression): I'm now heavily invested in bonds -- precisely for the reason you stated: interest rates are on the rise. I've been sitting on these piles of garbage while watching the market rise. Recently though, I'm finally starting to think I may have done the right thing. At any rate, I'm not losing money. And that, at this time in my life, is the "big issue".

Note when that capitalization was used in the manner of the 1990’s; specifically investment in junk bonds and derivatives (see: Bob Citron~ Orange County). Short term capitalization with no output of goods and services will cause, or at least proceed long term slowing of the growth of GDP.

Aha! This I suppose is what you are offering as your "later explanation". Okay, so how was this situation so different than the present day ARMs? Or the savings and loan fiasco in the Reagan/Bush41 years?

Forth[sic]... It is our responsibility to throw the bums out so they at least aim the river somewhere we want to go.

Hear hear! Or is it here here!? Lol!

Fifth, you have accurately assessed Social Security privatization;

Good for me!

Oddly, when the State of California administered our retirement fund the return was so good, they were able to give a “bonus” to participants in the form of a one time deposit to our retirement at a time when the State had a freeze on salary increases and a freeze on hiring. Since it’s been privatized, the rate of return has been 3-5%. Whoopee!

If I correctly understand what you're saying, you're saying that getting social security out of the hands of the congresscritters is a good idea, but total privatization isn't. If so, then I agree. I'm pretty sure.

Don’t have much time before I’m off to spend the weekend with family, so here’s the Reader’s Digest version (btw, glad you caught my little ironies.)

Did you actually go to White House . org? Too funny.

The “historic rise began during the Reagan years, lulled a bit in the recession late in the decade, and came back in 1995, stalled during the dot-com bust and has improved since. Plot the years from the turn of the 20th century and you’ll see why it’s historic.

The economy may rise significantly, inflation be non-problematic, wealth be created, jobs found and fortunes made all the while the GDP stagnates. The GDP is a lagging indicator of the economy’s health. That’s the point I was referring to when I said I’d address it later.

I got out of Bonds about 6 months ago and moved almost everything into the equities market. I still don’t like Bonds right now but with the fluctuations of late I may be very wrong. All-in-all the only money I’ve made on Bonds recently is the money I’ve invested; they haven’t improved in value over where they were in January-February.

Yes, and Bush’s plan also called for a privatized Social Security program with Government guarantees of no risk to the investor. Like a government sponsored Mutual; because it is made up of essentially Government money, the administrators are subject to SAS112 and Sarbanes-Oxley. Private investors would decide how much of the profits are at risk, not how much (because it’s none) of the equity is at risk.

Btw, do you know Gary Davis in Coto?

"Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference."

$22 billion. Or, to put it another way, the amount spent for 6 weeks of babysitting Iraq. Or, to put it yet another way, almost as much as in the boxes of cash that mysteriously disappeared from helicopters during the "reconstruction" effort.

Dasein: Btw, do you know Gary Davis in Coto?

I know a few people in Coto, but Gary Davis is not one of them. Am I missing something?

Have fun with your family. And by the way, how'd the biking trip go? That sounded like a lot of fun, too.

The equities market, huh? I've always been kinda squeamish about that. I don't understand it at all. And perhaps because of it, from where I sit, it seems too freaking volatile.

Brian (Boston),

Not true? Not true? NOT SO!

RE: "The program has been expanded to cover legal aliens. The verification of citizenship has been removed."

The verification of CITIZENSHIP was REMOVED by DEMOCRATS!!!

In case you have a problem with the English language... that means it covers ILLEGAL ALIENS! Defining a child as anyone under 26 years old means that American taxpayers, Medicare, and Medicaid will be paying healthcare costs for 25-year-old ADULT ILLEGAL ALIENS and 24, and 23, and 22, and 21, and 20, and 19, and 18, and ...

And that includes ADULT COLLEGE KIDS!

What about helping the "poor"? Now we use taxpayer money for ILLEGAL WORKERS and others making TWICE the poverty level! TAKE your DEMOCRAT'S thieving hands out of MY pockets and those of other taxpayers. Tell those people to cut back on some of their other expenses and work extra ours... just other TAXPAYERS DO!

The $82,000 figure IS TRUE. New York State, for one, said it might cover children in families that are FOUR TIMES the poverty level! The Senate version would cuts matching grants to states that raise the eligibility above 300 percent, but that doesn't prevent it and 300% is still THREE TIMES the poverty level for OTHER TAXPAYERS to fund, and taking funding from SENIORS on Medicare and Medicaid!

RE: "Is it true that a 24-year-old father with a 22-year-old mother and a couple of kids would qualify as a family of "children" under the Democrat's "child" healthcare?"

What part do you say isn't true? They are all under 26 years of age! They are all "children" by the DEMOCRAT'S definition! They qualify for the government subsidy! Add to that the ultimate Democrat INSULT to the American people that they can also be ILLEGAL ALIENS! Or even a family of COLLEGE KIDS!

The American people need to understand the DEMOCRAT'S SCHEME to steal from the American taxpayers, Medicare, and Medicaid and American SENIORS to dole out to ADULT ILLEGAL ALIENS!

TAKE YOUR SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT HANDS out of the pockets of the American taxpayers... and Medicare... and Medicaid!!!

AAR

AAR,

If you would like to have an intelligent debate about the issues, then I am more willing to have a civilized discussion with you. Calling someone names or making derogatory comments shows a complete lack of respect and contempt for anyone with a differing opinion.

No where in the bill does it say it covers illegal aliens. It is possible that illegal aliens will get receive benefits using fake credentials.

In the case of NY State, that is their decision, but a family of four making $82,000 would not be covered by the program.

Two children that are married are no longer covered by the bill, unless they have children themselves.

I will agree that the legislation is too wide and removing the need for identification will only invite more abuse. You and I would not consider a person a child at 25 years old. The legislation does cover other types of procedures that were not covered before. The legislation should have only expanded the procedures that were covered and not expanding the program in other directions.

Brian (Boston),

RE: "No where in the bill does it say it covers illegal aliens. It is possible that illegal aliens will get receive benefits using fake credentials."

Everything I said is true, unless of course the DUMocrats got a touch of sanity at the last minute and changed the bill. Show me otherwise!

I'll repeat: The verification of CITIZENSHIP was REMOVED by DEMOCRATS!!!

The former bill required verification of citizenship. The DUMocrats deliberately REMOVED that requirement KNOWING it would permit ILLEGALS to receive TAXPAYER funded healthcare... HURTING those AMERICAN families receiving [now reduced] supplements for private insurance, and those on Medicare and Medicaid, including the elderly!

It is "possible" that ILLEGAL ALIENS, even ADULT FARM WORKERS under the age of 26 will receive benefits?

No that is not a "possible" situation... it is an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... INTENDED and ENGINEERED by the DEMOCRATS!

RE: "Two children that are married are no longer covered by the bill, unless they have children themselves."

"...the House version of CHIP expansion, which allows states to insure some adults on CHIP and which also cuts federal funding that goes to private insurers selling policies that help cover people on Medicare."

But then an "adult", by the Democrat's definition, would be a person 26 years of age or older!

Don't believe what you read in the "Huffington Post"!

Baltimore Sun, August 3, 2007...

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican, said children from families earning $62,000 a year would be covered by the Senate bill. In the House last week, Rep. Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said that a family of four earning more than $82,000 could enroll their children in SCHIP because of the added money being pumped into the program.

KXMC CBS Television, Minot, Aug 2 2007

"...this health care package isn’t really for 'poor kids.' This massive entitlement expansion, ostensibly $35 billion in new obligatory spending ... though it’ll end up costing far more than that, is for all children who belong to families with incomes $82,000 or less"

"... approximately 83% of American households earn around $82,000 or less according to the Census Bureau. This isn’t a program for poor kids. This is, as Robert Novak put it last month, “the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the longtime goal of government-supplied universal health insurance and the suffocation of the private system.” By making nearly all American citizens eligible for SCHIP, Democrats encourage them to become dependent on the government for medical care for their children. Which is another step toward getting them dependent on the government for medical care for themselves"

"This is how liberals herd people onto the victimhood plantation. They tell them that they're poor and can't afford health care on their own, then they vote other people's money out of the nation's treasury to pay for these people's entitlements and make them dependent on the government, and then finally they use that dependence to control them."

The Senate presented as "compromise" which would expand SCHIP eligibility to 300% above the poverty line which would be $62,000 annual income on average.

Has that passed? One article said that would only "reduce" the entitlements to those earning $82.000 per year! In any case, I hardly consider $62,000 a year as "poverty". What have those families done on their own to afford health care? Cut back on the cable and cell phone use? Stopped buying designer clothes, and all of the other items that aren't necessities? Are they working extra hours? Are they working a part time job?

And, I see nothing done to stop those ridiculous Democrat supported lawsuits causing healthcare costs to skyrocket and bankrupting America's healthcare, along with raising the costs on everything else, and sending American jobs overseas! Did I miss that one?

And, I see nothing in the bill to stop those on welfare or those who would require welfare and government assistance from having EVEN MORE KIDS for the taxpayers to support! Did I miss that one?

The American people need to know and understand the "robber" Democrats who victimize and suppress Americans... herding them toward welfare and then keeping them there!

AAR