Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
When we use these numbers (Social Security Trust Fund), don't they show that the budget was never balanced even in the 90s?

Yes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Bond markets understand that Congress is in charge of budgets. Once the Repubs took control of congress the rates dropped from 8 to 5. There really is no mystery.

Please find me a reputable economist who thinks this is true.

Don't worry -- I'll wait.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please find me a reputable economist who thinks this is true.

Don't worry -- I'll wait.

I think the commodities futures market was bloated high while the Clinton were co-presidents. Unwarrented confidence in their ability to run the show. Don't know if that ties in.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please find me a reputable economist who thinks this is true.

Don't worry -- I'll wait.

Please find me a reputable economist who's predicted anything other than his next shit with accuracy above 14% in the past century.

I've actually heard what Spanky said from a very close relative in banking numerous times. But what the fuck does a banking exec know compared to an economist?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Captain
The Yankees have been winning. They would be in first regardless of anything Congress or the Red Sox have done.

(Finally, a budget joke!)

Is that Thurman Munson? If it is, nice fucking avatar!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please find me a reputable economist who thinks this is true.

Don't worry -- I'll wait.

Find me one that doesn't (and I hate to break it to you, but Reich is not considered a reputable economist except on the blogs you frequent).

Don't worry -- I'll wait

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes.

http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1


"on-budget" (i.e., not counting Social Security) surplus in 1999 -- 2 billion. In 2000, 87 billion.

Then -- 2001 -- 32.5 billion deficit
2002 -- 317.5 billion
2003 - 538.4 billion
2004 - 567.4 billion

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I've actually heard what Spanky said from a very close relative in banking numerous times. But what the fuck does a banking exec know compared to an economist?

Exactly. If his predictions are wrong about the deficit he loses his job. If an economist is wrong he, well, .............

As Clinton said the most powerful person in the world is the bond market. Clinton sucked up to the bond market when he first got in (making his lament in "All Too Human" that he was an Eisenhauer Republican). The markets gave him the benefit of the doubt, but when he raised taxes and couldn't reign in spending in the "93 deficit reduction act" the market lost all confidence in him and jumped over 8.

Once the Repubs took Congress confidence was restored and has stayed ever since. Bush deficits have not wrecked it. However, I think Bush's honeymoon is about over. He was given a pass for the recession and the war and all. But if Delay doesn't shut up about there being no more fat in the budget, long term interest rates will probably start climbing again.

My prediction is that if the long term bond market decides the Repubs can't be trusted, and they already know the Dems can't be trusted, long term rates will shoot way past 8. Either we get really high growth rates, or some spending cuts, or it is game over.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Is that Thurman Munson? If it is, nice fucking avatar!

You will be happy to know that there is a Thurman Munson constitutionaly theory. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...terview_10.pdf

Thank you.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Find me one that doesn't (and I hate to break it to you, but Reich is not considered a reputable economist except on the blogs you frequent).

Don't worry -- I'll wait

Game, set, match!!!! Well done Spankinator!!!!

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Exactly. If his predictions are wrong about the deficit he loses his job. If an economist is wrong he, well, .............

As Clinton said the most powerful person in the world is the bond market. Clinton sucked up to the bond market when he first got in (making his lament in "All Too Human" that he was an Eisenhauer Republican). The markets gave him the benefit of the doubt, but when he raised taxes and couldn't reign in spending in the "93 deficit reduction act" the market lost all confidence in him and jumped over 8.

Once the Repubs took Congress confidence was restored and has stayed ever since. Bush deficits have not wrecked it. However, I think Bush's honeymoon is about over. He was given a pass for the recession and the war and all. But if Delay doesn't shut up about there being no more fat in the budget, long term interest rates will probably start climbing again.

My prediction is that if the long term bond market decides the Repubs can't be trusted, and they already know the Dems can't be trusted, long term rates will shoot way past 8. Either we get really high growth rates, or some spending cuts, or it is game over.

You seem fond of explanations that cite a single cause, in this case the election of a Republican congress. Do you really think that is a panacea?

And I do not understand the importance of a rate of "8". Why do you think that number in particular has any importance?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
You seem fond of explanations that cite a single cause, in this case the election of a Republican congress. Do you really think that is a panacea?

And I do not understand the importance of a rate of "8". Why do you think that number in particular has any importance?

8 is just the highest number we have seen in a while. I think, if the current deficits are not tackled soon 8 will seem like a low number.

Congress passes the budget. How many times has congress declared the presidents budget DOA? Pretty much every budget for every president from Carter through Clinton.

When Bond traders talk about the budget they talk about Ways and Means, and appropriation bills etc. In the campaign, communication with the public requires that everyone pretend that the President controls the budget. But educated people should know that this is not true.

Clinton was a centrist and tried to control his party but he had to give way to many concessions to the left of the party to get his budgets and even then he had trouble passing them.

The Republican take over of congress was a big event. For a while, at least while Gingrich was in power, there was fiscal dicsipline that had not been seen in a while. Because of this discipline rates dropped to levels not seen in a long time.

To be honest, I am surprized they have not climbed higher recently.

If you know people in the bond markets. Ask them. I am pretty sure what I am saying is conventional wisdom at the fixed income departments at any investment bank. If they don't predict the deficits right they lose money. If they get it right they make a ton. Anyone know a bond trader at Lehman or at Goldman?

[Spanky]

When I was in Japan, all the long term bond traders of Japanese government bonds (I knew most of the major ones) kept predicting that the budget would stay out of control and that the Japanes economy would not turn around.

The Japanese government kept trying to convince people that the growth would return, revenue would increase (because of the growth) and the deficit would be dealth with. The bond traders would have none of it. The Japanese government accused them of intentionally hurting the economy, of being over pessismisstic. Every day in the Japan Times there was some Japanese Economist talking about how a return to prosperity was just around the corner.

That was 1994. It is 2005 and the Japanese government still hasn't gotten its fiscal house in order. The bond traders were right. They had to be, because that is how they make their money.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
You seem fond of explanations that cite a single cause, in this case the election of a Republican congress. Do you really think that is a panacea?

It was for our budget problems. Obviously they didn't accomplish many things and fix many things. But fiscal discipline was not one of their problems.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is my understanding that the projected deficit from this years budget has been reduced by thirty percent because of growth and may be adjusted even more because of growth.

It amuses me that you will not believe that the projections have been inflated so that this clima can be made. It does not surprise me that you do not acknowledge that this has been pointed out to you before.