Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ok, sport, but you are compeltely shifting your argument.

S_A_M

I have not shifted my argument at all. I have been saying all along that Congress should reduce deficits in a growing economy and increase deficits in a slowing economy. The Democrats, when they control congress, don't seem to be able to reduce deficits and create surpluses in a growing economy.

The economy is now growing and the deficit is getting smaller. The economy was growing in the 1990s and the Republican congress balanced the budget.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again you focusing on the White House and not Congress. I can understand why uneducated people do this - why you?

Should we then be calling tax cuts since 2000 the DeLay/Frist cuts, instead of giving lavish credit to Bush?

Why do you assume that any mention of Presidential influence on the budgeting process = a complete misunderstanding of constitutional law?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again you focusing on the White House and not Congress. I can understand why uneducated people do this - why you?

Come, come now.

I really do feel like Captain Obvious if I have to point out that the legislative process includes two branches of government. Do you give Reagan no credit for the 1986 Tax Bill?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
The economy is now growing and the deficit is getting smaller. The economy was growing in the 1990s and the Republican congress balanced the budget.

I remain curious on this point. How is the deficit getting smaller today? I just don't understand where this comes from?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Captain
Come, come now.

I really do feel like Captain Obvious if I have to point out that the legislative process includes two branches of government. Do you give Reagan no credit for the 1986 Tax Bill?

"good" budget bills are credited to whatever R is handy, even if the R is in the minority party. In that case, it was the pressure of the minority Rs that caused the bill to be as good as it was.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
If Gingrich had gotten his way the surpluses would have been bigger and we would have cut taxes much more than they were raised by Clinton. Unfortunately Clinton would rather shut down the government than let that happen.

What you say is true (Gingrich is/was a true believer), but I don't think it is unfortunate.

You've mentioned this bit of ancient political history twice today -- must have really burned you up how Newt and the GOP took all of the political heat for that event. A skilled politician and communicator versus a committed ideologue.

S_A_M

[Captain]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"good" budget bills are credited to whatever R is handy, even if the R is in the minority party. In that case, it was the pressure of the minority Rs that caused the bill to be as good as it was.

I am really not trying to make a partisan point here. This all started as a discussion of deficit reduction policy and who has historically sought balanced budgets. My underlying belief is that balanced budgets are something for which there is not natural constituency, and really require some level of cooperation between parties (willing or unwilling) as a result. But I also do not believe Democrats can be justly accused of being unrepetant deficit spenders for the last 50 years. That part is simply contrary to the historical record.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


The Repub cuts -- yes, the Repub congress made cuts under Clinton (we won't get into the reasons -- but let's just say they were motivated by a lot more than fiscal prudence) -- were nowhere near enough to create a balanced budget, let alone a surplus, had taxes not been raised.

How can you say this with a straight face. First of all, the cuts would have been bigger if Clinton had not opposed them. The growing economy was the biggest factor in balancing the budget. Then the fact that the Repubs were able to stem government growth.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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.

My God, you people have saved the nation!

We've been such fools. I see it now. I'm switching parties this year!

S_A_M

P.S. For someone who deals in numbers as much as you do, and presumably studied statistics in college (at least one basic course), I'm a bit surprised that you seem to assume that correlation equals causation, and that you have so little appreciation for the many potential confounding variables at work.

Nope. It's -- "Hey Boys, Newt and Trent took over, we're saved! The world is finally safe for rich, investors. Turn the big wheel and lower the rates!"

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
I remain curious on this point. How is the deficit getting smaller today? I just don't understand where this comes from?

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.

If you remember that is what kept happening during the late ninetys. The deficits were always surprizingly smaller than predicted because of the phenonminal growth.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Captain
I am really not trying to make a partisan point here. This all started as a discussion of deficit reduction policy and who has historically sought balanced budgets. My underlying belief is that balanced budgets are something for which there is not natural constituency, and really require some level of cooperation between parties (willing or unwilling) as a result. But I also do not believe Democrats can be justly accused of being unrepetant deficit spenders for the last 50 years. That part is simply contrary to the historical record.

I don't think you are trying to make a partisan point. I was just supplying you with the formula Spanky is using so that you could stop trying to counter him with actual facts.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"good" budget bills are credited to whatever R is handy, even if the R is in the minority party. In that case, it was the pressure of the minority Rs that caused the bill to be as good as it was.

2. similarly, most of fringey's funnier posts were generated because she was mad at me or Penske.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
How can you say this with a straight face. First of all, the cuts would have been bigger if Clinton had not opposed them. The growing economy was the biggest factor in balancing the budget. Then the fact that the Repubs were able to stem government growth.

Let me lay out some raw material and see if it holds up given this hypothesis.

Here are some figures for 1992 and 2000, the beginning and end of the Clinton Administration. Everything is taken from historical governmental statistics and is in billions of dollars.

1992:

GDP 6,240
Government Receipts: 1,091
Receipts from Individual Income Taxes: 476
Receipts from Corporate Income Taxes: 100
Government Outlays: 1,381

2000:

GDP 9,708 (up a bit more than 50%)
Government Receipts: 2,025 (up by almost 100%)
Receipts from Individual Income Taxes: 1,004 (up more than 100%)
Receipts from Corporation Income Taxes: 207 (up more than 100%)
Government Outlays: 1,788 (up about 30%)


So, government outlays grew more slowly than GDP (30% versus 50%) while government income grew much faster than GDP (100% versus 50%). Income taxes as a percentage of governmental receipts grew somewhat.

OK, this tells me that the level of deficit reduction that occurred depended very heavily on the tax component. It also tells me that government grew more slowly than the economy, which is a general victory for those desiring a smaller government.

As I said, I'm not an economist and I'm sure there are dynamic forces, and I'm also sure that some might have cut more or raised less, but I think it is very hard in these numbers to see room for the scale of deficit reduction that occurred without the tax component. The statement that "the growing economy was the biggest factor..." does not appear right, because governmental receipts grew much faster than the economy, and this differential makes up a very large part of the surplus.

Indeed, had governmental receipts grown at the same rate as the economy, about 50%, there would have been no surplus and the economy would have continued in substantial deficit.

[Captain]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think you are trying to make a partisan point. I was just supplying you with the formula Spanky is using so that you could stop trying to counter him with actual facts.

Sorry, I think I just did it again.

I will try to say something funny about the budget.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Captain
Sorry, I think I just did it again.

I will try to say something funny about the budget.

No, no, I was being self-indulgent. Pointless argument is the point of this place.