Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
He raised taxes just to cover the increased spending. And the deficit actually increased, because of that spending, even in a growing economy. So even with Bentsen and Rubin the bond markets didn't buy their B.S. The best possible decision would have been not to increase spending at all until the deficit was gone, but being a Democrat administration with a Democrat Congress that was not an option.

Too lazy to rebut the rest right now, but according to the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 you are flat wrong. The deficit declined from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, and then to $203 billion in 1994 (when the GOP won the House). Where is this increase in the deficit during Clinton's first two years that you mention?

It also doesn't look like spending went up all that much in this time period, either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Like what, 40?

Most Republicans have managed to forget this, but during the Clinton years the federal government actually ran budget surpluses, relieving the government of the need to pretend the deficit wasn't so big. So, no.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point of that comment was that no matter what Bush does (or for that matter doesn' do) the liberals will find some nefarious purpose in it. It did not actually occur to me that you would support my argument. The Bush administration, during the recession consistently underestimated the deficit. Now in the recoevery it has underestimated the recovery. Pretty much, as Slave pointed out, has been going on for the last forty years. But you are saying Bush hid the budget numbers from the war so that the budget estimates would not look so terrible but at the same time overestimated the deficit so the number would look better when the true numnbers came out. Is it just me or wouldn't these two nefarious plans cancel eachother out.

That is like saying that when I sell you this car I won't quote the price with the tax so it looks cheaper but at the same time I am going to quote a much higher price than the true price so when you find out the real price you will be pleasently surpried.

But of course Bush has only been doing this amazing double deception during the recovery. Before, when he underestimated the deficit, he was doing that to deceive also.

For a guy that you don't think is so intelligent he sure can predict the future well and use those prediction to his political advantage.

Actually what I'm saying has nothing to do with what Gatti was saying about treatment of the war expenses. Since we're doing the condescending thing today, you might stop for a second and consider the fact that he and I are different people, or at least different socks.

And I think I've been pretty clear that people should not of Bush as stupid.

Other than being completely non-responsive and pedantic, that was an excellent post.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Gingrich was trying to reduce the deficit. Clinton was not. That is just a cold hard fact that you are going to have to live with.

Black is white. Night is day. 1992-94 never happened.

eta: stp, and Not Bob has my proxy on this one

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your never-ending ability to dismiss facts you don't like by trashing the motives of those who report them never ceases to amaze me.

Thank you.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Generally credited by whom? Morons? I took the time in my post to point out that the people who set these interests rates gave credit to the Republican congress. Are you suggesting that they really credited the stimulous package but lied. Also, long term interest rates staid high until the Republicans came in.

No, as I noted in my original post, there were two different packages passed -- an economic stimulus bill and a tax increase/deficit recuction bill. The GOP opposed both -- their opposition to the stimulus package wasn't surprising, but the GOP deficit hawks surprised the Clintonistas by ducking the deficit package (I guess under your CAFTA standard, they proved that they didn't care about deficits). It passed by one vote in the House.

The markets responded (the "fucking bond traders") to the deficit reduction efforts -- that's what they cared about. 30 year interest rates declined over a point from 1992 to 1993 (7.67 to 6.59). http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...a/a/tcm30y.txt

There was a spike in interest rates in 1994, which caused all sorts of problems in the world economy, or was caused by world problems -- I forget which (ah, the halcyon days of the bankruptcy of Long Term Capital, Orange County, Mexico). But they declined steadily from 1994 forward.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by nononono
Hey, don't take away from my nice burn of Hank.

I say this, of course, innocently.

1 post hoc
2 you are Notme.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
No, as I noted in my original post, there were two different packages passed -- an economic stimulus bill and a tax increase/deficit recuction bill. The GOP opposed both -- their opposition to the stimulus package wasn't surprising, but the GOP deficit hawks surprised the Clintonistas by ducking the deficit package (I guess under your CAFTA standard, they proved that they didn't care about deficits). It passed by one vote in the House.

The markets responded (the "fucking bond traders") to the deficit reduction efforts -- that's what they cared about. 30 year interest rates declined over a point from 1992 to 1993 (7.67 to 6.59). http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...a/a/tcm30y.txt

I will get to the prior post tomorrow but the decline in long term interest trates from 1992-1993 occurred under Bush I and the recovery. Clinton entered office in 1993 and inherited Bush's 1993 budget. The economic growth's increases in revenue led to the long term bond decline.

Originally posted by Not Bob There was a spike in interest rates in 1994, which caused all sorts of problems in the world economy, or was caused by world problems -- I forget which (ah, the halcyon days of the bankruptcy of Long Term Capital, Orange County, Mexico). But they declined steadily from 1994 forward.

The long term interest rates spiked in 1994 because that was when it was clear Clinton and the Democratic Congress were not going to be able to tame the deficit. It was in 1994 when the markets realized the full impact of Clinton's budget that was passed in 1993. Clinton and the Dem congressmen had only two years together and that was when the long term interest rates climbed. Long Term Bond rates are affected by long term US budget prospects. Not this other B.S. you mention.

The Republicans were elected in 1994, and when Congress showed its discipline during the first hundred days of 1995 that is when the bond market started to believe that this Congress might have the discipline to reduce the deficit.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Most Republicans have managed to forget this, but during the Clinton years the federal government actually ran budget surpluses, relieving the government of the need to pretend the deficit wasn't so big. So, no.

You proved my point.

There was never a surplus. That was this projection based on unsustainable revenues that went down the toilet.

But hey, as the Boards will attest, I loved the "feel good" period of '98 to '00 more than most, so why not fudge the books.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Black is white. Night is day. 1992-94 never happened.

eta: stp, and Not Bob has my proxy on this one

1992-1994 was one of the worst employment periods possible.
Not a soul could get a job out of College, and thus everyone went to grad school. And thus creating the bulk of the senior attorneys/MBAs that got laid off between 2001-2003.

Thanks Bill.

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske
To invoke the words of Slave responding to Ty...

Tyrone Slothrop
Anyone Penske or Hank cites is a yutz. ...

Hey Now!!!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You proved my point.

There was never a surplus.

Please refer to the CBO's data re 1999-2001.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually what I'm saying has nothing to do with what Gatti was saying about treatment of the war expenses. Since we're doing the condescending thing today, you might stop for a second and consider the fact that he and I are different people, or at least different socks.

I am sorry that I assumed that you thought Bush was being duplicitous when he did not ad the Iraq war estimates to his budget. It is good to know that you think his handling of the Bush War expenditures was above board even though you think the total budget estimates were duplicitous.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And I think I've been pretty clear that people should not of Bush as stupid.

People on this board make such references all the time. But I am glad you agree that Bush is a very savy person.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Other than being completely non-responsive and pedantic, that was an excellent post.

Actually you have that backwards. I explained in my post why it is absurd to think that Bush intentionally underestimated the deficit - it has happened quite consistently etc. Instead of addressing my points you made irrelevent points and personal attacks.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Please refer to the CBO's data re 1999-2001.

Is that the same CBO whose recent projections are being mocked on these pages?

I thought so.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
No, as I noted in my original post, there were two different packages passed -- an economic stimulus bill and a tax increase/deficit recuction bill. The GOP opposed both -- their opposition to the stimulus package wasn't surprising, but the GOP deficit hawks surprised the Clintonistas by ducking the deficit package (I guess under your CAFTA standard, they proved that they didn't care about deficits). It passed by one vote in the House.

The did not vote for the bill because like many Republicans they thought it was irresponsible fiscally. Kerry was going to vote against it because he thought it was an awful bill laden with pork but he changed his mind at the last minute when he realized his vote was needed to make it a tie so Gore could break the tie. All Republicans voted against it and a signficant number of Democrats. It is my memory that the structural deficit did not decrease, but may have once the Tax increases were back credited. I will check that out tomorrow. However, with economic growth you get deficit reduction automatically with increased tax revenues but even in such an environment they needed to increase taxes because of their increased spending. The markets did not consider this fiscal discipline.