Discussion:
Thank You, President Bush, For the Huge Deficit
(too old to reply)
BrianEWilliams
2003-08-27 20:08:25 UTC
Permalink
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.

The main problem is that most posters on this group, most of the
press, and most people in the country couldn't tell a Keynesian
counter-cyclical fiscal policy from a hole in the ground.

I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
Bush's is a lot better than it seems, and this is why:

News flash to liberals, the economy was going into the toilet while
Clinton was still president. What do you expect after the biggest
investment bubble EVER? Do you think we could just wake up from that
party with no hangover? Considering the unemployment rate seems to
have peaked at 6.4%, even with the attacks from September 11 which
were a wild card no one could have expected, that is pretty amazing.

Sure it was better economically under Clinton, but please tell me
which of his fantastic economic policies gave us that prosperity? The
reason you are gasping for straws now is that is wasn't Clinton, it
was Internet fever that drove the country. Don't even try to say that
the high taxes Clinton put in place gave us the prosperity because I
will bust a gut laughing over your economic ignorance. Remember
prosperity gives us surpluses, not the other way around.

Let's not even get into all the corporate wrongdoing that took place
under Clinton, something I would argue was partly his fault for
setting such a bad moral example (it wasn't just lying about sex, it
was lying to protect one's powerful position).

The Bush-haters love to use the deficit to attack Bush. But what
would they suggest? Should we raise taxes and cut spending just as
the economy is recovering? That would be pretty fucking brilliant.
Let's just raise taxes on the "rich" then. They don't deserve the
money they earn anyway, right?

Unfortunately, the "rich" generally aren't lazy sycophants doing
nothing (that would be the "poor"), but they are productive members of
society that actually do useful things with their after-tax earnings.
Taxing them more discourages investment and even more productive
behavior, and it is no free lunch.

Look forward to the brilliant liberal responses to this post. I am
sure you are going to have some well-reasoned arguments.
Stanley F. Nelson
2003-08-27 20:36:04 UTC
Permalink
There is a currency printing plant in Fort Worth, Texas, where I lived for a
long time and still live nearby. The printing presses there are being run
full speed all the time to keep up with the deteriorating value of our
dollar. Federal budget deficits do have meaning -- they mean our money is
worth less and less. George Bush is not a patriotic American. He is a
spoiled rich kid being used by people who would wreck our country to their
own benefit.

Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
steve
2003-08-28 02:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanley F. Nelson
There is a currency printing plant in Fort Worth, Texas, where I lived for a
long time and still live nearby. The printing presses there are being run
full speed all the time to keep up with the deteriorating value of our
dollar. Federal budget deficits do have meaning -- they mean our money is
worth less and less. George Bush is not a patriotic American. He is a
spoiled rich kid being used by people who would wreck our country to their
own benefit.
Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
Agreed.

The answer is to restore democracy to America.....and give the power
back to the poeple and take it away from the corproates and their
sponsored, bought-and-paid-for, politicians: G W Bush, for exmaple.

www.fairvote.org/pr/index.html
Cisco Kid
2003-08-27 23:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
The main problem is that most posters on this group, most of the
press, and most people in the country couldn't tell a Keynesian
counter-cyclical fiscal policy from a hole in the ground.
I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
And what is your definition of a "top" business school? Mr. Bush
supposedly has an MBA from Harvard yet he managed to run two private
companies into the ground and is on track to do the same to the entire
country.

Any guesses why Havard hasn't been overly anxious to have Bush
represent the school in any fashion? Even Gore got to speak at
Harvard's commencement (Gore was an honors graduate).

True, borrowing money does leverage one's ability to conduct business
but only up to a point. After that break even point is passed, debt
becomes a fixed burden.

The cost of our debt today represents nearly 30% of our fiscal
expenditures. All I can do is smile when I look at my stack of EE
bonds earning a tax free fixed rate of 6% (assuming I can still afford
to send my kids to college).

As for my qualifications? I have BBA and MBA degrees.

Bush's economic policies and foreign policies suck.
JAC
2003-09-01 13:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cisco Kid
And what is your definition of a "top" business school? Mr. Bush
supposedly has an MBA from Harvard yet he managed to run two private
companies into the ground and is on track to do the same to the entire
country.
Do you even come close to understanding the statistics of business
failures in this country. It is enormous. Two failures by a lifelong
business main is hardly anything to sweat over.
Post by Cisco Kid
Any guesses why Havard hasn't been overly anxious to have Bush
represent the school in any fashion? Even Gore got to speak at
Harvard's commencement (Gore was an honors graduate).
Um, maybe because most ivy league schools are liberal?
Post by Cisco Kid
True, borrowing money does leverage one's ability to conduct business
but only up to a point. After that break even point is passed, debt
becomes a fixed burden.
A "fixed burden." What kind of nonsense is that. Can you so me one
economy textbook, or economist that recognizes that term?
Post by Cisco Kid
The cost of our debt today represents nearly 30% of our fiscal
expenditures.
And do you understand where that interest is going? Over 60% of it
goes to US INVESTORS. The government is paying that interest right
back to its citizens in the form of interest. That interest is then
used in our economy.
Post by Cisco Kid
All I can do is smile when I look at my stack of EE
bonds earning a tax free fixed rate of 6% (assuming I can still afford
to send my kids to college).
As for my qualifications? I have BBA and MBA degrees.
Bush's economic policies and foreign policies suck.
Spoken eloquently for such a "scholar."

Randy Cox
2003-08-28 01:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrianEWilliams
I am not being sarcastic here. This large deficit is EXACTLY what our
weak economy needs. It is a large part of what kept the recession
short, and it is helping us get back on track.
Wrong! In a slugglish economy due to bad tax and investment write off
policy, a deficit might help if there was encouragment for investment to
produce more things demanded by the market in more efficient
ways........BUT...currently that is not the problem. Existing capital
investment in factory capacity is at less than 35%. You will ignore this
fact as do all the other Neo-Cons quoting Keynes. Conservatives don't quote
Keynes! They should be quoting Ludwig Von Mises. We have unused capital.
Why would a producer invest in new equipment while 65% of his current
equipment is setting idle? Keynes graphs and charts could never understand
three lathes but only one machinest with a job. Would be STUPID to give
that machine shop owner a tax break expecting him to invest in another
lathe. He wouldn't hire more help either.....labor is always available in
recessions.
Post by BrianEWilliams
The main problem is that most posters on this group, most of the
press, and most people in the country couldn't tell a Keynesian
counter-cyclical fiscal policy from a hole in the ground.
I hated Keynes theories, so even if I did understand them, I wouldn't brag
about it. I understand generational cycles of first generation capitalist
investing wisely along Darwin survivial lines while their grandchildren with
inherited wealth tend to chase the higher returns from riskier
investments.....TULIPS!!!!! TULIPS=Internet bubble!

I had many courses in economics including one on Ludwig Von Mises and other
Austrian School economists. Having studied Adam Smith, John Kenneth
Galbrith, Ravi Batra, Marx and Ingles and others, John Maynard Keynes was
the biggest "Liberal" snake oil salesmen of the bunch.
Post by BrianEWilliams
I would ask all responders to this post to list their qualifications
to analyze economic policy. I have four college level econ classes,
an MBA in finance from a top business school, and I traded
fixed-income derivatives for 5 years on Wall Street. Not trying to
brag, but I made a living on correctly analyzing economic policy, and
Did you trade your own account at a profit...or did you churn others? If
you traded your own money and made enough to live on, I'd be impressed. If
you sold snake oil by talking Keynesian crap over the phone, you would be no
different than other broker types and CEO's who "churn" corporate holdings
and generate large gains to themselves by hyping stock values and grabbing
the quick dollar at the expense of the long term vision. If you hadn't
noticed America has a problem with that right now. If you are one of those
types....you are nothing buy a greedy acquistor with bad economic policy and
a knack for absorbing investment money for your own pocket.
Post by BrianEWilliams
News flash to liberals, the economy was going into the toilet while
Clinton was still president. What do you expect after the biggest
investment bubble EVER? Do you think we could just wake up from that
party with no hangover? Considering the unemployment rate seems to
have peaked at 6.4%, even with the attacks from September 11 which
were a wild card no one could have expected, that is pretty amazing.
Wasn't just internet bubble! It was a TULIP CYCLE. Each time one of these
cycles happen the details are different because laws are passed to avoid
them in the future. This time, the accountants sold out their high
professional standards and the investors didn't care to stop them as long as
the "Tulips" could be bought and sold at a profit. Bush and family is head
over heals involved in this kind of corporate puffery. Clinton
wasn't....but all his buddies and supporters were...so he was equally
involved in the generational cycle.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Sure it was better economically under Clinton, but please tell me
which of his fantastic economic policies gave us that prosperity? The
reason you are gasping for straws now is that is wasn't Clinton, it
was Internet fever that drove the country. Don't even try to say that
the high taxes Clinton put in place gave us the prosperity because I
will bust a gut laughing over your economic ignorance. Remember
prosperity gives us surpluses, not the other way around.
He did not start out with surpluses or prosperity. He did invest in country
infrastructure...new highways and bridges all over America. These are paid
for from funds derived from gasoline taxes that Bush I had borrowed to
offset his own deficit figures. He did not repair the roads...but he did
accrue interest in the accounts for which the road taxes were paid into.
Clinton also was labor friendly giving a little more in the pockets of the
bluecollar than the republicans before him. Wasn't enough...but it did spur
spending. Also, there was the Military downsizing. Started under Bush I,
continued under Clinton, reversed under the war mongering Bush II. Clinton
also shut down the government in a showdown with republican congress.....but
when the sensible budget was finally passed real conservative republicans
and moderate democrats worked to defeat the old "Liberal.....Keynes quoting
democrats." Now here you go, quoting Keynes.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Let's not even get into all the corporate wrongdoing that took place
under Clinton, something I would argue was partly his fault for
setting such a bad moral example (it wasn't just lying about sex, it
was lying to protect one's powerful position).
You are no longer arguing seriously! This wrongdoing did happen under
Clinton, but it had nothing to do with Monica! Both parties have been
involved in this crap for many years. It started long before Clinton. It
was so pervasive that it would have been impossible for any candidate to
collect enough support without being financed by these same dollars. If
you sold derivitives...you were part of the problem...not part of the
solution.
Post by BrianEWilliams
The Bush-haters love to use the deficit to attack Bush. But what
would they suggest? Should we raise taxes and cut spending just as
the economy is recovering? That would be pretty fucking brilliant.
Let's just raise taxes on the "rich" then. They don't deserve the
money they earn anyway, right?
You have slammed the china to the floor, and now announce that it is too
late to put in a rubber mat. Of course, we can't do that now. The fist tax
cut was unwise! The second tax cut was a disaster! Baby Boomers are about
to retire! We have a huge mess! Bush didn't do it all, but he did steer
the ship of state right off the bumpy road into the mud! We already had a
huge "debt" which we were paying down......very slowly but we were paying it
down...instead of raising it by a trillion dollars. In three years, he has
steered us deep enough into the mud that we will have to start all over
again. We are facing stagflation! A two trillion dollar debt has to be
serviced. You talk about a stimulus to the economy, but what kind of
stimulus is a huge debt load to a generation of young people who will be
burdened by the debt of entitlements designed for a totally different
proportion of young working to old retired. Not much left but
RECAPITULATION.

How much will your portfolio be worth when the money is worthless and the
young chunk the whole system and start over? Did they teach you about
"repatitulation" when you were studying Keynes and calling yourself a
conservative? Do you understand that if one man will not continue to
service a totally impossible debt...then neither will a whole generation.
Bush isn't responsible for the whole debt. He is only responsible for the
policies that reversed the black ink to red. I predict he will double the
existing debt if he gets another four years. It will probably happen anyway
now. Maybe we could have dealt with the old debt, but I suspect the only
way to deal with this doubled debt is to paper it over with easy money!
I've been in inflationary times where contracts were based on todays price
or sometimes 30 day prices only. It is very destablizing to the economy.
Markups go from percentages to keystones and better. Do the math on a
product that goes through 6 to 10 different hands from raw material to
consumer!
Post by BrianEWilliams
Unfortunately, the "rich" generally aren't lazy sycophants doing
nothing (that would be the "poor"), but they are productive members of
society that actually do useful things with their after-tax earnings.
Taxing them more discourages investment and even more productive
behavior, and it is no free lunch.
The lazy poor are not part of an economy. The underpaid laborer is a part
of the economy. If you know half as much as you claim, you'll know the
production numbers per capita worker. American workers are more efficient
now than ever before. If you call the current worker lazy.....you are
disgusting! Efficient workers should bargain hard collectively and/or
independently to get higher wages. They should fight for what they are
worth...starting their own businesses if necessary to get the pay they
deserve. The unefficient middle, upper, and even controlling managment
should be kicked off their high chairs by the efficient and replaced. These
baffoons should be sent to the refuse pile without their golden parachutes.
Let them be paid what they are worth. If their companies lose money....let
them be paid no more than ten percent higher than the highes paid worker in
the outfit.
Post by BrianEWilliams
Look forward to the brilliant liberal responses to this post. I am
sure you are going to have some well-reasoned arguments.
I am not a liberal! I never quote Keynes! I may paraphrase Mises,
Batra.....occasionally even Marx....but never Keynes!

What I would do is work toward stable money supply as soon as possible. As
a moderate, I believe we should keep a slightly progressive tax structure
with no rate being higher than 35% while debt is high, reduced to maybe 20%
or 15% as the laws are simplified. Even the lowest earners should pay a
nominal tax.....that is the price of citizenship....maybe 5%. Bush's (and
Clinton's) removing the lowest earners from the tax roles leaves them
feeling not a part of our country....not a good idea. Let every worker pay
something while he works. A long term plan should be devised to lower the
rates as we simplified the tax laws. Flat tax theory with progressive
element. High income earners....especially investment earners utilize the
existing common infrastructure more than just a laborer. The higher
percentage should not be burdensome...but high enough to service the whole
debt and retire a portion of it!

We need to STOP playing with taxes to guide investments from one part of the
market to the other. That is contrary to market principle and results in
dishonesty and inefficiency. Maybe some tax incentive for pollution
controls, but I favor other means. Tax incentive law breeds quid pro quo
relationships between political parties and their financial supporters. Not
a good thing!

Another policy should be a National Reindustrialization Act. Protective
tariffs are bad economic policy and leads to poor market efficiency....but
national defense would require a nominal production capacity in EVERY single
potential war supply component. So we should maintain a small...tiny
even....industry in every capacity so that in the event that we went to war
with one of our suppliers...such as China...we would have a working industry
from which to model a new capacity in every conceivable good and service.

Last policy would be to build a public transportation grid of trains,
subways, and high occupant buses so that America could ride to and from work
without losing so much of their time in traffic jams. All that traffic time
is unproductive when they sit behind the wheel of an SUV. Let them do that
if they want, but better if there were cheaper forms available to reduce the
pressure on our road systems.

For the part of me that is Liberal.......let there be a bare bones health
care system to operate parallel with the private one. Our current system of
insurance actuarial collective pools based on group cost....plus is a
National Socialist model where the collective is owned by private enterprise
but run by committee! It is failing all over the place! American spends
three times as much on healthcare as Canada....and many many people go
without decent healthcare. It is broken! Don't give me the socialist crap!
We are already socialist! Insurance companies pay the bill....and they are
collective pools of risk distributed from those who contribute to those who
need! What I just wrote is the truth whether anyone wants to admit it or
not.

Current system is an illusion that drops people out of the system that
demonstrate need, but allow those with low risk to stay in the system
believing it will work for them when they do need it. There is also the
aspect of the last months of an old persons life consuming 1/2 to a million
dollars in medical bills keeping them alive longer than they can live with
dignity. Some of these people consume more in medical expense in the last
two months of their lives than they have earned in a lifetime. Meanwhile
young people can not afford the care they really need. Long term and very
costly problems develop that could be solved very inexpensively with regular
medical visits.

Base medical care should be conceived as part of the national defense. We
defend our citizens against foreign human invaders....we should defend them
against microscopic invaders as well as any physical damage to our human
capital investment. We all have a stake in getting broken people back to a
productive state. Wouldn't it be nice to remove the lawyer from
doctor/worker/company relationship. If we shared the cost of a doctor like
we share the cost of an army or policeman.....then our companies would not
have to add the cost of worker's compensation into their cost as they
compete with the other major economic powers (that already have national
health care). This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in world competition.
Notice that we keep losing market share. I'm not kidding about this stuff!
It is real!

Randy R. Cox
JoettaB
2003-08-28 02:32:00 UTC
Permalink