National Deficit

[Lefty]

The libs' on this board, who have expressed concern for my grandkids so many times and who are always concerned about the deficit have let me down. It was on the news the other day, that due to more taxes coming in than expected, the national deficit will be cut in half by Sept.
Guess those tax cuts work, eh boys? I know you libs' just miossed this or surely you would have posted it.

[fergie]

Not meaning any ffense Lefty, but do you REALLY believe that? I don't.

Fergie

[The Judge]

P.A posted 7/16/07 under #21 " "Democracts: Clueless.
For another look at money the U. S owes check out WWW.Federalbudget.com.

[Lefty]

Well boys, it's happened before. TAx cuts stimulatethe economy, more money comes into the coffers, deficit comes down. Just because YOU don't blve it, doesn't make it less of a fact.

[OTM Al]

Economic definition time.

National Debt: (Stock variable) Total amount owed by the government at a point in time.

National Deficit: (Flow variable) Difference between government's income and expenditure over a period of time (usually measured in years or quarters). When negative, this amount is a deficit, when positive, a surplus.

If we sum across all years' deficits or surpluses, we will get (essentially) the debt. Therefore, a reduction in the deficit by half, while not a bad thing, still is an increase in the debt level.

Its ok though, Ross Perot always got these two confused too.

[Tom]

If Bush ( or nay prez) were serious about reducing the deficit/debt, he would just veto every bill with a single dollar of pork in it and then go public and tell everyone why it was vetoe, who put the pork in it, how much, and let the scoundrals explain to the public why the post office is shut down ( no budget passed because Senators Dewy, Screum, and Howe wnated to build a private airport for Enron in thier district. Take that out and re-submit the bill and I will be happy to sign it.)

Problem with Washington is nobody has any balls.

[Lefty]

How about a law that says a bill only addresses one thing at a time and you cannot put extraneous stuff in it? Since the Pres can't get a line item vetro, this should happen.
But the debt being cut in half by sept is good news; believe it or not.

[DanG]

How about a law that says a bill only addresses one thing at a time and you cannot put extraneous stuff in it? Since the Pres can't get a line item vetro, this should happen.
But the debt being cut in half by sept is good news; believe it or not.
With all due respect Lefty, your confusing ‘deficit and actual debt.

As Al explained,

“Deficit” is annual additions to national debt. The national debt is not going up as fast as it had been, but it's certainly not going down. (Don’t get me wrong; that's better, but the debt is still headed the wrong direction).

BTW: I agree 1,000% with you on making each motion / bill an individual item requiring a vote. This is how Kyle and the boys railroaded the internet gambling nonsense through by attaching it to the Port security act. :mad:

[delayjf]

How about a law that says a bill only addresses one thing at a time and you cannot put extraneous stuff in it?

Murtha would have a shit fit over that. How's a guy supposed to get elected if he can't bring home the bacon?

[DanG]

Murtha would have a shit fit over that. How's a guy supposed to get elected if he can't bring home the bacon?
Don’t forget the king Delay…

Robert C. Byrd :eek:

[Secretariat]

How about a law that says a bill only addresses one thing at a time and you cannot put extraneous stuff in it? Since the Pres can't get a line item vetro, this should happen.
But the debt being cut in half by sept is good news; believe it or not.

I'm all in favor of a balanced budget amendment. Many states have to deal with one. THe fed govt should as well.

btw.. Lefty, this is the WH projection on the deficit, and all supplemental spending has not yet been accounted for. If in fact Iraq war spending is cut then the deficit will most likely go down.

vtw.. have you looked at the "trade" deficit lately. At record highs.

[Lefty]

No, i'm not confusing anything. OTM jumped in with an explanation that wasn't necessary. The National deficit will go dn 50% by sept.
The National debt as al, so unnecessarily explained is an accumulation of all the yrly national deficits since we've been having them. Grownups on the board know what the hell i'm talking about.
You guys just can't take good news.

[OTM Al]

Well, its nice you do know the difference, but what you wrote did not indicate that. And in fact your biggest flip of the two terms came after I posted the definitions. This isn't flaming someone for misspelling a word. You blew a major concept here. And unfortunately too many grownups in this country have pathetic grasps of how the economy works and what these basic terms mean.

[Lefty]

right, otm, my inadvertent flip came after your uneccessary explanation.In my FIRST post, I said national defiicit, not national debt then you had to go and be redundant. But anyone who knows anything knows the diff, so I misstyped a leetle. Shoot me, i made a slight misstatement.

[delayjf]

Don’t forget the king Delay…Robert C. Byrd

I'm sure his dog Billie will howl as well. :lol:

[OTM Al]

Yes, but in your first post you also implied that cutting the deficit in half was having a major impact on your grandkids. In fact, it still leaves them with an even bigger bill than before.

Also, your logic about taxes is not correct, but I've tried to explain that to you before and you have no desire to listen. In a nutshell though, if you think tax cuts will always raise tax revenue, then logically cutting taxes to 0 would raise the largest possible revenue. In fact maybe if we gave people money instead of taxing them we would get even a greater tax revenue. That makes sense......

If you want to make a good argument, then use the right language and terminology and I'll listen to you. If you can't do those things, then your arguments are worthless.

[The Judge]

"Clinton Budget Surplus" claims that the "National Debt" would be gone by the year 2015 after hugh surpluses year after year and largest tax cuts in 25 years.

Makes cutting the deficit by 1/2 seem a little small. What happened to the money that was left by the liberal democratcs? The democrats that had the nerve to say the budget debt could be paid off if the economic policies in place were kept. They seemed to be heading in the right direction until the election rolls were purged of citizens that had a perfect right to vote.

Imagine debt free and no war and the stock market headed for the moon, but noooo!!!!

[OTM Al]

Another misconception here I'm afraid. Debt free is also not necessarily a good thing either. It may in fact be optimal for the government to hold debt. Remember, each dollar used to retire debt instruments is a dollar that is not invested in things like education and infrastructure. Balanced budget measures are also mistaken. By deficit spending in times of recession and raising taxes or running surpluses in times of prosperity, the government can help even out business cycles, which is a good thing, because then investors have a much clearer picture of what the future should bring.

[The Judge]

I'm just repeating what the democratcs said and it sounds pretty good to me "no national debt". I checked China's national debt, it was 370 Billion U.S dollars ,that they want to radiply pay off. The U.S is 8.8 Trillion dollars and growing ,seems strange how two countries could have such a wide difference of whats best for its citizens.

But what do I know, I'm trying to get into the black with vCASH!!!

[chickenhead]

By deficit spending in times of recession and raising taxes or running surpluses in times of prosperity, the government can help even out business cycles, which is a good thing, because then investors have a much clearer picture of what the future should bring.

I know that is the theory...I was wondering are there any actual examples of a democratic government ever doing this? They have the deficit part down pat, the surplus not so much. Which is what I believe leads people to say the hell with it, try to keep it balanced every year.

Isn't there in any case some disagreement over just how much impact tax policy has for smoothing out those bumps anyway ...i.e. interest rates or money supply being a many times more important factor?

[OTM Al]

You are correct CH. The Fed can act much quicker and gain the same results. However, the point here is that deficit spending isn't a bad thing in times of recession, so forcing a balanced budget law isn't as good a thing as it sounds. Think about also what you must do in times of surplus (if such a thing does occur....). To balance the budget, you got to spend it all. Ever seen what happens in a government office when they discover they are coming in under budget? Start buying crap right and left that they don't need.

[Tom]

The missing link here is that the congress is supposed to be comprised of people who not only represent thier constituents, but the nation as awhole and have a sense of responsibility and do not throw money around on frivolous crap - they have a fiscal integrity that makes them look our for......




........Oh crap.....I can't type I'm laughing so hard! :lol::lol::lol:

[OTM Al]

Tom. Cutting to the heart of the matter as always. Extra bananas for you

[ddog]

It's funny/sad to read most of these posts.

It's not Congress it's us.
What is the turnover rate via election for members?
They have to DIE to lose and even that won't get them out sometimes.

Most seem to be all for the person across the street to have their perk/benefit cut.

What would YOU be willing to sacrifice financially to retire the deficit now?
If more taxes coming in is a good thing are you now as your patriotic duty sending more of your money to them on a voluntary basis?

I get the idea that's not going to happen, maybe i am wrong?

Since Congress has demonstrated they cave to anyone or anything, which of your members should be replaced at the possible loss of the bag money they sneak back to your area?

Procedural changes won't get you anywhere on this front.
It takes a people that wants the change they talk about badly enough to demand action or make the changes to force them.

Dream on.

[Tom]

ddog...here is the probllem.
We have the right ot vote and no one to vote for.

The last election, the choice was corrupt republicans or worthless democrats. Big choice.

Look at the last two presidential elections.

Can anyone tell me with a straight face these were the best three leaders to choose from? :lol::(

The vote has become more of a bone they throw us to make us think we have a choice. We do not. ANYONE able to get on a ticket is already bought and paid for.

Dems or repubs....cancer or aids.....hanging or firing squad.......

[chickenhead]

Think about also what you must do in times of surplus (if such a thing does occur....). To balance the budget, you got to spend it all.

They can rebate it back to us. I don't think they'd come in under budget per se, it's more likely they'd just get more revenue than expected.

I agree with ddog, some of it has to do with gerrymandering, the rest with laziness. Whatever the cause, incumbents are much too cozy in their positions to have to worry about actually representing us.

[Lefty]

The reason, and i'm sure you'll agree OTM, that they spend money right and left is because of baseline budgeting. If they don't spend money right and left they don't get their projected baseline increases.
So, need tio get rid of baseline spending and need to get rid of putting extraneous things in a bill. That gets rid of the pork.
ddog, more money coming cause in of the increased financial activity due to tax cuts. We don't need to send anything extra, that's the opposite view of capitalism. We don't want to give them more money to waste, Just keep the taxes low and get rid of the things i mentioned. The private sector, i.e. the marketplace, will do the rest.