Supply Siders Are Right

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

NoEd wrote:

>

I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
budget." That is nonsense. Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget. The Federal budget
was balanced as much due to military cutbacks as to tax increases.

The war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, has resulted in a sharp
increase in Pentagon spending (hundreds of billions of additional
dollars). If Clinton had to do that starting from his first year in
office, he could never have balanced the Federal budget.

We can debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq or any other part of the war
on terrorism. But one thing that is not open to debate is that the
Federal budget cannot, and probably SHOULD NOT, be balanced in the
middle of fighting a major war.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

The Dems are desperate. They are the anti______ (fill in the blank) party.


"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:eb0nf.1886$
> NoEd wrote:
>
>>
>
> I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
> frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
> budget." That is nonsense. Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
> back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget. The Federal budget was
> balanced as much due to military cutbacks as to tax increases.
>
> The war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, has resulted in a sharp
> increase in Pentagon spending (hundreds of billions of additional
> dollars). If Clinton had to do that starting from his first year in
> office, he could never have balanced the Federal budget.
>
> We can debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq or any other part of the war
> on terrorism. But one thing that is not open to debate is that the Federal
> budget cannot, and probably SHOULD NOT, be balanced in the middle of
> fighting a major war.
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email:
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

"Steven L." <> wrote

> I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
> frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
> budget." That is nonsense. Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
> back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget. The Federal budget was
> balanced as much due to military cutbacks as to tax increases.

I thought it was balanced because of Clinton's off budget spending.
Clinton took office in 1993, the national debt was $4,411,488,883,139.38
(9/30/93)
He left office in 2001, the national debt was $5,807,463,412,200.06
(9/30/2001)
You would think that a budget surplus (as they claim) would have reduced the
national debt.

> The war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, has resulted in a sharp
> increase in Pentagon spending (hundreds of billions of additional
> dollars). If Clinton had to do that starting from his first year in
> office, he could never have balanced the Federal budget.

He didn't.

> We can debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq or any other part of the war
> on terrorism. But one thing that is not open to debate is that the Federal
> budget cannot, and probably SHOULD NOT, be balanced in the middle of
> fighting a major war.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

"NoEd" <> wrote

> The Dems are desperate. They are the anti__NoEd____ party.

Howard Dean is a lunatic, you remind me a little of him. Are you short and
out of your mind?

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:eb0nf.1886$
> NoEd wrote:
>
> >

>
> I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
> frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
> budget." That is nonsense. Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
> back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget. The Federal budget
> was balanced as much due to military cutbacks as to tax increases.

Yes. It took a whole range of measures including increasing taxes on those
who could best afford it, cutting the military budget to reflect the end of
the Cold War and stimulating final demand by cutting taxes (actually
increasing the earned inome tax credit) on those least able to pay. The one
aspect you left out and probably the main factor in balancing the budget was
the incredible growth in incomes that resulted from Democratic policy.

If it weren't for the 90's, we'd still be talking about how incredible
growth was in the 80's.


>
> The war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, has resulted in a sharp
> increase in Pentagon spending (hundreds of billions of additional
> dollars). If Clinton had to do that starting from his first year in
> office, he could never have balanced the Federal budget.

But I doubt he would have tried by cutting trillions of dollars in taxes on
upper income people at a time when investment capital was already too
plentiful.

>
> We can debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq or any other part of the war
> on terrorism. But one thing that is not open to debate is that the
> Federal budget cannot, and probably SHOULD NOT, be balanced in the
> middle of fighting a major war.

Yes we can debate these things but you seem to be in denial about the
trillions of dollars in tax cuts and the increase in discretionary spending
that Democrats wouldn't have dared pass.

We cannot debate where the buck stops.

>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email:
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

On 2005-12-11, Steven L. <> wrote:
> I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
> frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
> budget." That is nonsense.

Fact's are nonsense. You can not like the politics of Clinton all you
want, but it doesn't change facts.

> Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
> back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget.

Clinton's first budget had military spending at 290 billion. His last
was at 305 billion. As a comparison, Bush Senior's first military
budget was 358 billion, his last 312 billion.

> But one thing that is not open to debate is that the
> Federal budget cannot, and probably SHOULD NOT, be balanced in the
> middle of fighting a major war.

Combat operations in Iraq are over. The misnamed "war on terror" is
expensive, but to say something isn't open to debate in a democracy is
not reasonable. *EVERYTHING* is open to debate.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

Ed <> wrote:
> I thought it was balanced because of Clinton's off budget spending.
> Clinton took office in 1993, the national debt was $4,411,488,883,139.38
> (9/30/93)
> He left office in 2001, the national debt was $5,807,463,412,200.06
> (9/30/2001)
> You would think that a budget surplus (as they claim) would have reduced the
> national debt.

The debt balloned to about 7-8 trillion and then when balanced budgets and
surpluses brought it down to 5 trillion.

With Clinton/Gingrich we managed to finally start reducing the deficit. It was
real progress that we were making back then.

Frankly, I don't think the deficit is as big as a problem to our economy as
the trade deficit is.

Lots of countries have massive debts. Japan is at 2x GDP.

But I'd still rather have zero debt and balanced budgets. 19% of taxes go to
paying the interest.

-Mike

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:Jb2nf.145628$
>
> "Steven L." <> wrote in message
> news:eb0nf.1886$
>> NoEd wrote:
>>
>> >
>
>>
>> I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
>> frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
>> budget." That is nonsense. Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
>> back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget. The Federal budget
>> was balanced as much due to military cutbacks as to tax increases.
>
> Yes. It took a whole range of measures including increasing taxes on
> those
> who could best afford it, cutting the military budget to reflect the end
> of
> the Cold War and stimulating final demand by cutting taxes (actually
> increasing the earned inome tax credit) on those least able to pay.

LOL! I think you know how the tax burden is distributed.


The one
> aspect you left out and probably the main factor in balancing the budget
> was
> the incredible growth in incomes that resulted from Democratic policy.

LOL! Except for the AMT, don't they believe taxes are too low, i.e.
elimination of the dividend tax cut?


>
> If it weren't for the 90's, we'd still be talking about how incredible
> growth was in the 80's.
>
>
>>
>> The war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, has resulted in a sharp
>> increase in Pentagon spending (hundreds of billions of additional
>> dollars). If Clinton had to do that starting from his first year in
>> office, he could never have balanced the Federal budget.
>
> But I doubt he would have tried by cutting trillions of dollars in taxes
> on
> upper income people at a time when investment capital was already too
> plentiful.

Do you really think the quantity of investment capital can be micro managed?
Shouldn't the market for capital determine how this cup of investment
capital be used?


>
>>
>> We can debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq or any other part of the war
>> on terrorism. But one thing that is not open to debate is that the
>> Federal budget cannot, and probably SHOULD NOT, be balanced in the
>> middle of fighting a major war.
>
> Yes we can debate these things but you seem to be in denial about the
> trillions of dollars in tax cuts and the increase in discretionary
> spending
> that Democrats wouldn't have dared pass.

We will see.


>
> We cannot debate where the buck stops.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven D. Litvintchouk
>> Email:
>>
>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
>

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

Ed wrote:

>I thought it was balanced because of Clinton's off budget spending.

It was actually balanced. Maybe for financial reasons trust fund
surpluses shouldn't be counted, but for economic reasons they should be
because they affect the economy the same way the rest of the budget
does.

>Clinton took office in 1993, the national debt was $4,411,488,883,139.38
>(9/30/93)
>He left office in 2001, the national debt was $5,807,463,412,200.06
> (9/30/2001)
> You would think that a budget surplus (as they claim) would have reduced the
> national debt.

Debt/GDP matters more, and it did drop under Clinton, after rising
since about 1980. And your numbers suggest the dollar figure rose less
than the nominal GDP, meaning progress was made on paring down the debt.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

Steven L. wrote:

>I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
>frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
>budget." That is nonsense. Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
>back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget.

Every President since Truman or Eisenhower who's cut debt/GDP has done
it by cutting defense. Clinton was no exception.

If George W. had been President from 1993-2001, I doubt he would have
done better, judging by his nature (he never had to be financially
responsible for anything) and actions (Medicare drug benefit plan with
no cost controls, tax cuts for the rich no matter what).

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

R. Anton Rave <> wrote:
> Every President since Truman or Eisenhower who's cut debt/GDP has done
> it by cutting defense. Clinton was no exception.
> If George W. had been President from 1993-2001, I doubt he would have
> done better, judging by his nature (he never had to be financially
> responsible for anything) and actions (Medicare drug benefit plan with
> no cost controls, tax cuts for the rich no matter what).

So what if you increase defense spending or decrease it? What maters is how
well it's spent.

Even Republicans like John McCain & Lindsay Graham concede that a lot of
spending is useless pork that no one has any need for.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

Mike S wrote:
> R. Anton Rave <> wrote:

>>Every President since Truman or Eisenhower who's cut debt/GDP has done
>>it by cutting defense. Clinton was no exception.

>So what if you increase defense spending or decrease it?

If you increase spending you have to pay for it, period. In 1968
Robert Kennedy was asked who would pay for for his proposed universal
health care plan, and he immediately answered, "You will." George W.
Bush has never given such an honest answer and never will because
honesty just isn't in his character.

>What matters is how well it's spent.
>
>Even Republicans like John McCain & Lindsay Graham concede that a lot of
>spending is useless pork that no one has any need for.

How much we spend also matters because we have to pay for it (deficits
aren't free, contrary to what radical supply siders claim), but it's
obvious the pork isn't helping us, and for the amount of money
Halliburton has received we could be paying millions of Iraqis for
reconstruction work. Not only would that would do much more to help
Iraq better but it would also help us because idle hands are the
devil's workshop for improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers.
Anyone who's done postwar peacekeeping can tell you that paying locals
to work is one of the most effective ways to secure an area, but Bush
doesn't have any experience with war and won't listen to anybody who's
been in a war because he's jealous of actual tough guys, including his
father.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:eb0nf.1886$
>
> The war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, has resulted in a sharp
> increase in Pentagon spending
>
This just in. The pentagon is asking another $100b for The Moron's crusade
to spread his almighty's gift to Arabs. It is now reaching for $500b total.
Meanwhile, dikes are crumbling at home and The Moron's getting F on the War
On Terror.

Re: Supply Siders Are Right

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:eb0nf.1886$
> NoEd wrote:
>
>>
>
> I'll make one more point that this article didn't mention: The Dems are
> frequently proud of citing Clinton's tax program as having "balanced the
> budget." That is nonsense. Clinton balanced the Federal budget on the
> back of deep cuts in the Pentagon military budget. The Federal budget was
> balanced as much due to military cutbacks as to tax increases.

This is a fallacy...actually, George W. Bush cut defense spending in real
terms 2 of his 4 budgets; I can't recall how many times Clinton did, but it
was no more than 5 of 8, and none were by more than 2% in real
terms...hardly "deep."

> The war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, has resulted in a sharp
> increase in Pentagon spending (hundreds of billions of additional
> dollars). If Clinton had to do that starting from his first year in
> office, he could never have balanced the Federal budget.

He also wouldn't have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in a useless
war in Iraq...he may have put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan to
find the real terrorist threat to the U.S., Osama bin Laden.

> We can debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq or any other part of the war
> on terrorism. But one thing that is not open to debate is that the Federal
> budget cannot, and probably SHOULD NOT, be balanced in the middle of
> fighting a major war.
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk

With this I agree, but neither should the 2nd round of tax cuts have taken
place during a time of massive government spending. We've returned to the
cycle of not only borrowing to pay off previous loans, but to see the
interest compound upon itself...all right before tens of millions of Baby
Boomers retire and stop paying income taxes, stop contributing to Social
Security (and start withdrawing from it) and stop paying Medicare payroll
taxes (and start withdrawing from it)...while the world's 2 largest markets
are moving towards capitalism and free enterprise.

Bush's supply side philosophy has diminishing returns...only job losses have
been averted, not new jobs created...millionaires are not spending their tax
savings, they are merely investing them to drive down interest rates...real
demand is lackluster and not going anywhere anytime soon--just ask GM and
Ford how many more new cars they've sold this year without discounts.

D