65 responses to ““… because that’s where the money is.””

1. 

   Paul Emery

   22 April 2011

   Todd
   But where were these “types” when Bush refunded the surplus in 2001 rather than pay down the deficit? Back then everyone was demanding to have their money back rather than paying the bills.
   wmartin Well spoken though I disagree about the Iraq war. Ask that question to the families of the dead and wounded in 20 years and see what they have to say and that includes the innocent victims in Iraq.
   George
   Please clarify the 100,000 victims slant. Who, where, when?

   LikeLike

2. 

   Todd Juvinall

   22 April 2011

   Paul, wjy do you never put 9/11 into your Bush bashing? The stock market dived s few trillion didn’t it?

   LikeLike

3. 

   Paul Emery

   22 April 2011

   Todd
   When you get into Bush bashing there is so much material that it’s hard to include everything. Are you willing to engage me in a 9/11 conversation? If so you’d better be prepared.
   As for the purposes of this discussion I’m still interested why the fiscally responsible conservatives of the day were not interested in paying down the debt with the surplus in 2001. It was a stretch for me to use the TP dig but those of you out there know who I am talking about. A simple “yes we should have” would go a long way towards influencing me that we have indeed evolved and recognize the mistakes of the past. The famous Einstein quote rings again,,,
   “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

   LikeLike

4. 

   George Rebane

   22 April 2011

   Paul, oops my mistake. The medical profession annually kills about 195,000+ patients through identified mistakes, accidents, etc. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
   It used to be just a 100K, but it is still absolutely amazing that so few people are aware of that carnage. Talk about adding to the cost of healthcare. I bet Obamacare has a hidden clause in there somewhere that says when Aunt Jane kicks the bucket at the local hospital after her appendectomy, all you get is ‘Tough s%#t’ card from the HHS Dept.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Paul Emery

   22 April 2011

   That’s a rather shocking number George that I don’t dispute. It’s a good thing doctors are required to have malpractice insurance. It sure creates a lot of jobs for lawyers and judicial types. I know you are in favor of tort reform as a way to cut medical expenses. How do you see that fitting into this scenario?

   LikeLike

6. 

   Todd Juvinall

   22 April 2011

   As I remember the batt;es over the so called surplus and the projections of immense wealth for the country I recall this. The Republicans did want to pay down the debt but the democrats wanted more programs which would have eaten up the “surplus”. They filibustered the Senate, remember that Paul? No, I bet you don’t. So, when Bush got elected there was no draw down on any supposed “surplus” until 9/11 happened. I sure hope you aren’t a truther. So, tell us this Paul, how is it the projections for the “surplus” were about 5 trillion buckos and if so, where did it go? You can’t use the wars because they were about one trillion, so where is the rest?

   LikeLike

7. 

   Paul Emery

   22 April 2011

   Todd, George, wmartin
   Before we go any further you should read this by N. Gregory Mankiw published in Fortune March 2000 From 2003 to 2005, Mankiw was the chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors.
   Candidates Need Clues, Not Tax Plans
   By N. Gregory Mankiw
   What a long, strange trip it’s been. Eight years ago the federal government faced tremendous, mounting deficits, and not even candidate Bill Clinton had the temerity to promise that he would balance the budget. Today the budget is in surplus, and a major campaign issue facing George W. Bush, John McCain, and Al Gore is what to do with all that extra cash. Assuming, of course, the surplus actually materializes. Despite all the talk, we may never actually see it.
   To examine the possible scenarios, it’s important to understand how we got to this happy state. Clinton tries to take credit by saying he’s reduced the size of government. There is, surprisingly, some truth to the claim. Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP have fallen from 21.5% in 1993 to 18.7% in 1999, the lowest level since 1974. This fall of 2.8 points of GDP compares with a drop of only 1.0 point during the eight years of the so-called Reagan revolution. Perhaps we’ve learned an important lesson: A Democratic President with a Republican Congress may be more fiscally conservative than the opposite combination.
   Of course, tax revenue is on the other side of the ledger, and the story there is simple: Federal taxes are now at a historic high as a percent of GDP. This is partly because the elder George Bush broke his campaign promise of no new taxes, and partly because Bill Clinton kept his campaign promise of even more new taxes. But some of the revenue increase is due to forces beyond any policymaker’s control. The booming stock market, for instance, has raised revenue from capital gains taxes. The growing gap between rich and poor, while decried by everyone in Washington, D.C., has also added to government coffers by pushing more income into higher tax brackets.
   Because of all these changes, the next President will take office with something his recent predecessors never imagined–more revenue than needed to cover current spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the surplus over the next decade will total about $2 trillion. (An additional $2 billion surplus is accruing in the Social Security system, which is now off budget.) With this projection, presidential candidates can promise tax cuts with a credibility impossible in previous campaigns. Paying off much of the national debt, now $3.6 trillion, is more than an election-year fantasy.
   But the $2 trillion surplus is not exactly money in the bank. Like all budget projections, it is based on a host of murky answers to key questions. Will Congress stick to the spending caps it has imposed on itself? Will the low unemployment, rapid growth, record-breaking expansion, and booming stock market of the past few years prove sustainable? CBO’s $2 trillion projection is based on reasonable guesses by some of the best, and least partisan, minds in Washington. But they are guesses nonetheless.
   Consider how much the budget changes if you alter a few assumptions. According to an optimistic scenario, Congress lives within the spending caps and the economy continues to boom, resulting in a ten-year budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. In a pessimistic scenario, Congress abandons the caps, and the economy reverts to slower growth. In this case, the surplus quickly dissipates and turns into a ten-year budget deficit of $3 trillion. It’s easy to imagine an even more pessimistic scenario in which–believe it or not–the U.S. economy actually experiences a recession once again, together with the usual adverse effects on the budget. (For more on the recession outlook, see Fortune Investor.)
   So should the next President aim to enact a tax cut, and if so, what size? This question will dominate the presidential campaign. But it’s not a very relevant one. More vital than choosing a President with the right tax plan is electing a President with the political courage to change course when events demand it. If we have learned anything from the past decade of fiscal history, it’s that we shouldn’t look too hard into any budget forecaster’s crystal ball.

   N. GREGORY MANKIW is an economics professor at Harvard and the author of Principles of Economics.
   http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_mar00.html

   LikeLike

8. 

   Scott Obermuller

   22 April 2011

   Wow, Paul – they pay lying morons like this to teach economics at Harvard? And I thought Krugman was the head honcho of partisan bull bleep. First of all, Lying Willie did promise a tax cut, but when he got into office, he promptly decided that the debt was just so high, he couldn’t do it. The amount he stated that the debt was, was lower than what he had stated the debt was the summer before when he was running and promised the tax cut. The left wing pundits roundly approved of his lies. The general consensus was that he had engaged in “campaign talk” that was necessary to fool the roobs and he was wise to ditch it and go for the tax hike. The economy was starting it’s dot com boom as he came into office and the capital gains revenues were through the roof. He cut govt spending by a combo of Tea Party-type approved cuts in welfare and a left wing approved gutting of the military. Non military fed employment actually went up, but he constantly bragged about reducing the federal workforce. He had fun with his little war that we had absolutely no business being engaged in and blew off cruise missiles like bottle rockets. Did he replenish the stock or pay for them? No – that was left for the poor sucka that came after. The % of fed outlays compared to GDP only looked so good because of the booming GDP. This had nothing to do with anything Willie did. The last spring and summer of his second term saw a declining stock market and in the fall the unemployment was edging up. If the booming economy was his achievement, why couldn’t he work his magic and turn things around? Because he couldn’t. He made sure there were all kinds of expenses that were dumped into the following year’s budget so he wouldn’t be around when the piper came calling. He moved a lot of the debt into a much heavier bias of short term debt. That kept the debt service cost lower in his term but meant a lot more short term notes coming due when … oh gee, I won’t be here then. Too bad.
   As I have said before Paul, you can maybe balance the yearly budget for a while with tax rate increases, but only by also first slashing the budget down to a level that would see massive bloodshed and rioting in the streets by the left. After that, the loss of money from the private economy would ensure plummeting tax revenues and the need for further tax rate increases and a further declining economy. With the coming explosive costs for the entitlements of SS and Medicare, we would be ruined in short order. As it is, I think we are ruined anyway. Just a bit later perhaps. Everyone have a nice day!

   LikeLike

9. 

   Scott Obermuller

   22 April 2011

   Oh yeah, in case you think I can’t back it up, here’s a little something from that Tea Party publication about the lies Willie told.
   http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/us/clinton-s-economic-plan-campaign-gambling-that-tax-cut-promise-was-not-taken.html
   Paul – you really must run with a better class of yahoos. The ones you quote are making you look bad.

   LikeLike

10. 

    George Rebane

    22 April 2011

    The role of the technology fueled dotcom boom in increasing both GDP and the federal take is always ignored by the left, and Slick Willie is made into a genius instead. In these pages, having pointed this out has drawn a yawn and no-show rebuttal from the left. Scott, maybe your reprise of it within the context of other expenditures and the absence of all predicted revenues will evoke another look.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Paul Emery

    23 April 2011

    “Paul – you really must run with a better class of yahoos. The ones you quote are making you look bad”
    This is really getting exasperating. You don’t even give credence to one of the leading conservative economists of our time.
    N. Gregory Mankiw is a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute and was Chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and you still won’t give him an ear and call him a yahoo. You can’t have better conservative credentials than to run with that crowd. Here’s more from Mankiw. At least take the time to know what you are talking about.
    http://www.aei.org/article/23634
    I must admit I have my bias that Bush Jr was a lousy President and Reagan was greatly overrated but at least I have somewhat of an open mind and I don’t completely shut my mind to new ideas. To look at the path that got us here with an open mind is essential otherwise we are just joining a parade because it makes us feel good. Give me a break.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Paul Emery

    23 April 2011

    One more from Mr Mankiw this was March 28 2011
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/business/27view.html?_r=2

    LikeLike

13. 

    Scott Obermuller

    23 April 2011

    Sorry Paul, you are just too hung on partisan politics. The fact that he was an advisor to Bush doesn’t make him a conservative. I am giving him an ear. He is not a conservative. Add 2 dollars to a gallon of gas? Just tax everyone and we’ll be happy? Yes, he does advocate cutting some, but over all he is a “grow govt and they will make things good” kind of guy. That’s not a conservative. That’s why Bush jr ended up with approval ratings in the toilet. The Dems never liked him and the independents smelled a confused mix of middle of the road to no where type of policy. The conservatives were pounding him. You are getting frustrated because what you advocate just won’t work. It’s been proven. Being open-minded doesn’t mean that anything anyone says is correct. We can not tax our way out of this mess. We have to have a complete 180 in our policies. I honestly don’t believe you (and millions of others) have a grasp of the enormous costs coming at us like a freight train. Where is the money going to come from? The wealthy don’t have it even if you confiscate every dime they have. Believing otherwise isn’t being open minded, it’s just just factually wrong. Sadly, it looks like the proof will be coming soon. You will get your tax increases and we will still go broke.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Paul Emery

    23 April 2011

    I guess the AEI isn’t conservative enough for you since they employ lying morons as scholars.

    LikeLike

15. 

    Scott Obermuller

    23 April 2011

    OK Paul – I shouldn’t call anyone a lying moron. I mean it. I will back off of that. The thing is, I do know about this guy and he’s not a conservative. In his heart of hearts he believes that govt is the answer. And it’s not. For all of his education and training he isn’t terribly good at actually understanding the economy. (he thinks that that QE won’t lead to inflation – wrong, it has) The main reason he wants expensive gas is so he won’t have a lot of traffic to deal with on his commute to work. What a genius. He may have a great grasp of statistics and the workings of finance, but natl econ quickly gets into politics and daily lives. He has no understanding whatever about how the average American lives. He hasn’t given an once of thought to what happens to our economy when petrol is 7 a gallon. He has swallowed the cool-aid about global warming, because it’s de regueur amongst his chums. And for that reason, I dissed him mightily. I don’t disparage educated folk automatically. I wouldn’t get into an argument with some one with a masters in chemistry – I would ask questions and learn. That doesn’t mean I would agree with everything he would think, but chem was never a good subject with me. I know base vs. acid and plastics are long chain polymers, but I would defer to a person of knowledge there. I don’t consider Mankiw a conservative because he is not.

    LikeLike