On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:01:08PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > Anyhow, my argument is that Clinton managed surpluses in large part > because of a stock market bubble.
Previously, JDG wrote: > In 1999, 6% of federal receipts were from capitol gains. i.e. $110bil > out of $1.828 tril. Combining this figure with Dan's figure for Bush of $62.5B, it appears that, at best, Clinton gets a "bonus" of $47.5B. > As such, it is completely disingenuous to average Clinton's capital > gains over all eight years of his term, especially during those years > in which Clinton was predicting annual budget deficits of between > $200bil - $280bil over the next ten years (the standard term of > official budget forecasts.) Why bring budget predictions into the discussion? The predictions have proved quite unreliable in the past. Better to use past results and ignore predictions of this sort. > Yes, but GDP is hardly the only economic story.... as you remind > me every time you bring up "inequality." There are other factors > involved in economic success besides producing GDP growth, and to > introduce a quote of my own, "the economy got so bad under Carter, > they had to invent a new number - the misery index - to describe just > how bad it was." Which of these "other factors" do you think is most representative? Does that factor do better under Republicans than Democrats, thus supporting your argument? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
