I am generally in favor of politicians who demonstrate
a record of less
government spending and smaller government.
You mean like Clinton?
Doug
Yes, and definitely NOT like Boosh!~)
Jon
___
the supposed
joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to
Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this
year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security
privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to
Congress on Monday
happened
in Iznik, Turkey, in A.D. 325.
Just plain political bad luck that, in June, Bush took his little
ax and chopped $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps
of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. As was reported in New Orleans
CityBusiness at the time, that meant major hurricane
One of the best reporters at the Washington Post caught an infromative panel
as leaders of Conservative and Liberal think tanks attacked both parties.
Posted for those not wanting to register.
*Almost Unnoticed, Bipartisan Budget Anxiety*
By Dana Milbank
Post
Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
I'm not really sure that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton
: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
I'm not really sure that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton as
wanting
to save Social Security with the surplus, but I can't admit to being
particularly interested in that debate right now either. Now, paying
down
At 06:05 PM 07/02/05 -0800, David Brin wrote:
snip
* We can't grow our way out of these deficits. As the NY Times analysis
notes: Despite strong economic growth and soaring corporate profits last
year, federal tax revenues amounted to only 16.3 percent of the total
economy, comparable with
the government from
borrowing to cover revenue shortfalls in Social Security. After all,
nothing done in the current year can affect nominal budget *deficits*
in future years.
Wrong. Amazing you can get this so wrong, being a government employee
and claiming to be an economist.
You have heard
to GDP might become so
overly burdensome in the near future as to prevent the government from
borrowing to cover revenue shortfalls in Social Security. After all,
nothing done in the current year can affect nominal budget *deficits*
in future years.
Wrong. Amazing you can get this so
to GDP might become so overly
burdensome in the near future as to prevent the government from borrowing
to cover revenue shortfalls in Social Security. After all, nothing done in
the current year can affect nominal budget *deficits* in future years.
Anyhow, even with our current deficits, and comparing
For those who still hypnotoze themselves that Surplus Bill Clinton
was in some way more of an out of control spendthrift than the
present gang of looters
Bush revealed his fiscal 2006 budget today and, not surprisingly, it
is a fraud. The NY Times has an excellent analysis:
http
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:56:29 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%.
No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total
government spending was
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:16 PM
Subject: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda
term
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%.
No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total
government spending was 18.4% of GDP. In 2003, it was 19.9%. Using
T-bills to finance the government
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda term.
Not a term for serious discussion. Or at least, not if you want me to
take you seriously.
You state the supply-side economics is touted as a means of reducing the
nominal federal budget deficit, namely
At 11:58 AM 10/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
Clinton, on the other hand, stands out for increasing normalized revenues
Presuming, of course, that you consider increasing federal revenues to 21%
of GDP for the first time since World War II to be a good thing.
JDG
At 09:57 AM 10/23/2004 -0400 JDG wrote:
At 11:58 AM 10/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
Clinton, on the other hand, stands out for increasing normalized revenues
Presuming, of course, that you consider increasing federal revenues to 21%
of GDP for the first time since World War II to be a good
At 02:16 PM 10/22/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
--- Dan M offered interesting statistics. But the
core thing is this. Clinton asked THIS generation to
pay for our own expenses. W is demanding that our
children pay for a trillion dollar gift to his
friends...
Actually, John Kerry has been
- Original Message -
From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Brin: US Budget
Did you consider the tribute that Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait
were paying after the 1st Gulf War?
The incredible
--- Dan
your attempt to paraphrase and clarify is appreciated
as sincere, but it breaks down with the following:
3) He obtains agreement to oust Hussein's army from
Kuwait, but to only do
that. He agrees to not invade Iraq. He thinks he
can inflict enough damage on Hussein's forces and
David's comment on the US budget got me thinking...how has income and
expenses changed (as a fraction of GDP) over the last 50 or so years.
Here's some US budget numbers for % changes over 4 year
intervals...corresponding to presidential terms:
YearIncome Expense
One more set of numbers...this time its a breakdown of the sources of
income for the US government:..as a fraction of GDP. The income tax, as a
% of receipts goes up and down. But, we see corporate taxes fall
significantly, while the Social security tax rises...almost in exact
opposition. In
--- Dan M offered interesting statistics. But the
core thing is this. Clinton asked THIS generation to
pay for our own expenses. W is demanding that our
children pay for a trillion dollar gift to his
friends...
...on the excuse that his frat brothers will tthen
invest in jobs at home (they
--- Dan M offered interesting statistics. But the
core thing is this. Clinton asked THIS generation to
pay for our own expenses. W is demanding that our
children pay for a trillion dollar gift to his
friends...
...on the excuse that his frat brothers will tthen
invest in jobs at home (they have
Dan Minette asked:
Did you consider the tribute that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
were paying after the 1st Gulf War? That could easily justify
this difference.
How much was this tribute supposed to have been?
Some hundreds of billions
Alberto Monteiro
Did you consider the tribute that Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait
were paying after the 1st Gulf War?
The incredible fact that the 91 war was run at a
profit sort of helps make up (but nothing can ever
make up) for the Shame of 91. See http://www.davidbrin.com/shame.html
- Original Message -
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Brin: US Budget
Dan Minette asked:
Did you consider the tribute that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
were paying after the 1st
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:58:12AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
The source for my numbers is:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html
Very interesting data, Dan. Thanks for posting the link. I graphed
it here:
http://erikreuter.net/econ/budget.png
A couple things that jumped out
(assuming it started
late in '91 and ended when Clinton left office.) That comes to ~11
billion/year, about 0.1% of the US GDP.
That's in the noise, to first order.
The above is correct.
Plus, its hard to believe the GHB would let Clinton's budget get the credit
while his took the hit
Dan Minette wrote:
First of all; a number of nations did chip in for the cost of the first
Gulf War. It amounted to less than 100 billion. The Saudis, the Kuwaitis
and the Japanese were the biggest contributors.
But, let us look at that kind of money over 9 years (assuming it started
late
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: US Budget
At 08:45 PM 10/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
First of all; a number of nations did chip in for the cost
whoops
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: US Budget
Well, reasonably, he was thinking he might have a second term...not that
he
would. Given the fact
, leaked to the news media several days ago, was for a
~%5 annual increase in the NASA budget each year for the period
FY05-FY09. Given a current budget of $15.4B, this works out to ~$12B
of new money over the remainder of the decade.
This is about in the middle of the cost range estimated
At 09:41 PM 4/9/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
28% of the Texas state budget is spent on K-12 and 21% is spent on higher
education. On the whole, state and local budgets average about 4% of the
GDP of the US, and the federal budget averages about 20% or so.
*Averages* 20%?
Over what time period
http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/opinion/21KRUG.html
Who Lost the U.S. Budget?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The Onion describes itself as America's finest news source, and it's
not an idle boast. On Jan. 18, 2001, the satirical weekly bore the
headline Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace
At 11:57 PM 2/2/2003 -0600, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:51 PM
Subject: NASA Historical budget
I did a bit of research, and have come up with the following numbers for
NASA's budget decade
I did a bit of research, and have come up with the following numbers for
NASA's budget decade by decade. For the '60s, I had to do a bit of
estimation for '60 and 61, but the number shouldn't be too far off, because
that was before the NASA budget really took off.
In constant 2002 dollars
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:51 PM
Subject: NASA Historical budget
I did a bit of research, and have come up with the following numbers for
NASA's budget decade by decade. For the '60s, I had to do
Have allocations changed?
I can see the 1960's budgets going to Cold War theatre.
There are (at least) three big parts to the NASA budget:
1) Manned space flight.
2) Unmanned solar-system exploration.
3) Basic Research (my favorite). Eg: fluid-dynamics, propulsion for civil
aviation
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: NASA Historical budget
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11
40 matches
Mail list logo
