Re: Brin: US Budget
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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 thing. I would also point out that there are limits to % GDP analysis in the short term.After all, if you have a recession, GDP goes down. This means that you would either have to cut government spending, or else let government spending rise as a percentage of GDP. Likewise, when GDP is growing quickly, even a relatively loose policy of government spending increases can be dwarfed by rises in GDP. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 campaigning all week on precisely the opposite point in particular, Kerry is arguing that Bush is planning on making this generation to pay for their own retirement expenses, rather than imposing the burden of their retirement on their children. So, which is it? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
- 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 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 I've read your analysis of this, but I'm not really sure exactly the steps you were advocating. Yes, I know its go into Iraq and, at a minimum, establish a safe base for Shiites there, and at a maximum take out Hussein ourselves. But, I don't see some steps that are crucial to me. Here's what I see happened. 1) Iraq invades Kuwait. 2) Bush sets up Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia and negotiates with many world leaders 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 reputation to cause him to be overthrown even operating within those boundaries. 4) Desert Storm happens, following that line. 5) There are uprisings in Iraq, which find encouragement and promises of support from Bush (Does anyone have a definitive, reliable source on what was dropped/broadcast?) The support was not as strong as it needed to be and the uprisings failed. (Does anyone know if anything was done at first...I don't recall how long it took the no fly zones to be established. What I am curious about is whether you disagree with my description of the chain of events, you think we should never have promised to not invade Iraq, or we should have promised to not invade Iraq and then invaded Iraq anyways...or pick option 4 that I can't see. :-) I think Bush was wrong to promise the people of Iraq more than he was willing to actually deliver. I have no argument with you faulting him for that. But, I don't think he was wrong to agree to not invade Iraq as the price of getting a great deal of cooperation. Without permission to launch an attack from Saudi Arabia, the war would have been more difficult. And, I remember how many reasonable people thought the war was going to be much harder than it was. IIRC, Powell warned that US casualties could be 40k injured and dead. The Iraqi army was considered battle tested, and about the 5th or 6th best Army in the world. The US had not faced such a strong force since Nam, or Korea. I also don't fault him for not invading Iraq...since he gave the word of the US, government to government, that we would not do so. He overestimated the effect of the defeated army; and underestimated the importance of the basically intact Republican Guard..his elite force. (At least that is how I remembered it.) In short, I see him as being pragmatic and taking half a loaf immediately (Kuwait retaken) while having reasonable expectations for the last half loaf (Hussein overthrown). It didn't happen, so his judgment was off. But, few at the time were advocating invading Iraq while the Arabs withdrew their support. One final personal political statement. I voted against him twice, so I have no stake in reviewing him positively...I just want to call the shots as I see themeven if it goes against the grain of my political persuasions. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
--- 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 reputation to cause him to be overthrown even operating within those boundaries. This is weird. H had VASTLY more legal authority to act flexibly against Saddam than W ever had. It is incredible neocon weaseling to say we never had authority to oust Saddam in 91! I will not dissect such drivel. I will scrape it off my boot. 4) Desert Storm happens, following that line. 5) There are uprisings in Iraq, which find encouragement and promises of support from Bush (Does anyone have a definitive, reliable source on what was dropped/broadcast?) The support was not as strong as it needed to be Yeow! Talk about understatement. Schwarzkopf says that the Iraqi generals stared, dumbfounded, when we said go ahead and fly your helicopter gunships all you want! What I am curious about is whether you disagree with my description of the chain of events, you think we should never have promised to not invade Iraq, SHow me the promise. Moreover, we were already in Iraq. ANd Iraqi generals and soldiers were pleading to be sent against Saddam ... exactly as many pleaded THIS time to be allowed to help establish order. Before the entire Iraqi army was dissolved -- instead of purged -- at orders from Riyadh. A decision that makes sense only if you WANT american soldiers to die establishing order themselves. or we should have promised to not invade Iraq and then invaded Iraq anyways...or pick option 4 that I can't see. :-) I think Bush was wrong to promise the people of Iraq more than he was willing to actually deliver. He probably was sincere, till his masters phoned him with the stop order. I have no argument with you faulting him for that. But, I don't think he was wrong to agree to not invade Iraq as the price of getting a great deal of cooperation. Sorry. It's crap. Nobody in Europe or Asia would have minded rescuing the people of Basra. He never promised anybody to stand by and watch them be murdered. He simply made that decision. Or rather let it be made for him. Without permission to launch an attack from Saudi Arabia, the war would have been more difficult. The saudis were pissing in their pants! Their monster Saddam had gone berserk and they were next. H made NO SUCH PROMISE. And if he did, he had no need to keep it. And, I remember how many reasonable people thought the war was going to be much harder than it was. IIRC, Powell warned that US casualties could be 40k injured and dead. The Iraqi army was considered battle tested, and about the 5th or 6th best Army in the world. The US had not faced such a strong force since Nam, or Korea. I will not argue here. The US military is awesome. Its officer corps is the best ever seen. They are the 3rd most educated clade in american society. And they are our sole hope if W is re-elected. They are heirs of George Marshall and they will not cooperate with his plans. Which is why, in today's paper, we see that Goss, the new CIA Director, has already betrayed his promise to stop being a partisan hack (as if anyone believed him). He brought in 20 veteran neocon gopper staffers to replace professionals in top positions. And one of them has been roaming the halls at the CIA bragging that over a hundred heads will roll right after the election. (According to SEVERAL leak-source paths). They have to start mass firings and house cleanings. Watch as the purges begin. They'll find they have to cut dep before they get to rotten apples who will go along with betraying us. Oh... and then there is the blatant squelching of the part of the 9/11 report that talks about Saudi Complicity. CAN NONE OF YOU SEE THAT AS WORRISOME? I also don't fault him for not invading Iraq...since he gave the word of the US, government to government, that we would not do so. SORRY, THAT IS simply nonsense. We gave our word to the Geneva Convention but have violated it several thousand times this year alone. We gave our word AS A PEOPLE AND A NATION to the Shiites to help them. We owed NOTHING of the sort to the Saudis and Kuwaitis, whose asses we had saved. That is simply sophistry. In short, I see him as being pragmatic and taking half a loaf immediately (Kuwait retaken) while having reasonable expectations for the last half loaf (Hussein overthrown). I can see you see it that way. This is less silly than the pomise crap. But it is still silly. One final personal political statement. I voted against him twice, so I have no stake in reviewing him positively...I just want to call the shots as I see themeven if it goes against the grain of my political persuasions. I respect your
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 change change 1956 -7.9% -14.9% 1960 1.7% 7.9% 1964 -1.1% 0.0 1968 0.0% 10.8% 1972 0.0% -4.4% 1976 -2.8% 9.2% 1980 11.1% 1.4% 1984 -8.9% 1.8% 1988 4.6% -4.1% 1992 -3.3% 4.2% 1996 8.0% -8.1% 2000 10.6% -9.4% 2004 -24.9% 0.1 The income change over the last 4 years stands out. Bush Jr. has reduced governmental income from 20.9% of GDP to 15.7% of GDP. The last time it was that low was a brief span between 49-50. The one caveat is that 2004 is an estimate...so the drop may not be quite that bigbut a quick search did not yield updated numbers. Even a 3 year number 2000-2003 indicates a drop of 21.1%. Even this three year number shows more than double the previous maximum drop: during the first Reagan term. With the additional tax cuts passed today,one can expect this number to continue to drop if Bush is re-elected. Clinton, on the other hand, stands out for increasing normalized revenues while decreasing normalized expenses over 8 years. Dan M. Dan M. The source for my numbers is: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html Which seems like a non-partisan site to me. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 1952, income taxes, corporate taxes, and SS provided 42%, 32%, and 10% respectively. In 2004, 43%, 9%, 41% respectively (excises and other taxes also fell during that period). Since wealth is concentrated among upper income earners, there is no SS tax on investment income, and there is an upper limit to the income taxed for SS, we see a very significant shift in taxes from upper income to lower income tax payers. This shift is significantly understated if we focus only on the income tax, which tends to provide only 40% of the governmental income. The shift in the other taxes is where we see the vast majority of the shift in the tax base. Income Corporate Social Year Tax TaxSecurity + Medicare 1952 8.0 6.1 1.8 1956 7.5 4.9 2.2 1960 7.8 4.1 2.8 1964 7.6 3.7 3.4 1968 7.9 3.3 3.9 1972 8.0 2.7 4.5 1976 7.6 2.4 5.2 1980 9.0 2.4 5.8 1984 7.8 1.5 6.2 1988 8.0 1.9 6.7 1992 7.6 1.6 6.6 1996 8.5 2.2 6.6 200010.3 2.1 6.7 2004 6.7 1.5 6.4 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
--- 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 not) and productivity/tools etc (they have not). Oh, this is the only time that we have gone to war in US history with the president asking for tax cuts instead of prudently asking taxpayers (especially the rich) to fork over in their own defense). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
--- 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 not) and productivity/tools etc (they have not). Oh, this is the only time that we have gone to war in US history with the president asking for tax cuts instead of prudently asking taxpayers (especially the rich) to fork over in their own defense). You know, if this war *really* was for our own defense, I think I could almost stomach leaving a debt that vast for my son and his children to pay. Dave Experts Agree: Everything's Just Fine Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
- 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 Gulf War? That could easily justify this difference. How much was this tribute supposed to have been? Some hundreds of billions 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 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. Plus, its hard to believe the GHB would let Clinton's budget get the credit while his took the hit. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 at me while staring at the graph. Around both World Wars, government outlays spiked (as expected), and we ran a deficit. But government income also spiked. So taxpayers were asked to help pay for the war, as David mentioned. But in 2001-2004, outlays spiked BUT income dropped, just as David pointed out. The other thing I thought was interesting may not be apparent to people who aren't into stock market history. So, to give some very brief background, most market historians divide stock market history into secular bear and secular bull markets (secular in the sense of an age or long period of time). Generally, the last 80 or so years are classified as follows: 1921-1929 secular bull 1929-1949 secular bear 1949-1966 secular bull 1966-1982 secular bear 1982-2000 secular bull 2000- secular bear? I think it is interesting to look at the graph http://erikreuter.net/econ/budget.png and see that government outlays, as a percent of GDP, were generally: decreasing from 1919 to 1929 increasing from 1929 to 1953 slightly decreasing from 1953 to 1965 increasing from 1965 to 1982 decreasing from 1982 to 2000 increasing from 2000 to 2004 The correlation between long term trends of government spending as a percent of GDP and stock market performance looks very strong. Increasing government spending seems to go along with secular bear markets and decreasing government spending correlates with secular bull markets. I don't know what the causality is here (which one causes the other? or are they both caused by some other variable?), but I think the correlation is interesting. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: US Budget
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 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. If getting free oil for 10+ years is noise, then what's the point of the 2nd Gulf War? Why bother with the oil prices? Let it get to 100 dollars per (unit of volume), and let China get blown! Something must be wrong in this logic. Alberto Monteiro the monomaniac ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
