billvon 2,381 #1 January 7, 2003 Because I'm a little worried. The US, contrary to some people's beliefs, doesn't just print money when they need more, In 1999, we had a balanced budget. 1.7 trillion total spending, but we took in 124 billion more than we spent - most of which went towards reducing the deficit. The projection at that time was that we'd have a 185 billion surplus by 2003. Instead, we have a new $273 billion missile defense program. We have a potential $150 billion war in Iraq. We have an ongoing war that is costing at least tens of billions a year. We have a new office of homeland security that will cost about $30 billion just this year. OK, so maybe these are necessary expenses. If so, then we increase taxes until we can pay for them (we should have learned our lesson on deficit spending by now) and then reduce them when we pay off those programs/wars. It shouldn't be too bad - the missile defense program will be spread over 10 years, and the final cost for the afghani and iraq wars will likewise be spread over five years. Instead, we hear about a 670 billion tax _cut_. Any CFO would be fired instantly if he proposed a massive increase in spending coupled with a voluntary cut in income, yet that's what we are hearing. I just can't see this making any sense in the long run. Of course, maybe this is all just buildup to the mother of all AMEX commercials - Finishing Dad's war - $150 billion Star Wars Episode II - $273 billion New massive government agency - $30 billion Tax cut - $670 billion Watching the economy collapse on your successor's watch - priceless Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlie 0 #2 January 7, 2003 I think the government will just sell war bonds like in WWII. And my money in on the US because... Should I even need a reason? My other ride is the relative wind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #3 January 7, 2003 QuoteWatching the economy collapse on your successor's watch - priceless I bet the Clintons are laughing their butts off. EDITED TO ADD - And in answer to your question, Bill, yes. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #4 January 7, 2003 Since Clinton was soooooo responsible for the economy.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #5 January 7, 2003 As much so as any president. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #6 January 7, 2003 Remember, though, the US economy, as large as it is is very very rarely changed drastically by a single president during his term. The economy under Clinton was more due to the fact of having a technology boom and new markets spring up despite anything Clinton was doing. That trend started in the mid-1980s and continued to grow rapidly until just recently.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlie 0 #7 January 7, 2003 Quote despite anything Clinton was doing. Don't you mean whom Clinton was doingMy other ride is the relative wind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflyguy 0 #8 January 7, 2003 no. ---------------------------- bzzzz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #9 January 7, 2003 Bill, This is a very provocative piece...as all your threads usually are. My question is a hypothetical: You're President of the United States. With everything going on domestically and internationally, what is your solution? How would President Bill Von Novak handle these many issues? I am not mocking you here at all. This is a totally serious question. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quatorze 1 #10 January 7, 2003 QuoteI think the government will just sell war bonds like in WWII. That has always been my understanding of the "national debt/defecit" In every thing that I have read, the defecit is what the gov't actually owes people who have invested in govenment savings bonds, meaning that if every one of us decided to cash our bonds in tomorrow, we would cripple/destroy the govenment I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sebazz1 2 #11 January 7, 2003 You're right it does not seem to add up Bill. I have no idea what I could do though. Except be a bit worried and hope everything turns out alright. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #12 January 7, 2003 Also remember that both monetary and fiscal policy are a little like the controls on a battleship. You move the controls, and then a while later something happens. It takes a great deal of time for shocks on the economy to be felt, and our economy gets shocked by all kinds of stuff all the time. The public thinks about some types of shocks more than other types, and the philosophy of the president in office at the time the GDP figures are released is given (in my opinion) a great deal more emphasis than it ought to. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #13 January 7, 2003 QuoteRemember, though, the US economy, as large as it is is very very rarely changed drastically by a single president during his term. The economy under Clinton was more due to the fact of having a technology boom and new markets spring up despite anything Clinton was doing. That trend started in the mid-1980s and continued to grow rapidly until just recently. Yep, that about sums it up. When was the dot com "boom"? When was the "bust"? How did either effect the economy? Who got the credit for the boom in the economy, and who got the blame when it went tits up? Neither were controlable by a Pres, but both effect the bottom line.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattM 0 #14 January 7, 2003 Quote Finishing Dad's war - $150 billion Star Wars Episode II - $273 billion New massive government agency - $30 billion Tax cut - $670 billion Watching the economy collapse on your successor's watch - priceless Are you talkin about making the movie? Or the money it brought in the box offive? Neither were close to even a billion. Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #15 January 7, 2003 Quote Neither were close to even a billion. You Sir, have forgotten about merchandising...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sebazz1 2 #16 January 7, 2003 I think he is refering to the missle defense system Bush wants to implement... Star Wars I was Reagan right? Star Wars II would be Bush Jr. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #17 January 7, 2003 QuoteTax cut - $670 billion How is that a "cost"? This is a piece of logic I don't understand. Newscasters actually use the verb "cost" a great deal when talking about a tax cut. You never hear people say, "I'm spending $100 thousand (or whatever their perception of the NPV of a medical career is) by not going to medical school and becoming a doctor." From an economic standpoint, whether it comes from C (consumer spending) or G (government spending) does not really matter, with the exception of the Marginal Propensity to Consume, which for most nonskydivers is less than 1.0 but not much. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattM 0 #18 January 7, 2003 Quote Quote Neither were close to even a billion. You Sir, have forgotten about merchandising... That would mean that George Lucas is well over 3 times as wealthy as Bill Gates... lol Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dave610 0 #19 January 7, 2003 QuoteIf so, then we increase taxes until we can pay for them (we should have learned our lesson on deficit spending by now) and then reduce them when we pay off those programs/wars. Although I hardly ever agree with what the elected officials decide to do, I would like to point out history shows war generates stimulous in the economy several years following. Examples, WWII and the end of the great depression and the sore of the stock market in the late 90's following "Daddy's War" in the early 90's. this I believe is not only due to the needs generated by war but the security the population begins to feel several years after a war / conflict is concluded. That being said, watching the economy slow and stock market fall over the past few years, a war / conflict and excessive government spending now may be beneficial in the years to come. However with that spending and tax cuts, will the deficit increase? most likely in my opinion because the increase in tax dollars generated int he future will only go to pay for needs in the future, again, what has been spent in the past will be forgoten and refered to as debit. i guess we can just wait and see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quatorze 1 #20 January 7, 2003 Quote Remember, though, the US economy, as large as it is is very very rarely changed drastically by a single president during his term. The economy under Clinton was more due to the fact of having a technology boom and new markets spring up despite anything Clinton was doing. That trend started in the mid-1980s and continued to grow rapidly until just recently. Now I may be completely off base here, but the way that I understand the whole deal is that the gov't has even less to do with the actual market then what you are implying. It seems to me that the only gov't influence is the confidence level that people (ie gen pop) place in the reigning gov't as to how they will spend. From the beginning of the govt' of this country no president has been able to do anything to turn the economy around, and now basically the economic controllers are the talking heads on the news channels, explaining in their "infinite" wisdom what is going on with the economy and what the public should do to safe guard their money. So, no economy starts turning down and then people quit spendind, people actually quit spendng, economy turns, talking heads try to lay blame on pres/gov't, people spend less, and blame elected officials who really have no control what so ever over the economy. Sooo, what does that leave us to? Any official better be really nice to the prima donna's of the press, or they wil get blamed for things that they could control as well as the weather. Just my take on things I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #21 January 7, 2003 QuoteThe US, contrary to some people's beliefs, doesn't just print money when they need more, Actually, it does just print more money. But it is not costless, as some people believe. I think that is what you meant. Increases in the money supply (in order to pay the nominal dollar obligations of the federal government) are part of monetary policy and act as one of the ways that the government attempts to exert control on the economy. An increase in the money supply tends to push interest rates down, which has a variety of other macroeconomic effects. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,381 #22 January 7, 2003 Personally? Engage North Korea diplomatically. Don't tell them "we're not going to negotiate until you disarm." Keep our promise in terms of fuel oil deliveries so they don't have that excuse to fire up their reactors. Keep pressure on Iraq via the UN. Support UN intervention rather than unilateral intervention. Skip the missile defense program. It doesn't work. Skip the Department of Homeland Defense. Instead, keep the original agencies and make it clear what their roles are. Simplify the tax code. Consider a flat sales tax as a replacement for income tax. Keep income from taxes about the same. Require a balanced budget every year. Stop oil company subsidies. Use the money to decrease reliance on foreign oil via tax breaks on efficient cars, homes, utilities and renewable energy sources. Would I want the job? Hell no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #23 January 7, 2003 The increase in spending is certainly not to be ignored. However, I think the perception that the Government should maintain a surplus is sorely misplaced. Any enterprise, regardless of function, ultimately runs better if there is debt of some kind. Debt creates credit, creates accountability, and it forces certain operations to run as lean as possible, or cut them all together. The government should be netting ZERO in the best of times and running deficits during times or war, economic imbalance, et al. The government is using OUR MONEY to operate. If they run a deficit, they are operating while taking LESS OF OUR MONEY and that eventually leads to trimming of certain areas of fat. If they are running a surplus, they have taken TOO MUCH OF OUR MONEY and we all know that the government is not a good investment unless you're buying a treasury bond. Deficits maintain focus. They maintain clarity. They force accountability and oversight. During the fat-90s, spending soared, despite balanced budgets, and there was no accountability anywhere. QuoteAny CFO would be fired instantly if he proposed a massive increase in spending coupled with a voluntary cut in income Interesting, we have companies operating all over the country, and world which operate in the red, while still maintaining heavy capital budgets, despite declines in revenue channels. Read the quarterly reports of Verizon, General Motors and General Electric. The companies spend BILLIONS in the face of declining revenues. Their CFOs are firmly in place. I say, keep running the deficit. It's not their money, it's MY MONEY.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #24 January 7, 2003 well billvon, the idea is that since the US economy is 70% consumer spending, so if everyone keeps more of their money, they will go out & spend it on stuff & businesses will make more money & therefore wind up paying more money in taxes. The companies will also grow & hire more people, & raise salaries, and then THOSE people will wind up giving more $ to the govt in taxes because now they have jobs, or now their salaries are higher. So the prez is gambling that the economy will be stimulated to the point where the govt will ultimately be able to collect more money down the road. The cynical view: Or he could be just not worrying about racking up a deficit during his term in office, and just wait for some later president (preferably, letting a Democrat take the blame) to have to increase taxes to pay it off. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #25 January 7, 2003 Quote Would I want the job? Hell no. Probably the most criticized person in the country. Which may be the reason we get mediocre leaders at best.So I take it you're not forming an exploratory committee for a run in 2004. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)