Deficit on track to approach 2% of GDP, below the 2.5% average since 1970

[Naturalized-Texan]

Surging (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTVmMDgzOGU5NWViZjdjNTIwMmNhMDhlYjM4MzEwNDk=)

More than two years ago, when President Bush announced his aim to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009, many critics guffawed. They called the goal an impossibility, a naïve and futile effort that would be undermined by the fat-cat Republican tax cuts. A Boston Globe headline declared, “Bush’s plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely; Higher spending, lower taxes don’t mix, analysts say.” An Associated Press story went out on the wire with the headline, “Bush goal of halving federal deficits draws skepticism, derision.”

..................

But the critics are no longer laughing. Driven by a surging national economy, tax revenues are increasing and the deficit is rapidly shrinking. The president’s deficit-reduction plan looks like it will not only succeed, but will do so years ahead of schedule.

..................

Despite the strong updraft of federal spending, the deficit is on track in the next few years to continue falling until it approaches 2 percent of GDP. This is below the 2.5 percent that has been the national average since 1970, demonstrating that the president’s critics were simply wrong when they claimed that the Bush tax cuts would lead the country into economic ruin.

{More at the link above.}

[Lazarus]

I'll keep an eye on the currency exchange rates...

[ConspiracyBuff]

Haha yeah me to, im looking to cash in here in the CZ very soon.

[Beowulf]

No offense, NT, but cut the pork from his budgets and I'll believe in he's trying.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Let me know when it actually get's there. In the meantime Bush is still spending money like there's no tomorrow. Bush and Fiscal Responsibilty go together like Clinton and Fidelity.
Please read the whole article. The Editors state that entitlements must be reformed to reduce their costs and spending on domestic programs must be cut.

However, because of the economic boom that resulted from the Bush tax rate cuts, the deficits have been declining each year and are expected to continue to decline. For example, the deficit so far this year is 16.7% lower than at this time last year mostly due to increased revenues.

[Naturalized-Texan]

No offense, NT, but cut the pork from his budgets and I'll believe in he's trying.
I agree. See my reply to Americon above.

[Jester21]

You (pl) do realize that even if the goal is to cut the deficit in half, it's still a deficit? As in, the government doesn't have that money to spend, but still does? And the government is to be praised for spending less of the money that it doesn't have?

Also, this economic growth can't continue forever; at some point gov't revenues will grow more slowly or even stop growing. The economy has been doing pretty well these past few months. Come see me in June/07 and tell me if that can still be said.

[Borgia]

Surging (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTVmMDgzOGU5NWViZjdjNTIwMmNhMDhlYjM4MzEwNDk=)

More than two years ago, when President Bush announced his aim to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009, many critics guffawed...

Budget predictions out 3 years are relatively worthless. I prefer to examine actual performance rather than predictions.


Despite the strong updraft of federal spending, the deficit is on track in the next few years to continue falling until it approaches 2 percent of GDP.
Percent of GDP is another stat I consider rather worthless. When calculating what we pay and what we have to pay back, nobody will care what the percent GDP is. They will care about the actual deficit and debt.

So let's look at the actual numbers. First the actual numbers:

Year / Deficit
2000 / +236
2001 / +129
2002 / -157
2003 / -377
2004 / -412
2005 / -318
2006 / -423 (estimate)

Now let's examine them in inflation adjusted dollars:

Year / Deficit
2000 / +236
2001 / +125
2002 / -151
2003 / -353
2004 / -375
2005 / -280
2006 / -361 (estimate)


Bush's record speaks for itself and it is a sad song. :( High deficits every year he has been in office. I hope he reduces the deficit but the proof is in the pudding, not estimates beyond his term.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yeah, the actual figures ARE best. Since the passage of the final set of Bush tax rate cuts in 2003, the actual deficits have come in at least $100 billion less than the projected deficits because of the huge increase in revenues. It appears that that will be also the case in the current fiscal year (FY2006). In other words, based on the progress so far, the actual deficit for FY 2006 will be less than $300 billion.

[Borgia]

Yeah, the actual figures ARE best. Since the passage of the final set of Bush tax rate cuts in 2003, the actual deficits have come in at least $100 billion less than the projected deficits because of the huge increase in revenues. It appears that that will be also the case in the current fiscal year (FY2006). In other words, based on the progress so far, the actual deficit for FY 2006 will be less than $300 billion.

So you consider deficits that come in under projections to be evidence of reductions in deficits? I'm sorry, for me that incites peals of laughter. I don't give a crap what projections are, I care if the deficit is reduced from one year to the next.

You are really reaching if you think reductions compared to projections have any meaning. (Hint, if I wanted to look good, I would make high projected deficits and then magically come in under those inflated figures. The rubes will clap their hands and say "great job" while the actual deficit continues to rise.)

By the way, I hope you are correct that FY'06 deficit will be below $300B. I'd give Bush credit for a small start to fiscal responsibility if he keeps reducing it like Clinton did.

[Naturalized-Texan]

By the way, I hope you are correct that FY'06 deficit will be below $300B. I'd give Bush credit for a small start to fiscal responsibility if he keeps reducing it like Clinton did.
Clinton didn't reduce the deficit. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing the Republican FY 1996 Budget that was designed to balance the budget in 5 years. Remember, Clinton shut down the government after he had reneged on an agreement with Republican leaders to sign that budget and then he ended up signing the identical budget resolution.

As you already know, Clinton was projecting $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see, but the Republican budget Clinton eventually signed DID balance the budget in 5 years by reducing the rate of spending growth by $1 trillion from Clinton's original projections.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Clinton inherited a debt of 4 Trillion and a budget deficit. During his eight years in office he increased the total debt by over a trillion, and it was FALLING when he left office.
FALSE! The national debt did not fall at all under Clinton - that was just another Clinton lie and you swallowed it. The last time the national debt dropped from the previous year was 1957 (from $272.693 billion to $272.252 billion) and has been increasing every year since then. When Clinton took office the national debt was $4.35 trillion (FY1993, Bush 41's last budget year) and when he left office it was $5.8 trillion (FY2001, Clinton's last budget year).

When Bush took office the national debt stood at about 5 trillion. Today, five years later, it stands at 8.3 trillion dollars -- the fastest growth in our nations history. By the time Bush leaves office the debt will have punched through the 10 trillion dollar mark, and will be poised to explode as the Bush free drug plan really kicks in.
See above. The projected national debt in FY2006 is $8.6 trillion, but it will be slightly less than that due to increased revenues from the Bush tax rate cuts. The current projection is that the national debt will be $10.4 trillion when Bush leaves office. I suspect that it will be less than that, however.
(The source for the above information is the FY2007 Budget, available here (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/).)

Bush inherited budget surplusses, and not only spent all of that but added several massive NEW entitlement programs as well as increasing spending on almost all the others. Bush increased non-defense discretionary spending more in his first year and a half then Clinton did in eight years.
(The source for the following chart is the FY 2006 Budget Mid-Session Review. The FY 2007 Mid-Session Review should be coming out in the next month or two.)

http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/BudgetChart.jpg
As you can plainly see from the above chart, the rate of spending growth for non-Defense/non-Homeland Security discretionary spending has declined each year since President Bush took office: from 15% in FY2001 to less than 1% in FY2005. (Note: according to the FY2007 Budget, non-Defense/non-Homeland Security spending was projected to actually DECLINE between FY2005 and FY2006.) It's also easy to see from the above chart that the vast majority of the increase in discretionary spending was for National Defense and Homeland Security. Of course, those increases were necessary to rebuild the military from 8 years of neglect by BJ Clinton and to fight the War on Terror forced on us by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I know, only my "blind hate" for Bush leads me to post the real numbers. As a conservative I should just pretend that Bush is doing a good job on the economy. Well here's my response:

NO NATION HAS EVER BORROWED ITS WAY INTO PROSPERITY.
As you can see, many of your numbers were incorrect. Was that intentional? Or was it an honest mistake?

There are two kinds of socialists. Tax and spend and borrow and spend. Bush is the later, and it is the worst kind of evil. Wonder why our dollar is in free fall? Puzzled as to why the fed had raised interest rates 16 TIMES IN A ROW? Look to Bush. If his surrender the borders plan does not destroy this nation his spending alone might.
As you can plainly see, the numbers are bad, but not nearly as bad as you claimed. I guess you must have forgotten about the huge increase in spending required to rebuild the military and to fight the War on Terror. Was that intentional? Or was it an honest mistake?

To put the Bush spending insanity into perspective, consider that for most families, their share of the national debt (a debt they will have to pay) is more money than they own on anything else including their house -- amounting to almost $30,000 per man woman and child. A man and woman with two kids owes $120,000 just in federal debt alone, and this debt is currently growing at the rate of $1,700,000,000 per day.

Three cheers for the great conservative leader!
To put Bush's spending in perspective, President Bush inherited a decimated military and terrorism from BJ Clinton and has been forced to fight the War on Terror. Without all that, the spending and the deficits would have been far less that they have been.

[DesertFox]

Read this quarter´s City Journal. The problem is less pork and entitlements than widespread corruption. Of course, pork is very much a form of corruption and no one in his right mind favors entitlements.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Read this quarter´s City Journal. The problem is less pork and entitlements than widespread corruption. Of course, pork is very much a form of corruption and no one in his right mind favors entitlements.
Yes, entitlements are the problem and most of the entitlements are holdovers from FDR and LBJ. Those entitlements make up a large part of the increased spending.

President Bush proposed significant and sensible reform to Social Security in the form of privatizing a portion of the benefits to reduce its overall cost, but Congress refused to take it on. We can't blame President Bush for the increased SS costs.

President Bush proposed significant reform to Medicare in the form of Medical Savings Accounts to reduce its overall cost, but Congress refused to take it on. We can't blame President Bush for the increased Medicare cost.

President Bush tried to get Congress to enect a prescription drug plan with features similar to the Medical Savings Accounts he proposed for Medicare, but Congress refused to take it on and produced the current huge and expensive mess of a prescription drug plan. Since President Bush made a campaign promise to implement a prescription drug plan, he pretty much had to sign that mess so that he could say that he fulfilled his promise. In my opinion, no plan would have been better than the one he signed. Fortunately, I am still on my former employer's plan which is better that the government plan, but, unfortunatey, I may be forced into the government plan for next year.

[Borgia]

Clinton didn't reduce the deficit. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing the Republican FY 1996 Budget that was designed to balance the budget in 5 years.

YEar / Deficit
1992 / -290
1993 / -255
1994 / -203
1995 / -163

NT, looks like the deficit fell BEFORE the 1996 Budget act and even BEFORE the Republicans took control of the House. Clinton DID reduce the deficit even before the Republciasn took Congress.

Facts, NT. Face them.

[Naturalized-Texan]

YEar / Deficit
1992 / -290
1993 / -255
1994 / -203
1995 / -163

NT, looks like the deficit fell BEFORE the 1996 Budget act and even BEFORE the Republicans took control of the House. Clinton DID reduce the deficit even before the Republciasn took Congress.

Facts, NT. Face them.
If you could read well enough to understand the context of the above discussion, you would understand that both Americon and I were referring to the balanced budgets of the late 1990s. As you well know, in 1995 Clinton was projecting $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see. The Republican Congress replaced Clinton's FY1996 Budget with one that turned those $200 billion deficits into surpluses. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how to read.

[Borgia]

If you could read well enough to understand the context of the above discussion, you would understand that both Americon and I were referring to the balanced budgets of the late 1990s. As you well know, in 1995 Clinton was projecting $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see. The Republican Congress replaced Clinton's FY1996 Budget with one that turned those $200 billion deficits into surpluses. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how to read.

I mentioned how CLinton reduced the deficits. You said I was wrong. I posted the years where he reduced the deficits. Here, let me show them to you yet again:

Originally Posted by Borgia
Year / Deficit
1992 / -290
1993 / -255
1994 / -203
1995 / -163

This was BEFORE 1996 so these deficit reductions are not attributable to the Republican Congress. Do you accept the fact that Clinton was reducing the deficit BEFORE the Republicans came to power?

[Eagle1]

no republican, no democrat, and sure as hell no liberal is going to help get us out of the red.
it is going to take a conservative, a whole lot of them, and right now there are just not that many out there

[Naturalized-Texan]

Americon: Again, I must remind you of the FACT that a large majority of the increased spending under President has been for rebuilding our military after 8 years of neglect by BJ Clinton and for fighting the War on Terror.

[Borgia]

Just to interject...

In no way, shape, or form was Clinton a fiscal Conservative. Spending grew at a tremendous rate under his leadership but was offset by great revenue gains from a booming economy. Clinton was one of the biggest spenders in our nations history, and he wanted even more.

Let's get a little historical perspective here to see if you are correct. I looked at Budgets for each year and determined what the average rate of outlay increase per year each president had, from the time they entered their office to the time they left. Here is the breakdown:

Bush W: +8.2% / year
Clinton: +4.0% / year
Bush HW: +5.9% / year
Reagan: +8.5% / year
Carter: +16.4% / year

Adjusting for inflation we get:

Bush W: +4.9% / year
Clinton: +1.6% / year
Bush HW: +2.0% / year
Reagan: +2.9% / year
Carter: +4.3% / year

As you can see, Clinton is the best in the last 30 years. Having read your posts thus far, I know you appreciate facts more than some others do. It would be interesting to see how Clinton compares to Presidents before Carter.

[Large_Al]

Where did these Facts as you call it come from??

[Borgia]

Where did these Facts as you call it come from??

The data comes from the Budget Office of the White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

You'll actually have to perform simple artihmetic to get my numbers. What I did was take the year in which the President first had their own budget and then took the year they had their last budget. I looked specifically at the OUTLAYS. To calculate a percentage I took (Final-Original)/Original/# years to get the avergae yearly OUTLAY increase.

You will note I did it twice. First I did it for actual dollars and then I did it for inflation adjusted dollars. Hope this helps.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Americon: So, you're making the claim that a negative trade balance is bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. The MAIN reason that we have negative trade balance is that we are far more prosperous than any of our trading partners. The American people are wealthy enough to be able to afford to purchase imported goods from our trading partners, while the citizens of our trading partners are much too poor to purchase American exports. In other words, the negative trade balance is proof of the robustness of the American economy.

FYI, in most of the years of America's greatest growth, the 19th Century and the early 20th Century, we had a negative trade balance.

BTW, it's ludicrous to talk about "America's total debt" without also comparing the debt (liabilities) with with America's assets. See The Financial Prowess of the U.S. Family (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=37032) for details about how the assets of American families exceed their liabilities by $53 Trillion.

[Timberwolf]

Let's get a little historical perspective here to see if you are correct. I looked at Budgets for each year and determined what the average rate of outlay increase per year each president had, from the time they entered their office to the time they left. Here is the breakdown:

Bush W: +8.2% / year
Clinton: +4.0% / year
Bush HW: +5.9% / year
Reagan: +8.5% / year
Carter: +16.4% / year

Adjusting for inflation we get:

Bush W: +4.9% / year
Clinton: +1.6% / year
Bush HW: +2.0% / year
Reagan: +2.9% / year
Carter: +4.3% / year

As you can see, Clinton is the best in the last 30 years. Having read your posts thus far, I know you appreciate facts more than some others do. It would be interesting to see how Clinton compares to Presidents before Carter.
Hmmmm...and how much of his "properity" was the result of the most massive tax increase in American history? You don't imagine THAT skewed the numbers just a tad, do you?

[Timberwolf]

Spot on, Americon...we the people are being fleeced. I'm spending every extra cent I earn on debt ELIMINATION and acquisition of hard assets (silver/gold). I would highly suggest that others do the same.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I am aware that this is the new mantra. It's silly, of course, but I wont ask you to abandon your faith. Last year our economy lost almost a TRILLION dollars, and the reason is that we make Big Macs and they make everything else.
It's not a new mantra at all, unless you consider Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose of 1979 a new mantra. Our economic freedom - the freedom to purchase the highest quality goods at the lowest possible price no matter where they are produced - is one of the most sacred freedoms that were incorporated into our nation by our Founding Fathers who were followers of Adam Smith:

In discussing tariffs and other restrictions on international trade in his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote:

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. ... In every country, it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people.

The reason for this is that we USED all that we could manufacter and still needed more. Today things are quite different. Today it is because we don't make anything in the first place.
Then why has our manufacturing sector been increasing by leaps and bounds in the past 30 years?

Steel is a good example:

For those who still believe in protective tariffs, President Bush's ill-advised steel tariffs are a case in point that shows that tariffs do much more harm than good.

Those steel tariffs increased the price of steel used by American steel-using manufacturers by 40%. Those increased costs forced steel-using manufacturers to lay off 114,500 workers in 16 states (Earlier I stated that the number of lost jobs was nearly 100,000. Further research showed that the actual number of jobs lost was 114,500.)

How many steelworker jobs were saved? 1,700. So, the net number of jobs lost because of the steel tariffs was 112,800.

The higher prices forced by the steel tariffs cost American consumers $800,000 for each steel job saved for a total cost to the American economy of $1,360,000,000 to save 1.700 jobs. That $1.36 billion lost to the economy could have created 27,200 jobs paying $50,000 each. (Source: Economic stupidity (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20030501.shtml))

It's not as if the American steel producers needed help. In 2000, the year before the Clinton Recession and the 9/11 attacks, domestic steel production was 112,242,000 tons, the highest domestic production of steel since 1975 (2003 World Almanac).

I also found some interesting information from the Iron and Steel Institute:

In 2000, domestic steel production was 112,242,000 tons with steel plants operating at 86.1% of capacity. Total steel imports amounted to 37,957,000 tons. 151,000 employees with an average hourly wage of $36.329.

In 2001, domestic steel production was 99,321,000 tons with steel plants operating at 79.2% of capacity. Total steel imports amounted to 30,080,000 tons. 141,000 employees with an average hourly wage of $38.569.

In 2002, domestic steel production was 101,679,000 tons with steel plants operating at 89.4% of capacity. Total steel imports amounted to 32,686,000 tons. 124,000 employees with an average hourly wage of $39.573.

Through September 30, 2003, domestic steel production was 75,522,000 tons with steel plants operating at 83.2% of capacity. Total steel imports amounted to 17,526,000 tons. 121,000 employees with an average hourly wage of $40.540.

So it is obvious from the example of Bush's unneeded steel tariffs that protective tariffs do much more harm than good.

The value of assets is variable, the value of debt is absolute. In any event, the author of those figures is spinning some very deceptive nonsense. He is comparing the estimated value of ALL assets on American soil to Federal Debt. Who cares. That's like saying that my business is in great shape because the building I lease is worth a lot of money.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The author is comparing the PERSONAL assets of American families with the PERSONAL liabilities of American families and comes up with the PERSONAL net worth of American families of $53 Trillion. There is nothing in that article about the federal debt.

You are the one who is being deceptive (or is it that you just don't know what you are talking about?).

[Naturalized-Texan]

Spot on, Americon...we the people are being fleeced. I'm spending every extra cent I earn on debt ELIMINATION and acquisition of hard assets (silver/gold). I would highly suggest that others do the same.
I have seen that many commodities analysts are now saying that the silver/gold bubble is about to burst. Maybe you should unload before it does.

[Timberwolf]

I have seen that many commodities analysts are now saying that the silver/gold bubble is about to burst. Maybe you should unload before it does.
I'm not speculating, I'm taking physical possession of what I buy...but, thanks for the heads-up.

I have heard, however, that there will be a "quiet time" during the entire summer, with things "heating up" again by the end of the year. Regardless, we shall see how it plays out. I don't see the precious metals markets cooling off until the Fed ceases inflating the money supply. This year they're inflating it 11½% (or was it 9½%?). Either way, such a devaluation in the dollar cannot be a good thing in the long-term...short term, it may be completely necessary. But, such inflationary pressures will only serve to boost gold/silver/platinum/palladium/rhodium.

The more important thing is to retire as much debt as possible in the coming couple years. Those who continue to amass debt are not gonna be happy campers in 2-3 years.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm not speculating, I'm taking physical possession of what I buy...but, thanks for the heads-up.

I have heard, however, that there will be a "quiet time" during the entire summer, with things "heating up" again by the end of the year. Regardless, we shall see how it plays out. I don't see the precious metals markets cooling off until the Fed ceases inflating the money supply. This year they're inflating it 11½% (or was it 9½%?). Either way, such a devaluation in the dollar cannot be a good thing in the long-term...short term, it may be completely necessary. But, such inflationary pressures will only serve to boost gold/silver/platinum/palladium/rhodium.
The figures of 11½% (or was it 9½%?) are probably also inflated. I doubt that it's that high. However, about 4 years ago we were in a period of deflation during which the money supply was too low to produce and sustain economic growth. An increase in the money supply was essential and, when combined with the final phase of the Bush tax rate cuts, produced the vigorous economic boom we are now experiencing. Excluding the high price of crude oil, inflation has been moderate to low.

The more important thing is to retire as much debt as possible in the coming couple years. Those who continue to amass debt are not gonna be happy campers in 2-3 years.
Fortunately, we are out of debt and have been for more than 3 years since we paid off our mortgage.

BTW, my father was fortunate enough to sell a lot of his silver coins when silver was at about $12.00 per ounce in the late 1970s or early 1980s. He pretty much hit that peak.

[DesertFox]

I see Carl´s still peddling snake oil. Some things never change. It´s almost reassuring, that weird sort of stability, like a gyroscope or something.

[omegatrump]

Spot on, Americon...we the people are being fleeced. I'm spending every extra cent I earn on debt ELIMINATION and acquisition of hard assets (silver/gold). I would highly suggest that others do the same.

I would say this is a wise move, considering that the M3 report is no more, who knows how much paper money is being printed. There is presently a slight correction in the Gold price but most of what I am hearing is that it is temporary, much like the profit taking cycles in the stock market.

With the rise in interest rates many are speculating that Real Estate bubble is the next to burst.

[Beowulf]

Americon, just one thing I'm going to say on this:

We had a budget surplus over Clinton's last two years.


A surplus means that you are overtaxed!

[DesertFox]

Thomas Sowell wrote an article on trade deficits some time ago. He said what I always thought, that a trade deficit is meaningless. You trade what you have -- money -- for a good or service that someone else has that you want. You now have that good or service and he has the money you gave him for it. How are you worse off, or he better off? Each of you got what he wanted from the deal whether he´s an Indian in India or a Chinaman here (or in China).

[Borgia]

Thomas Sowell wrote an article on trade deficits some time ago. He said what I always thought, that a trade deficit is meaningless. You trade what you have -- money -- for a good or service that someone else has that you want. You now have that good or service and he has the money you gave him for it. How are you worse off, or he better off? Each of you got what he wanted from the deal whether he´s an Indian in India or a Chinaman here (or in China).

I think this is short-sighted. We can't keep printing more money. Right now the US is losing a large portion of its manufacturing base. Luckily we still have a lot of intellectual capital that we can sell to the world. But this is slowly changing as the rest of the world catches up with our engineers and scientists. At some point we offer less and less to the rest of the world yet buy more and more? Sorry, that does not add up.

Sowell totally ignores that foreign countries are funding us. At some point, that may stop and he will learn that his "so what" attitude was incorrect.

[DesertFox]

Sowell totally ignores that foreign countries are funding us. At some point, that may stop and he will learn that his "so what" attitude was incorrect.No, he doesn't. We invest in them, they in us, us in us, they in them, on and on. It's private money, privately invested, creating wealth where before there was none. The losers, if there are any, are private actors. The winners are all of us.

Thomas Sowell has forgotten more about economics that the lot of us here put together know.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I just purchased Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. It should be must reading for liberals since they are totally ignorant of Basic Economics. Another must read book is Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman.

[DesertFox]

I see. You know more about economics than Thomas Sowell does.

Glad to know that.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I see. You know more about economics than Thomas Sowell does.

Glad to know that.
It seems that Carl isn't the only one peddling snake oil. Americon is virtually drowning in it.

BTW, Walter Williams and Milton Friedman have stated much the same thing about the trade deficit as Thomas Sowell does. They are all free-market economists which makes me think that Americon is opposed to free markets.

[Rhino]

If I am wrong then by all means, provide us with the correct information. But you already know I'm right, you're just afraid to admit it.LOL! How do you get that head through doorways?

Thomas Sowell is a Monetarist Propagandist. He preaches the religion of Fiat and Corporate Colonialism.But you're not biased, huh?

[Rhino]

LOL! I was merely making an observation, not an argument. Economics isn't a science. It's an art. 100 different economists will give 100 different opinions on an issue. It's not worth arguing. But claiming to know more than many experts is indeed an issue of ego. Topping it off with a helping of arrogance doesn't help your case. It weakens it. People tend not to take you seriously when you do that. Just disagree, and leave the condescending pontificating at home. You might make better headway in getting a point across.

[DesertFox]

But you already know I'm right, you're just afraid to admit it.:hahaha:

[Borgia]

I see. You know more about economics than Thomas Sowell does.

Glad to know that.

Let's take Sowell's logic that trade deficits don't matter to the extremes to see if it holds up.

America buys $100 trillion in goods per year from the outside world
America sells $0 to the outside world

Good or bad? According to Sowell, it is just fine. Do you really believe this scenario would be good?

[Borgia]

They will alswer that it is fine. LOL. I think they will say that these jokers:

Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
White House Economic Advisor Dr. Lawrence Lindsey
MIT professor Dr. Lester Thurow
The U.S. Trade Deficit Commission
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
Don't know half of what Thomas Sowell knows about economics. :confused:

[Rhino]

LOL. I think they will say that these jokers:

Don't know half of what Thomas Sowell knows about economics. :confused:
Actually, from what I find, what they say isn't all that different. I also find other economists who support what Sowell says. By the way, I can find nothing that claims he said trade deficits were meaningless.

[Rhino]

Okay. I guess I mistakenly assumed you were trying to get a persuasive point across, in which case the way you come across would be relevant. But hey, rant on if you wish.

[Borgia]

By the way, I can find nothing that claims he said trade deficits were meaningless.

Are you saying that DesertFox incorrectly interpreted Sowell's work?

Originally Posted by DesertFox
Thomas Sowell wrote an article on trade deficits some time ago. He said what I always thought, that a trade deficit is meaningless.

[Rhino]

No, you didn't "assume" any such thing. You assumed that you could play to the croud with your attempts at being a smartass at my expense. That is the only assumption you've made and continue to make.LOL! Carl, you aren't attracting any crowds that I could play to. That was my point.

[Rhino]

Are you saying that DesertFox incorrectly interpreted Sowell's work?No. I think you're taking things too literally again. Although I think you're doing it on purpose this time in an attempt to mock him.

[Rhino]

You're making it for me. And if what I'm saying is so meaningless, why do you keep responding?

[Rhino]

Trying to point out that your attitude was detracting from your own argument is a cheap shot? Okay. Whatever.

By the way, you're one of the last people who should be lecturing about cheap shots. That was also my point.

You have some good arguments. I may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. I was merely trying to impress upon you that the arrogant attitude was far overshadowing those arguments, and detracting from your ability to get your point across. If you think that's a cheap shot, then so be it I guess. I tend to think others might disagree with you.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Americon: I'm sure that the following will be enlightening to you:

Don’t believe the doomsayers. What we “owe” is historically low (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/riedl200501280835.asp)

America’s debt burden is actually below the post-World War II average. In fact, it’s lower than at any time during the high-flying 1990s.

........................

The proper way to measure the impact of borrowing is to consider the total debt as a percentage of income. Banks use this “debt ratio” to determine how large of a loan families and business can afford. The same common sense applies to measuring the federal government’s finances. Last year’s $413 billion budget deficit says no more about Washington’s debt burden than the $5,000 loan says about a family’s debt burden.

A better measure is the federal government’s debt ratio, calculated as the total federal publicly held debt as a percentage of America’s annual income (the gross domestic product). The current debt ratio — 38 percent — is actually below the post-World War II average of 43 percent. America’s debt burden is low by historical standards.

Heavy borrowing during World War II pushed the debt ratio up from 40 percent to 109 percent. Since then, it has typically ranged between 25 percent and 50 percent. The plummeting post-war debt ratio is no mystery: Economic growth has dwarfed the amount of new debt. Since 1946, inflation-adjusted federal debt has grown by 84 percent, while the economy has surged 429 percent. Just like a family with rising income can afford to buy a more expensive home and take on more mortgage debt, the growing American economy has been able to easily absorb its modest new debt.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Americon: Your claims are hilarious, as ever. :rotflmbo:

Thanks for proving your complete ignorance of economics. Of course, I've known about that ignorance all along, but it's good to see you prove it beyond any doubt. :rolleyes:

EDIT:
The makeup and the calculation of the GDP has not changed since 1947. Look it up here (http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm).

[Foquet]

Oh my God!

Carl!

You are back here? It seems like a lot of the old retreads are back here. :D

Good to see some old liberals here.

(This is Nos BTW).


No, you didn't "assume" any such thing. You assumed that you could play to the croud with your attempts at being a smartass at my expense. That is the only assumption you've made and continue to make.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Oh my God!

Carl!

You are back here? It seems like a lot of the old retreads are back here. :D

Good to see some old liberals here.

(This is Nos BTW).
Methinks that Americon is a Carl retread. American is at least as nutty as Carl.:evilgrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Americon: When are you going to start posting information from credible links by people who are not left-wing conspiracy theory nuts? I think that you should start posting those nutty conspiracy theories in the Conspiracy Corridor forum.

[Scaramouche]

LOL. I think they will say that these jokers:

Don't know half of what Thomas Sowell knows about economics. :confused:

Take Paul Volker out of that statement and I agree 100%

[Scaramouche]

Americon: Your claims are hilarious, as ever. :rotflmbo:

Thanks for proving your complete ignorance of economics. Of course, I've known about that ignorance all along, but it's good to see you prove it beyond any doubt. :rolleyes:

EDIT:
The makeup and the calculation of the GDP has not changed since 1947. Look it up here (http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm).

I wouldn't even bother pulling up your link! If your statement is true, under what guise did they include what is known as HEDONICS (which the FED recently has said that they will no longer use) in 1947?

Figures still don't lie, but liars (and governments) sure do figure and their myrmidons slavishly support their lies.

[DesertFox]

But footballs don't have feathers.

[Etaoin]

Fortunately, we are out of debt and have been for more than 3 years since we paid off our mortgage.

BTW, my father was fortunate enough to sell a lot of his silver coins when silver was at about $12.00 per ounce in the late 1970s or early 1980s. He pretty much hit that peak.

If he "hit that peak" at $12.00, what did he buy them at? As I recall, the peak was right near $50.00 and gold was pushing toward $800.00.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If he "hit that peak" at $12.00, what did he buy them at? As I recall, the peak was right near $50.00 and gold was pushing toward $800.00.
He took his coins out of circulation, so his cost was the face value of the coins. The average gold price in 1980 was $20. It did peak higher becore H.L. Hunt dumped all the silver he had accumulated. I think that my father sold his before Hunt dumped his silver. I was just guessing about the $12 price. It may very well have been higher. All I remember for sure is that my father was very happy with his sale.