Jump to content
This discussion brings to mind a speech by that other great Republican, Spiro Agnew: "nattering nabobs of negativism" to which he added the less famous but still hilarious ending:
"They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."
Thought I'd just throw (back) some humor since we're mentioning 1773- may as well look at 1970!
Tscan. Remember I am writing about the first 100 days, not what actually came to pass. The reference is pp.106ff of Ron Suskind's book, drawn from first Treasury Secretary under President Bush, Paul O'Neill's notes, "The Price of Loyalty." The Congressional Budget Office had projected a $5.6 trillion surplus over the ten years 2001-2010. Because of the nature of the debt, $2.4 trillion was pay back to Social Security Trust Fund leaving $3.2 trillion. But only $2 trillion was in debt of ten years or less leaving $1.2 trillion beyond the projected requirement for debt reduction. The thought process was, "Those funds are outside the ten year look forward, may as well give them back to the people." The problem was that there was a $700 billion miscalculation. The actual 'give back' to promise was $500 billion and that was the number both parties eventually agreed to.
The speech writers (Rove and Hughes) placed the $1.2 trillion in the State of the Union speech.
Perhaps I did not make the point that Bush Administration operated from seat of the pants, back of envelope reasoning. Whether you agree or disagree with Obama's budget policy, it has been well considered.
I apologize if you read into what I wrote that the $1.2 trillion was enacted.
Hey Tscan. $.1 trillion increase on a base of $2.4 trillion over eight years is little more than 4% or 0.5% a year. Not much, and I suspect revenues for 2009 will actually be less than they were for 2000.
President Nixon had many faults the worst of which was the paranoia that ultimately forced him from office. But he was the last of the leaders of the Republican Party who was a pragmatist. Today, there are only a few Republicans who would take the stands that he took. EPA was his creation, but it was opposed by the nascent neo-conservatives who ultimately controlled the Party's policies.
You state: In a national interview last Friday, President Obama stated that "he had enough to do without having to worry about the financial system."
I think he said "stock market," not financial system.
JLM I suggest you read the editorial by the paragon of conservative economists, Martin Feldstein, a person who was the voice of tax cuts in the Reagan years. Here is a url:
JLM: Are you blaming someone you refer to as "BO" for the current mess? Please explain. The real culprit lies in excesses of greed, not with ANY ONE elected official.
I'm just a dumb retired economist who saw the handwriting on the wall in 2006 and got out of a second home that I can now buy back for less than I paid for it in the first place.
You have a business plan, pull in, avoid taxes, etc. These are all business decisions on your part. Incidentally, as your personal finance advisor, you should wait to mine any capital loss until the new tax law is passed as it will increase from 15% to 20% the value of the loss.
But thanks for making my original point-that the "stimulus package" was poorly targeted. As for my plan, yes it will have a progressive tinge to it. Anyone earning less than $103,000 a year will get a 6.1% wage increase on $20,000 that will diminish to nothing by the time earnings reach $250,000. Now, how important is $1200 a year to a person earning $20,000? Will he put it in a money market? How important is $1200 to a person earning $103,000? How important is $1200 to a person earning $250,000.
You've told me that you don't even know if you got your stimulus money ($600) and probably don't even care. You've answered my question. Believe it or not, you agree with me.
JLM. PLease be honest. What did you spend your $600s on?
Except for Ron Pollard and Steve Lewis, none of the above are credible-they hide behind anonymity.
Ron Pollard grew up during the time when my father was paying a 50% tax. It did not hurt his incentive, and he never thought of the country as "Socialist." As the nephew of two flaming communists, he was more concerned with guilt by association, otherwise known as McCarthyism.
Incidentally Ron, did your mother draw Social Security widow benefits? Were you the beneficiary of social Security until you were 18? Do you or will you accept Medicare? And don't tell me you paid for these benefits, because that is only half true.
Keep playing hide and seek. You so ashamed you won't even disclose your name. You don't need a looney pill. You're already there.
Last login: Thursday, February 7, 2008
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.