Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
EconProf
ParticipantThanks guys.
I should have mentioned…these are commercial tenants in commercial properties.ParticipantThanks guys.
I should have mentioned…these are commercial tenants in commercial properties.ParticipantThanks guys.
I should have mentioned…these are commercial tenants in commercial properties.ParticipantDrboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.
More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates. His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.
Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years.ParticipantDrboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.
More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates. His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.
Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years.ParticipantDrboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.
More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates. His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.
Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years.ParticipantDrboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.
More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates. His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.
Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years.ParticipantDrboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.
More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates. His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.
Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years.Participant[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.Participant[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.Participant[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.Participant[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.Participant[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]
For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.ParticipantHere are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.
So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for. -
AuthorPosts
