home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11912 talk.politics.misc:66684
- Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!mykes
- From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
- Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum)
- Message-ID: <C0J9yq.Lqy@unix.portal.com>
- Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
- Sender: news@unix.portal.com
- Nntp-Posting-Host: jobe
- Organization: Portal Communications Company
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
- References: <1993Jan7.160030.1478@hemlock.cray.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:44:49 GMT
- Lines: 89
-
- Russ Anderson (rja@mahogany126.cray.com) wrote:
- :
- : In article <2155@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
- : >
- : > From 1983 to 1990 "The Seven Fat Years" we experienced the longest
- : > peace time economic expansion and the longest general economic expan-
- : > sion since the Kennedy Tax Cuts in the 60's. What happened in 1990 to
- : > 1992 was due to the 1990 Budget compromise.
- :
- : Let's see if I've got this straight. The recession started in July 1990
- : because of a budget compromise that was not passed until the end of
- : September 1990, right?
-
- The recession started in July in large part due to the media. In Jan. 1990,
- almost Jan 1 to the day, the press was saying how the 80's were the years
- the baby boom lived it up and that the 90's would be the years the baby
- boomers started feeling their age and started saving for retirement.
- Additionally, elimination of mortgage and credit card debt caused a lot
- of people to spend their money on debt payments instead of new goods.
- And the government also restricted the money supply by forcing banks to
- keep a higher percentage of reserves. Bush and Cheney also worked hard
- to cut the military by $30 Billion. Adding a tax hike to further limit
- the private sector's spending/borrowing power was significant fuel for the
- fire. The boom would have continued if the private sector were encouraged
- to spend money (by giving it money) on goods, creating demand, and so on.
-
- But remember, 1990 was a year of Reverse Reaganomics (tm) and that in an
- all-out attempt by the Democratic Fascist Party (tm) in Congress to force bush
- into going against his no new taxes pledge. I'm sure you are aware that bush
- refused to sign the tax bill 3 times, and 3 times the government went into
- Gramm/Rudman sequester. And 3 times, congress extended the date the
- sequesters would take effect. I bet Bush would have allowed the sequesters
- to happen for good, but if congress can get around its own rules by taking
- a vote at will, no sequester would have happened anyway. The government
- operating without a budget would have been terrible for the economy...
-
- : > This compromise had nothing
- : > to do with Reagan and involved Bush "caving" into the Democrates on the
- : > hill. We Conservatives and Classical Liberals believe that Bush caved in
- : > to easily (ie - he lied about taxes and lost the election).
-
- Agreed. And congress stood totally in Bush's way of implementing any kind
- of stimulus package at all.
-
- : > The socialist naysayers cry that "The Seven Fat Years" were caused by
- : > deficit spending. That of course requires the listener to actually believe
- : > that deficit spending has the ability to spurn economic growth. This also
- : > requires belief in Keynes.
- : > What we all need to worry about is the latest theory held by many leftward
- : > leaning economist.
- :
- : Could you name some of these economists?
- :
-
- Robert Reich, for one. I'm not holding my breath that Clinton will keep any
- of his promises wrt middle class tax cut and stimulus package. In fact,
- I expect to see 95% of what Bush proposed end up as Clinton's package.
- Balanced Budget Amendment, line item veto, capital gains tax cut, first
- time home buyer tax credit.
-
- : > This theory uses "The Seven Fat Years" as empirical proof
- : > that deficits dont matter. They think that the current government deficit
- : > is meaningless and if they persuade President-Elect Clinton of this, we can
- : > all expect deficits to skyrocket through the roof.
- :
- : Bush's own budget estimates show annual deficits >$300 Billion thru 1998.
-
- What do Bush's revenue estimates show? Negative growth? Decent positive
- growth? I've already stated that Bush's budget for 1993 is similar in size
- to the 1992 bill, and that maintaining a fixed budget while revenues increase
- gives us money to pay the debt... And allows us to stop defecit spending
- within a few years. Like if we spend $1.5 trillion every year, tax
- revenues will eventually surpass $1.5 trillion...
-
- : > Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
- : > "Just imagine what the deficit would be like if The Seven
- : > Fat Years never occurred. Remember when Social Security
- : > would not last till the next decade."
- :
- : There was a massive increase in the Social Security tax to make it "solvent".
-
- Yup. And a damn unfair tax, too.
-
- :
- : > I hope my work schedule permits further reading here !
- : --
- : Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
- : ------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
- : EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
-