Trouble with fiscal policy

Post #48,160 by wharris2 8/5/02 12:27:06 PM Reply	Trouble with fiscal policy This can be done by printing money, but more ususually (and sanely) is to increase Federal borrowing. The money is spent directly through Federal appropriations on specified budget items. Isn't this theory, however, related directly to running a brief deficit and spending it on things of substance like hospitals, schools, etc. - and then in "good" years, paying off the deficit when there's a surplus? Forget for a moment that the "budget surplus" of the last couple of Clinton years was largely illusionary. Assume that it were true. Every bloody member of Congress started salivating at the chance of spending every last dime of whatever part of that so-called surplus on whatever they could get their hands on. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #48,239 by tablizer 8/5/02 6:41:36 PM Reply	rainy-day fund (* Every bloody member of Congress started salivating at the chance of spending every last dime of whatever part of that so-called surplus on whatever they could get their hands on. *) I swear that I was thinking at the time that they should create a rainy-day economic fund (not a soc sec "lockbox") with the surplus. I think only a few senators mentioned such a thing. Everybody else was stooopid. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #48,264 by wharris2 8/5/02 8:57:18 PM Reply	Re: rainy-day fund I swear that I was thinking at the time that they should create a rainy-day economic fund (not a soc sec "lockbox") with the surplus. I think only a few senators mentioned such a thing. Or pay down the debt, or something constructive. But NOOOOOOOO, let's fund that (unwanted) dam on some godforsaken river nobody heard about, or Highway 989 to nowhere, or whatever. They took WorldCom executives into custody? By those standards, 90% of Congress would be in prison, 9% would have successfully shredded and burned any incriminating documents, and the remaining honest 1% of Congress would start getting bloated heads and start doing the same things all over again. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #48,428 by tablizer 8/6/02 3:38:56 PM Reply	Pork But NOOOOOOOO, let's fund that (unwanted) dam on some godforsaken The list of pork in a recent Reader's Digest was sickening (if true). Statue renovation, fairgrounds, local museums, etc. Reagan tried to reduce pork by asking for line-item veto power. However, it was turned down as unconsitutional. Thus, one must take the package all-or-nothing; which means PORK. ------------------------ In other news, some are blaming Greenspan for economic problems: [link\|http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/06/news/economy/greenspan_case/index.htm\|http://money.cnn.co...se/index.htm] I especially like their timeline: 1990-1991 - Recession 1991-1992 - Jobless Recovery Nov. 1992 - Pres. Bush joins ranks of unemployed Like father like son..... (regardless of actual fault)

Welcome to IWETHEY!