1998 and 1999, for example.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #66,955 by mmoffitt 12/5/02 4:23:07 PM Reply	1998 and 1999, for example. 1998 and 1999 were back-to-back Fed surpluses, first time since 1956-1957.
Post #66,957 by imric 12/5/02 4:26:42 PM Reply	Just because you can make the payments on your debts doesn't mean you have 'surplus' money. There was no 'surplus'. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #66,966 by boxley 12/5/02 5:12:32 PM Reply	nope, ya forgot the payroll tax will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
Post #66,976 by ben_tilly 12/5/02 6:13:31 PM Reply	Not if you counted social security And the balancing of the rest of the budget was helped by the economy. Much as I dislike the moron, Shrub is not really at fault in the budgetary crunch. Like Clinton said to his dad, "It's the economy, stupid." Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #67,148 by Brandioch 12/6/02 1:47:56 PM Reply	I'll disagree. Much as I dislike the moron, Shrub is not really at fault in the budgetary crunch. So, we have a poor economy and Bush is increasing spending. That sounds like his fault to me. Wouldn't a BETTER approach be to REDUCE government spending?
Post #67,160 by ChrisR 12/6/02 2:45:59 PM Reply	Not from a Keynesian perspective Wouldn't a BETTER approach be to REDUCE government spending? If one were of the notion of using deficit spending as an economic stimulus, it is exactly during times of recession that you want to go in the red. Of course, one can argue the kinds of stimuli that Bush is using (tax cuts for the wealthy, military, etc...) are the wrong way to approach to priming the economic pump. But that does not mean that governments should not increase deficit spending during the bust of the cycle.
Post #67,161 by Brandioch 12/6/02 2:49:03 PM Reply	Good point.
Post #67,284 by ben_tilly 12/7/02 9:13:56 AM Reply	No It was Clinton's fault for spending money he didn't have when he didn't need to spend it. But in a poor economy, the government is SUPPOSED to up its spending (part of why it shouldn't overspend when the economy is fine), and many of the increases will happen for reasons that are out of the control of the administration of the moment. (People lose jobs, and then land in the government support networks. That takes a lot of government money.) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #67,501 by mmoffitt 12/9/02 10:52:12 AM Reply	Do deficits really matter when there is no chance that ... the debt will ever be repaid? Isn't the trick to just make everyone believe that someday, somehow, somewhere they'll actually get back what they lent us?
Post #67,505 by boxley 12/9/02 11:05:49 AM Reply	in sheer dollars its huge, as a % of GNP it is in acceptable limits. thamx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
Post #67,517 by ben_tilly 12/9/02 11:16:15 AM Reply	Yes Remember, each individual person doesn't care about whether the whole debt gets paid. Just so long as their bond does. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #67,532 by bepatient 12/9/02 11:39:48 AM Reply	Leverage More to box's point....its not the debt that matters...a certain debt level is actually >good< to carry...its the economy's ability to sustain that level of debt. In that light..our debt is "within acceptable limits". It may be high in sheer dollar terms...and even high in terms of overall leverage...but we maintain the ability to service that debt. And our credit is still decent...thus we can continue to cycle debt. If we hit triple c in the world credit market...we're in trouble. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #67,578 by mmoffitt 12/9/02 1:48:55 PM Reply	Nah, that's what the nukes are for.
Post #67,591 by bepatient 12/9/02 2:30:22 PM Reply	Novel approach to calculating a D/E ratio, I suppose. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #67,609 by ben_tilly 12/9/02 3:27:36 PM Reply	But note... If we hit triple-C in the world credit market, then the whole world would be in trouble, not just us. There are a lot of people with a large vested interest in keeping the current status quo working... Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #67,655 by mmoffitt 12/9/02 6:48:29 PM Reply	Yes. We have quite the pyramid scheme going, don't we?
Post #67,690 by bepatient 12/9/02 9:34:26 PM Reply	Think you may need to revisit some definitions. and maybe your public and corporate finance texts. Debt is by design. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #67,718 by mmoffitt 12/9/02 11:49:05 PM Reply	Happily I majored in Mathematics. Pure mathematics, that is. If it smelled liked an application (and I do mean smelled) I avoided it like the plague. Hence, I did not have "corporate finance" books in my curriculum. I'm just a poor old dumb North Carolina boy who was taught that a "debt" was something that you eventually paid back. Or else you declared bankruptcy, which is akin to conceding that you failed. ;-)
Post #67,759 by bepatient 12/10/02 6:39:33 AM Reply	Well it is! But when you have lots of collateral...you can take out alot...and you can stagger it so as to have alot out all the time. And when you're a business there are people who calculate the "correct" amount of debt for you to carry. Methinks you know these things already ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #67,132 by wharris2 12/6/02 11:20:49 AM Reply	Moff, you have your eyes in a blender

Okay... now... who said the ECONOMY... - (folkert) - (37) - Dec. 4, 2002, 12:37:54 PM EST

Shhh.... - (bepatient) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2002, 02:18:33 PM EST

EOY budget spending -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2002, 02:41:28 PM EST

I doubt it, those number are to big for that. -NT - (folkert) - Dec. 4, 2002, 04:27:17 PM EST

It looks promising. - (Brandioch) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2002, 04:43:01 PM EST

why pay goes up - (tablizer) - Dec. 9, 2002, 11:59:53 PM EST

I did - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Dec. 5, 2002, 12:17:51 AM EST

you will not see inflation any time soon - (boxley) - (3) - Dec. 5, 2002, 12:37:04 AM EST

The question that I have then... - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Dec. 5, 2002, 12:44:50 AM EST

Much like Japan is now - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 5, 2002, 08:28:32 AM EST

One catch - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 5, 2002, 06:16:14 PM EST

Yeah that &#% Clinton and his - (Ashton) - (23) - Dec. 5, 2002, 04:12:21 AM EST

Must you bring up the "Bad Old Days"? - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 5, 2002, 04:18:33 PM EST

what surpluses? Never happened -NT - (boxley) - (21) - Dec. 5, 2002, 04:19:52 PM EST

1998 and 1999, for example. - (mmoffitt) - (19) - Dec. 5, 2002, 04:23:07 PM EST

Just because you can - (imric) - Dec. 5, 2002, 04:26:42 PM EST

nope, ya forgot the payroll tax -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 5, 2002, 05:12:32 PM EST

Not if you counted social security - (ben_tilly) - (15) - Dec. 5, 2002, 06:13:31 PM EST

I'll disagree. - (Brandioch) - (3) - Dec. 6, 2002, 01:47:56 PM EST

Not from a Keynesian perspective - (ChrisR) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2002, 02:45:59 PM EST

Good point. -NT - (Brandioch) - Dec. 6, 2002, 02:49:03 PM EST

No - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 7, 2002, 09:13:56 AM EST

Do deficits really matter when there is no chance that ... - (mmoffitt) - (10) - Dec. 9, 2002, 10:52:12 AM EST

in sheer dollars its huge, as a % of GNP - (boxley) - Dec. 9, 2002, 11:05:49 AM EST

Yes - (ben_tilly) - (8) - Dec. 9, 2002, 11:16:15 AM EST

Leverage - (bepatient) - (7) - Dec. 9, 2002, 11:39:48 AM EST

Nah, that's what the nukes are for. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2002, 01:48:55 PM EST

Novel approach to calculating a D/E ratio, I suppose. -NT - (bepatient) - Dec. 9, 2002, 02:30:22 PM EST

But note... - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Dec. 9, 2002, 03:27:36 PM EST

Yes. We have quite the pyramid scheme going, don't we? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3) - Dec. 9, 2002, 06:48:29 PM EST

Think you may need to revisit some definitions. - (bepatient) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2002, 09:34:26 PM EST

Happily I majored in Mathematics. - (mmoffitt) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2002, 11:49:05 PM EST

Well it is! - (bepatient) - Dec. 10, 2002, 06:39:33 AM EST

Moff, you have your eyes in a blender -NT - (wharris2) - Dec. 6, 2002, 11:20:49 AM EST

But I got a check for $375! - (tuberculosis) - Dec. 6, 2002, 11:10:00 AM EST

Who? - (Silverlock) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2002, 02:08:18 PM EST

By the way... - (inthane-chan) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2002, 02:29:48 PM EST

Re: "very strange" - (Silverlock) - Dec. 6, 2002, 02:34:04 PM EST

iwethey.org

Nearly sentient.
165 ms