Is there a Federal Deficit?

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Amplifier


By the way, it's sheer constitutional ignorance to say that President Bush spends or lowers taxes. Article I, Sections 7 and 8, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to spend and tax. The president only has veto power that Congress can override.

The article lost all credibility with this comments. A quick look at the budget process. It doesn't take a Ph.D to figure out while the Congress has the authority to approve the spending and taxes. It is the President who PROPOSE the spending the taxes according to his policy and priorities. In addition to that, the President can and usually does use his significant political influence to push the Congress to go one way or the other, especially when his party dominates the Congress.

So it's sheer ignorance on the author's part to imply Bush "only has veto power" on spending and tax and try to shift the blame to the Congress.

Getting back to deficits, my question to you is this: Is there truly a deficit? The short answer is yes, but only in an accounting sense -- not in any meaningful economic sense. Let's look at it. If Congress spends $2.4 trillion but only takes in $2 trillion in taxes, who makes up that $.4 trillion shortfall that we call the budget deficit? Neither the Tooth Fairy, Santa nor the Easter Bunny makes up the difference between what's spent in 2005 and what's taxed in 2005.

Some might be tempted to answer that it's future generations who will pay. That's untrue. If the federal government consumes $2.4 trillion of what Americans produced in 2005, it must find ways to force us to spend $2.4 trillion less privately in 2005. In other words, the federal government can't spend today what's going to be produced in the future.

That's another false statement. Simple economy:

GDP=Consumer spending + Investment + Government Spending + Excess in Export

If government spend $2.4trillion more, the private spending doesn't necessary have to be $2.4trillion less. The difference can come from $2.4trillion less in net export that goes to other countries' balance of payment.

Maybe the ariticle can fool people who don't know economy, and maybe the author think his Ph.D means he can just pull BS and people will just believe it. But if you know a little about economy and how things really work, you can easily see the author is just pulling BS to mask the problem with today's deficit and this administration's spending.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: umbrella39
at this great unbiased link Amp. Darkhawk served you quite well. :laugh:

Learn what a syndicated columnist is. Then read the article. Then find out why I don't take posters who use smilies at the beginning and end of their posts seriously.

Kind of like how you don't take deficits seriously, huh!!

That's hilarious

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: umbrella39
at this great unbiased link Amp. Darkhawk served you quite well. :laugh:

Learn what a syndicated columnist is. Then read the article. Then find out why I don't take posters who use smilies at the beginning and end of their posts seriously.

Kind of like how you don't take deficits seriously, huh!!

Served again :thumbsup:

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Hi I can't retort a single thing Dr Williams said. But that's why he's the head of GMU's economics department and I use words like 'served'

Thanks for admitting it.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Hi I can't retort a single thing Dr Williams said. But that's why he's the head of GMU's economics department and I use words like 'served'

Thanks for admitting it.

While you make up phrases and type them as quotes from others that have not stated them, and then state that you don't take those that have smilies in their postings serious?

Nice. Very nice indeed! <Insert rolling eyes smiley here>