LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I have a few links if I can find them regarding off budget and funds I think this is one
cbo
another view of trust funds
cbo
another view of trust funds
Actually, President Bush and his (sic) economic advisors know exactly what the only possible outcome will be . . . economic recovery, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and a second term.
Many people embrace tax cuts based on underlying principles; such as 1) taxes are too high or 2) government has too much money to spend. Bush's tax cuts actually fail to address both of these concerns. While federal tax cuts are skewed towards the wealthy (naturally b/c the more you make the more you pay in taxes), the majority of states are increasing taxes and/or fees. The net effect will vary from state to state and by income bracket but the general trend will be low income workers will pay a penalty (cumulative effect of reduced services and balance of tax changes) . . . while better compensated Americans (and those with significant dividend/capital gains income) will likely benefit.
On the second point it is clear Bush has done very little to limit government spending. The notion that reducing federal income tax restrains federal spending is idiotic . . . unless of course you were hung over during the 80s. The only way to reduce to federal spending is to stop signing spending bills which exceed our means.
Thanks
But...(you knew this was coming
) <snip>
------
In summary, although trust fund accounting, which is required by law and established by convention, accurately reflects the spending authority of trust fund programs by crediting their accounts with intragovernmental transfers, it distorts the effects that those programs have on the budget overall. When budget accounting separates trust funds from all other categories of spending, it presents an unclear picture of the source of budget deficits or surpluses. Indeed, although trust fund programs may appear to be running a surplus when viewed in isolation, once one considers the intragovernmental transfers to those funds, they are already running a deficit--and they will do so to an even greater extent in the coming decades.
------
</snip>
I think I catch the drift of it but if what it does is distort figures and prop up deficit ridden programs, then why should we allow it? It sort of seems like a case of hide/stash/steal the money, almost Enronish.
CkG
Personally, I think economic conditions are irrelevant. Every budget should be based on simple principles . . . set priorities based on the needs of a sustainable society and then budget accordingly. Many munincipalities and most states have constitutions that REQUIRE balanced budgets. During tight times, they have no choice but to cut budgets . . . in the case of places like CA that means cutting dramatically ($95B budget with income of $68B).
Alas arbitrary budget cuts can have decidedly negative consequences. I just left SF (156th American Psychiatric Association convention). On the next to last day, our convention chairwoman was attacked by a homeless man with a history of mental illness. SF is sucking wind already (10% of its restaurants closed in the past two years), if tourism takes a major hit the city will really be on the skids. Curiously, the debate during the previous week was a proposal to close the city's primary inpatient psychiatry unit at SF General.
I don't disagree with the general tenets of growing out of economic doldrums but the fact of the matter is that America has lived on foreign investment and domestic credit. Many Americans have judiciously trimmed the fat in their consumption. States have difficulty being judicious b/c they must balance their budgets. The feds have no such morals or requirements to serve judiciously. Hence, DOD grows with abandon while the VA (Veterans Administration) provides fewer services. The economy will improve as sound business models prevail and American consumption matches income. To the contrary, Bush's activity in the White House (along with a duplicitous GOP majority in the Congress - and their spendthrift Democratic colleagues) will likely add $300-$400B in debt year over year until he leaves office. This pace is sustainable in the short term but will be crippling before the end of the decade.
Alas arbitrary budget cuts can have decidedly negative consequences. I just left SF (156th American Psychiatric Association convention). On the next to last day, our convention chairwoman was attacked by a homeless man with a history of mental illness. SF is sucking wind already (10% of its restaurants closed in the past two years), if tourism takes a major hit the city will really be on the skids. Curiously, the debate during the previous week was a proposal to close the city's primary inpatient psychiatry unit at SF General.
I don't disagree with the general tenets of growing out of economic doldrums but the fact of the matter is that America has lived on foreign investment and domestic credit. Many Americans have judiciously trimmed the fat in their consumption. States have difficulty being judicious b/c they must balance their budgets. The feds have no such morals or requirements to serve judiciously. Hence, DOD grows with abandon while the VA (Veterans Administration) provides fewer services. The economy will improve as sound business models prevail and American consumption matches income. To the contrary, Bush's activity in the White House (along with a duplicitous GOP majority in the Congress - and their spendthrift Democratic colleagues) will likely add $300-$400B in debt year over year until he leaves office. This pace is sustainable in the short term but will be crippling before the end of the decade.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
CADguy,
I think I catch the drift of it but if what it does is distort figures and prop up deficit ridden programs, then why should we allow it? It sort of seems like a case of hide/stash/steal the money, almost Enronish.
*********************
The best way to obscure the reality is to create mumbo jumbo accounting fund transfer scenerios.
But, if you look at it as simple dr and cr it becomes clear...
all the bucks from all sources comes into one pot and is allocated via iou's to the trusts with the off set going as a owed to the trust fund on the main account. (each fund has its own set of accounts as does the general account) Well... fund A spends X dollars ($comes from general fund) dr/cr. opps the fund is broke...nope it has iou's but we have no $, it is debt... yup! but not as bad as it would have been had each fund had its own funds and invested in something like the stock market awaiting the need for the cash.
Legislation has tightened somewhat.
But, look at the Clinton period... I think it is on a chart on the omb link... was there a surplus... ? (I've been silent on this all along... for various reasons) If it isn't - I'll look and I'll find the link again...
The Budget Surplus Hoax
LET'S THINK ABOUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET but first consider a pretend scenario between Mrs. Williams and me.
"Honey," she says, "we have a budget surplus. Our 1998 expenditures were $90,000, and our revenue was $100,000. That's a $10,000 surplus."
"That's wonderful, Mrs. Williams," I say. "Your brilliance has saved our household from the financial collapse we were headed for as a result of deficit spending. As soon as our accountant goes over our books, we're going to celebrate."
Our accountant goes over the books and gives me a report. Mrs. Williams had counted as revenue this year's $15,000 contribution to our children's education trust fund. She also counted this year's $20,000 contribution to our retirement account. There was nothing put in those accounts except little slips of paper marked "IOU."
Irate, I confront Mrs. Williams, "In reality, there's no balanced budget, much less a surplus. You've cooked the books! You've spent $35,000 earmarked for our trust funds and replaced them with IOUs. You're not supposed to count the money we're putting aside for our children's education and our retirement as revenue available for spending this year. The reality is, the revenue available to be spent this year was $65,000 ($35,000 was to go into the trust accounts). You spent $90,000. That makes for a deficit of $25,000."
With nothing but IOUs in our education trust fund, I ask Mrs. Williams, "What do we do when it's time for our children to go to college?" She says, "Take it easy, Walter. Don't get your panties in a bunch! When college time comes, we have several options: We can renege on our promise to the kids, or we can borrow or steal money for college."
That's when I say, "You are no longer Mrs. Williams; you're fired!"
a good link
edit out another link
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/charts/2001/avail_surplus_chartpacket062701.pdf[/L]
and another
sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite.
the first another don't seem to work I hope this does
I think I catch the drift of it but if what it does is distort figures and prop up deficit ridden programs, then why should we allow it? It sort of seems like a case of hide/stash/steal the money, almost Enronish.
*********************
The best way to obscure the reality is to create mumbo jumbo accounting fund transfer scenerios.
But, if you look at it as simple dr and cr it becomes clear...
all the bucks from all sources comes into one pot and is allocated via iou's to the trusts with the off set going as a owed to the trust fund on the main account. (each fund has its own set of accounts as does the general account) Well... fund A spends X dollars ($comes from general fund) dr/cr. opps the fund is broke...nope it has iou's but we have no $, it is debt... yup! but not as bad as it would have been had each fund had its own funds and invested in something like the stock market awaiting the need for the cash.
Legislation has tightened somewhat.
But, look at the Clinton period... I think it is on a chart on the omb link... was there a surplus... ? (I've been silent on this all along... for various reasons
) If it isn't - I'll look and I'll find the link again... The Budget Surplus Hoax
LET'S THINK ABOUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET but first consider a pretend scenario between Mrs. Williams and me.
"Honey," she says, "we have a budget surplus. Our 1998 expenditures were $90,000, and our revenue was $100,000. That's a $10,000 surplus."
"That's wonderful, Mrs. Williams," I say. "Your brilliance has saved our household from the financial collapse we were headed for as a result of deficit spending. As soon as our accountant goes over our books, we're going to celebrate."
Our accountant goes over the books and gives me a report. Mrs. Williams had counted as revenue this year's $15,000 contribution to our children's education trust fund. She also counted this year's $20,000 contribution to our retirement account. There was nothing put in those accounts except little slips of paper marked "IOU."
Irate, I confront Mrs. Williams, "In reality, there's no balanced budget, much less a surplus. You've cooked the books! You've spent $35,000 earmarked for our trust funds and replaced them with IOUs. You're not supposed to count the money we're putting aside for our children's education and our retirement as revenue available for spending this year. The reality is, the revenue available to be spent this year was $65,000 ($35,000 was to go into the trust accounts). You spent $90,000. That makes for a deficit of $25,000."
With nothing but IOUs in our education trust fund, I ask Mrs. Williams, "What do we do when it's time for our children to go to college?" She says, "Take it easy, Walter. Don't get your panties in a bunch! When college time comes, we have several options: We can renege on our promise to the kids, or we can borrow or steal money for college."
That's when I say, "You are no longer Mrs. Williams; you're fired!"
a good link
edit out another link
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/charts/2001/avail_surplus_chartpacket062701.pdf[/L]
and another
sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite.
the first another don't seem to work I hope this does
So are you calling for the abolishment of the federal government or just curtailing $1T a year in spending?
HJD1,
First 2 links were fine, Thanks but the third however
I could write up a doom and gloom forcast and put it in a pdf to make it look like it is real too
So about that "surplus" again
I still don't understand why they can't use real numbers in their budget like the rest of us have to. I'd be more than willing to grant them some leway year to year on deficits and surpluses but this game of hide and we'll see if it'll ever be found again is rediculus.
CkG
First 2 links were fine, Thanks
but the third howeverI could write up a doom and gloom forcast and put it in a pdf to make it look like it is real too
So about that "surplus" again
I still don't understand why they can't use real numbers in their budget like the rest of us have to. I'd be more than willing to grant them some leway year to year on deficits and surpluses but this game of hide and we'll see if it'll ever be found again is rediculus.
CkG
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
CAD,
they had to do it so they could avoid the verbage of overbudget and some other issues of language. off budget ... on budget... Graham Rudman Hollings thingy with method corrections etc.
If you deal with taking the trust income out of the picture I think Clinton would be in the red... I do have the analysis and am looking for it. But, the conservatives would of course be much worse... just language.
they had to do it so they could avoid the verbage of overbudget and some other issues of language. off budget ... on budget... Graham Rudman Hollings thingy with method corrections etc.
If you deal with taking the trust income out of the picture I think Clinton would be in the red... I do have the analysis and am looking for it. But, the conservatives would of course be much worse... just language.
This discussion is irrelevant b/c everybody knows our deficits are a small percentage of GDP and the tax cuts are even smaller compared to GDP.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
This discussion is irrelevant b/c everybody knows our deficits are a small percentage of GDP and the tax cuts are even smaller compared to GDP.
Are you saying they aren't? or trying to imply that it doesn't matter because of...?
HJD1,
I know the pdf was a democrat pdf - hence my saying it is a "doom and gloom" pdf.
And no they didn't "have to", rather they "chose to". I don't like it. And until they ALL start being straight with us - I want them to get as little as possible. Got it? Good
Don't think a good little Rush fanboy like me didn't already know about the "surplus"
I just didn't know it went as deep as it does. This smoke and mirrors type accounting is what got more than a few corporations in trouble and it's time our gov't comes clean - ALL OF THEM.If I didn't need some sleep - I'd post another thread dealing with wasteful spending since this thread ended up talking about deficits and not my original point(but that's ok) I'll just say this - do some research on the contract that was just struck with Boeing to lease a hundred planes(should have been in today's papers and on the net somewhere) and don't forget to look for the deal that was struck in 2001 either
Guess who is the lobbist for Boeing? Corporate welfare? by a <gasp> Democrat? - bah - never CkG
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
CAD,
You'd dialog well with my wife she thinks hes the bees knees (Rush)... she was on the womans republican party for california committee... or whatever its called...
We've got pictures of her and :Q Reagan plastered all around to remind me of the misinformed dufuss that I am... Ya can't even talk when Hannity is on... Colmes is non existant... but, as usual I wear the pants.... when I can.
You'd dialog well with my wife she thinks hes the bees knees (Rush)... she was on the womans republican party for california committee... or whatever its called...
We've got pictures of her and :Q Reagan plastered all around to remind me of the misinformed dufuss that I am...
Ya can't even talk when Hannity is on... Colmes is non existant... but, as usual I wear the pants.... when I can.
Me = jealous
I missed my chance to meet Bush Sr. but I do have his signature
On my Eagle Scout certificate My poor brother has to suffer eternity knowing that his Eagle Scout certificate was signed by Clinton Yes, I know that dates me
CkG
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Me = jealous
I missed my chance to meet Bush Sr. but I do have his signature
Yes, I know that dates me
CkG
Don't feel dated I shook Kennedy's hand in '60 when he stopped by Staten Island at the Ferry. Have not washed it since.
Couldn't drive home though... no one had cars where I lived but, everyone was a democrat..
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Me = jealous
I missed my chance to meet Bush Sr. but I do have his signature
Yes, I know that dates me
CkG
Don't feel dated I shook Kennedy's hand in '60 when he stopped by Staten Island at the Ferry. Have not washed it since.
I meant that it means I am "young", so one could easily misconstrue my thoughts/post as idealistic and naive
CkG
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
CADguy
I missed my chance to meet Bush Sr. but I do have his signature On my Eagle Scout certificate My poor brother has to suffer eternity knowing that his Eagle Scout certificate was signed by Clinton
Yes, I know that dates me
CkG[/quote]
Don't feel dated I shook Kennedy's hand in '60 when he stopped by Staten Island at the Ferry. Have not washed it since. Couldn't drive home though... no one had cars where I lived but, everyone was a democrat..[/quote]
I meant that it means I am "young", so one could easily misconstrue my thoughts/post as idealistic and naive
CkG[/quote]
Nah... I'd have guessed you were easily probably at least near about 40 or so and idealistic... But then I never guess sometimes.
I missed my chance to meet Bush Sr. but I do have his signature
On my Eagle Scout certificate My poor brother has to suffer eternity knowing that his Eagle Scout certificate was signed by Clinton Yes, I know that dates me
CkG[/quote]
Don't feel dated I shook Kennedy's hand in '60 when he stopped by Staten Island at the Ferry. Have not washed it since.
Couldn't drive home though... no one had cars where I lived but, everyone was a democrat..[/quote]I meant that it means I am "young", so one could easily misconstrue my thoughts/post as idealistic and naive
CkG[/quote]
Nah... I'd have guessed you were easily probably at least near about 40 or so and idealistic...
But then I never guess sometimes.After reading these posts I have believe it is time our congressmen and congresswomen look at all the pork and special interest they add to spending. We think that the president has the sole responsibility for the budget, but it is congress that must pass it. Our representatives need to be told by us to do their job and cut the fat out. Every bill seems to have unrelated attachments that cost money. They do this to buy support. If they fail to do their job... don't re-elect them.
The truth is the idea that there is a giant amount of money wasted which would make sense to stop spending is a myth. Actually it would make more sense to increase spending, particularly in areas where the additional spending actually saves money in the long run.
btw, this latest tax cut, which I believe is supposed to cost 350 billion but may actually cost more like a trillion, based on reports I think I've heard, is at least partly reducing taxes on dividends, right ?
Well two points I was thinking about..
1. Isn't reducing taxes on dividends going to create an incentive for businesses to shift income from investment in growth to paying out profits ? Seems like a strange way to create jobs.
2. I here lots of justification for the cut because of a "double tax". That's just nonsense, there are lots of cases of double taxes, sales tax is an example, basically all taxes could be described as double-triple,quadruple, this is just political rhetoric.
btw, this latest tax cut, which I believe is supposed to cost 350 billion but may actually cost more like a trillion, based on reports I think I've heard, is at least partly reducing taxes on dividends, right ?
Well two points I was thinking about..
1. Isn't reducing taxes on dividends going to create an incentive for businesses to shift income from investment in growth to paying out profits ? Seems like a strange way to create jobs.
2. I here lots of justification for the cut because of a "double tax". That's just nonsense, there are lots of cases of double taxes, sales tax is an example, basically all taxes could be described as double-triple,quadruple, this is just political rhetoric.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
The growth question you pose is answerable. The "new" growth method is to acqire existing companies that either meet their horizontal or vertical growth objectives. Which usually result in reduction of people power for the obvious reasons. Capital invested in fixed asset is minor and usually done with OPM because of the low interest rates. The Dividend issue really gives business a use for the excess cash and it may be the owners who would like to get some timely return.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter