D Is for Deficit

[weunice]

D Is for Deficit
Guess who's to blame for state budget problems?

This is an interesting right leaning article ... I am curious to know what folks think about this though. I find the information in the article to be downright fascinating (it also highlights what I think is wrong with the Bush administration at the bottom). Bush is no Reagan.

I figured with Champ less mobile than usual, this will give him something else to do instead of fuming about the loss to Boise. Defend the left my friend.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004108

[CARTEK]

You are right, GWB is no Ronald Reagan. GWB's biggest mistake was the bi-partisanship crapola that he involved himself in during his first year in office...he let the Demorats have their way...he let them spend!

Piss on bi-partisanship...piss on Demorats...piss on entitlements...and piss on worthless social programs that have proven over time that they are worthless!

[Tom]

Doesn't bother you in the least that Sapling has run up record deficits and Clinton balanced the budget? Typical GOP dog(ma) poop from a hypocrit.

[Champ967]

Dont bother with these guys Tom. Like pearls before swine.

They'd like to see Wal-mart and Microsoft merge with Disney and Int'nat'l Paper and then hand over all the safeguards of equality and democracy to the new Filthy Rich Inc.

[weunice]

OK Champ, you totally misread some of us. I am totally on your side about Microsoft. I work in the industry and I know for a fact that they screwed Netscape virtually out of business and anybody who keeps up with the world of Linux sees the anti-competitive practices that Microsoft spews out (see the Kerberos fiasco). You have a vote in that matter. DONT BUY MICROSOFT and don't shop at Wal-Mart and tell 100 people to do the same. Wal-Marts are getting unclean like K-Mart used to be. Target is a little more expensive but the experience and selection of much cooler stuff makes it worth the hassle. I want a lightly regulated market where free enterprise is allowed to move and where incentive to be rich is not hindered. That said, abuse of the market and abuse of employees needs to be dealt with using as few regulations as possible. The last thing we need is the government creating more jobs.

Wal-Mart is ensuring a slow death by making some people mad ... oddly enough, Wal-Mart was the first major corporation to move entirely to Linux. Good for them.

To Microsofts credit ... at least they are helping crack down on child porn with some new software. I may not be so hard on them for a short while ...

Are you running MacOS, Linux or some other renegade OS? The Linux model is a quite innovative one. Ask the board moderators here what they think about Open Source software? Microsofts biggest challenge will come from that angle. I truly believe that. It will change the way we do business in this country. As soon as people realize that software doesn't work like hardware and that cheaper and free is often times better, the whole industry will be on its side.

At least I will be able to find work writing custom software ...

[Champ967]

Getcher pannies unwadded. I was clearly caricaturing.

Windows XP is all I've got at work. But I run a (very) old version of open source x-windows at home. It was a mofo (for my roomate) to install, but it NEVER crashes! But I'm thinking of switching to Mac. I am willing to pay a premium to shop Main Street (or other owner/family-managed) businesses. Though sometimes I venture into target or another non-walmart big-box retailer, I try to limit my purchases there to stuff I'm having trouble finding elsewhere.

Fiscal conservatives seem to lack a sense of history. Govt regs dont spring out of the ground for fun. Certainly, all govt agencies have a responsibility to be internally efficient. But no govt agencies/programs/regs exist without a congressional mandate. And most of those legislative directives arose from the private sector's inability or unwillingness to provide a needed protection or service. Re-examine the chapters in your American history book covering 1870-1930 to see what happens when big business is freely allowed to run amok.

Big govt is a small price to pay for living in the most powerful, prosperous nation in history.

[AustinDawg]

Big govt is a small price to pay for living in the most powerful, prosperous nation in history.

Funny how perceptions differ from person to person. To me, and again this is just me, big government is a gargantuan price to pay for any type of situation. You are not the first person I've heard make the above statement. However, I think the only times I have heard it, it has come from somebody who works for, well, the government.

Also, let me go ahead and say, "spare me" when you trot out the age-old: "Well, what about the military, what about the police force, what about the fire department, etc...." I don't think anyone will argue that those are needed, but that doesn't mean that government should permeate every aspect of our daily lives like some people believe that it should.

[Champ967]

it has come from somebody who works for, well, the government.

At one time, govt employees didnt feel the constant pressure to justify their existence. Before the Vietnam/Wategate era, the biggest issues involving the role of govt were state vs fed & leg vs exec oversight. Now the issue seems to be govt v. non-govt sectors. I suppose the public servants you know are so quick to defend the role of govt arises from A) the current political environment that places the burden of proof on the public sector AND B) their personal committment to the service they provide.

If you feel that govt permeates every aspect of your life, look at each instance and investigate how that particular reg, oversight, law, protection, etc came about. Bureacrats (contrary to what Cartek or D80 might tell you) DO NOT make up rules for fun. They were all in response to something realized through the political process.

You're a part of a community and a nation. And that entails some responsibilty to others. Dealing with govt is just a manifestion of your obligation to the community. So why not embrace that?

[weunice]

I run a newer version of X and a pretty old window manager at home ... It works on my old 266 MHz clunker.

Champ, I am not exactly asking that we turn back the laws on the anti-trust and child labor legislation in this country. You are correct on that point. Clearly we all agree that some things need to be regulated. Speaking of history ...

You need to read the Cato Institutes overview of the Reagan years. They *try* to remove the liberal bias about it and the conservative puffing about it ... They contend, quite convincingly I might add ... that more "real" growth occurred in this country during the Reagan years than in the comparable times before and after (the Kennedy/Johnson years actually were better but JFK knew that tax cuts are OK) ... but I am conservative so I will admit bringing bias to the table here. Of course, I am sure you can come up with a liberal alternative ... Trust me, it is not all positive about the Reagan administration and it is quite an interesting read. I am interested to read something different. Many alternatives are discussed in the Cato study.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

This is the type of history that liberals like to conveniently forget about. Tax cuts and rational deregulation work. Reagan knew that and that is why his policies WORKED.

The fact of the matter is that the economy is showing positive signs right now. My 401k is looking MUCH better than it did earlier this year. Who is responsible for that? Are Clintons policies finally coming to fruition? Are these faux signs of immenent collapse? Is the economy that started to turn sour during the Clinton administration to be blamed on either Bush? Is war spending inflating the economy?

This is sad to say, but the Democrats had better hope that the economy REALLY starts falling flat again because if it doesn't, the history of conservative fiscal policy will get even better and George W Bush will likely get re-elected.

He is a Bush though. He raised steel tariffs and that wasn't too bright. It hasn't helped all that much. He has yet to veto a spending bill. That isn't very good either.

Anyway, since I am ignorant of history, enlighten me as to why conservative fiscal policy results in less jobs, poor economies and giant gaps between the rich and poor.

[CARTEK]

I don't like dealing with it when more than a third of the workforce is in government jobs...and many of those have yet to master the English language!

[AustinDawg]

At one time, govt employees didnt feel the constant pressure to justify their existence. Before the Vietnam/Wategate era, the biggest issues involving the role of govt were state vs fed & leg vs exec oversight. Now the issue seems to be govt v. non-govt sectors. I suppose the public servants you know are so quick to defend the role of govt arises from A) the current political environment that places the burden of proof on the public sector AND B) their personal committment to the service they provide.

The fact that they have to justify their position is very telling to me. In that, government has become more about preserving its own end, rather than serving its citizenry. And yes, I know that the same can be said for private industry, but right now, private industry doesn't have the right to garnish a portion of my paycheck or put me in prison for not going along----yet.

If you feel that govt permeates every aspect of your life, look at each instance and investigate how that particular reg, oversight, law, protection, etc came about. Bureacrats (contrary to what Cartek or D80 might tell you) DO NOT make up rules for fun. They were all in response to something realized through the political process.

Two points here:

1. I don't feel that government permeates every aspect of my life, yet. My statement was made in an attempt to express reluctance to allow it to. It's a situation I am very guarded against. Especially when I encounter someone who makes a statement to the effect that big government is a small price to pay........ That makes me very nervous

2. I fully recognize that there many aspects of government that were created due to people's inability to police themselves. I don't disagree with the problem, I disagree with the solution (swelling government). How come the government agencies created to deal with a temporary problem are all permanent in nature? Again, it's about self preservation.

You're a part of a community and a nation. And that entails some responsibilty to others. Dealing with govt is just a manifestion of your obligation to the community.

Another example of how people perceive things differently. You equate the bureaucratic quagmires in Washington and our respective state capitals with small villages of people joining hand in hand singing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke". I do not. My community is the people who live and work around me. And dealing with government is NOT, I repeat, NOT mine or anyone else's obligation to the community.

So why not embrace that?

Sig Heil!!!!

[Champ967]

Goodness .. that's alot to repsond to!

Goose ... I will look into the Cato study. Sounds interesting! As for the state of the economy, both parties love to take credit when it's good, and blame the other when it's bad. AS for me, I'm pretty convinced that the economy is going to cycle on it's own regardless of who is in office. I'm getting more and more convicned that fiscal policy has a fraction of the influence Greenspan holds. (A Republican yes ... but an economist first and foremost.)

As for the Democratic party, let me reiterate that I couldnt give a flip. But to allege that there are folks hoping the economy will tank is pretty cynical.

Anyway, since I am ignorant of history, enlighten me as to why conservative fiscal policy results in less jobs, poor economies and giant gaps between the rich and poor.

Sorry if I came across that way. Sometimes it's hard to convey one's tone in text. Mine was not intended to be haughty. My point was that govt "happens" for a reason. It didnt just spring up out of the ground.

Remember .... Govt is almost ALWAYS "RE-active". EVERYTHING in govt exists b/c A)private sector requested it or B)private sector failed to provide it.
............................

The fact that they have to justify their position is very telling to me. In that, government has become more about preserving its own end, rather than serving its citizenry

That's also pretty cynical. Is it so hard to imagine that there are folks who find a satisfaction in their work OTHER than salary. Lots of "do-gooder" types are attracted to the public sector. (Lots more than some folks realize.) They know they will earn less compensation than in the private sector, but enjoy their role as public servants. So it's quite bewildering when the burden of proof is suddenly on your "industry" to justify it's existence.

Dont be so cynical ... I'm willing to concede that some of it may be attributable to self-preservation. But much more of that attitude actually arises from a personal knowledge from the good work govt does. Govt may be huge ... but consider that it may be because it's doing alot of GOOD.

And dealing with government is NOT, I repeat, NOT mine or anyone else's obligation to the community.

Because you choose not to ackowledge it doesnt mean it's not so. But be sure to feed that line to the officer next time you think the speed limit isnt a part of your community. :wink:

Sig Heil!!!!

LOL!

[weunice]

This is along the lines of ... it doesn't really matter what the folks in power do to help the economy. It cycles on its own ..

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20031022.shtml

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Economists Say Recession Started Pre-Bush in 2000

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2004; 1:34 PM


The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.




The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

"We have discussed it already and there seems to be some inclination to move the date" to some time in the last three months of 2000, said Victor Zarnowitz. He is a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee, which determines the widely accepted start and end dates to U.S. recessions.

The seven-member panel had earlier decided that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. President Bush took office in January 2001.

NBER is a private, nonprofit economic research group. Zarnowitz, an economist with the Conference Board, another private research group, said the dating decision will be nonpolitical, based solely on recently revised government economic data.

"Presidents don't have so much to do, in my opinion, with when recessions start," Zarnowitz said. "Clearly the boom happened under Clinton, and the boom generates the bust. And no administration has the power to change that."

NBER President Martin Feldstein said, "It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late," but he did not offer a different date. "We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment," said Feldstein, a Harvard University economist. "Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."

The Wall Street Journal story quoted Robert Hall, a Stanford University economics professor who chairs the dating committee, saying that "a reasonable look at the numbers" could lead one to decide that the recession started some time between November 2000 and February 2001.

Zarnowitz said he will look further at the data, but thinks now that "the recession started maybe November or December 2000 and lasted to November of 2001." If so, that would be an average duration for a post World War II recession, changing the perception up until now that the last recession was shorter than average.

Zarnowitz said he does not know when the committee will meet to make an official decision.

The panel picked March 2001 as the beginning of the recession primarily because that was when U.S. payroll employment began to drop seriously. Since then, the economy has lost some 2.4 million jobs.

But the economists look at other indicators as well. The group defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP [inflation-adjusted gross domestic product], real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough."

In previous recessions, the payroll jobs number was a pretty good proxy for economic growth, rising and falling as the economy expanded and contracted, although often with a bit of a lag. But the two have diverged dramatically in recent years, with payrolls continuing to shrink more than two years after the end of the recession. Meanwhile the nation's output of goods and services, or GDP, declined in the first three quarters of 2001, but started growing again in the fourth quarter of that year and has continued to rise since then.

This has been possible because businesses adopted new technology and management methods to boost production while shedding workers. The growth in productivity -- the amount of goods and services produced for each hour worked -- rose through the contraction and recovery since.

Zarnowitz said the NBER dating committee closely follows an index that combines measures of industrial production, total demand, personal income minus government transfer payments, and the number of nonfarm payroll jobs--giving more weight to the jobs component. According to recently revised data, the index "started falling in December or November 2000," he said.

"Three of the four components would definitely point to an earlier date" for the beginning of the recession, he said. "Only one lagged."