tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post8247135798952404388..comments2024-01-22T18:47:37.815-06:00Comments on The Real Sporer: W wins again-earmark reform.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-70590618009894635512008-02-03T10:31:00.000-06:002008-02-03T10:31:00.000-06:00We need to all bow down to the fellow with split p...We need to all bow down to the fellow with split personalities and delusions of grandeur.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-21446763651920921642008-02-03T06:54:00.000-06:002008-02-03T06:54:00.000-06:00anonymous 4:45:I can understand your feelings.Am s...anonymous 4:45:<BR/><BR/>I can understand your feelings.<BR/><BR/>Am sure that you feel yourself a reasonably bright person and your salutation only underscores that premise. Therefore in your mind when you read something and you can't understand it, the writer must be stupid. A perfectly logic conclusion.<BR/><BR/>I have a similar problem when studying Quantum Physics.Art A Laymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02463128235828410052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-73229344428863939372008-02-02T11:49:00.000-06:002008-02-02T11:49:00.000-06:00sporie:An additional thought.Deficits are only rel...sporie:<BR/><BR/>An additional thought.<BR/><BR/><I>Deficits are only relevant as a percentage of GDP</I><BR/><BR/>That is a profound statement. A profoundly stupid one.<BR/><BR/>It is tantamount to saying that a firm's losses are only relevant as a percentage of their gross sales.<BR/><BR/>Ratios to GDP serve as a comparative tool to evaluate performance from one period to another. Deficits are relevant despite their percentage to GDP.<BR/><BR/>Though deficits add to GDP through increased government spending their negative effects are manifested in two significant arenas. <BR/><BR/>First, as the cumulative deficit grows the debt service adds further pressure to balancing the budget without cuts potentially injurious to GDP.<BR/><BR/>Second, the need for government borrowing to finance the deficits robs the credit markets of funds which private industry might more productively utilize.<BR/><BR/>Certainly deficits can be good in a time of recessionary pressures as well as when marginal enough to offset "fiscal drag".<BR/><BR/>Your argument leads to the logical conclusion that as long as GDP increases then a corresponding increase in deficits, maintaining a constant or declining ratio, creates no problem. If that premise is true then "earmarks", considering multiplier effects, which add to GDP proportionately with their deficit impact are in fact a good thing.<BR/><BR/>The saving grace is that any problems arising from huge deficits can be solved by cutting taxes. So sayeth the Reaganites.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps posts from you on law and politics can add more value than your meanderings into the field of economics.Art A Laymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02463128235828410052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-58842809493068604332008-02-01T15:35:00.000-06:002008-02-01T15:35:00.000-06:00sporie:Fact checking is always an interesting exer...sporie:<BR/><BR/>Fact checking is always an interesting exercise. Maybe you should have looked back to the 19th century to see if you could find comparables there as well.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe talk to the entire deficit not just the annual numbers; plus $4 trillion under Bush?<BR/><BR/>The best you can get out of this scenario is that Bush is not stupid, just a slow learner. And that's a shaky premise at that.Art A Laymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02463128235828410052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-4719065925464963432008-01-30T20:06:00.000-06:002008-01-30T20:06:00.000-06:00Anon 4:19I will concede that Republicans didn't do...Anon 4:19<BR/><BR/>I will concede that Republicans didn't do a good job with spending in the last six years of the majority.<BR/><BR/>As we are seeing, nothing like the Dems want but not good by Republican standards.<BR/><BR/>However, the "record deficits" are absurd. Deficits are only relevant as a percentage of GDP, and they are much smaller than Bubba and the D gang proposed last time the Dems ran the whole government.<BR/><BR/>Moreoever, the deficit has shrunk much faster than the utterly pessimistic media depicts and we have had record federal revenues the last several successive years. <BR/><BR/>Track with the facts Brother. That's all we ask.The Deplorable Old Bulldoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317795016889341638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-39134253346887160602008-01-30T16:19:00.000-06:002008-01-30T16:19:00.000-06:00I'm still amazed that the party of Nussle will sud...I'm still amazed that the party of Nussle will suddenly find fiscal restraint...when in the minority. You klowns had half a decade of consolidated power in DC and America has record deficits and, another, recession during the Bush administration to show for it. Please, stop with the fiscal diatribe and screams hollowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-36585462956881864642008-01-30T13:10:00.000-06:002008-01-30T13:10:00.000-06:00Bush is a latent budget hawk, alright. Also a hyp...Bush is a latent budget hawk, alright. Also a hypocritical budget hawk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30015942.post-88149329867181392032008-01-29T22:48:00.000-06:002008-01-29T22:48:00.000-06:00So how many of those are Dem earmarks and how many...So how many of those are Dem earmarks and how many are Repub earmarks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com