From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 21 Nov 1992 22:24:04 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov21.202009.8198@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1ee9d8INN8kg@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

Mr. McGuinness, since you have access to the Statistical Abstract of the
US, as do I -- as soon as I get it again from the library -- I retract
my claim that you are clueless.

You are DISHONEST.

This posting will explain qualitatively why this is so. A follow-up will
post a spreadsheet table for numbers junkies.

As you know (I believe it is Table 511, but my copy is back at the
library), Federal revenues and expenses are divided between "Federal
Funds" (for revenue, an example is income tax; for expense, defense
spending) and "Trust Funds" (e.g., Social Security and Medicaid/are).

Ronald Reagan cut tax rates for Federal Funds receipts, like the income
tax. Social Security taxes went up. Income tax receipts went down, Soc
Sec receipts went up.

I explained this, proactively, in an earlier posting:

>>Actually, Federal Funds Receipts (excludes trust funds), which is where
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Reagan made tax cuts, PLUMMETED during the first Reagan Administration.
			
>This is truly absurd.  During Reagan's first Admin, tax receipts increased
>from $517 billion to $666 billion. It "plummeted" from $517 billion in
>1980 to $909 billion by 1988. (see below).  Strange plummeting.  
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Dishonest comparison of an apple to an orange, right here!

>In billions (%GNP):
              --> BOGUS COLUMNS <---
>year  GNP    receipts     outlays        deficit    unempl%       admin
>====  ====   ===========  ============   =========  ======        =======
>1980  2674    517 (19.3)    591 (22.1)    74 (2.8)     7.9        Carter
>1981  2986    599 (20.1)    678 (22.7)    79 (2.6)     8.4        Reagan
>1982  3130    618 (19.7)    745 (23.8)   127 (4.1)    11.0        Reagan
>1983  3325    601 (18.1)    808 (24.3)   207 (6.2)    10.9        Reagan
>1984  3688    666 (18.1)    852 (23.1)   185 (5.0)     8.6        Reagan
>1985  3958    734 (18.5)    946 (23.9)   212 (5.4)     8.1        Reagan
>1986  4177    769 (18.4)    990 (23.7)   221 (5.3)     7.9        Reagan
>1987  4442    854 (19.2)   1004 (22.6)   150 (3.4)     7.1        Reagan
>1988  4771    909 (19.1)   1064 (22.3)   155 (3.2)     6.3        Reagan
 
>source: Statistical Abstract of the US

Despite my earlier explanation, you deliberately and willfully listed
TOTAL receipts, including Federal Funds receipts (which, as I claimed,
WENT DOWN after the tax cuts) added to Trust Fund receipts (which went
up consistently). However, the defense binge (which I will turn to in
another posting) is a Federal Funds expense and should be paid for out
of Federal Funds receipts. As I indicated earlier, in constant dollars
these receipts were below 1981 level in 82, 83, 84, and 85. In some of
those years (82->83) they even fell in current dollars. Income tax
receipts--a cornerstone of Reaganomics--were lower in 84 than 82 in
CURRENT dollars (you can't get this from Stat Abstr, it skips too many
intermediate years).

I hope this is clear to the net now.

BTW, did you correct unemployment for the revised method of measuring
it? Just checking?

Your other mathematical solecisms, generally involving choosing a
function instead of its derivative or integral (or vice versa), 
will be covered later. Well, except one: the point is not that at the
end of the Reagan era the percentages had temporarily returned to those
of the beginning, because the debt is, of course, the SUM over the
Reagan years of the deficit.

3 items were a much larger share of the budget at the end of the
Reagan era than at the beginning: defense spending, entitlements, and
INTEREST on the debt.

andy

To be continued
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics