From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Clinton Revolution
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:23:05 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.132647.16309@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.120813.5428@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> In article <1992Nov4.140305.28033@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
> |> >    I remember when the Reagan Revolution started. Reagan told us
> |> > how easy it would be: he would cut taxes, the ecomomy would grow
> |> > itself, the deficit would close, and all the while, "Happy Days"
> |> > blared in the background. As we all know, the economy did grow,
> |> > but the deficit grew faster and it has caught up with us. The
> |> 
> |> 	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.
> 
>    Technically correct, but highly misleading. First of all, I'm talking
> debt here: the accumulated total owed. You are talking deficit: the amount
> added to the debt each year. If you graph debt/GNP vs year, you'll see
> that the curve had a gentle negative slope during part of the second Reagan
> term, but it had such a fierce positive slope during the first Reagan term
> that we never had *less* debt as a percentage of GNP than Carter left us with.
> Another interesting thing to graph: cost of carrying the debt as percentage
> of the federal budget vs year.

	I was pointing out that the rate of deficit spending was decreasing.

	If Reagan had tackled the other half of the supply-side formula
(cutting spending) he would have cut into the debt.

>    Finally, the greatest economic shame of the Reagan years is this: the
> Treasury can (and did) borrow money from the Social Security Administration
> i.e. Soc. Sec. invested in Treasury bonds. This does *not* show up in the
> deficit! It's a little accounting sleight of hand that allowed the Reagan
> administration to *hide* an extra $50 billion or so deficit some years.

	Social Security is a scam on the American people.  The sooner we get
rid of it, the better. That Reagan/Bush/Clinton did/will use it to make the
debt look smaller is only of minor consequence.  The money is not lost, only
redirected.
	As you said, it's an accounting trick.  But that's all.  No one is
going to lose money.

> This may or may not be a good investment for Soc. Sec.; I'm not arguing
> that, but it ought to be included in the deficit calculations, and, shame-
> fully, wasn't. Brett, when you post your FAQ on Reaganomics, I hope you'll
> include that borrowing in your deficit figures or else explain why Treasury
> doesn't need to pay it.
> 				- Lee Campbell  <elwin@media.mit.edu>

	There will be a section on debt vs. deficit vs. creative financing.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16738 alt.politics.bush:13690