Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (25812)	2/6/2008 3:42:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Re: "have sound reasons for believing that without that ONE TIME boost Clinton never would have been able to boast a surplus." Er... any of those 'sound reasons' that you can actually quantify? (You know... with NUMBERS?) That would certainly help to establish your point. Not that I am disagreeing with your contention that the IRA changes served to temporarily boost revenues.... Far from it! (Just wondering if you have any numbers.) PS --- Although I've ALREADY pointed out that --- under GAAP rules --- there was actually no real 'surplus' at that time for Clinton, because of the counting of Social Security and Medicare 'surpluses' in the general budget. A process Bush continued with. (Incidentally --- this budgetary 'quirk' undoubtedly accounted for a much LARGER percent of the reported 'surplus'... just as it has continued to disguise the true extent of the structural deficits under Bush.... Of course, as I also posted, Bush had a similar ONE TIME ONLY temporary boost to government tax revenues, too... with his tax holiday on repatriated foreign corporate profits. Although I believe it was larger then the Clinton era boost from the IRA change.... Re: "That is why when you choose to ignore this and post partisan hack graphs that ignore reality, I am not impressed." Ignore? Pretty sure I haven't 'ignored' anything. (Certainly not 'reality'. Seems more like it's you who is doing the ignoring. :-) Since I addressed your point DIRECTLY... and raised a few more that I believe are equally relevant to the reported government budget 'deficit/surplus' numbers, besides that. Not sure what in the heck you would think is 'partisan' about simply pointing out hard truths about government budgetary tricks (which are well documented in both administrations' times in office....) Not 'impressed' by your resorting to such an obvious straw man....