renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/04/85)
> Ronald Reagan has spent over $1 trillion on the military during his > administration, far more than combined outlays for "social spending". > For your information, Mr. Wheeler, "social spending" is usually not > defined as money for the Weather Bureau, the Parks System, > federal highways, etc. but money for various welfare programs. > -- Tim Sevener (orb@whuts) Tim makes this claim from time to time, and it doesn't seem to matter that I usually post statistics which show that it's utter nonsense. I wish Tim would get a copy of the *US Statistical Abstract* and look this up for himself each time he gets the urge to post an article about the federal budget. For the record, military spending does not exceed outlays for "social spending". Data for the following table was obtained from the US Statistical Abstract, 1984, p.316; the numbers indicate acutal outlays in millions of dollars. 1980 1983 ----- ----- National Defense 135.9 214.8 Vet.Benefits 21.2 24.4 Total Military 157.1 239.2 % of total outlays 27.2 29.7 Income Security 193.1 282.5 Health 55.2 82.4 Education 30.8 26.7 Total Social Spending 279.1 391.6 % of total outlays 48.4 48.6 1980 is of course the last full Carter year. The figures for 1983 are estimates in the Abstract; other sources (Congressional Quarterly, Feb. 4, 1984, pp.206-7) indicate that the actual figures for the military are *lower*, and actual figures for social spending are *much higher*). The budgets of the weather bureau, parks system, federal highways, etc. do not appear anywhere in the table. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/06/85)
In all the replies to my article on the decline of the
savings rate to its lowest level in this century I
have noticed that nobody wishes to defend this aspect
of supply-side economics. T.C. Wheeler simply denies
that supply-side economics has anything to do with
increasing savings and investment- merely showing that
he has no notion of the "theory" behind supply-side
economics. (that less taxes for the wealthy would mean
more savings, which would lead to more investment, and
consequently improved production which would ultimately
miraculously lead to actually increased government revenues
so that the tax cuts would pay for themselves)
This same ignorance is shown by another poster who says
that it doesn't matter what people spend their money on,
since it is better to leave this choice to them than the
government. Whether this happens to be true or not doesn't
matter to *my point* which is that according to *supply-side
theory* less taxes would indeed lead to increased savings.
So far after 4 years this has not proved to be true.
Needless to say other supply-side premises, such as the
fantastic premise that tax cuts would pay for themselves
have proved to be so fantastically off the mark that
they are not even mentioned in the wake of the largest deficits
in our country's history. While our government is in debt
so huge that simply the interest on the debt is one of the fastest-
growing portions of the federal budget, the savings rate is
the lowest in a century, while *consumer debt* is also at
the highest point in history.
Meanwhile the SEC just relaxed restrictions on margin rates
in the stock market to pre-Depression levels because the SEC
said that the limits to margins set after the stock market
crash of 1929 were no longer needed. This is in a year
that has seen more bankruptcies than any year in history
and the collapse of savings and loans in Ohio and Maryland
as well as a major crisis in one of the nations largest banks
in Chicago.
Is it nonsensical to suggest that our nation is standing
on an economic house of cards- placed in that position in no
small measure because of the rampant fiscal irresponsibility
of the Reagan administration?
It only seems apropo to me that Reagan immediately put up
a picture of his idol, Calvin Coolidge, in the White House
when he moved in. He may attain Coolidge' and Hoover's
notoriety for longterm economic disaster.
tim sevener whuxn!orbtw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (11/06/85)
Well, back to form. Sevener, your full of bull. Having gotten' that out of the way, I would suggest that you take off the blinders and examine the world around you. In the first place, your remarks concerning Social Security and Income Security are mixing apples and oranges. They do not mean the same thing. Social spending does NOT include social security payments. Look it up. In the second place, if the country is in such dire straights, why is every economic indicator we know pointing up? Could it be that you have such a hatred for RR that you are letting it cloud reality? And finally, you mentioned Hoover as being the one who started the great depression. Well, if you had paid attention in Government 101, you would have noted that there was more to the reasons for the depression than appears. To begin, I would suggest that you read the congressional record abstracts for 1932, the last session before the election, and for 1933, the first session after the election. It makes very interesting reading as to who blocked legislation designed to prevent the depression. It also makes interesting reading as to who passed the exact same legislation later. Even the most staunch liberal historians agree that Hoover was eucherd in this deal. T. C. Wheeler
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (11/06/85)
In article <362@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Is it nonsensical to suggest that our nation is standing >on an economic house of cards- placed in that position in no >small measure because of the rampant fiscal irresponsibility >of the Reagan administration? But isn't the legislative power, and therefore the fiscal responsibility, invested in Congress? The president, I believe, has no legislative power, except to veto bills originated by Congress. If my assumption is true, then to blame Reagan, Carter, or ANY president for economic conditions is misplacing the blame. (If my assumption is false, please refute it.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (The views expressed herein are the exclusive property of Dave Kirby. Any person, living or dead, found with the same or similar opinions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law.)
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (11/06/85)
>>. . . . the rampant fiscal irresponsibility >>of the Reagan administration . . . . [Sevener] > >But isn't the legislative power, and therefore the fiscal responsibility, >invested in Congress? The president, I believe, has no legislative power, >except to veto bills originated by Congress. If my assumption is true, >then to blame Reagan, Carter, or ANY president for economic conditions >is misplacing the blame. (If my assumption is false, please refute it.) >[Dave Kirby] Indeed, the "power of the purse" is vested in the House of Representatives. (Please read the Constitution before arguing this point.) Only the House may originate money bills. Such bills, of course, must also be approved by the Senate and signed by the President, but they *must* *start* in the House. If the House doesn't vote to spend the money, the Senate and the President can't spend a penny. If you want to curb the "rampant fiscal irresponsibility" of your elected representatives, demand the line-item veto! charli
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/07/85)
> > For the record, military spending does not exceed outlays for "social > spending". Data for the following table was obtained from the US > Statistical Abstract, 1984, p.316; the numbers indicate acutal outlays in > millions of dollars. [billions, surely not millions] > > 1980 1983 > ----- ----- > National Defense 135.9 214.8 > Vet.Benefits 21.2 24.4 > Total Military 157.1 239.2 > % of total outlays 27.2 29.7 > > Income Security 193.1 282.5 > Health 55.2 82.4 > Education 30.8 26.7 > Total Social Spending 279.1 391.6 > % of total outlays 48.4 48.6 > > Scott Renner > {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner OK, let's use the 1985 *Economic Report of the President* and then more carefully consider our categories. The big problem above is the Income Security category, in which Scott is lumping together Social Security, Medicare, and the Income Security program per se. Now, the money for Social Security and Medicare do NOT come out of the general coffers of the Fed but come out of the Social Security fund. Budget receipts for social insurance taxes continue to outpace the spending on Social Security and Medicare (see table B-71). The figures below are in billions of dollars not adjusted for inflation, and the 1985-6 figures are estimates. 1976 1980 1983 1984 1985 1986 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- National Defense 89.6 134.0 209.9 227.4 253.8 285.7 Net Interest on Debt 26.7 52.5 89.8 111.1 130.4 142.6 Total 116.3 186.5 299.7 338.5 384.2 428.3 1976 1980 1983 1984 1985 1986 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Education 18.9 31.8 26.6 27.6 30.4 29.3 Health 15.7 23.2 28.6 30.4 33.9 34.9 Income Security 60.8 86.5 122.6 112.7 127.2 115.8 Veterans Benefits 18.4 21.2 24.8 25.6 26.9 26.8 Total 113.8 162.7 202.6 196.3 218.4 206.8 Much leftist propaganda on defense spending includes the total amount of the interest on the national debt as defense spending. I'll let the reader judge for herself. Most also include veterans benefits under national defense spending, but I think of it more as a form of income security (although it can be argued both ways). There are also all sort of other small expenditures that one can lump into the second column. Now, it's not so much the absolute figures that matter, but look at the trends indicated above -- defense and interest spending are rising much more dramatically than social spending, leaving social security and medicare aside. Perhaps more telling are the figures on government purchases of goods and services (see table B-2). Just for fun, let's throw in figures on the civilian unemployment rate and the capacity utilization rate. The dollar figures are in billions of 1972 dollars. 1976 1980 1983 1984 ---- ---- ---- ---- Defense purchases 64.9 70.0 84.7 89.5 Non-defense purchases 31.8 36.4 31.5 32.9 Civilian unemployment 7.7% 7.1% 9.6% 7.5% Capacity utilization 80.4% 80.2% 75.3% 81.6% Expenditures for defense related goods and services has increased by 38% from 1976 to 1984 while that for non-defense stuff has increased by only 3.5%. What think y'all? -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@rsch.wisc.edu UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,topaz,akgua,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at WISCMACC
renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/08/85)
> ...you know very well that you are greatly confusing the issue by > including Social Security as part of "social spending". ... Social > Security is not even a part of the Federal budget as such but > technically is an independent trust fund to which people pay every > year for their retirement like any other pension fund. > -- tim sevener (orb@whuxn) Oh no, not the old "Social Security isn't social spending, it's a pension fund" argument. Social Security is not an insurance program or a pension fund -- no matter what people in Congress call it. If SS were either of these, then the "contributions" you pay now would be invested and held until you began to draw benefits from the fund. But this doesn't happen. The money in the SS trust fund is negligible compared to the obligations of the system. What actually happens is that the money you pay now is *immediately* paid out to someone who has already retired. Where will *your* money come from? When you retire, somebody else will be working, and the SS people will take his money and give it to you. [If you still cling to the belief that SS *is* a pension system, try this experiment: Imagine a person retiring today at age 65. Imagine that this person has paid the maximum SS tax since age 18. How long before this person's benefits exceed the total tax paid? Answer: about three years.] Social Security works exactly like any other "social spending" program: it gives money to individuals to further a social goal considered worthwhile by Congress. The difference is that (a) the beneficiaries are *old* people, not *poor* people, and (b) that the money comes primarily from payroll taxes. Poor people end up losers with SS for several reasons, but that just means that Congress doesn't dare admit how the program really works, even to fix it. Hey, don't take my word for it. Find out for yourself. Find someone who runs a pension fund and knows how pension funds work. Ask them if SS is run the same way as other pension funds. Ask them if SS uses the same accouting techniques as they do. Ask them what would happen to someone who tried to start a private pension fund running the same way as SS. [The answers will be "no", "no", and "they will go to jail."] Scott Renner ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/08/85)
> Well, back to form. Sevener, your full of bull. Having gotten' > that out of the way, I would suggest that you take off the > blinders and examine the world around you. In the first place, > your remarks concerning Social Security and Income Security > are mixing apples and oranges. They do not mean the same thing. > Social spending does NOT include social security payments. > Look it up. The figures posted which are under contention WERE mixing apples and oranges, not Mr. Sevener (who, like most bulls, has alot of balls). The figures posted by the original poster for Income Security were actually Income Security + Social Security + Medicare. Look it up. [in a recent *Economic Report of the President*.] > Even the > most staunch liberal historians agree that Hoover was eucherd [euchred] > in this deal. > T. C. Wheeler Wow, I've finally found something that I have in common with el sen~or Wheeler -- euchre! Truly a great game...anybody for a pbm game? J. D. Myers
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/09/85)
> > [tim sevener (orb@whuxn)] > > ...you know very well that you are greatly confusing the issue by > > including Social Security as part of "social spending". ... Social > > Security is not even a part of the Federal budget as such but > > technically is an independent trust fund to which people pay every > > year for their retirement like any other pension fund. -------------- > [Scott Renner] > Oh no, not the old "Social Security isn't social spending, it's a pension > fund" argument. > [Argument that Soc. Sec. is social spending (omitted for brevity)] -------------- Scott Renner's facts are correct. Social security is vastly different than a pension fund, and has many characteristics of social welfare spending. However, I think Scott misses the context of Tim's point, which I think is also correct. The general public THINKS that Social Security is a pension plan for them, and does not view it as social spending, which they associate with poor people and minorities. Thus when anyone lumps Social Security in with social welfare spending figures when speaking to the public, they are at best misleading the public unless they specifically and clearly indicate that they are including Social Security. Actually, I would say they are either ignorant or lying through their teeth. But that's politics. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan