Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

So, Mike is being his same old hard right and dishonest self. Thanks for the heads-up guys.

More evidence there there's a lack of any interest in independent thought or debate. What a lefty hate factory you preside over here, Bob. You ought to be proud of yourself.

In the meantime, California's budget is showing a surplus only if you ignore the accumulating debt, much like Clinton did in the late 90's. The state is $83 billion in debt and wants to go even deeper. The debate under way in Cali right now isn't about how to pay down it's increasing debt, but how to "spend" the so-called surplus.

Bravo.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

In the meantime, California's budget is showing a surplus only if you ignore the accumulating debt, much like Clinton did in the late 90's. The state is $83 billion in debt and wants to go even deeper. The debate under way in Cali right now isn't about how to pay down it's increasing debt, but how to "spend" the so-called surplus.

Bravo.

Did you even bother to read the article? That's all voter-approved bond debt, for things like schools, roads and water. Jerry, being very fiscally conservative, hasn't authorized the sale of a good portion of those bonds, until the projects are shovel ready, to keep the state's rating high, so that the bonds can be sold at low interest rates.

Basic economic responsibility, great leadership. Meanwhile, you support a moron like Trump, who relies on bankruptcy and Russian money. You're such an idiot.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Did you even bother to read the article? That's all voter-approved bond debt, for things like schools, roads and water. Jerry, being very fiscally conservative, hasn't authorized the sale of a good portion of those bonds, until the projects are shovel ready, to keep the state's rating high, so that the bonds can be sold at low interest rates.

Basic economic responsibility, great leadership. Meanwhile, you support a moron like Trump, who relies on bankruptcy and Russian money. You're such an idiot.

Yes, I read it. So, please tell me, genius: how is it possible to run a "surplus" when the state has over $83 billion in debt? And those select enlightened sages in the CA legislature don't want to refund it to the tax payers. They don't want to use it to retire the debt. They want to SPEND it.

More Clintonesque budgetary slight of hand, the equivalent of paying your Visa with your Master Card.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, I read it. So, please tell me, genius: how is it possible to run a "surplus" when the state has over $83 billion in debt? And those select enlightened sages in the CA legislature don't want to refund it to the tax payers. They don't want to use it to retire the debt. They want to SPEND it.

More Clintonesque budgetary slight of hand, the equivalent of paying your Visa with your Master Card.

You have yet again proven your economic ignorance. It's kinda like saying that if you have a mortgage, you are bankrupt. I hate to break it to you, but annual deficits/surpluses are different than total debt (i.e., you can have an annual operating surplus, but still have debt). Stick to what you understand, though that seems to be precious little.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You have yet again proven your economic ignorance. It's kinda like saying that if you have a mortgage, you are bankrupt. I hate to break it to you, but annual deficits/surpluses are different than total debt (i.e., you can have an annual operating surplus, but still have debt). Stick to what you understand, though that seems to be precious little.

Got it wrong again, tool, possibly because your knowledge of budgeting came from inside the Beltway. And your analogy sucks. Here's a better one:

Cali saying that they have a surplus is like saying that I have a mortgage payment that doesn't fit my annual budget, so I'm going to borrow the money to pay the mortgage. Not only that, but I'm going to borrow more money than I need to make this year's payments, and I'll call the additional funds "revenue". And then, since I'll have more "revenue" than I have expenses, I'll declare a "surplus" this year.

This is exactly what's happening in Cali, and its the same thing Clinton did in the 90's. And just like the 90's when the Congressional Dems wanted to spend the "surplus" by calling it "The Peace Dividend", the Cali legislature is pushing to spend Cali's faux surplus this year.

Because the Cali Treasury has more funds on account than they have expenses, including funds that came from borrowing, they "should" only have two options: refund the excess to the taxpayers (except that its not really an excess so that really isn't an option), or pay down the long term debt. Yeah...that won't happen either.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Got it wrong again, tool, possibly because your knowledge of budgeting came from inside the Beltway. And your analogy sucks. Here's a better one:

Cali saying that they have a surplus is like saying that I have a mortgage payment that doesn't fit my annual budget, so I'm going to borrow the money to pay the mortgage...

What you're describing is a second mortgage. Having a second mortgage doesn't make one any more bankrupt than having a first mortgage.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What you're describing is a second mortgage. Having a second mortgage doesn't make one any more bankrupt than having a first mortgage.

Individuals don't need to take out a second mortgage to pay their bills. There are personal loans, home equity loans, advances from credit cards (thus my "paying the Visa with the Master Card" reference), borrowing money from a 401(k), an advance or a loan from an employer, etc.

On the other hand, individuals or businesses don't get to loan/bond revenue as income. In business, bond sales are booked as balance sheet items: income received as an asset and bonds payable as a liability.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, I read it. So, please tell me, genius: how is it possible to run a "surplus" when the state has over $83 billion in debt? And those select enlightened sages in the CA legislature don't want to refund it to the tax payers. They don't want to use it to retire the debt. They want to SPEND it.

More Clintonesque budgetary slight of hand, the equivalent of paying your Visa with your Master Card.

How to run a surplus.

1. Make sure Revenue in Current Period is greater than Expenses Paid in Current Period.

That's what a surplus is. That's what a surplus has always been, everywhere. Total debt doesn't come into it, only debt payment in period.

You may or may not know it but you are confusing Net Cash Flow and Net Worth. I call this deliberate dishonesty on someone's part....

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

More evidence there there's a lack of any interest in independent thought or debate. What a lefty hate factory you preside over here, Bob. You ought to be proud of yourself.

Bravo.

Wow! I'm the Grand Poobah of "Lefty Hate", West Coast Division!
That's some wild shit you're smokin' there, Skip.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

More evidence there there's a lack of any interest in independent thought or debate. What a lefty hate factory you preside over here, Bob. You ought to be proud of yourself.

In the meantime, California's budget is showing a surplus only if you ignore the accumulating debt, much like Clinton did in the late 90's. The state is $83 billion in debt and wants to go even deeper. The debate under way in Cali right now isn't about how to pay down it's increasing debt, but how to "spend" the so-called surplus.

Bravo.

"More evidence there there's a lack of any interest in independent thought or debate."?

This coming from the Nunes of Political Chat?

As for debt, how it goes. Sell bonds to borrow, service the debt with tax revenues. Investors are happy and citizens are happy. Infrastructure improves, revenues increase. So where is the problem?

Of course one cannot borrow and concurrently reduce taxes unless you are the GOP.