- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
I'm not really sure that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton
: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
I'm not really sure that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton as
wanting
to save Social Security with the surplus, but I can't admit to being
particularly interested in that debate right now either. Now, paying
down
* JDG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Republicans pretty well kept that from happening.) Now, paying down
the national debt would only really have benefited Social Security to
the extent that the overall ratio of US debt to GDP might become so
overly burdensome in the near future as to prevent
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:36:34 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* JDG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Republicans pretty well kept that from happening.) Now, paying down
the national debt would only really have benefited Social Security to
the extent that the overall ratio of US debt
:
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:16 PM
Subject: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda
term
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:56:29 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%.
No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total
government spending was
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:16 PM
Subject: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda
term
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%.
No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total
government spending was 18.4% of GDP. In 2003, it was 19.9%. Using
T-bills to finance the government
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda term.
Not a term for serious discussion. Or at least, not if you want me to
take you seriously.
You state the supply-side economics is touted as a means of reducing the
nominal federal budget deficit, namely by
