[PEN-L:3956] RE: getting out of hand

[sawicky@xxxxxxxxxx (Max Sawicky)]

> Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> >Deficit/debt hawks like to discount the probability of
> >surpluses with assorted canards[...]
>
> Such canards as: over the last 130 years, there's only one historical
> instance of U.S. running substantial surpluses (defined as >1% of GDP) for
> three consecutive years, and just two instances of two consecutive years -
> yet Clinton is projecting 40+ years of surpluses in the 2-3% of GDP range.
> . . .

Et tu, Henwood?

That the political system will conspire to eliminate
surpluses, by one means or another, for one reason or
another, is obvious enough.

But this has NOTHING to do with whether the projection
is accurate.  The projection is a baseline premised on
no policy changes, among other things, and is supposed
to indicate the extent or dearth of available resources.

The surplus, given the underlying definitions of "deficit"
and folklore about what is prudent fiscal policy, are a
conservative estimate of such resources as far as
definitions go.

Now I would like everyone reading this, alone in
front of their CPU, to ignore what anyone overhearing
you might think and repeat aloud, after me:

WE'RE SWIMMING IN MONEY!!!!!!!!!

Thank you.

mbs