CBO numbers fail again.

Recently I posted about how the CBO had to downgrade the effects it was claiming for the Patronage Bill. Certain people then proceeded to not just question that this was what happened, while trying to defend this epic trillion dollar failure, but to imply I was purposefully being dishonest about the CBO being dishonest – leaning left in that dishonesty – or the way the LSM reports on this crap. Well, the the usual suspects at the CBO were at it again:

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) says, “The share of income received by the top 1% grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007.” This news caused quite a stir, feeding the left’s obsession with inequality. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, for example, said this “jaw-dropping report” shows “why the Occupy Wall Street protests have struck such a nerve.” The New York Times opined that the study is “likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies.”

But here’s a question: Why did the report stop at 2007? The CBO didn’t say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that “high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009.” No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007.

WHAT? The CBO rigged a report in such a way that it could advance a collectivist talking point? NEVAH! It’s not like we have a history of them doing this – as I pointed out in the comments, only to be rebuffed. We saw the same shit with the CBO scoring of Obamacare. Granted, the CBO got off easy because they claim they where “told” to score it that way by the usual suspects, but that’s nonsense considering there is a history there of doing things like that.

Before you ask what the problem was with what the CBO reported about Obamacare, let me point it out in brief. The CBO scored it over a decade, 10 years for those that are math challenged, and then factored in tax income from day one while only factoring the really big outlays after 4 if not 5 years of collecting taxes. That was all done so they could make the ludicrous claim that Obamacare would save us a measly $112 billion or such. Anyone that understands basic math, ignoring the obvious shenanigans and double counting of outlays/savings from Medicare and other such systems they claim they will raid for cash to make these numbers work, sees two things. The first is that there is no way these numbers produced by the CBO bear out even if you focus only on the narrow window they looked at. If this boondoggle follows historical precedent – and you can look at the bits and pieces they have so far put in place for proof this will be more of the same – it will cost at least twice as much as they predicted. So, unless you also believe in Unicorns, it is clear that we will not have any savings at all, but be running a deficit before the first decade is over.

Then, the second obvious issue, which comes at the end of that decade the CBO scored for, clearly shows that we are looking at massive deficits to fund this program. There is not enough rationing that can be done to make these numbers work. Obamacare is going to cost us trillions in just the next 2 decades.

Back to our CBO bullshit du jour. Maybe it is not just the fact that the Keynesians are economic illiterates but signs of an actual plan in motion, one that advances and explains what Obama means when he talks about “social justice” and “wealth redistribution”, that gets pointed out by this passage in the WJS article:

The larger truth is that recessions always destroy wealth and small business incomes at the top. Perhaps those who obsess over income shares should welcome stock market crashes and deep recessions because such calamities invariably reduce “inequality.” Of course, the same recessions also increase poverty and unemployment.

The author then goes through some details to point out precisely why the CBO chose to ignore 2007-2009 in that report. The evil wealthy, those 1%ers, took a huge hit when things went south and that 17% number the left uses to tell us how unfair it is that the wealthy have money, would drop considerably and then seriously undermine the class warrior’s agenda. Further more, it shows that whenever government tries to fleece the producers, they don’t just roll over and play along, but take active measures to shield their wealth (How evil of them! – that was sarcasm BTW). And that what this obviously and purposefully rigged CBO analysis, done to create more class warfare collectivist talking points, really should have reported was the following:

In short, what the Congressional Budget Office presents as increased inequality from 2003 to 2007 was actually evidence that the top 1% of earners report more taxable income when tax rates are reduced on dividends, capital gains and businesses filing under the individual tax code.

Of course, that doesn’t fit the ultimate goal of the current narrative – that government should be collecting more money, and once the wealthy have been fleeced they can simply turn to the rest of us – so no chance we ever see that from the CBO. I wonder how many of the usual LSM suspects, like the ones at WaPo mentioned in this article, which was quick to carry water for the collectivists when the rigged numbers worked in the favor of the class warrior/collectivist narrative, will actually report on what this WSJ author points out. I am not taking bets unless I am able to bet against them reporting, BTW. I don’t do stupid. But we can keep pretending that whenever we point out how unreliable these LSM cum CBO collectivist talking points are, that the fault is with those of us that call them out on their lies.

After all, as comrade Obama pointed out in his speech just the other day, what Americans need is more social justice, and if it needs to come at the expense of their freedom, well dog gone it, that’s just dandy. After all, the old slave & land owning doofuses that produced that pesky constitution weren’t as wise as the class warrior class fancies themselves to be. In the mean time we march on to a tyrannical, but “socially just!!!1!!” country molded after Greece. Great.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Certain people then proceeded to not just question that this was what happened, while trying to defend this epic trillion dollar failure, but to imply I was purposefully being dishonest about the CBO being dishonest – leaning left in that dishonesty – or the way the LSM reports on this crap.

    Wow, you’re just a pathological liar aren’t you. You JUST CAN’T STOP doing it. Weird.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    WHAT? The CBO rigged a report in such a way that it could advance a collectivist talking point? NEVAH!

    Wow it took me literally minutes to find why they picked 2007 as the end point…

    In a study prepared at the request of the Chairman and former Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, CBO examines the trends in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007. (Those endpoints allow comparisons between periods of similar overall economic activity.)

    Alex you’re nothing but a clown. And you seem intent on relying on clowns for analysis.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    Wow, you’re just a pathological liar aren’t you. You JUST CAN’T STOP doing it. Weird.

    You were looking in the mirror when you said that right?

    Me? I invite people to follow the link in my post and read your comments then make up their minds about the veracity of that statement you use to accuse me of being a liar about.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    You were looking in the mirror when you said that right?

    Me? I invite people to follow the link in my post and read your comments then make up their minds about the veracity of that statement you use to accuse me of being a liar about.

    Nobody is going to bother doing that. Nobody should have to. JUST STOP FUCKING LYING.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Hal_10000

    I was wondering why they picked those points. People who bash the CBO need to realize that they are constrained to analyze whatever is put in front of them. They don’t do these things for fun. They also gave optimistic scoring to Paul Ryan’s plans. Their analysis of PPACA did warn that the projected savings were dependent on unlikely spending restraint by future Congresses. But they are not allowed to project politics.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000

    I would argue, however, that selected 1979 and 2007 as endpoints is an error. Methodologically, it sounds right but we now know that the 2007 economy was built on lies and hot air. It was a gigantic bubble. So I think comparing post-recession income share is actually the more revealing stat.

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT *

    Wow it took me literally minutes to find why they picked 2007 as the end point…

    No, what you found was a convenient excuse you then chose to pretend was relevant.

    In a study prepared at the request of the Chairman and former Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, CBO examines the trends in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007. (Those endpoints allow comparisons between periods of similar overall economic activity.)

    I do not buy their rationale at all. That WAS the point the WSJ author was making. I am however neither surprised at how quickly you accepted their excuse as valid nor lacking in understanding why you want to confuse the issue by pretending their excuse is ligitmate. What economic activity that happened in 2008 & 2009 has never happened before, or is not reflected in that arbitrary window they chose? I am pretty sure there were some real bad times between 1979 and 2007. We had one in the early 80s and another in the early 2000s I recall. Why exclude the current one then?

    I could go on and on about this all, but I think the onus is on them to convincingly explain why they excluded these two years that would obviously have drastically skewed the numbers they were tasked to produce down, other than the stupid “similar economic period” excuse.

    Alex you’re nothing but a clown. And you seem intent on relying on clowns for analysis.

    Shit, if I told you I had picked a window to do climate analysis because of the like activity, and excluded years that would have shown warming so I could claim cooling, I have a feeling you wouldn’t buy that. So then, why did you buy this excuse so easily?

    The clown here is you. You pretend to be objective and that you argue in good faith. You do neither. You do however serve to make my point for me.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    I would argue, however, that selected 1979 and 2007 as endpoints is an error. Methodologically, it sounds right but we now know that the 2007 economy was built on lies and hot air.

    But if they were both years before recessions then you’ve captured an exact entire cycle. Surely it would be far more artificial (and therefore pointless) to include no recessions, or two recessions. Or, if you want to look at it like that, no lies and hot air, or two periods of lies and hot air.

    The main point of course is that neither Alex nor his source read the actual report. Or even skimmed it. They just arrogantly made an assumption and wrapped an ideological narrative around it. YAWN. Standard practice for Alex as we keep seeing, time and time again. And he keeps relying on people who do the same. Where is the learning?

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT *

    To assess trends in the distribution of household income,
    the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined the
    span from 1979 to 2007 because those endpoints allow
    comparisons between periods of similar overall economic
    activity (they were both years before recessions).

    Erm, there were 2 recessions tucked into that window they chose. If a recession was a problem, why not start in 2002 after that recession and look at a window without one?

    But if they were both years before recessions then you’ve captured an exact entire cycle.

    Sure. What about the 2 recessions tucked in that cycle?

    Surely it would be far more artificial (and therefore pointless) to include no recessions, or two recessions.

    Actaully they included 2 and excluded the one that would downgrade the effect they were going for. Go figure!

    Or, if you want to look at it like that, no lies and hot air, or two periods of lies and hot air.

    The lie is that the window they chose wasn’t picked on purpose to produce the biggest number possible to push the collectivist class warfare agenda.

    The main point of course is that neither Alex nor his source read the actual report.

    I am sure you did, right?

    Or even skimmed it.

    Actually I skimmed it. I am sure the source read it and dismissed that arbitrary bullshit just like I did.

    They just arrogantly made an assumption and wrapped an ideological narrative around it.

    You did no such thing when you chose to believe a cherry picked window and the lame excuse for that?

    YAWN.

    Indeed.

    Standard practice for Alex as we keep seeing, time and time again. And he keeps relying on people who do the same. Where is the learning?

    That was hilarious coming from someone that takes liberties with facts, truth and logic they seem unwilling to extend even a fraction of that courtesy to others, like you do. Yeah, I accused you of being a liar. That’s because you are one.

    Like I said, your problem with me is that what I say eventually bears out and you end up looking like a tool for defending this collectivst bullshit.

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    No, what you found was a convenient excuse you then chose to pretend was relevant.

    It’s a major part of your central premise, shit-for-brains.
    YOU DIDN’T EVEN READ THE FUCKING REPORT.
    AGAIN.

    I do not buy their rationale at all.

    What, now that you realise there is one, after you pretended there wasn’t?
    Brilliant.

    That WAS the point the WSJ author was making.

    Oh, you mean where he said (and which you swallowed by quoting):

    But here’s a question: Why did the report stop at 2007? The CBO didn’t say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that “high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009.

    The CBO didn’t say? Oh you mean other than the fact that they did. In the report, and in the accompanying commentary.
    And yet you’re repeating it yet again. Fucking hell.

    I am however neither surprised at how quickly you accepted their excuse as valid nor lacking in understanding why you want to confuse the issue by pretending their excuse is ligitmate.

    Terrible try at covering up for your stupidity, moron. But I neither accepted or denied their reasoning. I simply pointed out that it was there. So you can’t even be honest about that. As I say, your lying is clearly pathological. You literally cannot stop yourself.

    Why exclude the current one then?

    The endpoints allow comparisons between periods of similar overall economic activity (they were both years before recessions). So they cover an entire cycle. How does that not make sense?
    What (no-doubt highly cherry-picked) years would you choose?

    I could go on and on about this all,

    You already have, and you’ve fallen on your face yet again for the same reason yet again. You relied on someone who didn’t actually read the report, and you didn’t even read or even skim it yourself. One would think you’d learn after doing this before, again and again. But it’s seems to be another pathology with you.

    but I think the onus is on them to convincingly explain why they excluded these two years that would obviously have drastically skewed the numbers they were tasked to produce down, other than the stupid “similar economic period” excuse.

    They have explained it dumbass. And it makes sense. You’re an arrogant and ignorant rampant conspiracy theorist though, so rational explanations are irrelevant to you. Even more so when you failed to see them in the first place.

    Shit, if I told you I had picked a window to do climate analysis because of the like activity, and excluded years that would have shown warming so I could claim cooling, I have a feeling you wouldn’t buy that. So then, why did you buy this excuse so easily?

    Because you’re comparing apples to rocks (borrowed from Czar Chasm).

    The clown here is you. You pretend to be objective and argue in good faith. You do neither. you do however serve to make my point for me.

    Arguing in good faith involves not making shit up. You’ve relied on someone who made shit up. You’ve been called on it, and now you’re doubling-down and looking even more stupid. The worst part is that you keep doing this. Over and over.
    And you started your post by completely misrepresenting what occured in the other post. And you know it.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Seattle Outcast

    Nobody is going to bother doing that. Nobody should have to. JUST STOP FUCKING LYING.

    Are you putting yourself forward as our new leftie troll now that MooGoo has left for good?

    Thumb up 3

  12. CM

    Erm, there were 2 recessions tucked into that window they chose. If a recession was a problem, why not start in 2002 after that recession and look at a window without one?

    We’d need to know what the briefing was. Do we have that? It’s not included in the report.
    But obviously they need to include the same number of booms as busts. As this current part of the current cycle isn’t yet over (the bust) it’s impossible to include it. It makes no sense to include part of booms or part of busts because you’re unneccesarily making things more complicated than they need to be.

    Go figure!

    You always say things like “go figure” and assume conspiracy when there is no reason to.
    1. We don’t know the specifics of the brief.
    2. What I said just above.

    The lie is that the window they chose wasn’t picked on purpose to produce the biggest number possible to push the collectivist class warfare agenda.

    In order to accept that as a lie you’d need to provide some evidence (other than your usual unfounded conspiracy accusation rubbish). What they’ve done makes sense.

    I am sure you did, right?

    What a horrible response.
    1. You’re the one making the serious accusations. Not me. You should have read the report and you wouldn’t have egg on your face. Again.
    2. I read the relevant part, and found it within a few minutes of your post. How much of the rest of the report I read or didn’t is irrelevant.

    Actually I skimmed it. I am sure the source read it and dismissed that arbitrary bullshit just like I did.

    So now you’re claiming you saw the explanation?
    Really? You want to go down that road?
    Your source clearly didn’t see it at all, otherwise he wouldn’t have written “The CBO didn’t say”. They did say. Even if he didn’t like the methodology, he can’t claim ‘the CBO didn’t say”. So it’s obvious he didn’t see it. So please don’t waste your time with that.

    You did no such thing when you chose to believe a cherry picked window and the lame excuse for that?

    Now you’re making even less sense. Again, initially all I did was to point out that you’ve again fallen hook, line and sinker for terrible analysis. The quality of the CBO methodology wasn’t relevant to that. The point was – the author clearly missed it, and you didn’t bother to check.
    But then, in considering the rationale behind the choice of years (acknowledging that we don’t know the details of the brief, which may change everything) , yeah it would seem to make sense. For the reasons I’ve outlined. You’ve yet to demonstrate why the years don’t make sense (outside a nonsense conspiracy theory based on ideology).

    That was hilarious coming from someone that takes liberties with facts, truth and logic they seem unwilling to extend even a fraction of that courtesy to others, like you do. Yeah, I accused you of being a liar. That’s because you are one.

    Accusations and insinuations are meaningless without examples. Where are yours? Why do you never seem to have any? Nothing is easier than making unfounded accusations and insinuations on the internet. Very little is as illuminating too.

    Like I said, your problem with me is that what I say eventually bears out and you end up looking like a tool for defending this collectivst bullshit.

    LOL, you’re following your usual journey away from detail as quickly as possible. Same old same old. Pathetic Alex.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    Are you putting yourself forward as our new leftie troll now that MooGoo has left for good?

    How exactly does that follow?
    How does asking someone to stop lying (i.e. a form of trolling) equate to being a “leftie troll”?

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT *

    What, now that you realise there is one, after you pretended there wasn’t?

    Is English not your primary language? What gave you the impression that I believe they had no stated reason for choosing that window? Even more interesting is you now arguing that I did not know the CBO had a reason after I pointed out that I believe the reason(s) they used are bogus because the intent was to remove the 2 years that would have undercut their ridiculous 17% number. Let me quote my post:

    The author then goes through some details to point out precisely why the CBO chose to ignore 2007-2009 in that report.

    It’s implied there that we understand the CBO HAD a reason to leave those years out BUT that we do not buy that reason. Is that so hard to grasp?

    The CBO didn’t say? Oh you mean other than the fact that they did. In the report, and in the accompanying commentary.
    And yet you’re repeating it yet again. Fucking hell.

    He is right. What the CBO did was provide an excuse, and a lame one at that. So by default, with the rational in the excuse gone, it is obvious that the CBO has not provided any CREDIBLE reason why they DROPPED THOSE 2 YEARS WOULD HAVE SKEWED THE NUMBERS.

    Terrible try at covering up for your stupidity, moron. But I neither accepted or denied their reasoning.

    So you have been defending it simply to play the other side then? Yeah, right.

    I simply pointed out that it was there.

    And I am pointing out that for all intents and purposes what they have provided lacks credibility and doesn’t amount to anything more than a lame excuse.

    So you can’t even be honest about that. As I say, your lying is clearly pathological. You literally cannot stop yourself.

    The one spinning the story to defend this excuse, while claiming not to have taken sides, is you. I will let that stand by itself.

    The one with a problem is you BTW. Maybe you are fooling yourself and your little circle jerk by using this tried & true leftist method of repeating nonsense over and over, in hopes it sticks, but I doubt others are buying into it. They just ignore you. BTW, your man crush on me stopped being cool a long time ago. Now it has become creepy.

    The endpoints allow comparisons between periods of similar overall economic activity (they were both years before recessions). So they cover an entire cycle. How does that not make sense?

    What a crock of shit. It does not make sense because even without bothering to do any research t it looks obvious that there is zero reason to exclude the 2 years in question. Especially not by claiming that you are leaving them out because they are recession years when that window they chose includes 2 of those recessions.

    What (no-doubt highly cherry-picked) years would you choose?

    None. I would not have wasted any money or time trying to come up with these numbers that serve absolutely no economic purpose whatsoever. If you think they do I would love to see how you explain that they will help improve our current economic situation. This exercise was a purely and totally political one, started by, and intended to benefit, the class warriors. We wasted tax dollars so that the crooks could come up with a number that would help them push their snake oil.

    As the author pointed out: the lesson to be learned here was specifically hidden by the cherry picked window so the class warriors could agitate those that believe others should be robbed because they are not rich.

    You already have, and you’ve fallen on your face yet again for the same reason yet again. You relied on someone who didn’t actually read the report, and you didn’t even read or even skim it yourself. One would think you’d learn after doing this before, again and again. But it’s seems to be another pathology with you.

    Yeah, because I am not “bright” enough to simply accept the CBO, with a history of shenanigans like this, at their word that all was all kosher, when the intent was to produce a number of no economic value, unless your economic agenda is justifying and pushing class warfare and wealth redistribution.

    You in the mean time keep defending this by saying “Because the CBO said so!”.

    They have explained it dumbass. And it makes sense.

    No, they have not explained anything. It only makes sense if you want it to make sense. And if you think they did explain it or it makes sense, then you are even dumber than I think you are. Of course, I know that they could have said they picked that window because “the moon is made out of cheese” and you would have not only accepted it, but defended it like you are doing now.

    You’re an arrogant and ignorant rampant conspiracy theorist though, so rational explanations are irrelevant to you. Even more so when you failed to see them in the first place.

    You are a loser, that’s a step before a common thief, and thinks he can pretend what he is doing isn’t championing an ideology that sugar coats stealing from others by pretending the motive and end goal are good, and never delivers on either.

    Because you’re comparing apples to rocks (borrowed from Czar Chasm).

    As opposed to what the CBO did, comparing apples to celestial objects, based on an arbitrary window that regardless of what it is compares apples to anything but apples, so they could come up with a number that serves only a political purpose? Check.

    Arguing in good faith involves not making shit up. You’ve relied on someone who made shit up.

    It also involves not pretending that the only things that are not “made up” are the ones “made up” or “massaged to ease the negative impact, or completely shift it elsewhere” by the leftists. But you seem to not feel that affects an argument. Go figure.

    You’ve been called on it, and now you’re doubling-down and looking even more stupid. The worst part is that you keep doing this. Over and over.

    Says the idiot that tells me I look stupid because I refuse to accept the excuse made by the CBO, without any credible reasons, so they could produce a political number, as factual. Check again.

    And you started your post by completely misrepresenting what occured in the other post. And you know it.

    No I did not. In fact, you are doing EXACTLY what you did on the other post right here again.

    Mate.

    Thumb up 0

  15. AlexInCT *

    Are you putting yourself forward as our new leftie troll now that MooGoo has left for good?

    That job’s been taken by Manwhore. CM is creating a whole new category of stupid lefitst troll. One that thinks that by repeating the lie that I am the one lying he is going to convince people that’s the case.

    How exactly does that follow?
    How does asking someone to stop lying (i.e. a form of trolling) equate to being a “leftie troll”?

    When you infer a lie where there was none you are being a troll.

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT *
    Erm, there were 2 recessions tucked into that window they chose. If a recession was a problem, why not start in 2002 after that recession and look at a window without one?

    We’d need to know what the briefing was. Do we have that? It’s not included in the report.

    LOL! Whatever! Not suspicious at all.

    Oh, wait: never mind. I am being a conspiracist for thinking that asking the CBO to produce a number of zero economic value in creating any kind of economic policy to solve our current situation, right as you are pushing a collectivist wealth redistribution agenda that would benefit you come the approaching election, and then justifying the cherry picked window that yielded the largest possible number, then defending that arbitrary window with nonsense, shouldn’t fly.

    But obviously they need to include the same number of booms as busts.

    Why? What’s the methodology here? What’s end goal? What answer will we glean that will help these politicians shift their economic policies in a direction that will grow the economy? I know the answer. I already pointed that out repeatedly.

    As this current part of the current cycle isn’t yet over (the bust) it’s impossible to include it.

    So why not wait until the cycle is over? Or better yet, why not start earlier? Let’s say 1950? Or maybe only look at 1988 to 2000? Wouldn’t that all make it a lot simpler?

    It makes no sense to include part of booms or part of busts because you’re unneccesarily making things more complicated than they need to be.

    LOL! OK I am done man trying to be nice. Fuck, you are not a liar, you are insane.

    This excercise by the CBO was wasted money and time. It’s quite obvious that the window chosen is purely arbitrary and that makes this number meaningless. That is, unless the objective was to push and justify the economic wealth redistribution policies of the class warriors: the very reason we ARE in the current economic situation. But that’s thinking like a consipracist!

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    What gave you the impression that I believe they had no stated reason for choosing that window?

    You quoted Reynolds saying “Why did the report stop at 2007? The CBO didn’t say…” You even bolded the first part. You both either missed the fact that they DID say, or your being dishonest about it. There is no other explanation.

    Even more interesting is you now arguing that I did not know the CBO had a reason after I pointed out that I believe the reason(s) they used are bogus because the intent was to remove the 2 years that would have undercut their ridiculous 17% number.

    The whole reason Reynolds (and therefore you) went on a journey of delusion is because he/you either missed the STATED rationale behind the choice of those end-points in the report, or because he/you dishonestly decided to ignore them. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was the former, and you just assumed he as correct. But now that it’s been demonstrated to you that a reason exists (which makes sense) you’re still going with your ideological conspiracy narrative. Based on nothing.

    The CBO did have a reason, and they gave that reason. You’ve come up with a different reason, and are pretending it’s a fact. Based on nothing.

    Your whole premise is fucked and now you’re doubling-down, rather than admitting that you were taken for a ride. Reasonable people would just admit it and move on.

    It’s implied there that we understand the CBO HAD a reason to leave those years out

    Bullshit. Reynolds claimed (and you even quoted):

    But here’s a question: Why did the report stop at 2007? The CBO didn’t say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that “high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009.” No kidding.

    No, sorry, the CBO DID say. And it makes sense. So no alternative theory (required to be consistent with an overall ideological narrative) is necessary.

    BUT that we do not buy that reason. Is that so hard to grasp?

    I’m struggling to grasp how you don’t realise how obvious it is that you got sucked into his terrible analysis, which was sunk by the fact that the CBO did say why. He didn’t “not buy” that reason – he either missed it entirely, or he decided to dishonestly ignore it. This is JUST the sort of dishonesty you fell for (and propagated) with the last CBO report, where you failed to mention the extremely important point of why the forecasts had changed. In both cases it was clear that you’d not even read the reports. You just regurgitate whatever someone says that you already believe, and then rant on further about ideological conspiracies.

    Again, a normal person would be more careful next time.

    He is right. What the CBO did was provide an excuse, and a lame one at that.

    If it makes sense then it’s not an ‘excuse’ (let alone a lame one).
    Please demonstrate how it doesn’t make sense to use those end-dates (and again, even then we’re speculating about what the brief said).

    So by default, with the rational in the excuse gone,

    Why has it “gone”? How exactly did you make it disappear? Strange how your whole premise is about the horrors of cherry-picking but when faced with reality your whole premise ends up relying on rampant cherry-picking itself. Strange but sadly not surprising. Your stupidity knows no bounds.

    it is obvious that the CBO has not provided any CREDIBLE reason why they DROPPED THOSE 2 YEARS WOULD HAVE SKEWED THE NUMBERS.

    Without the brief, nothing is ‘obvious’ and why they chose those years. However their stated rationale makes perfect sense. You pick similar years in the cycle as your start and end point. Makes sense when looking at ANYTHING that has cycles.

    So you have been defending it simply to play the other side then? Yeah, right

    I immediately saw the gaping hole in your premise, and after your trolling at the start of your post I decided to point it out. I’m sorry that you’re so far gone that you can’t even differentiate between pointing out an error and pushing a narrative.

    And I am pointing out that for all intents and purposes what they have provided lacks credibility and doesn’t amount to anything more than a lame excuse.

    And yet you’ve got no reasoning behind what you ‘point out’. I can “point out” that the moon is made of cheese and even though I have no evidence or reasoning apparently you should just accept that.

    The one spinning the story to defend this excuse, while claiming not to have taken sides, is you. I will let that stand by itself.

    Yeah, I engaged spin by pointing out what the report actually says. That makes sense.

    The one with a problem is you BTW. Maybe you are fooling yourself and your little circle jerk by using this tried & true leftist method of repeating nonsense over and over, in hopes it sticks, but I doubt others are buying into it. They just ignore you. BTW, your man crush on me stopped being cool a long time ago. Now it has become creepy.

    Every time I say you are being dishonest, I say why. Everytime you make accusations about me, you don’t. I’m sorry that someone has finally been bothered to point out your stupidity and dishonesty in such detail and repeatedly. I understand how sad and angry it must make you. But maybe you should take it as an opportunity to lift your game. If you’re capable.

    What a crock of shit. It does not make sense because even without bothering to do any research t it looks obvious that there is zero reason to exclude the 2 years in question. Especially not by claiming that you are leaving them out because they are recession years when that window they chose includes 2 of those recessions.

    I’m explained why it makes sense not to include those 2 years. I’ve expanded (with my thoughts) on what the CBO already said in the report. Please explain why it doesn’t make sense. If you can’t then it just sounds like you are extremely desperate for those 2 years to be included because it will suit your opinion.

    None. I would not have wasted any money or time trying to come up with these numbers that serve absolutely no economic purpose whatsoever. If you think they do I would love to see how you explain that they will help improve our current economic situation. This exercise was a purely and totally political one, started by, and intended to benefit, the class warriors. We wasted tax dollars so that the crooks could come up with a number that would help them push their snake oil.

    Ah ok, so the CBO should have just refused to carry out the brief for ideological reasons . Yeah that makes sense.
    Again, where is your evidence of what you claim? Where is the substance behind your serious accusations and allegations of professionals doing their work?

    Yeah, because I am not “bright” enough to simply accept the CBO, with a history of shenanigans like this, at their word that all was all kosher, when the intent was to produce a number of no economic value, unless your economic agenda is justifying and pushing class warfare and wealth redistribution.

    You can refuse to accept anyone or any organisation at their word. But that’s not what this about.

    You in the mean time keep defending this by saying “Because the CBO said so!”.

    Wow, it’s like trying to talk to an 8 year old. All I’ve said (after pointing out your error) is that the rationale makes sense to me. If you can demonstrate why it doesn’t make sense, I’d certainly be interested in reading it. But I think you would have done so by now if you’d been able to come up with anything plausible.

    No, they have not explained anything. It only makes sense if you want it to make sense.

    Yeah, they did. You missed it.
    How does it not make sense? The moon not comprising of cheese only makes sense if you want it to make sense (i.e. your statement is meaningless).

    And if you think they did explain it or it makes sense, then you are even dumber than I think you are.

    I would be very worried if you thought I was as intelligent as you apparently think you are. So thanks for the compliment.

    Of course, I know that they could have said they picked that window because “the moon is made out of cheese” and you would have not only accepted it, but defended it like you are doing now.

    I can only assume you’ve completely given up trying to make any sense at all.

    You are a loser, that’s a step before a common thief, and thinks he can pretend what he is doing isn’t championing an ideology that sugar coats stealing from others by pretending the motive and end goal are good, and never delivers on either.

    Run Alex! Run away from the detail as fast as you can!
    Yet again.

    As opposed to what the CBO did, comparing apples to celestial objects, based on an arbitrary window that regardless of what it is compares apples to anything but apples, so they could come up with a number that serves only a political purpose? Check.

    Flop more like. You’ve effectively just dribbling on your bib now. You’ve got nothing to support any of these claims that you make. Yet you keep stringing them along.
    Hopeless.

    It also involves not pretending that the only things that are not “made up” are the ones “made up” or “massaged to ease the negative impact, or completely shift it elsewhere” by the leftists. But you seem to not feel that affects an argument. Go figure.

    It would potentially affect an argument if there was any evidence (depending on how strong the evidence is). But in this case you’ve been caught out and your only defence is to pretend that things have been made up. But you’ve no substance to anything that you claim. You’re making the usual assumptions and creating a premise and running with it as though it’s fact.

    Says the idiot that tells me I look stupid because I refuse to accept the excuse made by the CBO, without any credible reasons, so they could produce a political number, as factual. Check again.

    You didn’t “refuse to accept” their explanation, you missed it entirely. Otherwise you wouldn’t have written and quoted what you did. Repeating a lie doesn’t help, it makes things worse.

    In fact, you are doing EXACTLY what you did on the other post right here again.

    I completely agree, but not as you think. Keep going if you wish though, I’m wondering exactly how much further into cuckoo-land you’re willing to go.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    LOL! Whatever! Not suspicious at all.

    Jesus Christ, why must every single single be an obvious conspiracy or ideological decision? Is this what naturally happens when one is a rigid ideological conspiracy victim? I guess that makes sense.
    The most obvious answer is that they never include the brief. But obviously we need it to determine how the CBO followed it.

    Oh, wait: never mind. I am being a conspiracist for thinking that asking the CBO to produce a number of zero economic value in creating any kind of economic policy to solve our current situation,

    Given that you have no evidence of why they were asked to produce this assessment, or what the details were, then yes, you’re being a conspiracist.

    right as you are pushing a collectivist wealth redistribution agenda that would benefit you come the approaching election,

    I’m pushing no agenda, I’m typing comments on a blog. Some of them involve my thoughts on economic matters. And how exactly would I benefit from the approaching election?

    and then justifying the cherry picked window that yielded the largest possible number,

    Nonsense. If we were going to cherry-pick, we’d exclude that first recession from the window. We’d include a period with more booms than busts. And we’d choose a period which had the largest booms and the smallest busts (relative to each other).

    then defending that arbitrary window with nonsense, shouldn’t fly.

    How is what I said about the rationale nonsense? I keep asking you this and your reply is always just repeating that’s it’s nonsense.

    Why?

    You shouldn’t need to ask why. But the reason to include as many busts as booms is to capture an entire economic cycle, so that the results aren’t skewed up or down.

    What’s the methodology here?

    It’s in the report.

    What’s end goal?

    No idea. Having the brief might help, but it might not. Did you even try to find it?
    The point is that you’re accusing the CBO of acting unprofessionally with no evidence. Yet you don’t even have the msot obvious piece of evidence (the brief) you require for your accusation to start being plausible.

    So why not wait until the cycle is over? Or better yet, why not start earlier? Let’s say 1950? Or maybe only look at 1988 to 2000? Wouldn’t that all make it a lot simpler?

    Presumably someone (or some group) wanted the analysis sooner, rather than later. We don’t know. Which is an important point.
    My guesses: They want something more relevant to today, so the most recent cycles would be the ones to use. They wanted a period long enough to include a number cycles, to ensure that any large booms or large busts don’t fundamentally skew the figures.
    How did you come up with 1988 to 2000? Does that represent an entire cycle (so the noises if busts or booms don’t dominate)?

    LOL! OK I am done man trying to be nice. Fuck, you are not a liar, you are insane.

    Again, that’s a compliment coming from you. Although as your powers of analysis are usless, it’s pretty much meaningless.

    This excercise by the CBO was wasted money and time.

    If that’s your main complaint then blame the part of the system which enables politicians to request assessments.

    It’s quite obvious that the window chosen is purely arbitrary and that makes this number meaningless.

    That’s not obvious at all. Why is it obvious? What is the basis of your complaint? You’ve still failed to explain why.

    That is, unless the objective was to push and justify the economic wealth redistribution policies of the class warriors: the very reason we ARE in the current economic situation. But that’s thinking like a consipracist!

    Without any evidence whatsoever to support your claim, and having been found to have been ignoring crucial evidence which destroys a central premise, you are indeed engaging in nutjob conspiracy thinking, yeah.

    Thumb up 1

  19. blameme

    Alex, the WSJ you quoted was wrong. They included their reasoning. You may disagree with it, but you can’t say they didn’t include it. CM has this right.

    So, the fact that this happened (that the CBO did in fact state their reasoning) and then you propose another reason based on what you “feel” places you in this debate, in a very weak position. Just agree that you missed it or depended on a resource who missed it. Then get to the meat which is the numbers. While I agree the CBO is a political engine, that should not be the main focus. By focusing on the political side, you can only use conjecture that can’t be truly supported which, again in my view, weakens the real argument of the NUMBERS.

    Just state that the years following the 20 year window “correct” the gains made by the top earners and be done with it. Invoking unknowable reasons or unsupportable hyperbole only weakens what I think should be the main fact….

    In boom times high earners earn faster than low earners, but in bust times they also can lose much faster as well.

    So don’t hate the rich, they have risks just like the rest of us.

    Thumb up 1

  20. AlexInCT *

    Alex, the WSJ you quoted was wrong. They included their reasoning. You may disagree with it, but you can’t say they didn’t include it. CM has this right.

    How hard is it to understand that neither the author I quoted nor I think the “reason” given by the CBO was anything but an excuse, and hence, they have yet to seriously justify their motives for the cherry picked window they used?

    So, the fact that this happened (that the CBO did in fact state their reasoning) and then you propose another reason based on what you “feel” places you in this debate, in a very weak position. Just agree that you missed it or depended on a resource who missed it.

    I was well aware of what the CBO had said was their rationale. Their rational is not just arbitrary, the number they produced was too. Even the purpose was for anything but economic purposes. I just dismissed it outright as bullshit, once I couldn’t look at the criteria that allowed them to justify that whopper. That basically leaves me with no CREDIBLE explanation of why they chose the window they did.

    If the CBO had told us “because the moon was made out of cheese” – and I am sure you are not one of those that believes that at all – you would have dismissed it outright as anything but bullshit. Right? Would you then pretend they had explained their reason based on a valid criteria? I certainly would not.

    And my post was not about whether the excuse give was obviously bullshit or not. I figured that was obvious to everyone but the die hard leftists which would have accepted the “the moon is made out of cheese excuse” as valid. It was about how the cherry picked window was specifically used to produce a politically motivated high number, the class warriors could then use to their advantage in an election. However, had they included those 2 years they dropped, it would have been obvious that what the class warriors were pushing for with this bogus CBO report, was going to produce precisely the opposite economic result of what their politically motivated number produced.

    Thumb up 0

  21. blameme

    Dude – the WSJ said they gave no reason – not that they didn’t believe the reason. Why is this so hard for you to understand and admit?

    The WSJ could have said, “The CBO gave the reason that they stopped at 20 years due to economic cycles. We believe that is bullshit.”

    They didn’t. They stated the CBO gave no reason – the CBO did.

    Stop pretending otherwise Alex. You can’t in one paragraph claim no reason was given by the CBO then in the next state they they did give a reason, but that you don’t believe it.

    Give it a rest. I am on your side with the CBO etc, this is why I wish you would drop trying to cover the fact that they did give a reason for the 20 year range and that the WSJ just flat out missed that they did.

    Again, you based your OP on the WSJ, who missed the reason given. Just man up and admit that. This whole story of “No, I just don’t believe their reason – I knew they gave one” doesn’t hold water when you first claimed no reason was given.

    This isn’t hard. You don’t believe their reason – fine. But that is the small, and unfortunately, unprovable political issue.

    The real issue is again that the rich gained AND LOST faster than the average joe.

    Perfect capitalism case. Risk reward.

    Thumb up 0

  22. blameme

    I have to say, until the “people” (i.e. us) can have honest debates, how in the blue hell can we expect politicians to do any better?

    Focus on facts we can prove, leave political conjecture out of it. Both “sides” do this as they believe they are on the side of the angels. Which scares the hell out of me – no one has a monopoly on the truth. Reality is what reality is. Let’s find the facts and let them lead us where they may.

    Plain and simple – I want unadulterated facts. Do I “believe” the CBO is a political machine usually leaning left. Sure. Can I prove it – not really. I can prove they piss me off and that is about it. I also believe in God – but I can’t prove He exists either. I may be delusional or I may be right, but either way, God isn’t a fact. He is a belief, just like the left leaning nature of the CBO, etc.

    I would rather focus on the numbers, the data – the facts and leave the political bullshit to the politicians.

    We simply have to be able to converse with things we can concretely prove, otherwise, it is all opinion – and like assholes we all have them and they stink.

    Thumb up 0